artist?

Ranchu said:
That's entirely up to you. I am not in charge of guest services here.
Click to expand...

Wait, you're using an allround BS artist's picture as avatar … I like your subversive activities, they're — ART, yes :D

(But: what happened to the Pig Molester, after all? Did they drown him somewhere?)
 
back alley said:
so...how are we to enjoy discussions of images if we are thinking that calling oneself an artist is pretentious?
Click to expand...


You can't. There's nothing pretentious about calling yourself an artist if you really are one.

There are a number of us on RFF who have degrees from art schools or university art programs, have lengthy records of exhibitions of our work in galleries and museums, and earn our livings from selling our photographs. For us, "Artist" is just the name of our job. No different than "Plumber," "Mechanic," "Waiter," "Police Officer," "Lawyer," or any other job.

No one calls any of the abovementioned people "Pretentious" for saying what they do for a living, and there's nothing wrong or pretentious about someone who does art (be it photography or some other art form, like painting or sculpture) calling himself an artist.
 
back alley said:
with talk elsewhere of rff being mostly a gear forum and not so much a photography forum got me thinking a bit...
who here considers themselves to be an artist?
does being an artist impact your philosophy about gear? is gear just a means to an end or does it contribute to your art?
what stops us, as a group, from discussing photography/art?
Click to expand...

radi(c)al_cam

radi(c)al_cam is an artist who works in a variety of media. By investigating language on a meta-level, radi(c)al_cam makes work that generates diverse meanings. Associations and meanings collide. Space becomes time and language becomes image.
His artworks question the conditions of appearance of an image in the context of contemporary visual culture in which images, representations and ideas normally function. By contesting the division between the realm of memory and the realm of experience, he tries to grasp language. Transformed into art, language becomes an ornament. At that moment, lots of ambiguities and indistinctnesses, which are inherent to the phenomenon, come to the surface.
His works focus on the inability of communication which is used to visualise reality, the attempt of dialogue, the dissonance between form and content and the dysfunctions of language. In short, the lack of clear references are key elements in the work. By studying sign processes, signification and communication, he absorbs the tradition of remembrance art into daily practice. This personal follow-up and revival of a past tradition is important as an act of meditation.
His collected, altered and own works are being confronted as aesthetically resilient, thematically interrelated material for memory and projection. The possible seems true and the truth exists, but it has many faces, as Hanna Arendt cites from Franz Kafka.
Click to expand...


[see also http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133816]
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
You can't. There's nothing pretentious about calling yourself an artist if you really are one.

There are a number of us on RFF who have degrees from art schools or university art programs, have lengthy records of exhibitions of our work in galleries and museums, and earn our livings from selling our photographs. For us, "Artist" is just the name of our job. No different than "Plumber," "Mechanic," "Waiter," "Police Officer," "Lawyer," or any other job.

No one calls any of the abovementioned people "Pretentious" for saying what they do for a living, and there's nothing wrong or pretentious about someone who does art (be it photography or some other art form, like painting or sculpture) calling himself an artist.
Click to expand...

can a hobbyist be an artist?
 
I think everyone is entitled to call themselves an artist, how can you argue with that, if that's how they see themselves then that is their call.
In the same way I decide for myself if I think something is art or not, it's personal and nobody can be right or wrong, which is the problem with discussing art on a forum, the definition of what is art, and the enormous taste differences, mean it's kind of a pointless topic.
Personally, as a general statement, I find photography that sets out to be art amongst the least interesting to me, art influenced certainly, actually a must, but striving to be art, no.
There are exceptions to this, but mostly no.
 
I don't call myself an artist but others are free to do so if they wish. I just take pictures. Some of them a quite good. Some people might consider them art. That's fine with me. Like I said, I just take pictures. And I only take them to please myself.
 
I do consider myself to be an artist. I am not a great artist, by any stretch of the imagination, but I consider myself to be one nevertheless. I like cameras and consider them to be the most marvelous gadget ever invented . I use them in the service of my art.

Being an artist also is a state of mind, in my opinion. One is trying to create something beautiful out of whatever materials one has to hand, in our case, a camera (never mind what kind) and whatever we are taking a photo of. Most of the time what I get could be likened to a rough sketch in charcoal.

And in my case, I always have the tools of my art with me. It becomes a state of mind, always looking and occasionally finding something that would make a good sketch/photo/framed print. Many times I don't take a picture but just note the scene in front of me and enjoy it.

All of this and more becomes part of us over time, and if we stop making art there is a profound sense of loss, of something very precious and important missing from our lives. An obsession, if you will. A profoundly good obsession.

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)
 
Ranchu said:
Many people use photography for impractical purposes that have nothing to do with art galleries or museums, as well. I rarely use the word artist, but even then I add an e on the end to make it even more pretentious.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand where you are coming from. I'd never call myself an artist even though I have a BFA in photography, most of the photography I view is shown in galleries / museums, and the photography I make is certainly informed by what I've been viewing. But I certainly feel that the reason I am making photographs is because I am trying to make art. Calling oneself an artist always feels a bit pretentious to others if you aren't successful it seems.

As far as why I choose the gear that I do... it's one part nostalgia (old school controls), one part fast AF and high ISO, and one part ergonomics. It needs to feel right, feel familiar, and react quickly to my way of working.
 
back alley said:
with talk elsewhere of rff being mostly a gear forum and not so much a photography forum got me thinking a bit...
who here considers themselves to be an artist?
does being an artist impact your philosophy about gear? is gear just a means to an end or does it contribute to your art?
what stops us, as a group, from discussing photography/art?
Click to expand...
I consider myself an artist, and have a master's degree in contemporary art photography. My background: I'm a graphic designer, and have always been able to draw and paint figuratively (i.e. looking like the actual subject) - but gave up painting and took up photography. My photographs regularly appear in galleries - the thumbnails show a recent exhibition that included part of my Insecta project (photographs, photobook and sculpture) on natural history collecting.

As an aside, photographs can of course be art. Equally, they don't have to be. It's just a medium, so it's what you do with it that makes the difference - drawing, for example, can be purely functional, e.g. a technical illustration of a washing machine, or what most folk consider art, e.g. a sketch by Michelangelo.

Personally, photographic "gear" falls into two categories for me. First, for my art, gear is just a means to an end. I use whatever gets me the results I need, and often end up buying gear to meet the needs of a photographic project, then selling stuff off afterwards when I think I'll have no further use for it. My camera is simply a tool, no different to a screwdriver. My main camera is a Nikon D800E - I use it because it creates huge files of high technical quality. But I have no affection for it; in fact, I dislike it - it's large, heavy, and I find Nikon's controls annoying (I prefer Canon's). If it got stolen, I couldn't care less - it's insured!

My current camera set-up is pig ugly and heavy. I'm using a massive Mamiya 55-110 mm zoom with a shift adapter on the Nikon D800E; it's so weighty I can't hand-hold this without my arms shaking after a short time, so have to use a tripod! I've been lugging this around town for my current project, and discrete it's not! I loathe using this set-up - but it gives me the images I want, so I put up with it!

However, I have a guilty pleasure: my second category of gear. I do like well-crafted things, and have an assortment of camera bits and bobs that I like simply as objects but are inefficient photographic tools and thus useless for my art photography! Examples are my collection of Weston Master light meters (every model!), and the Moskva 2 Soviet folding camera I re-engineered and rebuilt to function perfectly (as opposed to the usual state of Soviet-era cameras: the photographic equivalents of tractors!).

There is no overlap between these two categories of gear for me! If I need a light meter, I'll use my modern top-of-the-line Sekonic - not one of my Weston meters (even though most of mine work correctly); for my art photography, it's all about getting the picture efficiently, and a Weston meter is clumsy and basic (e.g. it can't memorise readings, it's slow, and you can't see the dial in the dark).

If I want to play, I'll go out with my Weston meter and Moskva - but only to take snaps and for fun.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0018s.jpg
    IMG_0018s.jpg
    27.2 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_0481.jpg
    IMG_0481.jpg
    16.5 KB · Views: 0
I think an artist is someone who wants to create something in order to say something, whether about themselves or the world, no matter whether what they have to say makes sense to anyone or no-one (even themselves, as sometimes we may not know what it is we want to say).

I'm not even sure that it matters if the images aren't good, so long as we're trying to express something.

I don't think it matters that we use cameras, lenses, enlargers etc. as every other artist, apart from those singers who don't even use microphones, couldn't do what they do without some equipment/tools.
 
I find the assertion that photography isn't, or can't be, art frustrating.

In my mind:
1. Any creative process of self-expression is art.
2. Every art involves craft.

We tend to regard drawing, painting, sculpting, and such as "arts" and those who practice them "artists." These artists may produce good (successful) art or bad (unsuccessful) art. But we still tend to consider it art.

When it comes to photography, we only tend to recognize it as "art" when it is "good art." If it isn't good art, we tend to say that it isn't art, regardless of the photographer's creative process and intentions. I must confess that I am somewhat bought into this definition, largely against my true feelings on the subject. Like Robert blue, I consider myself an "aspiring artist," as I haven't achieved the art that I aspire to.

My next confession is that I am rather enamored of my equipment and I don't mind talking about it. At the same time, I would qualify this by pointing out that I am enamored of equipment that works for me. I admire Leica rangefinder cameras for their precision and build quality, but they don't suit my approach to photography, so I don't possess any. Even in discussions of gear, members of this forum tend to explain how this lens or this camera helps them to achieve the desired result, and that is ultimately what the gear is for, whether we regard it with affection or not.

- Murray
 
CMur12 said:
I find the assertion that photography isn't, or can't be, art frustrating.

In my mind:
1. Any creative process of self-expression is art.
2. Every art involves craft.

We tend to regard drawing, painting, sculpting, and such as "arts" and those who practice them "artists." These artists may produce good (successful) art or bad (unsuccessful) art. But we still tend to consider it art.

When it comes to photography, we only tend to recognize it as "art" when it is "good art." If it isn't good art, we tend to say that it isn't art, regardless of the photographer's creative process and intentions. I must confess that I am somewhat bought into this definition, largely against my true feelings on the subject. Like Robert blue, I consider myself an "aspiring artist," as I haven't achieved the art that I aspire to.

My next confession is that I am rather enamored of my equipment and I don't mind talking about it. At the same time, I would qualify this by pointing out that I am enamored of equipment that works for me. I admire Leica rangefinder cameras for their precision and build quality, but they don't suit my approach to photography, so I don't possess any. Even in discussions of gear, members of this forum tend to explain how this lens or this camera helps them to achieve the desired result, and that is ultimately what the gear is for, whether we regard it with affection or not.

- Murray
Click to expand...
+1 Well said.
 
I used to be an artist. But after losing my teaching job to downsizing I couldn't make a living at it anymore so now I'm a landlord. I never talk about art anymore, rarely make a picture, I don't have time.

Why is a gear-centric forum a problem? If you don't want that don't frequent RFF. If you'd rather talk about plants go to Garden Web, don't complain that RFF doesn't have any good garden threads.
 
jsrockit said:
Calling oneself an artist always feels a bit pretentious to others if you aren't successful it seems.
Click to expand...

Well, success is in the eye of the beholder. Finding a few suckers to bankroll my maudlin poking around would be great, but chances are, I'd have to kiss more than a few asses every week to get it accomplished.
 
back alley said:
can a hobbyist be an artist?
Click to expand...


Hobbiests are perfectly valid in any medium.... why not photography? (why not hobby artist?)
Qualifications, academic pedigrees, congressional medals, knighthood....etc.
These are all just western constructs. Creative thought provoking work comes from all places requiring no construct or box to be wrapped in.
Is the word artist about validation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom