artist?

[Roger Hicks]

Since when does an artist have to sell his work to qualify as an artist? Does an artist have to not only sell his work, but also support himself solely from his work? The whole idea is ludicrous. Artists who are able to support themselves from their work are the exception, not the rule.

YES

Cheers,

R.

 

[tunalegs]

Considering that some of the most famous or influential artists in history didn't earn a living selling art, the whole concept that only professionals can be "real" artists is rather strange. I guess it's a symptom of societies where money is the only measure of the value of anything.

Adding to some other comments, there does seem to be a certain type of person who thinks that bashing art or artists makes them look more macho. For some reason I don't really understand.

 

[Tompas]

(...)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. (...)

Well said. I think the question is settled.

 

[Coopersounds]

i enjoy taking photos with my cameras, sometimes the photos are captured moments of my loved ones, sometimes aesthetics that please me.
I like that.
Some of the photos have been described as 'artistic' by others, but I don't consider myself an artist.
Western societies do tend to define people by their work or paid role. That can be limiting to those who are 'artists' but are not making a living with it.

 

[Coopersounds]

FWIW i think ManRay was an artist, Trent Parke is an artist in my eyes as is our own Helen Hill.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Considering that some of the most famous or influential artists in history didn't earn a living selling art. . .

Yeah, that Vincent van Gogh. What a LOSER!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Some of the photos have been described as 'artistic' by others, but I don't consider myself an artist.. . .

Why not? Why are you so afraid of the label "artist"?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ranchu]

There is a gear, and process, component to this site. But it seems to me that most here feel gear (and film, chemistry, paper etc.) are a means to achieve our various photographic goals.

This is an excellent point, thank you. I never understood the use of the phrase "this is a gear forum, so that explains.." Now I know why.

🙂

 

[Ranchu]

Why not? Why are you so afraid of the label "artist"?

Cheers,

R.

Not speaking for Coopersounds, but it implies "I'm full of ****, and I'm trying to sell it to you." which could be a reason the term is avoided.

 

[Coopersounds]

Why not? Why are you so afraid of the label "artist"?

Cheers,

R.

Hmm, no not afraid Roger, just not a priority in my life that I would use that label. Father, Nurse, motorcyclist, yes I would use these terms.
I also play guitar, bass and a little piano but don't call myself a musician.
But then isn't that my choice?

 

[tunalegs]

Not speaking for Coopersounds, but it implies "I'm full of ****, and I'm trying to sell it to you." which could be a reason the term is avoided.

I thought it was just simple anti-intellectualism. In line with calling stuff "Artsy-fartsy", and "I dun get it so it's dumb" type thinking...
I see some photographers who seem to consider themselves too manly for that pansy "art" stuff.

Then again I don't consider myself an artist, which annoys a lot of people who think just because somebody is making illustrations they must be making art. But I don't **** all over artists for making art either, even if I don't personally get or agree with their aims or concepts.

 

[Coopersounds]

I thought it was just simple anti-intellectualism. In line with calling stuff "Artsy-fartsy", and "I dun get it so it's dumb" type thinking...
I see some photographers who seem to consider themselves too manly for that pansy "art" stuff.

Then again I don't consider myself an artist, which annoys a lot of people who think just because somebody is making illustrations they must be making art. But I don't **** all over artists for making art either, even if I don't personally get or agree with their aims or concepts.

Nope, I agree with Ranchu, I am not trying to sell myself as anything. Also I don't feel too 'manly' for anything. I don't subscribe to that kind of description of activity and see art as for and of people not men or women.
I also feel I have an appreciation of some art, I do attend some galleries and highlighted some people I consider artists.

 

[Ranchu]

Few people would look at an isolated image with no text.

Oh really? Do you have any data to back up this claim, or is it entirely unsupported?

🙄

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not speaking for Coopersounds, but it implies "I'm full of ****, and I'm trying to sell it to you." which could be a reason the term is avoided.

Very true.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I thought it was just simple anti-intellectualism. In line with calling stuff "Artsy-fartsy", and "I dun get it so it's dumb" type thinking...
I see some photographers who seem to consider themselves too manly for that pansy "art" stuff.

Then again I don't consider myself an artist, which annoys a lot of people who think just because somebody is making illustrations they must be making art. But I don't **** all over artists for making art either, even if I don't personally get or agree with their aims or concepts.

Indeed, anti-intellectualism is understandably popular with those lacking intellects.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ranchu]

And **** is understandably popular with **** merchants.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Oh really? Do you have any data to back up this claim, or is it entirely unsupported?

🙄

Not entirely unsupported. Just a few decades of observation, based on writing for magazines and talking to editors.

Do you have any data to support your counter-assertion? Or have you even less knowledge of the subject than I?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ranchu]

Entirely unsupported, based on a few decades of getting paid to write. People go to museums all the time to look at art, not to read the little signs. Nice big buildings they have, too.

Lmao.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Entirely unsupported, based on a few decades of getting paid to write. People go to museums all the time to look at art, not to read the little signs. Nice big buildings they have, too.

Lmao.

You may not have noticed, but museums and magazines are not quite the same thing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ranchu]

I believe that's called a red herring, what a disappointment. You claimed "Few people would look at an isolated image with no text."

Now you want to limit that axiom to magazines? Why would an isolated image in a magazine be any different than an isolated image anywhere else? Why would you infer that something true in a magazine (if it is) would be true anywhere else?