radical7
Olivier Duong
Help me out here, I've been pondering this to no avail. I was wondering what is a photographer? Or more precisely what makes you
[Every monkey with a DSLR think he's a photographer] is true and [Every artist was first an amateur] is true.....
So what defines a person as a photographer? Does having a brush and palette make me a painter? Here's what I had thought of so far:
- Photographer is a self assigned title, so anybody can be a photographer if they say so.... but are they really? If this is so do you ascribe the term when you have acceptable photographs?
- Photographer is an assigned title, if people like your work, they make you a photographer.... but what about making photographs for the self? Vivian Maier never put her work out there and she was a photographer. But what about up and coming photographers that do not do good work now but will... aren't they photographers?
Is it when your photographs are good enough? When you have enough reputation? But what defines "good enough"? The self or other people? What about the artist's intent if it's other people?
Is the term photographer too vague? Should there be something in front of it to describe someone?
- Hello I'm an amateur photographer
- Hello I'm a professional photographer
But wouldn't that makes it sound like amateurs cannot do great work (Vivian Maier again)? Is it fair to categorize photographers between those making money and not when they produce art? van gogh only sold one painting...but he was a professional painter...
What do you think? What the heck makes you a photographer? Do you even consider yourself a photographer? Do you feel like you are faking it when you call yourself a photographer?
[Every monkey with a DSLR think he's a photographer] is true and [Every artist was first an amateur] is true.....
So what defines a person as a photographer? Does having a brush and palette make me a painter? Here's what I had thought of so far:
- Photographer is a self assigned title, so anybody can be a photographer if they say so.... but are they really? If this is so do you ascribe the term when you have acceptable photographs?
- Photographer is an assigned title, if people like your work, they make you a photographer.... but what about making photographs for the self? Vivian Maier never put her work out there and she was a photographer. But what about up and coming photographers that do not do good work now but will... aren't they photographers?
Is it when your photographs are good enough? When you have enough reputation? But what defines "good enough"? The self or other people? What about the artist's intent if it's other people?
Is the term photographer too vague? Should there be something in front of it to describe someone?
- Hello I'm an amateur photographer
- Hello I'm a professional photographer
But wouldn't that makes it sound like amateurs cannot do great work (Vivian Maier again)? Is it fair to categorize photographers between those making money and not when they produce art? van gogh only sold one painting...but he was a professional painter...
What do you think? What the heck makes you a photographer? Do you even consider yourself a photographer? Do you feel like you are faking it when you call yourself a photographer?
