Are you an artist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
dave lackey said:
Do you consider yourself an artist? I know a number of people here do...not just a "photographer".

How do you define the term "artist" within the photographic context?
Click to expand...

if you have studied art and/or sell on the art market that makes you an artist. maybe not a good one..
it's a careeer like any other.
 
dave lackey said:
Interesting....even wikipedia supports the idea that photography is art (or can be); musicians are artists; dancers are artists;...

So, why is it some are hesitant to be called artists or what they do to be considered art?
Click to expand...

photography is a language employed by artists.
the guy who paints your house, he does have a brush but he ain't an artist...
 
For most of my life I would have agreed with JOE1951 in regard to the association of the term "artist" with being pretentious and elitist. Much of my early life was associated with art and I won a number of awards in my school years, so I probably could have been justified in calling myself an "artist". It wasn't until I was well over 40 that I came across a treatise called "A Defence of Poetry", written by the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley in 1821 (this discussion of "what is art" and "who is an artist" has been going on for a long time), that gave a definition of art that made me comfortable with the term. Percy describes poetry, and art in general, as "the expression of the imagination". If viewed in this way, the pretension and elitism is stripped away. Some of us are blessed with more imagination than others and our societies often stymie the development of imagination, but even so, any attempt at expressing imagination is art. There's no "test' that one needs to pass to be an artist. If one raises a camera to their eye and applies some degree of creativity in composing a photo, they are creating art. Maybe not great art, but art none the less.

There is the issue of mastering the medium that one is working in. There's more to photography than just controling the amount of light striking a sensor or film to achieve a correctly exposed image, but one doesn't have to be a master of the medium to create an artistic image. If one takes the time to review a exihibit of work created by students, one is likely to be rewarded with viewing work where imagination and creativity is expressed vividly.
 
I have a day job I find boring.

I consider myself a creative person who is still kinda lost. I was a painter and had a two person show in New York. Did a lot of performance art throughout the northeast, now I'm writing a lot.

I have a Bachelors in Visual Art, a Masters in broadcast communications, and an MFA in creative writing. Never made any real money with my art, but life would lack meaning without the struggle.

But just because I have a camera it doesn't make me a photographer. I'm wondering aloud: just because I'm creative, even if I have been recognized, it doesn't mean I am an artist.

Its hard to explain my passion, because its really about challenge, searching, and never really getting there. If I called myself an artist I would just be a poser.

The most I can say is that all my life I've been involved in the arts. Perhaps it might be better to call me just plain confused.

Calzone
 
Maybe I wasn't clear.

Even though I do all of these things I listed, I am not those things.
They might define my skill set and interests, or other people's perception of myself but not my Self.

Therefore I am (and can only be) Martin, and nothing else.
 
I think it's a question of intent.
When it comes to music, I think that I am an artist in everything I do. Whether playing in a rock style pit band for a musical, or composing a string trio, I try to bring a part of myself into what I'm doing and I like to think that my music is stamped with my experiences and perception of the world.

My photography, on the other hand, is largely recording what I see around me. While some of myself comes into every photo I take, my intent is rather to participate in that which is around me. It's not really an expression of myself, and for that reason I don't see it as my art.

If I spent more time shooting models in controlled situations, doing landscape work, or even just working on a particular project, then I would consider myself a photographic artist. In that case I feel that my work would be more representative of my self and my vision.
 
I read somewhere that defines an artist as: "someone who is sensitive towards artistic matters and do something with it"

I think this is a good definition, people who are merely spectators, even though they have a high-level artistic sense cannot be called an artist. Conversely, anyone who creates/re-creates something artistic can be called an artist.

Also this definition gets rid of any self-aggrandizing notion often associated with the term. So being and artist is about what you do/create/contribute, not about what you're known for.

The next question is, how much of an artist are you? 😉
 
I'm always looking outside, trying to look inside.
Trying to tell something that's true.
But maybe nothing is really true.
Except what's out there.

-Robert Frank
 
I have never considered myself an artist.
I am a journalist by profession and strive to apply the same rules of that world to my endeavors as a photographer.
If I had to classify myself as something, I guess it would be documentary/landscape photographer.
 
TEZillman said:
For most of my life I would have agreed with JOE1951 in regard to the association of the term "artist" with being pretentious and elitist. Much of my early life was associated with art and I won a number of awards in my school years, so I probably could have been justified in calling myself an "artist". It wasn't until I was well over 40 that I came across a treatise called "A Defence of Poetry", written by the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley in 1821 (this discussion of "what is art" and "who is an artist" has been going on for a long time), that gave a definition of art that made me comfortable with the term. Percy describes poetry, and art in general, as "the expression of the imagination". If viewed in this way, the pretension and elitism is stripped away. Some of us are blessed with more imagination than others and our societies often stymie the development of imagination, but even so, any attempt at expressing imagination is art. There's no "test' that one needs to pass to be an artist. If one raises a camera to their eye and applies some degree of creativity in composing a photo, they are creating art. Maybe not great art, but art none the less.
Click to expand...

Well said. In some cultures, almost anyone is/can be an artist. Art is not an elitist gift that only a few visionaries can produce. In reality, we are all artists. Art is really nothing more than an expression of our world through our imagination.
 
I cannot think of any great photographer who has called himself/herself an 'artist'. Why should they -- surely it's enough to be a 'photographer'?
 
lawrence said:
I cannot think of any great photographer who has called himself/herself an 'artist'. Why should they -- surely it's enough to be a 'photographer'?
Click to expand...

there are a couple great photographers who would agree, like elliott erwitt and gary winogrand, but that's because they're sardonic.

ask stieglitz, weston, or many others, and they'll disagree.
 
I will leave it to others to decide whether I can be called an artist, or whether my work can be called art. I feel like I barely qualify to call myself a photographer. I'd prefer to focus on what I'm doing rather than what I'm called.
 
aizan said:
ask stieglitz, weston, or many others, and they'll disagree.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily:

When the article title, “Edward Weston, Artist” was sent to him in galley, he circled the word “Artist” with the comment: “Cut, or change to “Photographer”, of which title I am very proud.) [“Edward Weston – The Flame of Recognition” edited by Nancy Newhall, An Aperture Monograph, New York 1971 p. 64]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom