Are you an artist?

[dave lackey]

Qualifications aside ... some of the artists I've encountered had an unmistakable gift that went beyond any formal academic training they may have received.

Agreed...but more to the point, doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, etc. are NOT given exams in order for them to be called a "doctor", "architect" or whatever. Professional licensing has nothing to do with talent and everything to do with the local government (i.e.-State) requirement to protect the health, safety and welfare of the populace.

It would be difficult for me to fathom an instance of when the government should requirement professional examination of artists...the death of the artist at the Denver Airport notwithstanding....

 

[Pablito]

Some obviously prefer to think of their work as documentary. Others, prefer to go about their photography as a form of art.

Some may not think of these pursuits as mutually exclusive.

 

[lawrence]

i don't believe that calling oneself an artist is pretentious as there can be great artists and poor artists, great art and lousy art.

But why is it necessary for a photographer to be an 'artist' rather than just a 'photographer'? Isn't this really a way of disparaging the work of other photographers by saying, in effect, "These other photographers are just journeymen but I'm special, I'm an artist". Of course I appreciate that for commercial reasons this may be desirable because a gullible public may be prepared to pay more for the work of a 'photographic artist'. Excuse my scepticism

 

[marke]

Quote:
Originally Posted by marke
We could easily say that everyone who is alive and breathing is an artist in a sense, as they are creating a story of a life in progress.

no. that would be wrong.

No. That would be right.

 

[back alley]

But why is it necessary for a photographer to be an 'artist' rather than just a 'photographer'? Isn't this really a way of disparaging the work of other photographers by saying, in effect, "These other photographers are just journeymen but I'm special, I'm an artist". Of course I appreciate that for commercial reasons this may be desirable because a gullible public may be prepared to pay more for the work of a 'photographic artist'. Excuse my scepticism

never said it was necessary...

i call myself an amateur photographer.

 

[MartinP]

My only recent exposure to art-iness (for want of a better word) required me to wear a badge saying "Artist" on it and hover around the place ready to answer questions about how come the colour was broken on my digital camera . . . and I'm only slightly exaggerating about the questions.

Anyway, I got them to make another name-badge for me, with "Exhibitor" instead of the A-word. It just felt so silly. When I made the photos and the prints I had no artistic intentions in mind, even though I can't define what those might be, in case I did have any.

And I was forbidden from photographing the visitors!


Edit: Maybe I should say that I was asked to put some existing pictures in to the show, rather than me planning any new creative stuff.

 

[lawrence]

I don't understand the modesty/snob argument. At all.

I make art, I am an artist.
I don't always make art, some days I mow the lawn.

But surely when you take photographs you are a 'photographer'?

 

[FallisPhoto]

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?

Not sure if this is what you mean, but some of us can draw too:

I use my compositional skills in my photography, so yeah, that too.

 

[dave lackey]

I don't understand the modesty/snob argument. At all.

I make art, I am an artist.
I don't always make art, some days I mow the lawn.

Richard,
That is the best answer so far! Same here.

 

[dave lackey]

Surely, this is an example of art:

http://www.billynewmanphotography.com/

 

[lawrence]

never said it was necessary...

i call myself an amateur photographer.

And I respect you for it. The thing I can't get my head round is this: why, in the context of taking photographs, should it ever be necessary to be anything other than a 'photographer'. Of course there are many types of photographer: portrait photographer, fashion photographer, war photographer etc. but why the need for 'artist'? So far, this has not been explained...

 

[tbarker13]

An artist creates something. He may do it with paint, a camera, pieces of metal or whatever. But the artist brings something into the world that wasn't here before.

As a photographer, I capture what is already here. If it isn't in this world, it will never be in one of my images.

Of course there are many great artists who choose photography as their medium. But the terms "artist" and "photographer" are not interchangeable.

Personally, I'm enjoying this thread. I think it shows the different ways we approach what we do and what we hope to accomplish with our images.

 

[FrankS]

Well, it all depends on how one defines "artist". For some it is simply one who creates art, with art being anything created with the intent of being art.

For others there is a loftier implied meaning to art, and the term artist is one best applied by others rather than by oneself onto oneself.

So it depends on the definition: either a literal one, or one that carries with it some "baggage".

 

[lawrence]

According to the dictionary:

• One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
• A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
• One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.
• One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con artist.

Well clearly either a photographer or painter can be an artist by two or more of those definitions. The point I'm making is that the judgment of whether one is or isn't should be made by others, not oneself -- I think this why Edward Weston was uncomfortable with the term 'artist', which I mentioned in my earlier post.

 

[lawrence]

For others there is a loftier implied meaning to art, and the term artist is one best applied by others rather than by oneself onto oneself.

We posted at the same time -- my point entirely.

 

[MartinP]

A 'straight' photograph (which is to some extent an impossible thing, but you get the idea) of Richard's tree would not be art, but seeing the possibilities, thinking them through, and putting them into practice makes the photograph more than a plain accident. So is that one definition of art ?

 

[JTK]

People buy cameras, then call themselves artists, eventually may learn a few skills...almost nobody does anything of significance in the eyes of others beyond making "pretty pictures" which, by definition, are not "art." If what one does isn't significant beyond "pretty" in the eyes of others, the first thing we realize is that it's not "art".

In photography, "artist" means virtually nothing.

 

[Twigs]

I agree with wikipedia that "[a]rt is often intended to appeal and connect with human emotion." And in that sense, all photographs, including documentary and reportage, are art, and all photographers are artists.

All things philosophical aside, it's just a description.

I am an artist/photographer when I'm out making photographs. I am also an artist/musician when I play the violin (or even Rockband on PS3 ), a snowboarder/jackass when I try to land that 360 that often ends at 270 (ouch), and a teacher/tutor when I show my student/client how to solve a quadratic equation.

 

[Keith]

I don't understand the modesty/snob argument. At all.

I make art, I am an artist.
I don't always make art, some days I mow the lawn.

And I bet your 'crop circles' are better than most ... in fact very artistic!

 

[NathanJD]

Some people would consider me a piss artist i don't think i'm really an artist - i simply document the art that human nature presents in front of me