any serious photographers out there...

I find craftsman to be irksome... probably like many find artist to be irksome. It's funny how a simple word can make someone cringe.
 
What attracted me to photography when I was a kid and still now is it's honesty,it's lack of pretension, this event took place and here's a recording of it, but brought to you with an artistic eye.
Conversly I also love fashion photography, it's generally not an honest portrayal but I accept that, but it doesn't pretend to be anything other than a commercially driven fantasy, the best draws from art, is artistic, but is made to sell things, so it's difficult to attribute it with higher goals.
Where the wheels come off for me is when photography is used to try and make art, with very few exceptions I find them an unconvincing partnership, I'm just not interested in photography as art, spare me.
 
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...

Exactly. Plus in my case I graduated from photojournalism school yet studied "art photography" under Garry Winogrand. So I learned to photograph from differing disciplines. That doesn't necessarily make me an artist unless someone else says so :)
 
ehhh . . .

ehhh . . .

"any serious photographers out there...
...who have difficulty calling themselves an artist? "


some days yes, some days no.

today was a "no" kinda day.
 
"any serious photographers out there...
...who have difficulty calling themselves an artist? "
Click to expand...
How about someone who is serious (or, at worst, semi-serious) about photography yet has difficulty calling himself "a photographer"? I'll steal Dave's words:
daveleo said:
some days yes, some days no.
Click to expand...
but apply them to my problem. I get the feeling that I'm almost at the point where I might become a "real" photographer, whatever that is. It's taken a while, but sometimes I think I know almost enough about equipment and materials and chemistry and photo-editing and suchlike that I can get an idea in my head and, reasonably often, produce a photograph that's a fair approximation of the idea, looking mostly as I wanted it to. I do need to improve on "reasonably often".

Still, that's a start. Or almost a start. But artist? I think I'd need better ideas if I were aiming for that. Or have decent ideas more often. Hell, I need more decent ideas if I want to produce more decent-quality photographs. If I wanted to be an artist with that, I think I'd need my ideas to be more artistic. I suspect that if I had the ideas then the "artist" part might mostly take care of itself, now. But I don't think I could simply decide to be "an artist", without the ideas - at least if I wanted to avoid fooling myself.

...Mike
 
For me art is about creation, turning a bit of rock into a statue, or tins of paint into a painting. Technically, I guess you're turning photons into an image using a camera, but to me it's not about making something beautiful, it's about recording something that is already beautiful.

I'm not saying photography is not, or cannot be art, but 99.9999% of time, photographers are simply recording a scene. Perhaps a very beautiful scene, and one which is very artistic, but we did not create it, we just recorded it for posterity.
 
The definition of "artist" was given to me in a gallery where I tried to get an exhibition:
An artrist has to have studied art at the academy, having got a master diploma, make his living only out of his art (if not, he has to die) and has to be exhibited in all famous museums (MOMA for example).
So I´m only a serious photographer.

George
 
Exactly- ditto for thomasw

I take photographs there I am a photographer. That may entail many things for many people, both for the photographer and other people. Either way, it just does not matter to me.

I have no objection to being called an artist, but it is not a label I feel I need to wear.


Roger Hicks said:
Does it matter? I take photographs, I'm a photographer. If someone else wants to call me an artist, that's fine, but calling myself an artist seems a bit pointless. I've met many painters, sculptors, etc., who feel the same: they're more likely to say "I'm a painter (or whatever)" than "I'm an artist," which doesn't really tell you anything.

Also, I've met far too many people who press their wrists to their foreheads, literally or figuratively, and exclaim, "I am an Artist!" (you can hear the capital 'A') when they mean "I can't be bothered to learn anything technical" or "I am incapable of earning a living" or "Your petty concerns are beneath me." I'd prefer not to be lumped in with them.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
thegman said:
For me art is about creation, turning a bit of rock into a statue, or tins of paint into a painting. Technically, I guess you're turning photons into an image using a camera, but to me it's not about making something beautiful, it's about recording something that is already beautiful.

I'm not saying photography is not, or cannot be art, but 99.9999% of time, photographers are simply recording a scene. Perhaps a very beautiful scene, and one which is very artistic, but we did not create it, we just recorded it for posterity.
Click to expand...

Interesting opinion thegman. But I beg to differ. In both photojournalism and art photography classes you are taught that photographers "create" by framing. You have the power of God in your hands when you decide where to put the frame of your photograph. You do not record a scene, you create a photograph by deciding what to leave out or put in your image. We may just be talking semantics here but that is the mindset I use when trying to frame images.
 
victoriapio said:
Interesting opinion thegman. But I beg to differ. In both photojournalism and art photography classes you are taught that photographers "create" by framing. You have the power of God in your hands when you decide where to put the frame of your photograph. You do not record a scene, you create a photograph by deciding what to leave out or put in your image. We may just be talking semantics here but that is the mindset I use when trying to frame images.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and I see your point. I do see that photography can be art, but the type of photos I take, it's not, and it does not try to be.

If you are taking photos with an artistic mindset though, it's certainly not my place to say it isn't art.
 
thegman said:
Fair enough, and I see your point. I do see that photography can be art, but the type of photos I take, it's not, and it does not try to be.

If you are taking photos with an artistic mindset though, it's certainly not my place to say it isn't art.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that. Seems like it's the "public" or at least someone other than the photographer that determines whether a photographer is an "artist" or not. During my studies I had the good fortune to spend a lot of time photographing with Larry C. Price, a two- time Pulitzer Prize winner. He was a classic photojournalist but took an "artist's approach" to his assignments (my words, not his. I know no other way to describe how good his images are.) So in my opinion an "artist" can also be a documentarian. He was a true "artist" with a camera on his photojournalism assignments. On the other side of the University of Texas campus, Garry Winogrand was a classic "art" photographer with the fame and books to back it up. So I look at the word "artist" to be a complimentary term but with broad application across the photographic realm.
All this being said, I am a perfect of example of someone surrounded by outstanding photographers I learned from - "artists" if you will - but whose own work will never reach that status. But I will keep trying. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
A photographer chooses what lens to use, what film, where to stand, where to point the lens, what to include, what not to include, when to push the shutter. He decides how to develop the film (or process the digital file). He can dodge and burn. He can make a print darker or lighter. He can print high contrast, low contrast. There is color or black and white or a little of both. These are all creative decisions that need to be made. He worries about composition; perspective; the interplay of colors; and shadows and highlights.

In contrast, an artist chooses his medium. He chooses the canvas, he pick a subject, he decides where to put the subject, what to include, what not to include. He can add contrast or remove it. He can use vibrant colors or muted. He worries about composition; perspective; the interplay of colors; and shadows and highlights.

A photographer is most certainly not an artist!
 
Photography can be an art form sure, but there are a very few photographer's who are artists just as there few painter's, sculptor's etc who are artists. I think being an artist necessary implies a level of creativity that few of us have.
 
Fawley said:
Photography can be an art form sure, but there are a very few photographer's who are artists just as there few painter's, sculptor's etc who are artists. I think being an artist necessary implies a level of creativity that few of us have.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom