Jump to content

Artist or Photographer?


davebell

Recommended Posts

Jack, they ask "How difficult is that ?" Well. I'll tell you..... It's D**N difficult, considering that most people are blind, I

first had to learn how to SEE the tree, then sketch it, then paint it. For me, photographing it is just easier than

painting it, but it took years of training to actually SEE it.

 

And therein lies the proverbial 'rub'.

 

Photography is not the shortcut, it just shortens the render time.

 

Bill P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i recently saw a show on Ovation featuring an artist who uses an 8x10 with black and white film and glass plates. She processes everything herself, mats and mounts her work and then it is distributed to where ever they send it to be sold. As I was watching I could see the process of her practice is far more than photography. The burning and dodging of the prints in the darkroom using her hands, the rolling of glue for mounting, the care not to get bubbles, paying close attention to composition - all of that is a trait of an artist who happens to use photography to produce her art.

 

Are photographers artists? That reminds me of a question I am often asked because I am a computer networking professional: What kind of computer should I get for home? The answer to both is "it depends." If you practice your photography with the creative process that brings it to the level of art, then you are an artist. The kind of computer you should get depends on what you intend to use it for.

 

Not an easy question to answer. One thing for sure is that I have seen quite a few images on this and other sites that were taken by artists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i take photographs which makes me a photographer. if someone likes my photographs and calls them art, i won't tell them otherwise. but as for calling my self an artist i won't do that. i guess it all depends on the persons point of view.

i consider photography an art, but i dont necessarily agree that photographers are artists. we just capture images of art and make it our own, which can include people, places, things. have you ever looked at someones wrinkled face and just admired them? every persons face is different and is there own work of art this is also true for tree, leaves, cars, insects, birds, and anything else imaginable.

 

as photographers we reproduce art, but we are not artist we only admire other artworks so much that we reproduce it to admire it and show others our admiration of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the words that most people use, when we admire other people's faces and trees, leaves, cars, and

insects, we are not admiring art, we are admiring things, both natural and man-made. You have pretty much reduced

art to everything and nothing, which I think is a trap a lot of people fall into because they are intimidated by the very

simple word "art."

 

Things are "art" under very special circumstances. Most of the time, they are simply things, special sometimes,

mundane sometimes, often appreciated, sometimes overlooked. Marcel Duchamp helped declare certain things to

be "art" but even he would recognize the limits of his declaration.

 

A photograph of a face is not a photograph of a work of art. It is a photograph of a face. Sometimes that face is

metaphorically referred to as a work of art to try and elevate its beauty. In the case of Marlene Dietrich, referring to

her face as a work of art may be appropriate. That's because she and others created her face to be appreciated over

time in a certain way. It didn't just happen. Art rarely just happens. It requires a force and it's a human force. The

photograph may or may not be art. Its subject is just its subject. Sometimes its subject is a work of art, as when I

go to the nearby Rodin garden and photograph one of his statues. But most often its subject is different than art. It is

the subject of the work of art. The work of art is usually what's inside the frame, the frame around the canvas or

around the photograph.

 

Good photographers often do more than just reproduce. They make creations.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<According to the words that most people use, when we admire other people's faces and trees, leaves, cars, and insects, we are not admiring art, we are admiring things, both natural and man-made.

 

most people may not think that those things are art, but i do. "That's because she and others created her face to be appreciated over time in a certain way. It didn't just happen. Art rarely just happens. It requires a force and it's a human force." everyone goes through life showing emotions on nearly a daily basis it sculpts our personality and our facial features. is that not considered human force or people creating their faces to be appreciated over time? every person shows different amounts of emotions and varying emotion over there life time which would be their style. as for trees, leaves, and insects these are works of art from nature. dont you consider nature an artist?

i went a little overboard with the broad statement of cars i will admit that because most of new cars now are junk, but as for older cars maybe early '60s and before, those are works of art. this is just my opinion im sure there are many people with differing opinions about that statement. you open up the hood from one of those old cars look in the engine compartment and you'll be suprised by how nice some of those engines are and alot of those cars will outlast many cars on the road today.

 

 

<<You have pretty much reduced art to everything and nothing, which I think is a trap a lot of people fall into because they are intimidated by the very simple word "art."

I didnt reduce art to everything and nothing, it has always been that way. art is everywhere. it doesnt have 1 set definition. it all depends on the person viewing it. if soimeone considers something art, then it is art. just because someone has a closed view of the world doesnt mean that art is only one thing.

 

 

<<Things are "art" under very special circumstances. Most of the time, they are simply things, special sometimes, mundane sometimes, often appreciated, sometimes overlooked. Marcel Duchamp helped declare certain things to be "art" but even he would recognize the limits of his declaration.

 

things are art when someone thinks they are art. yes i do agree that most of the time things are just things. but when someone pulls out a pen or pencil and paper and start to draw it the are reproducing someone else's or something else's work but through their eyes. if you were to use a camera to photograph something like you have in one of your many photographs you are not creating something you are merely reproducing it.

 

<<Art rarely just happens. It requires a force and it's a human force.

 

true art that will be around for a while does rarely happen. but art is always happening. it doesnt require human force to be art. would a pack of wolves devouring a carcass be considered art if you were to photograph it? where in that would the human force be?

 

 

<< The photograph may or may not be art. Its subject is just its subject. Sometimes its subject is a work of art. But most often its subject is different than art. It is the subject of the work of art.

 

a photographs subject is never just a subject.

 

<< The work of art is usually what's inside the frame, the frame around the canvas or around the photograph.

 

so you are limiting what art is to only what is inside of a frame or on the frame. what about the people who work on concrete with chalk? people who make sculptures with metal? or architects? what they do is not art to you? i do admit some architects do make some messed up buildings.

 

 

<<Good photographers often do more than just reproduce. They make creations.

 

i as a photographer reproduce the art of nature. i have never made any creations with my camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Bell began this thread (rope?) with the assertion, "being an excellent photographer has nothing to do with being an artist." That much is self-evident, I think. Are the photojournalists at Magnum "artists"? I doubt they would make such a claim (their Cartier-Bresson heritage notwithstanding), and would likely find it risible. Are they excellent photographers? Of course. So the answer to Mr. Bell's first question is contained in the question itself. Mr. Bell further posed the musical question, "But, I was wondering what makes some people consider themselves 'artists' and not 'photographers' when in control of a camera....?" Mostly narcissism, I fear, in deadly chemistry with self-delusion. I know I'm being a trifle provocative, but then, this whole thing is becoming a mite tedious. I now yield the floor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"would a pack of wolves devouring a carcass be considered art if you were to photograph it? where in that would the

human force be?"

 

This is precisely my point. A pack of wolves would not be considered art. But it would be considered art, perhaps, if

it were photographed in a certain way. The human force would be the guy composing the photograph with his

camera, deciding what part of the background to include, what shutter speed and aperture to shoot at in order to get

what result, what should be in focus, whether he wanted some camera movement, whether he will print in color or

not, from what angle he will shoot it to express what he wants. That's all the art part. The wolves are the subject, and

in and of themselves are not art, they are the raw materials from which the art will be made.

 

No, I don't think nature makes art. I think nature makes natural things, some which are quite wondrous. Ansel

Adams photos of Yosemite are art but Yosemite itself is not art. An irony I am happy to live with.

 

Very often, photography is not reproducing anything. If you want to attempt to reproduce something with your

camera, be my guest, but that's not usually what I choose to do with my camera. I create. By the way, do

you "reproduce" in color or black and white? If both, then what exactly do you mean by reproduce? Do you reproduce

in two dimensions or more? Do you reproduce with a slow or a fast shutter speed? With some camera blur or

without? Do you print on Velvia? Do you reproduce with overexposure at times for effect? Hmmmm. Which part of

any of that is not creating something?

 

Sometimes art, as with Dietrich's face, has a certain intention behind it. Sometimes, as with most other faces,

things just happen. All of these, art or not, are quite meaningful. The changes that most faces undergo in time is a

big deal. Not all are art. In the case of Dietrich's face, her intention to create something made a difference. Others

treat their faces with very different intentions.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow ...I have lived with both a grandfather (headof IBM Art Dept & Jury Judge with many oil paintings in gallerys ) , to a father who has painted portraits of most of the US presidents , Winston churchill Roberto Clemente , Willie Stargel , Robert Kennidy , John F Kennidy and whose painting of George bush is hanging somewhere in a (closet probibly ) in the white house ,..I capture images of events and activiaty around me , then create what I see in my minds Eye using digital editing technics , no I cant paint , nor can I draw ...but with the right tools I can create images I see in my mind and display them to others .....I consider myself a graphic artist / Photographer ........but a true artist ....No i would never consider myself in that catigory to be able to take blank canvas and reproduce some of the images I have scene as Oil paintings no ....we can all wish but few ever truly qualifiy as " An Artist " .....And the worse part is some of the best never truly realize how good they are ....and many of the worse think they are the best ...but that is the best part of the word ART .....Is simply anyones interpratation of any image ......have a great day
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I suspect the late Mr. Davis had the gist of it. I recall a number of interviews Fred Astaire gave over the years.

At some point, the interviewer would inevitably begin asking him questions about his "art" and "artistry" and such.

Astaire's expressive face invariably assumed a mocking, slightly bored expression when such questions were posed,

and his response always was, "Art? We were just trying to make a buck." Hitchcock gave similar responses when

film critics launched into pontifical questions about his "art": "It's...just...a...myoooovie...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's really no need for anyone to be afraid of the title "artist" or the word "art."

 

It's hard to imagine what the hangup is all about?

 

It's a little like being afraid to be Harvard educated for fear of being called an "elitist."

 

Hitchcock was one of the most obfuscative of people. He would never had let you know what he was really thinking,

whether about art, his movies, or anything else. McGuffin, anyone?

 

Fred Astaire was an amazing talent, dancer, singer, entertainer. His views on art don't interest me as much as his

songs and dance.

 

Limiting art to paint on a canvas is to miss the world.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

photographs are art in my mind...why would painting be considered art and not photography...now if you are a professional

photographer you may not consider yourself to be an artist but what is an artist...for me photography and creativity go hand

in hand...maybe it's better to consider oneself an artist that uses photography to create his or her vision...call yourself

whatever makes sense to you...if it feels good, why give it a second thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a good deal of the "I consider myself..." type of responses supra. What you "consider yourself" doesn't matter a whet. Mental institutions the world over are chock-a-block with persons who "consider themselves" Napoleon, Caesar, Teddy Roosevelt, you name it. Ultimately, what you produce or what you do have to rise to some objective standard, and that is for the judgment of others, who presumably are qualified to pass on that question. You can "consider yourself" any blasted thing you can ideate, but so very often it's a product of narcissistic fantasy, of an inflated affect for oneself and inevitably, for what one produces. I see exempla of narcissistic self-delusion on each of the rarer and rarer occasions I bother with this site. Just glance at "Our Members' Work" on any given day. I glace over some of that material and picture in my mind's eye some kid sitting before his eMachines in his drawers, having just played around with Photoshop in what he deems an "imaginative" way and then, beholding his product on the monitor, exclaiming, "Wow, dude, like that's major ART, man." To the objective and knowledgeable observer, it is so often just a crummy photograph made to look "original" by pseudo-psychedelic pecking and mousing around on PS. Every man an artist. Got no talent for it? No sweat. PS will do it for you, and if you make it look like a Timothy Leary nightmare it's bound to be hailed here and on other similar websites as "wow, like heavy art, dude." I mean, like, y'know, run that "lightness" control down, and a snap ends up resembling that stuff by that dude who painted pictures of that town in Spain, y'know? Just something I snapped with my digi or my phone camera, but ten minutes later...heavvvvvyyyyy. Museum quality, no doubt about it!

 

As a final thought, I find myself searching the Rolodex of my mind to come up with a single photograph I've ever seen that comes anywhere near the realm of Kant's "fine art" (as opposed to "agreeable art," which is about as near as cameras and their operators ever attain, and most seldom manage even that). You might be surprised by the candidate I nominated. Comes from Saigon, 1968, during Tet. Eddie what's-his-name, an AP photographer, I think, happens to be in the right place at the right time. Most of you, I fancy, know the one to which I refer. Just threw up the Nikon F or whatever, sat down on the shutter release, and let the motor drive start doing its stuff. The resulting image hit virtually every major newspaper on the globe. I remember the "artwork" in Woody Allen's flat in "Manhattan" consisted mostly of a wall mural of that photo. Thinking back on it today, the thought occurs that if Hieronymus Bosch or perhaps Edvard Munch got a look at that photo, they'd find it both intriguing and inspiring. Eddie the news service guy froze a universal image in a moment, and did so by just happening to be there, quickly bringing to bear the "photographer's eye," and the camera and its motor drive did the rest. No pretensions. No "I'm gonna create some art here." Yet, that photo comes closer to the beau ideal of "camera art" than any other image I can conjure, at least for now. Perhaps another one or two may pop to mind.

 

Happy pigout party to all.

 

 

 

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, one last thought. Mr. Goldsmith opined that "limiting art to paint on a canvas is to miss the world." Neither I nor anyone else has suggested any such thing, I think. "Art" takes many forms and occurs in various gradations, as Kant pointed out. There is sculpture. There is a legitimate form which one might call "industrial art," even. There is "fine art," there is performing art, there is folk art, and on and on. The phrase,"The Arts," encompasses many areas of expression. Why do I maintain that photography is not intrinsically an "art form"? In its very essence, a "craft"? Simple. It is a medium which by its essence, its essence, is limited in its possibilities. As Marcus Aurelius counselled, of each thing ask, what is it in its essence? What does it do? Photography evokes sensate and generally not cognitive reactions in the human mind. Some practicioners certainly have "the eye" more than others, perhaps a painter's sensibility for and sensitivity to composition, subject, and a sense of the optimal use to which their machinery can be put to capture that fragment of reality by tripping a shutter for a split second. It's craft, it just happens to be a craft which affords a limited but meaningful latitude for individual creativity. That's photography. Now, if you are bound to emulate St. Ansel of Taos and try to use chemicals and other darkroom manipulation to turn a photograph into something "more," you're outside the realm of photography and into "painting with chemicals." Well, is THAT "art," properly considered? I think not; certainly, many would disagree. As I've often noted, M. Cartier-Bresson resolutely opposed his work being "post-processed" in that manner. So do I. I'm not a lab technician and have no desire to be one.

 

NOW, as that old rat in the barn Ted Stevens said in his overdue swan song the other day, I yield the floor for the last time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I capture images of events and activiaty around me , then create what I see in my minds Eye using digital editing technics , no I cant paint , nor can I draw ...but with the right tools I can create images I see in my mind and display them to others .....I consider myself a graphic artist / Photographer ........but a true artist ....No i would never consider myself in that catigory to be able to take blank canvas and reproduce some of the images I have scene as Oil paintings no ....we can all wish but few ever truly qualifiy as 'An Artist' "

 

Shane--

 

The above is the quote I was thinking of, by Jeffrey Lee a few posts above this in this forum, when I wrote what I wrote about painting not being the only art form. I think his post deserved the response it got from me and I stand by it. I tend to agree with a lot of what you said, on the other hand. The terms "art" and "artist" are flung about, especially here on PN, way too often and way too often as a matter of excuse (i.e., "My photo is of lousy technique because I'm too busy being a passionate artist to worry about such mundane things as lighting, exposure, and focus"). "Art" is a balancing act between being too restrictive and not restrictive enough. I think not allowing some photography and not allowing some PN photographers the title "artist" is too restrictive. At the same time, it is applied here way too liberally. "Art" often takes the sweat and work and study you mention. Occasionally, it comes to a prodigy. Very occasionally. Even Mozart worked pretty hard at it, though Salieri, who worked harder, would never rise to Mozart's level because Mozart had that something special. The something special can be honed with diligence. Otherwise it can be wasted. Diligence never spoiled a true artist.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two guys standing side by side taking pictures using the same type gear. One guy is making Art and the other guy is shooting snapshots. Some of you think of these guys as artists and some of you think of them as guys taking pictures. I think of photography as a craft or skill. Sometimes art but rarely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, Mr. Goldsmith has offered a reasoned and balanced response. I especially like the invocation of Mozart/Salieri. Very illuminating. Salieri assuredly had technical expertise (and was certainly a better court politician than Wolfie). He really wasn't the mediocrity that he came to consider himself ("Mediocrities of the world, I am your patron saint! I absolve you...all"); he just didn't have "the gift" that raises one from competence, perhaps even excellence (and some of Salieri's works are excellent, in my opinion), to the transcendent. The thing is, I don't think photography, properly conceived, defined, and delimited to its real boundaries, contains even the potential for the transcendent. It is "of this world," it is empirical by nature, it...is what it is, confined by its mechanical/electronic/cybernetic tools, which define about 90% of its very nature. Those of us who use those tools perhaps constitute another 5%, and sheer kismet the balance. Perhaps my own judgments of some of the photo product I see here are unduly harsh; some of it is quite wonderful--for photography, that is (a recent thread here was entitled, "The Magnificent Photos at Photonet, BUT....") Of course, I hope none of these people engage in self-flagellation upon realizing that they aren't nascent Buonarrotis and likely can't aspire to such Olympian heights. They would, methinks, be less frustrated and probably produce better work if they only accept the inherent limitations of their chosen medium and focus upon being the best craftsmen they can be. Who knows what, with a sprinkling of serendipity and just a little bit of practiced "eye," they might produce then? Just like the aforementioned Eddie What's-His-Name from AP or UPI in 1968 Saigon. The existential as a product of synchronicity, aided by some long-practiced "craft," sheer fleetness of foot, a well-tuned eye, and a big Nikon F with an MD, and look what happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shane--

 

I have found the transcendence in photography which you haven't. Keep looking. I feel as if you are assuming certain boundaries because of the medium rather than assuming the limitlessness of imaginations using the medium. But, we could also forever disagree, and that would be fine, too.

 

--Fred

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An additional thought for Shane:

 

Mozart's music, on a certain level, is really very much of this world, too. The keys strike strings of a certain

thickness and length causing a certain sound. The scale and harmonies are very mathematically based and

scientifically understood. The transcendence is really not in the medium, it is in what Mozart's imagination and our

ears do with the very earthly tools at Mozart's disposal.

 

The camera may seem to be capturing "the world" and therefore be bound by it, but I look at photos in much the

same way I listen to music and the artist photographers I know think about their tools and raw materials (including

light, shadow, texture, and subject matter) in much the way a musician thinks of his notes. The transcendence in

each of these media is so readily apparent to me. When I hear great music, I don't think of vibrations and sound

waves any more than when I see a photograph I necessarily think of the "real world."

 

Now, admittedly, there are photos that are meant to utilize the real world while at the same time transcending it,

much the way the artist's paint brush can do it. A painting will often invoke a real world situation in much the same

way a photograph will. That painting is no less art than an abstract. Seurat's Sunday Afternoon in the Park is

probably much less transcendent than some of ManRay's photographs on a purely content-oriented level. Is not his

pointillist technique akin (although different in many visceral ways) to ManRay's photographic techniques? Yet is not

ManRay much less bounded by "the real world" than Seurat in many ways?

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seek and ye shall find. I've been seeking the "transcendent" since I was a little squirt; perhaps I have come close, but I haven't found it in anyone's photographs. Mr. G. will I trust forgive me if I am a bit skeptical that he has in truth found the "transcendent" in photography. Cogito, ergo, sum, as Descartes said. The "transcendent" is in the world of cognition, old boy, and is not to be found in the sensate world. Just my Platonist tendencies at work, I suppose.

 

Regarding my nominee for the best photograph I've seen in my lifetime, the one which came the closest to "real art" of a sort, I recommend that interested parties visit the following: http://frgdr.com/blog/2008/06/29/renditions-saigon-execution-eddie-adams-vietnam-1968/ Some of what you'll see are parodies, but one or two illustrate the dangers of trying to improve on perfection by "artsying" it up with digicrap. What is added by giving the unfortunate Charlie Cong and his friend the ARVN officer blue hair? That fraudulent waif the late Mr. Warhol would get all excited over it, I suppose. Perhaps one of his surviving hangers-on committed this atrocity. Incidentally, you will note that this site displays Eddie Adams' original, uncropped shot. It's the appropriately cropped version with which we're most familiar, with extraneous detail eliminated (I suspect Adams probably had a 35mm lens mounted from the look of things), along with the contrasty, intervening light in the background that may have given centerweighted metering a "fit." Ah, yes, I remember it well. Bon soir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am a bit skeptical that he has in truth found the "transcendent" in photography. Cogito, ergo, sum, as Descartes

said. The 'transcendent' is in the world of cognition, old boy, and is not to be found in the sensate world. Just my

Platonist tendencies at work, I suppose.

 

First off, I think Plato was brilliant . . . and wrong!

 

I also love Descartes, who I also think was wrong. The cogito may prove the existence of thought, but Descartes's "I"

is much more suspect.

 

I prefer Wittgenstein's counters to Plato and Descartes. I think the latter two have both been shown over time to be

much too suspicious

of the senses, and I incline much more to Hume than to Plato, Descartes, or Kant.

 

I find transcendence something to be felt as much as, if not more than, to be thought.

 

Secondly, I thought you were applying "transcendent" to art but excluding photography from art. If so, what you've

said here doesn't explain why other arts are more cognitive and photography is more sense oriented. Perhaps I've

misunderstood you, but a further clarification on your part (how transcendence applies to some visual arts, i.e.,

painting, and why it doesn't so apply to photography) would be helpful. Thanks.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...