lawrence
Veteran
Hey Dave, you closed the thread just when it was getting interesting! Hopefully others are still keen to discuss this so let's see if it still has legs...
Last edited:
tom_f77
Tom Fenwick
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I'm popping out for lunch now.
If a friend or neighbor asks me if I'm an artist, I'll take a piss.
Then whip out my Leica.
After I've washed my hands.
A nice 'cron moment over the lemon cheesecake please.
If a friend or neighbor asks me if I'm an artist, I'll take a piss.
Then whip out my Leica.
After I've washed my hands.
A nice 'cron moment over the lemon cheesecake please.
FrankS
Registered User
I was sad to see that thread closed too.
My view was that it depends on ones personal definition of artist.
Some of us have a literal interpretation of the word. An artist is simply anyone who makes art, and is therefore free to call him/herself an artist, rather than a photographer, painter, sculptor, writer, whatever their medium is.
For others, the word artist carries some additional meaning/baggage beyond the simple and literal interpretation, and it sounds pretentious (to us) for someone to call themselves an artist, unless perhaps one is already recognized in the community as such. For us, the label artist is best left too be applied by others rather than by oneself. When describing oneself, then photographer, painter, sculptor, writer, or whatever our medium is, sounds more appropriate.
So, both groups are correct! Each group applies the term artist correctly based on their personal interpretation of the term.
The term artist obviously comes from the word art, and a common understanding of the definition of that word would also be important. For me, I like the definition that says that anything created with the intention of being art, is art. It may be subjectively good or bad art to different observers, but it is art.
Pitxu and Jon C. (and many others here at RFF) are both able to call themselves artists IMO, (even using the more rigorous definition above), because in the communities in which they live, they are probably considered to be artists; their commitment and dedication to photography being evident in their eccentric behaviour (relative to community standards) of constantly carrying around a camera and taking pictures day in, day out, year after year, and in the photographs they produce. (I am meaning this to be complementary.)
I am a photographer. I strive to make art. I have far more misses than hits, but I keep at it.
My view was that it depends on ones personal definition of artist.
Some of us have a literal interpretation of the word. An artist is simply anyone who makes art, and is therefore free to call him/herself an artist, rather than a photographer, painter, sculptor, writer, whatever their medium is.
For others, the word artist carries some additional meaning/baggage beyond the simple and literal interpretation, and it sounds pretentious (to us) for someone to call themselves an artist, unless perhaps one is already recognized in the community as such. For us, the label artist is best left too be applied by others rather than by oneself. When describing oneself, then photographer, painter, sculptor, writer, or whatever our medium is, sounds more appropriate.
So, both groups are correct! Each group applies the term artist correctly based on their personal interpretation of the term.
The term artist obviously comes from the word art, and a common understanding of the definition of that word would also be important. For me, I like the definition that says that anything created with the intention of being art, is art. It may be subjectively good or bad art to different observers, but it is art.
Pitxu and Jon C. (and many others here at RFF) are both able to call themselves artists IMO, (even using the more rigorous definition above), because in the communities in which they live, they are probably considered to be artists; their commitment and dedication to photography being evident in their eccentric behaviour (relative to community standards) of constantly carrying around a camera and taking pictures day in, day out, year after year, and in the photographs they produce. (I am meaning this to be complementary.)
I am a photographer. I strive to make art. I have far more misses than hits, but I keep at it.
Last edited:
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
FrankS:
Thank you.
You have made my day.
Likely made Pitxu's day also.
Pitxu and myself live 1000km apart but we'll have a drink 'together' this evening. A glass of the red perhaps.
Roger and Frances may care to join us.
Thank you.
You have made my day.
Likely made Pitxu's day also.
Pitxu and myself live 1000km apart but we'll have a drink 'together' this evening. A glass of the red perhaps.
Roger and Frances may care to join us.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
You are most welcome, Jon.
raid
Dad Photographer
Some people may define an artist to be someone whose main income comes from this profession. I don't think this is correct. Others define an artist as someone who has "artistic capabilities." Often,these capabilities are limited and at other times they are quite impressive and extensive. It seems to be that for many people it is in the eyes of the beholder who an artist is.
I have always liked art. I am a long time member of an art gallery in town. Does this make me an artist? I don't think so. Just like others, I enjoy taking photos and I am trying to get better at it.
I have always liked art. I am a long time member of an art gallery in town. Does this make me an artist? I don't think so. Just like others, I enjoy taking photos and I am trying to get better at it.
JTK
Established
IMO photographer=artist is tiresome, since it routinely excuses mediocre photography and it never comes to grips with the long-meaningless nature of the word "art."
I'm cranky about the discussion because my own definition of "art" includes "magical," "transporting," and "rare," and doesn't put much stock in "beautiful" because that's an easy quantity and many fail to see beauty in certain special places, such as the work of Picasso.
So...I'm happy to say I'm a photographer and when someone doesn't understand what I'm doing, so decides it must be "art," I don't argue. But I don't like to be associated with that label, since more than anything else it means "decoration on a wall at a motel."
I'm cranky about the discussion because my own definition of "art" includes "magical," "transporting," and "rare," and doesn't put much stock in "beautiful" because that's an easy quantity and many fail to see beauty in certain special places, such as the work of Picasso.
So...I'm happy to say I'm a photographer and when someone doesn't understand what I'm doing, so decides it must be "art," I don't argue. But I don't like to be associated with that label, since more than anything else it means "decoration on a wall at a motel."
FrankS
Registered User
lawrence
Veteran
I don't agree with the idea that "art is meaningless". On the contrary, to qualify for the label "art" a work has to have "meaning" (though perhaps not "utility"). This meaning is ascribed to the work by others rather than by its creator. Of course the work has meaning for it's creator because he/she spent time creating it but that doesn't make it art -- it's when others ascribe meaning to the work that it becomes art.
Take Robert Frank's "The Americans". As Frank journeyed round the US in the mid-50s I doubt that the thought that he was "creating art" ever even occurred to him. His intention was to document the US and its culture during a particular period in its evolution. However, in the intervening fifty years The Americans has achieved the status of an artwork and Frank is now considered to be an "art photographer"; his work has become "art" due to the acclamation of others.
Morca007
Matt
Is it better form to call a poor painting art than a poor photo?
lawrence
Veteran
Why would you call either of them "art"?
Sparrow
Veteran
So do you conclude that to be "art" a thing must be judged so by others?
A dance, danced in private can never be art until it has a public performance?
lawrence
Veteran
I think the term "art" is subjective and that what constitutes art is a matter of public consensus. In other words, a work becomes art by recognition. For example, "The Americans" took time to become art because initially it was rejected by the public and most critics. Of course this didn't change the quality of the work but because the term "art" is subjective this isn't the point.
I guess if the dance is already accepted as being art then the fact that it's performed in private makes no difference. If I have a few too many JDs and start hopping about the room proclaiming my activity as "art", this doesn't make it art.
Sparrow
Veteran
I can see a problem with that; I you are going to conclude a simple majority need consider something art for it to be so then you would have to agree that your JD hopping about his room is more likely to achieve artistic status than someone at the Royal Academy is.
And how would any performance based “proto-art” ever achieve the necessary longevity or popularity to become acclaimed your "true art"?
lawrence
Veteran
I think the consensus view is as close are you can get to a definition, otherwise anything can be called "art" and the word is therefore meaningless.
Sparrow
Veteran
But you would then have then to rob poetry of its artistic status in order that Big-Brother could have it?
I find that dispiriting and perverse.
I could, however, easily make a case for everything manmade being art and leaving the attribution of good-art/bad-art status to posterity, why must the term art carry some sort of value judgment?
Last edited:
lawrence
Veteran
Since there is no objective definition then surely if the term means anything at all there has to be an implied value judgment? Such a judgment could be given by the "artist's" peers. Taking again "The Americans" as an example, the book eventually found favour with the art world establishment, such as MoMA, and it's on their endorsement that its "artistic" status rests. Sorry if you find this dispiriting
Sparrow
Veteran
Since there is no objective definition then surely if the term means anything at all there has to be an implied value judgment? Such a judgment could be given by the "artist's" peers. Taking again "The Americans" as an example, the book eventually found favour with the art world establishment, such as MoMA, and it's on their endorsement that its "artistic" status rests. Sorry if you find this dispiriting
I really don’t see why a noun should need a value ascribing too it, does a chair need to imply anything other than its utility
And I don’t understand why you are trying to apply your definition to a single work, and why must I find the Americans to be art anyway, if for example, if I dislike it would is stop being art? or had it never been accepted by the establishment and I liked it could I not think of it as art? surely any definition must include all art.
notturtle
Well-known
Is an artist not any person who strives to create art, whatever their understanding of that term may be? Determining what art is and whether photography therefore = art is not really possible because both terms are as diverse as the people that undertake them. It also does not matter a bit.