paulfish4570
Veteran
"creative craftsman"
well said, haempe ... 🙂
well said, haempe ... 🙂
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.
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:"any serious photographers out there...
...who have difficulty calling themselves an artist? "
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".some days yes, some days no.
In light of the above post, I don't call myself an artist now, but after I'm dead, everyone will.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm just a silly photographer having fun.