any serious photographers out there...

A lot of good and experience-based comment in this thread. As a photo hobbyist at best and a very unschooled appreciator of art, it seems to me that in order to be an "artist," one might need to be able to manipulate a medium creatively in more muscular ways than at least traditional photography has allowed. There's nothign wrong with being a photographer, many of whom are very creative. The introductory biographical essay in the Lee Friedlander MOMA book notes that he always prefers to be called a photographer, rather than an artist. If "photographer" is good enough for him, it ought to be a title that suffices for most of us, including even the extremely talented participants that one encounters on this forum.
 
Aw c'mon Chris... tell us how you really feel. :p

FWIW - As an alumni of the Chicago Academy of Fine Art, the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and the original Fine Arts program, way back when, at IU in Bloomington, I've never shied away from the title.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Roger,

There are idiots in any profession or trade. I don't see lawyers shying away from being called lawyers because some lawyers are ambulance-chasing dickheads. They shouldn't. Good lawyers do a valuable service for thier clients, just as good artists produce something of value to their customers. I refuse to be ashamed to be an artist because some are idiots.
Click to expand...

Very well said.

I think some people have an issue with the term 'artist' because some try to make it synonymous with 'visionary' or 'seer'. I recall someone years ago who told me they wanted to be a prophet :bang:

I like the idea of an artist as someone doing a service, that service being providing art; it is a powerful idea, though counter to some deeply held romantic notions. Getting over those romantic notions is a very good idea, too!
 
I hate labels, and find them neither helpful or accurate. I shoot a camera. I enjoy it. If something worthwhile comes out of it, so much the better. Would it be art? Would it be serious? Who knows. I don't care. It's immaterial to whether or not I'll pick up the camera the following day and take a shot. Getting distracted by the labels / classifications would probably ensure that I don't, so that's why I don't think about it. ;)
 
People can self-define themeselves as desired or needed. It has been my observation that that is not what sticks over time. It has been my experience that we learn who we are through others. All else is some type of self-deception.

I think many shy away from high ranking self-titles like "artist" due to a sense of modesty. This seems to me to show good self-restraint, as it is the case that others will decide whether to bestow this title quite apart from whether it was started as a form of self-entitlement.

My opinion is to do the work that my heart and mind yearns to do and let others decide what I am. I am a guy who has work to do; as does everyone. How well I do my work -- this is another matter, being an obvious mixture of my sense of satisfaction and the judgment of others. What weight is put on these things is largely determined by the goal of the work; if for a client, my aesthetic satisfaction is minimal; if for my vision, my aesthetic satisfaction with the work is what I try to please, and then others will either like it to some extent or not. But what title is put on me or my work is their business, not mine. Titles seem irrelevant to my work, and even less so to me.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Roger,

There are idiots in any profession or trade. I don't see lawyers shying away from being called lawyers because some lawyers are ambulance-chasing dickheads. They shouldn't. Good lawyers do a valuable service for thier clients, just as good artists produce something of value to their customers. I refuse to be ashamed to be an artist because some are idiots.
Click to expand...

Dear Chris,

Oh, I'm not sure about that. There are those lawyers who tell their children that they do something more socially acceptable, such as playing piano in a whorehouse. Broadly, I don't disagree with you at all. I'm perfectly OK with anyone who wants to call himself/herself an artist. In some cases (such as yourself) I'll even believe it (that's a compliment not an insult). But I don't feel any need to call myself one, despite being reasonably confident that I'm a better artist than many in the wrist-to-forehead brigade.

Cheers,

R.
 
No artist here, just like mechanical contraptions like old film cameras. They are pretty, make nice sounds and are lovely to hold. My wife with her little Sony digicam is a much better picture taker than me.
 
I don't consider myself an artist, because that isn't why I take photos, I take photos for a similar reason a fisherman stands in a river for hours, it's about being myself, in peace, doing something I enjoy.

That said, photographers can be artists, but most are not.

I think it's about motives, if your motive is express something, and the medium is photography, then I guess you're an artist, but if you're motive is to take photos, then you probably aren't.
 
thomasw_ said:
People can self-define themeselves as desired or needed. It has been my observation that that is not what sticks over time. It has been my experience that we learn who we are through others. All else is some type of self-deception.

I think many shy away from high ranking self-titles like "artist" due to a sense of modesty. This seems to me to show good self-restraint, as it is the case that others will decide whether to bestow this title quite apart from whether it was started as a form of self-entitlement.

My opinion is to do the work that my heart and mind yearns to do and let others decide what I am. I am a guy who has work to do; as does everyone. How well I do my work -- this is another matter, being an obvious mixture of my sense of satisfaction and the judgment of others. What weight is put on these things is largely determined by the goal of the work; if for a client, my aesthetic satisfaction is minimal; if for my vision, my aesthetic satisfaction with the work is what I try to please, and then others will either like it to some extent or not. But what title is put on me or my work is their business, not mine. Titles seem irrelevant to my work, and even less so to me.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

I'm still smarting from being called an ignorant bigot on this thread, I'll be careful in the future, I don't want to upset the 'fine artists' out there with my modern 21c thoughts. i did that for 6 years at art school, it helped me get to where am now, a good happy balanced place.

But, I stand by what wrote earlier. If people want to think ALL photography is art, well they have a very different idea of what art is to me, fine by me. Actually, seriously, if I add my bit to what should be an interesting thread, which has had some good thoughts expressed well, I don't expect it to be called ignorant or a bigot. I'd like to revert to fruity language, but being a gentleman, will hold hold that back for the next driver who steals my parking space.
 
All depends on the definition of "art". I prefer the narrower interpretation. For art I can't accept "the attempt counts". Some call this ignorance. For example, I can see only a few of all paintings as art, the few with a deeper intention which opens up to me.

Regarding reportage/documentary/street photography, it may be some kind of art to be at the right place at the right time - the rest is craft.

I see myself as craftsman.
Or, in euphorical mood, as a creative craftsman... :D
 
I have no problem describing myself as a "fine art photographer" when needed to clarify the type of photographs I take. My photographs have a particular societal niche - that addressed by artists.

In contrast, one of the hats I wear at work is "technical illustrator" - but despite being good at it, I can't think "artist" when drawing simple graphs and pie charts!

Why you create pictures - whether photographs or drawings - makes a huge difference to what you (or others) call you. Also the perception of others, which can diametrically oppose your own, and also be mutable over time (Lee Miller - despite the circles she moved in - considered herself simply a photographer, plying a craft, but her photography is now considered within the canon of art; for example, even her hard-hitting war photography is influenced by surrealism when examined (an aesthetic that makes them particularly powerful IMHO) - it is more than "straightforward" photojournalism).
 
Somehow, the term "artist" seems to have some magic meaning, at least among the US contributors to the thread, which I cannot share.

As far as I am concerned, it is a profession just like farmer, carpenter or sailor - and just like in these, it is odd if you lay claim to the job without either having been through some formal training or earning at least part of your income off it, but you need not have sailed the equator, built a cupboard for the Queen, or raised a thousand cattle to do so.

And art can be a valid hobby, just like breeding horses, having a boat or restoring furniture - there is nothing wrong with that. And overall "I'm a (amateur) artist" is a much better self description than "well, I am a (jaded) professional craftsman without income, and use my side job in dentistry to finance the hard and boring work at the studio".
 
dreilly said:
I don't really see "photographer" as a subcategory of "artist", exactly.
Click to expand...

Photographer is not a subcategory of artist; artist is a subcategory of photographer. But of course, there are other kinds of artists too, so it's more difficult then that.

I think it's more of a venn diagram not an org chart.

I describe myself as an "art photographer", mostly to sate the curiosity of people who ask why I'm not a Papparazzi or shooting weddings.
 
haempe said:
All depends on the definition of "art". I prefer the narrower interpretation. For art I can't accept "the attempt counts". Some call this ignorance. For example, I can see only a few of all paintings as art, the few with a deeper intention which opens up to me.

Regarding reportage/documentary/street photography, it may be some kind of art to be at the right place at the right time - the rest is craft.

I see myself as craftsman.
Or, in euphorical mood, as a creative craftsman... :D
Click to expand...

Oh no, you've used the 'c' word, I too feel more like a craftsman, and I like to follow my instinct, which I believe is important in drawing or photography. One can be an artistic craftsman too?

It's a highly personal thing and we seem to need to interpret the term art in a way that suits us as individuals rather than slavishly follow the theories of others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom