artist?

Ranchu said:
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.
Click to expand...

.....I made a totally different Observation when going to Museums of art: People reading the descriptions of the paintings or prints and nearly ignoring the works of art . In most cases those descriptions are commentaries that tell the Reader what to feel and what to see eg "The Artist is being embraced by his wife. This is Schiele's way of showing that we all lead isolated lives and thate there is no hope of escaping solitude......". The Picture showed the painter and his wife.

There was also the great Velazquez Exhibition in Vienna. Paintings you could see in a single exhibition once in a lifetime as they were from collections all around the world.The people made their bow before those works of art.......only to read the commentaries much longer than looking at the paintings. Nice for those who could get a good look at the Rokeby Venus for example.
 
I aspire to art, but I don't think I have achieved that, so I wouldn't refer to myself as an artist. Perhaps if I were widely acclaimed as an artist, or, more importantly, if I felt that I had achieved my artistic objectives, maybe I would identify myself as an artist. Even so, I might still not be a good artist.

On a side note, I have sometimes drawn more inspiration from a photographer's back-story than from their actual work. In other words, though I may not relate to their images, myself (doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the images), I sometimes benefit more from reading about their experience as a photographer.

- Murray
 
Spider67 said:
.....I made a totally different Observation when going to Museums of art: People reading the descriptions of the paintings or prints and nearly ignoring the works of art .
Click to expand...

Fair enough, however the fact that my counterfactual is not always true for all people still doesn't support his very questionable, and (as a writer) self serving claim that "Few people would look at an isolated image with no text". Cheers.
 
I'm curious. What proportion of the general population go to art galleries and art museums whether they read the text accompanying the images or not? My suspicion is that it is a very small percentage, and therefore has no significant bearing on the issue.
 
I think it's presumptuous to call oneself an artist. But, only because i have such a high standard for that term. I think photography is/can be 'artistic.' But, i think someone else needs to apply the label, not the photographer. Just because something is 'creative' doesn't make it 'art' for me. I get a bit bothered when people who sing/rap songs written and produced by other people call themselves artists.... But, there is terminology that puts them in that category. "Recording artist," etc.

I have old fashioned perspectives on such things. To put it into context: last time i went to the Getty Center to see a photographic exhibit, i loved the work. But, then i went upstairs to the European Painting Salons, and BOOM. As much as i love photography, painting truly gobsmacks me. There's something in the degree of effort/expertise needed, maybe. I can just BE somewhere, and push a button, and i can get a good photograph. A painting of the same 'level' would take a day/days/weeks. That said, i also don't really like 'modern' painting either....

Some photographers may be closer to 'artist' along a linear scale. Maybe it depends on how involved you are in the process, and what kinds of things you do. If you are a journalist, i'd say that's closer to Not being an artist. If you construct or create scenes, i'd say you're closer TO artist. If you're analog, closer TO. Digital, closer to NOT. If you develop/print yourself, closer still TO.... Etc.

I'm a graphic designer. I have to make things out of 'nothing,' and it is a creative process. But, it's a 'commercial art.' And again i apply a high standard. What i do is not something i would claim to be 'art art.'
 
back alley said:
can a hobbyist be an artist?
Click to expand...

When does a hobbyist become recognised as an artist, if ever?

As an example, there’s LS Lowry (Laurence Stephen, 1887-1976) an English spare-time painter (he was employed as a rent collector) famous for his Northern urban and industrial scenes, which the British art establishment were – many still are – very sniffy about, considering him a ‘Sunday painter’, a dilettante and not a true artist of international status.

Despite his works being loved by the public and commanding high prices, it was only in 2013 that Lowry was accorded his first official major retrospective exhibition, at the Tate Britain.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I am continually amazed how little respect that so many RFF members have for photography.
Click to expand...

There are a hand full of people on here who have more interest in what a camera can make than the camera.

When I first saw this forum, I was amazed that many of the photographs on this site were pictures of cameras. People go out and buy an expensive camera and what do they do with it.. take pictures of their other expensive cameras.. or watches with cameras. Or their cameras sporting different colored camera straps. Or with different lens hoods. I'm sure I've missed some of the popular themes.

And then there are the resolution image examples... and corner sharpness. And, bokeh.. geeze
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom