any serious photographers out there...

[FONT=&quot]Uniquely among the arts, photography seems unable to be accepted for itself by its own practitioners. It is the redheaded stepchild of the arts, unloved by those who should love it most. It is in little danger from its critics, but may not survive its friends. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

The new medium got off on the wrong foot at its birth, more than 170 years ago, because no one was sure just how it should be classified. Since it rendered three- dimensional reality in two dimensions on a flat surface, photography soon came to be regarded by painters and critics as a form of drawing, albeit inferior because it was achieved by mechanical and chemical means. Most photographers accepted this evaluation unquestioningly and set out in great earnest to prove that photography could compete with the older media by producing work that looked like drawing, painting, or engraving.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Part of the problem then and now is confusion of terminology; using the words medium and art as though they were interchangeable, when in fact they are not. Painting is a medium, as are sculpture, engraving, photography, and pottery. When practiced at a high level of competence within the context of its own inherent qualities, each medium is a craft which may become art when imbued with an indefinable presence imparted by the being of the artist himself.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Unfortunately, artist is a designation no one can award himself. It is a title only history can bestow. Calling oneself an artist, as photographers and low-to-mid-level painters are wont to do, is a sure mark of the "wannabe." Edward Weston, like many genuine artists, often referred to himself as a "worker" because he understood that his role was to work diligently at his craft. The composer Salieri undoubtedly thought of himself as an artist, and was so considered by his contemporaries. But history soon buried him, and even though I have a good education in music and am fairly well versed in the classics, I had never heard of him until he was exhumed for the movie Amadeus.
[/FONT]
 
A photographer captures.
An artist creates.

Simple.

Photographers can be artists, if they're creating. Such as advertising photographers working with a theme and creating what they capture. Weather we find it artistic is another matter...

Most of us just capture the world, in 'creative' ways? sure.

I'm not even comfortable being called a photographer, even though it's in my job title. Maybe I just don't like the word.

(in all honesty though, does it matter? really?)
 
Interesting discussion.

As an aside, a girl once told me her boyfriend was a painter. I thought she meant a tradesman, someone who paints walls and houses. It wasn't until later in the conversation when I realised she meant a painter in fine art, an artist. I asked her why she didn't use a more specific term, she said he didn't want to be associated with notions of snobbery if he described himself as an artist.

Not sure how this contributes to the discussion but I was reminded of that conversation I had with her.
 
any serious photographers out there... ...who have difficulty calling themselves an artist?
pho•tog•ra•pher  [fuh-tog-ruh-fer] noun; a person who takes photographs, especially one who practices photography professionally.

I’m no serious photographer. No thanks. Just don’t want to put in the time/effort to be “serious” at it. I work at other endeavors and old cameras and playing with them (and talking about them) is just my occasional fun.

But I was just reading through this interesting thread of discussion since I've recently been spending time with young people in a similar dialogue regarding how much importance we should put on the opinions of others concerning our talents, abilities, our work, our accomplishments. (It began with the topic of “bullying”.)

As I listened to their experiences, I found it amazing and sad how early in life kids will give up on something they enjoy or abandon being creative because some schmuck 2nd grade teacher smirked at their finger-painting while praising others in the same class. Or they become convinced they will “never be a writer” because a parent rails on their spelling. Humans are so pliable, so early, it’s not hard to imagine that they lock onto “having difficulty calling themselves artist/writer/creative.”

There will always be someone around to remind them of that unchangeable truth,
“… we learn who we are through others. All else is some type of self-deception."
Yeesh.

I read on and was relieved to find that this wisdom is only relevant to the “others” in the world, not the “me.” …
"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."
I guess a fortunate few are apparently immune to both self-deception and the opinions of others. That I could live with. I want to be one of those guys. *grin*

IM2¢HO - Want to be a serious photographer? Want to be an artist? Be serious, work hard, create, enjoy. And don’t let others talk you out of it. Be one of those who are immune to destructive criticism – from self or others.

art•ist   [ahr-tist] noun; 1. a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria.
 
I guess a fortunate few are apparently immune to both self-deception and the opinions of others. That I could live with. I want to be one of those guys. *grin*

Quite right too. When people ask me about my day job, I just tell them I get paid to play with computers all day.

I used to say the same about photography, also, but I'm better now. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom