topic for discussion - artist

[back alley]

let me start by saying that i just might be a bit too litleral in how i see and approach things. also that events of late have sparked some introspection on my part.

but first, a brief story.

when i was very young i lived in new york city and while in school i worked in a restaurant in manhatten. the restaurant was down the street from the ed sullivan theatre, now the famous home of the late show with david letterman. it was on 51st and broadway, the centre of the theatre district.
it was a large restaurant with 17 stations meaning it required 17 servers when fully open.
i was the only university student working there along with some who were professional servers and others that were trying to break into showbiz.
some of us socialized during non work hours.
i always found it interesting that when the showbiz folks were asked 'what do you do?', as in for a living, they always answered with, 'a comic, a dancer, an actress or actor'. never with how they actually made their money, i.e. a waiter or waitress.
i used to think this was funny and that they had a loose grip on reality or just so desperately wanted to be something that they just pretended they were. but now i wonder. maybe they had such a strong committment to their dream that it was real for them. occasionally i see one of them on t.v. and it seems he has made it at least.

and to the topic of this discussion.
i am a worker in the human service field, that's how i earn my money.
i am an amateur photographer because i choose to be. i bought the gear and i take the photos. but it's not how i earn my money.
am i an artist? should i even try to be?

who here sees themselves as an artist?
who is trying to be?

and perhaps, a bit more basic of a question, what does that mean to you, to be an artist.
or maybe just what is an artist to you?
i am talking about a photo artist only.

joe

 

[jlw]

An artist is somebody who attempts to produce art, just as a physicist is somebody who attempts to produce physics. To what extent the attempt is successful determines whether or not s/he is a good artist, physicist, or whatever. But that's a different question.

I think it was perfectly appropriate that your show-biz friends answered the question "What do you do?" with what they did in show business, since obviously they considered that their life's work; the waiting job was just a means to that end.

After all, even a lot of "professional artists" actually earn the majority of their living expenses by teaching university classes, or conducting workshops, or whatever. And there are any number of artists who are at best mediocre at art, but happen to be very good at getting support for themselves through public relations and marketing and grant-writing, and these are the skills they actually use to keep food on the table.



A simpler answer: I consider myself to work in the "fine art" segment of the photography field, because I produce work that I intend to be evaluated by the standards normally applied to fine-art photography -- as opposed to the standards applied to, say, fashion photography or commercial photography. As we all know, fashion photography and commercial photography have produced works that are now considered fine art, and fine-art photographers have and do produce works that can be very useful in fashion and commerce -- but that's after the fact.

You can't know how the culture will use your work after you've produced it; you can only know what your intentions were, so it makes sense to categorize your intentions this way.

Incidentally, I don't feel self-conscious about saying I am an "art" photographer because I don't feel that "art" photography is any better or more noble than good fashion photography, portrait photography, wedding photography, or whatever. It's just photography that's intended to meet a different set of needs and be judged by a different set of criteria.

 

[peterc]

I think "artist" is something others (in this case viewers) decide you are or are not.
I don't really think of myself as an artist. I take photographs primarily for the fun of it. If others enjoy the results (or at least some of them) that's gravy.

Peter

 

[wlewisiii]

Of course I'm an artist. Photography is an art, not a science. Now, whether or not I'm a good artist is a completely different question... 😉

William

 

[ScottH]

I'd like to be considered an artist, but I'm very content with my primary title of "dad". I make a living with sales, though I too was in the 'human service' field 8+ years ago.

It's always interesting to consider how we "see" ourselves vs. how others "experience" us. MY simplified ranking would be involved dad, considerate husband, good salesman (income), learning photographer, yada yada. No doubt I would get a different rank and descriptive content from every person polled. Someone in there would say 'good photographer', and I'd say "Thanks".

 

[egpj]

Good thread Joe. Often times someone sees me walking about town with my MP and light meter taking shots and if it's another guy with a camera then they ask if I shoot professionally. Well, I do in a way but only high altitude aerial imaging for scientific purposes. I feel an uncomfortable hesitation within myself when asked, "are you a photographer?" because I take my personal photography very seriously. Seeing and recording with a voice that comes through loud and clear to the person viewing our images is most difficult for me. There is a project that I desperately want to do and I am hoping/praying/maneuvering my way into it.

In part I think that the two forms of labeling, self-given "I am an artist" and the other way of someone giving you that title are both correct. One just confirms what you have chosen to accomplish. An exterior affirmation of your interior election.


Not very coherent but there it is.:bang:

 

[tetrisattack]

When I'm dead I want the papers to identify me as Conor Peterson -- Photographer, Artist instead of Conor Peterson -- IT Worker for Public School System.

The label "artist" seems to afford more of a sense of uniqueness and individuality than a professional label, which sort of commodifies people.

It seems to fit. I like what it connotes.

Oh no! Dinner's ready! Have to cut this reply short. 🙂

 

[vrgard]

Of course I'm an artist. Photography is an art, not a science. Now, whether or not I'm a good artist is a completely different question... 😉

William

I gotta agree with William on this one (not that I'm necessarily any good as an "artist" or as a "photographer"). And since I do more than just walk around pointing my camera and pressing the shutter, I feel completely justified in saying so. In other words, since I actively work at composition, think about the effect of aperture/dof and shutter speed, try shooting approaches/techniques that are not necessarily natural or easy for me (e.g., street photography/pics of strangers up close) with the intent to develop those skills, why shouldn't I consider that artistry or, at least an attempt at artistry? Seems a very reasonable definition/interpretation to me (without actually checking the dictionary, mind you).

-Randy

 

[Crasis]

I'll just copy what I wrote for a journal entry and link to it here:

http://godhatesphysics.deviantart.com/journal/7754271/

Most of what I wrote is still how I feel, though you may not agree with it. It is a discussion after all 🙂

"I have found myself studying my perception of the reasons I have for engaging in photography, and have come to the conclusion that I view it as a science.

Art. Some would consider it art. I, myself, do not. I do not create. I am not the architecture who built the efficient perfection I longingly gaze upon. I am not the city maintenance worker, who ensures that those street lights one would use as ones personal arsenal are in working condition. I am not one to set up shots with perfect lighting and conditions. I am also not a journalist, for I do not seek to capture important moments or events in the lives of others.


Art is something which I have longed to call what I do, for it would give me an outlet and a balance which I have sorely needed. However, I would be lying to myself. This does not mean that what I do lacks my will. It does not mean that my very being is not at stake for every shot.


Every photograph I take has an emotional stake in me. I frame what is there, and I aim for perfection. Mathematics, in the composition. Physics, in the knowledge of light. Science, in the pure experimentation involving these factors.


Some may call it a craft, as engineering would be a craft. The knowledge is out there though I continue my amateur experiments which have already been repeated by so many others. It is fitting that I choose a self imposed ignorance so that I may make discoveries with a critical eye, and discard ideas that I have deemed fruitless through my own effort.


There are also those technical aspects, the marvels of creation seen in the tools I use.
I have learned to appreciate light, and life around me. When that shutter opens, life is mine. I've stolen it from everyone.


We are all given moments in life which we can choose to capture. The time, and the space that we occupy are unique. That moment encapsulates everything that has lead up to it, and by that fact I have an obligation to capture what I see as perfectly as I can. I am obsessed with the moment as I see it, whether it be blurred or sharp as a razors edge.


I only wish to share a few of these moments, in the hope of encouraging others to see them. The remainder of them are mine, and mine alone.


As I say; I am no artist. I see moments in time that were created for me to capture. I take, and I give nothing back as I must be as an outsider behind the lens."

 

[remrf]

It sounds like what I used to hear in LA when I worked there. I met a girl by the swimming pool at the apartment I was staying at and asked her what she did. She said, I'm an actress. But my earth gig is as a waitress".

I think it is like asking the price of a Rolls Royce. If ya' have ta' ask.......
If you are not sure you are an artist then you probably are not.

On the other hand I've seen very few photographs from anyone claiming to be an artist that I thought were worth a damn. I've seen quite a few from photographers that I thought were excellent examples of art. In my opinion photography is a craft/science. The results are sometimes art.

 

[FrankS]

I kind of agree with Peter: "artist" is what someone else describes you as if you are really good at what you do. Anyone can be a painter, a photographer, a sculptor, etc. but if they are really good, they are an artist, but this is for others to ascertain. To call oneself an artist can sound conceited. Like remrf, I've seen few great photographs from anyone calling themselves an artist. They are more likely artists of marketing and self-promotion.

To paraphrase: You can call yourself a photographer, and if you are really good then others may call you an artist.

 

[vrgard]

I kind of agree with Peter: "artist" is what someone else describes you as if you are really good at what you do. Anyone can be a painter, a photographer, a sculptor, etc. but if they are really good, they are an artist, but this is for others to ascertain. To call oneself an artist can sound conceited. Like remrf, I've seen few great photographs from anyone calling themselves an artist. They are more likely artists of marketing and self-promotion.

To paraphrase: You can call yourself a photographer, and if you are really good then others may call you an artist.

Yeah, I certainly agree that telling others that "I am an artist" sounds rather self-important. And being in the habit of telling others that one is an artist likely raises the odds that one is more interested in impressing others than improving one's skills. However, I still say that photography is an art form (with a heavy dose of technology involved) and, as such, pursuing it makes one an artist, or at least attempting to be one. Whether one is a good artist is perhaps best left for others to decide.

And Crasis, with absolutely no intent to pick a fight, I really don't agree with the premise that photography is just a matter of capturing the image of what's in front of the camera. While there may be some truth to that in the P&S context, there is so much more in the toolbag of photography which can significantly affect the resulting image. Perhaps that just the old debate about "taking a picture" versus "making a picture."

-Randy

 

[Finder]

I say I am a photographer. I let others figure out if I create art.

BTW, I think of an artist as someone who has created a work of art. Someone who has just attempted to is a student. An artist must show some degree of mastery. JMHO.

 

[vrgard]

let me start by saying that i just might be a bit too litleral in how i see and approach things. also that events of late have sparked some introspection on my part.

but first, a brief story.

when i was very young i lived in new york city and while in school i worked in a restaurant in manhatten. the restaurant was down the street from the ed sullivan theatre, now the famous home of the late show with david letterman. it was on 51st and broadway, the centre of the theatre district.
it was a large restaurant with 17 stations meaning it required 17 servers when fully open.
i was the only university student working there along with some who were professional servers and others that were trying to break into showbiz.
some of us socialized during non work hours.
i always found it interesting that when the showbiz folks were asked 'what do you do?', as in for a living, they always answered with, 'a comic, a dancer, an actress or actor'. never with how they actually made their money, i.e. a waiter or waitress.
i used to think this was funny and that they had a loose grip on reality or just so desperately wanted to be something that they just pretended they were. but now i wonder. maybe they had such a strong committment to their dream that it was real for them. occasionally i see one of them on t.v. and it seems he has made it at least.

and to the topic of this discussion.
i am a worker in the human service field, that's how i earn my money.
i am an amateur photographer because i choose to be. i bought the gear and i take the photos. but it's not how i earn my money.
am i an artist? should i even try to be?

who here sees themselves as an artist?
who is trying to be?

and perhaps, a bit more basic of a question, what does that mean to you, to be an artist.
or maybe just what is an artist to you?
i am talking about a photo artist only.

joe

Perhaps I misunderstood Joe's original question. While he did relate the story of aspiring actors waiting tables yet calling themselves actors, I read his question as one of whether one, as a photographer, considers oneself an artist, not what answer does one give when asked. Maybe I read his question ("who here sees themselves as an artist?" too literally. Joe, what say you?

-Randy

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I am more of a mad scientist than an artist. I like it that way.

But seriously, I consider photography an artform, but I don't really consider myself an artist. Sure, I like to make pretty pictures, but I'm an amateur photographer with little experience dabbling in the fine arts of black and white photography and development. I don't really have a right to call myself an artist until someone else does.

I really do think I prefer mad scientist anyway.

 

[FrankS]

It really depends on how you want to define "artist." There are so many shades/nuances to that term.

 

[back alley]

Joe, what say you?

i say you might be as literal as i...😉

my goal was to investigate and gather other's ideas as to what an artist is, who here might consider themselves to be an artist, how and if that was connected to earning a living at it.

i have mixed feelings and i judge this by my reaction to other's view of my work at times.
when someone says, 'oh, i have a good camera and could take that shot too' as a reaction to one of my prints, i bristle at the words. my mind says, well, then why didn't you take that shot, and it's more than the damn camera stoopid! i obviously feel that it is special to me, my vision, my reaction to a visual stimulus, my camera settings based on experience etc.

i also admit to feeling uncomfortable with the title of artist even though i believe i create art with a camera. maybe i think the title automatically denotes or contains the descriptive 'good' in it.

joe

 

[back alley]

It really depends on how you want to define "artist." There are so many shades/nuances to that term.

that's what i'm asking of you guys, to define it as you see it.

 

[Crasis]

i have mixed feelings and i judge this by my reaction to other's view of my work at times.
when someone says, 'oh, i have a good camera and could take that shot too' as a reaction to one of my prints, i bristle at the words. my mind says, well, then why didn't you take that shot, and it's more than the damn camera stoopid!

Actually, they can't take that shot. You're taking up the space they're in. It is impossible for them to occupy the same point in space and time as you were when you took the shot, therefore they could never have taken that shot.

Just tell them that if they defy the laws of physics, you will smite them.

 

[back alley]

Actually, they can't take that shot. You're taking up the space they're in. It is impossible for them to occupy the same point in space and time as you were when you took the shot, therefore they could never have taken that shot.

Just tell them that if they defy the laws of physics, you will smite them.

while that is technically true...most people don't put a lot of thought into thoughless statements, i doubt they would get it.
but my point is more that others believe it's the gear and not the person that makes the photo.

btw, it was good to meet you and your lady today.
joe