artist?

[tunalegs]

Maybe now the thread can get back on topic...

...
what stops us, as a group, from discussing photography/art?

Tangent off of previous comments, I have noticed that threads I have started here on topics relating to art or craft often get few responses, yet the same threads (sometimes just copy and pasted) get lots of response on other forums.

A thread about photographic syntax got what?, two or three confused replies here - got something like 19 or 20 on different forum, with plenty of people posting their own photos.

With craft or art (particularly art) there is sometimes a hesitation to participate in discussion, which is rooted in being afraid of looking stupid or uninformed. I don't know if that is the case here on this forum (although certainly there are a few here who think themselves geniuses, and would probably be mortified to show any appearance of not being an expert on everything) or if it is more simply, just disinterest in the topics of craft and art. Although, tangentially, I do sometimes wonder if people realize how silly they look when out taking pictures though (a step forward, a step back, looking up or down a couple inches, getting perfect framing - trust me photographers look a lot sillier in action than they imagine themselves).

In general I've noticed (relatively) few people here post photos either, of any nature (art or not) compared to some other forums I post on (maybe they do realize how silly they look when taking pictures?). I suspect people who work on drawing, painting, etc. get more feedback than photographers, and consequently are more willing to share and more willing to receive critique on their work.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

Maybe now the thread can get back on topic...

Depends on you, to a large extent.

Tangent off of previous comments, I have noticed that threads I have started here on topics relating to art or craft often get few responses, yet the same threads (sometimes just copy and pasted) get lots of response on other forums.

A thread about photographic syntax got what?, two or three confused replies here - got something like 19 or 20 on different forum, with plenty of people posting their own photos. […]

Wait wait wait — it was YOU who ruined the thread in question. Or do you want to blame someone else?
Perhaps it would have developed, but no, you were too impatient.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

You're right, I need to stop feeding the trolls.

Cute, again 🙂

Hmmm, given I'm the only constant in both situations, I would say it was other variables that resulted in different outcomes. The attitudes and interests of posters elsewhere were quite different. Nice try though.

Now we're talking — perhaps.

 

[robert blu]

In the beginning this was an interesting thread...
robert

 

[Out to Lunch]

'Statler and Waldorf'. Let's hope the show does not start again after they all had a good night sleep...

 

[lukitas]

Ha! I love a nice, wild, drunken brawl, occasionally. Insults flying like broken bottles and chair legs. Artistes and cacklers, slugging it out on shifting sands. Is a bar-room fight art? Or is it all about the presentation?

As has been noted, calling oneself an artist is pretentious. Anyone calling me an artist is a craven flatterer; my smile feels sickly sweet.
Calling myself a craftsman is an empty boast. And I have no idea about how, or wether, my 'innermost feelings' are expressed in my photos - actually, I rather try to express other peoples emotions.
So is photography art? I hope so. Can a hobby produce art? Why not? Am I an artist? God forbid!

Maybe art should join concepts like Truth, Beauty, Justice and Utopia : things that should be aspired to, but can never be quite attained. Like the horizon : a goal that I must walk towards, but can never quite reach.

Maybe it is best to leave the name-calling to others; once the thing is done, it can be called art, or kitsch, or real estate documentation.

Small wonder threads on this subject derail so easily : on the one hand, it is supposed to be the most perfect expression of the innermost feelings of the 'artiste', and on the other, it is determined by the publics' judgment. Like trying to fight with one foot slipping on ice, the other sinking in quicksands.

Now, I wil wax and curl the ends of my moustache, choose a tasteful cape to go with my frilliest summer shirt, agonise over the choice of ascot, and take a stroll with my bijou camera, occasionally framing the scene with thumbs and forefingers in an artistic manner. Don't forget the beret. A large beret, too small a beret makes one look like a labourer.

Cheers!

 

[xavyr]

Well. Goodness; will a stranger, throwing his hat into a room already knee-deep in spent brass, be fired upon? Because the thing has always been, for this aspirational artist, very simple.

With me, if a photograph of say, anything, by anyone, designed, made, crafted, or entirely accidental; matted and framed on a wall, in a book, in an advert, in my auntie's album of snaps, or on somebody's iPhone happens to evoke, an aesthetic response, sets the 'art' nerve off sparking in pleasurable reaction, that's enough, that suffices: it's art. This of course allows for "found" art.

If someone then tries to create an image that similarly evokes, then he or she is an artist, successful or failed, because it is the deliberate acting upon that drive to make the aesthetic nerve quiver, and not the success or failure of it that defines artistic endeavor, and the one pursuing it as an artist.

One may spin that with whatever adjective seems apt: "master", "journeyman", "aspiring", "failed", "student", "amateur", "tasteless", even "bad", "incompetent", "lousy", but nonetheless in there pitching, striving, full time, part time, halftime, whatever, because it is the impulse to create an aesthetic response that makes the artist.

As to gear: well, cameras are inherently fascinating and beautiful objects of industrial design, and endlessly discussable.

It is in the intersection of camera with art that trouble may begin. Why? Because many, attracted to the art of photography, simply do not have the pinch of innate talent and/or originality to fully realize their impulse.

One may master the technical craft, certainly, and one may develop one's already-inherent talent to a degree or even imitate the talent of others, but original talent is unfortunately born and not made. That explains the sheer rarity of superior art.

What to do, how to scratch the very common itch, then, to "do" art? Cameras, already appealing and absorbing in and of themselves, become agents of sublimation for creative impulses unlikely to be fulfilled, and the art/artist/gear matter a locus for passionate online streetfights of Kosovo-class sniping and bad feeling. Tsk.

Well, as the Psalmist (and HST) said, selah.

 

[Calzone]

Joe,

I have no quarms about saying I have a day-job. It is really hard to make money producing or creating art. On one hand I consider myself an artist because I went to art school, I am a creative person, and I have struggled in the arts my entire life with limited success.

If one makes a living doing art, they are very lucky, and even art related jobs like teaching are difficult to secure. In the 70's I was told by one professor that in one year enough MFA's are produced to fill every teaching position in the U.S.

My definition of artist is a person who struggles. Mark Cuban said it takes three things to become a billionair: being smart; having good ideas; and luck. He contends without luck he would not have become a billionair.

Similarly few in the world of art are lucky and most have lives of struggle.

Cal

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Fred Herzog has job and wasn't struggling. He worked and lived normal life and was taking pictures he liked at free time. He took Vancouver pictures on color film and his "Modern Colors" book is almost like paintings now.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Case in point. Fred Herzog made great work and ... he got 'lucky'.

 

[daveleo]

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?

Let me anwser one at a time:

I am not anywhere near an "artist" but when I manipulate the images that come out of my cameras, I feel that I am being "artistic", because I am "painting the scene the way I want it to look".

My gear contributes to my pictures if I have "bonded" with the camera and lens. Actually if I haven't bonded with a piece, I sell it.

We don't discuss the "art" of our pictures because it is too undefined, personal, argumentative and could go on and on and on. Gear is 80 - 90% technical chit-chat and much is easier to talk about (weight, size, focusing, coatings, etc etc).

I put the final results miles and miles above whatever equipment was used to make the picture.


EDIT: I just went back and read the last few pages now, and it supports what I said - "art" is too too argumentative around here.

 

[PKR]

Joe; photography, the process, is just a craft, like weaving or wood carving. Add creativity to the craft and you have something beyond an evidence photo.

The ART, Artist title is just that, a title. People today, with social media, seem more hung up on titles than in the past. Look at all the logo branded clothing.

It's all BS except for the work you make.

Salgado was asked about his Art in an interview. He replied, "I am not an artist.. next question."

This forum is a great place for camera questions. But, I wouldn't ask how Steichen's Navy time effected the making of "The Family of Man" on RFF.

Neare and I tried to keep the Camera Work thread alive, but it's clearly a waste of time. Also, I think the demographic of members has changed. I noticed it when Fred, AKA Photomoof left. Fred taught photography at Yale. He was a real asset.

 

[michaelwj]

Without really delving too far into art and what it means, I am not an artist. I have no training in the field (not that that should matter), I have never exhibited (and don't plan to), but sometimes I have a desire to create art, and do so with photography.
The camera can be at times a means to an end. At other times I just enjoy holding it without taking photos - cameras are pretty cool after all 🙂

But I have another question. To call oneself an artist, what is the criteria?

For example. I have a PhD in physics, obtained 10 years ago or so. Lately I've been doing much more physiology than physics, yet I have no training in the field. The journey there took me through physics centred multidisciplinary science. At what point do I stop calling myself a physicist? And at that point am I a scientist or a physiologist? Will I ever be considered a physiologist or will I always be a physicist? If I will always be a physicist then following the same logic I can never be an artist.

 

[PKR]

Without really delving too far into art and what it means, I am not an artist. I have no training in the field (not that that should matter), I have never exhibited (and don't plan to), but sometimes I have a desire to create art, and do so with photography.
The camera can be at times a means to an end. At other times I just enjoy holding it without taking photos - cameras are pretty cool after all 🙂

But I have another question. To call oneself an artist, what is the criteria?

For example. I have a PhD in physics, obtained 10 years ago or so. Lately I've been doing much more physiology than physics, yet I have no training in the field. The journey there took me through physics centred multidisciplinary science. At what point do I stop calling myself a physicist? And at that point am I a scientist or a physiologist? Will I ever be considered a physiologist or will I always be a physicist? If I will always be a physicist then following the same logic I can never be an artist.

I suggest you look at Richard Feynman's paintings. I have a small reproduction of one that I like so much, it sits in a frame on my desk. He trained in drafting (drawing) with an artist pal over many years.

http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=380

 

[robert blu]

I suggest you look at Richard Feynman's paintings. I have a small reproduction of one that I like so much, it sits in a frame on my desk. He trained in drafting (drawing) with an artist pal over many years.

http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=380

Interesting! Thanks for the link, I didn't know his painting and drawing work
robert

 

[robert blu]

...
This forum is a great place for camera questions. But, I wouldn't ask how Steichen's Navy time effected the making of "The Family of Man" on RFF.

Neare and I tried to keep the Camera Work thread alive, but it's clearly a waste of time. Also, I think the demographic of members has changed. I noticed it when Fred, AKA Photomoof left. Fred taught photography at Yale. He was a real asset.

Yes, a good forum for camera questions. Me too ! I found RFF when looking for info and comments about the Epson RD1! So many years ago...

But a small area within RFF, even if not followed by many readers is a nice room to explore, to get inspiration, to discover something, to know what other photographers or visual artist have done on a certain subject.

I hope we'll always have such a place...

robert

 

[PKR]

Yes, a good forum for camera questions. Me too ! I found RFF when looking for info and comments about the Epson RD1! So many years ago...

But a small area within RFF, even if not followed by many readers is a nice room to explore, to get inspiration, to discover something, to know what other photographers or visual artist have done on a certain subject.

I hope we'll always have such a place...

robert

Yes Robert, we are among a few here who are more concerned with what a camera can make than the camera.

I would gladly trade the title artist, one that was given me, not one of my choosing, for the experience of making a good picture. Few would understand this I think. I take many, many pictures, but make a small number of good ones.

Adams said he would be happy with 12 in a year. Avedon said 10 in a year would be fine with him. I once made 3 in just one day. It was months before I made another. I know that day well in my mind. The experience was really an exciting one. The location and the lighting were just right. In remembering it all, I never once thought about the camera I was using.

Best, pkr

 

[michaelwj]

I suggest you look at Richard Feynman's paintings. I have a small reproduction of one that I like so much, it sits in a frame on my desk. He trained in drafting (drawing) with an artist pal over many years.

http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=380

Richard Feynman seems to have boundless energy for extra persuits, from painting to drumming to safe cracking. But he was always a physicist. At times he may have also been an artist, he trained and exhibited and sold his paintings and performed drumming on stage as well so he certainly qualifies.

But if had given up physics for these persuits, is there a point where he would no longer be called a physicist? Is a retired carpenter a carpenter or a retiree for example? At what point does the balance tip?

I am the inverse of Adams/Avedon, instead of 12 good photos in one year, I'm shooting at one good photo in 12 years. 🙂

 

[PKR]

Richard Feynman seems to have boundless energy for extra persuits, from painting to drumming to safe cracking. But he was always a physicist. At times he may have also been an artist SNIP

I would say he was always an artist.. in all the things he did, he was creative!

SNIP
I am the inverse of Adams/Avedon, instead of 12 good photos in one year, I'm shooting at one good photo in 12 years. 🙂

SNIP

It's good you know the difference. Few will ever get there.



t = 1 good photo, 2t = 2 good photos ...

Where: t = time spent making photos.

Keep at it.

After many years, I still read math books and study Newtonian Mechanics. It's my hobby.

Sorry for the formatting. I guess I'm lucky my post was saved. Lot of server issues here in the past few days..

pkr

 

[Calzone]

PKR,

I'm pretty close to retirement; I basically have a BA, MA, and MFA all in the arts; yet I have worked in research and been involved working in physics labs my whole life.

I worked at two National Labs: Los Alamos; and Brookhaven. One project was a Neutral Partical Beam weapon that was a prototype for a space based Star Wars project to shoot down ICBM's before they Vaporize us. The other project was a 2.7 mile circumference heavy ion collider.

My only technical background is a six month vocational school training in electronics, yet I had a patent, and was named "Inventor of the Year." Anyways problem solving, organizational skills, and creativity are innate skills that helped me more than any education. My ability to connect ideas, my abstract reasoning, my communication skills, and my ability to conceptualize more than made up for the lack of education in science.

William Carlos Williams the poet was a medical doctor who served a poor community. Gaugin the painter was a banker who abandoned his family. Marcel Duchamp was a French Chess Champion. Wes Montgomery worked in an automotive factory assembling cars. In some people their education and backgrounds are really separate.

Cal