Jump to content

Do you consider yourself an Artist or a Photographer


Recommended Posts

<p>I think this is a good question. I come to photography as an artist. That is my background and my perspective. When I go out with my camera, my intent is to make art. The camera is a tool, and the photo is the form my art takes. Whether anything I do is perceived as art is up to the viewer. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p> Some rules of photography cannot be violated. Like when I asked my wife if I could buy a Leica. She said "No Leica for You". That's rule #1. I remember we were going to ride on the Pirates of the Caribbean and I went to take out my flash and my wife said. "No flash on the ride, didn't you hear the guy say that". That's rule #2. Some rules just cannot be broken. On another note I spent last Saturday in Berkely, Ca and after the day was over I sort of felt more artsy but when I got home I took a nap and felt normal after that.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I like to think of myself as an artist's apprentice. I photograph to try to make art with composition, etc. but there are times where I am trying to just capture a nice image of what I see (alot of times the thing I am trying to capture is already nature's art or someone else's art). I continue to try and learn from the true artists. I don't have the luxury of spending a lot of time on a single work of art (like waiting for the best time, light, weather conditions of a particular landscape scene) I would like to photograph). I try to make the best of the conditions I have as I may not have another opportunity there. Hopefully I will someday. I still have more learning to do and feel like you never stop learning (or shouldn't). </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When I take photographs, I'm a photographer.</p>

<p>If any of those pictures ever come to be considered as "art" (whatever that means) then I guess I'd be an artist.</p>

<p>However, I don't think that decision is mine to make.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When I am setting up my shot and making all the adjustments on my camera that I have envisioned in my mind I am a photographer. The end result is a piece of ART. For me the word ART means PASSION! Being in galleries and exhibitions over the years I have noticed that yes photography,unlike sculptures and paintings most of the time (not 100 percent but t least 90) is not considered art, and that burns me. I also love it when a customer says, WOW, I didn't know that was a photograph, thought it was a painting, or when they say, I never bought a photograph before and they end up buying their first one after years of buying paintings.<br>

That is ART to me</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Photography can be as artistic a medium as any other art form. It is in the eye of the beholder and the vision of the photographer. I think any search through PN will show you many shots that go so far into the realm of art and fine art there can be no question about this being an art form. Similarly many shots are simply pictures with little artistic quality. I also manage a small gallery and I would say the same thing about many of the other art forms that come through the gallery, some show wonderful artistic vision and control of the medium, while others are simply pictures of no artistic value, even though I am sure the creator thinks they are masterpieces. To answer your question, I think I am both, some of my shots and "creations" rise to the realm of art, others hopefully are good photographs but not necessarity "art."</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Almost forgot,<br>

Here is the argument I always seem too have with painters and sculptors about photography and art.<br>

They say that photographer use technical skills and a piece of mechanical equiptment (camera) to make a photograph and a painter and sculptor uses their hands. They don't argue the skill it takes or the time it might take, just the mechanical part.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>They say that photographer use technical skills and a piece of mechanical equiptment (camera) to make a photograph and a painter and sculptor uses their hands.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find that very understandable. At the same time, its one aspect and one way of looking at things but only one.<br>

We might say that athletics, equestrianism and motor sports are very different, but a foot race, a horse race and a car race are all races and all sporting events, so as well as being very different, they're all the same thing. It really depends what aspect you're looking at.</p>

<p>The big difference with the painters I know is, they start their work with a design on the computer and then paint the real thing, whereas I start by photographing a real thing and then finish the picture on the computer.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I prefer to think of myself as an artist with a camera, rather than an artist with a brush or chisel. Though each art form has its own mechanics and chemistry, the common purpose seems to be the abstraction of an idea, emotion or experience and its representation in the form that expresses it most effectively.<br />I'm currently managing the galleries of an art association that regularly exhibits approx. 200+ pieces of art, including all types of paintings, some sculpture and photography. We're in the midst of deciding how best to deal with the mindset that refers to members as either artists <em>or</em> photographers.<br />Because I consider the classes equal, I've hung paintings and photography together based on theme, size, color harmony, etc.. This has resulted in some of the better painters feeling that their art is being demeaned by association with lesser works (i.e. photographs) and my own observation that simply framed photographs can sometimes suffer by comparison with larger, ornately framed paintings.<br />Though I'm wary of the "artist of a lesser God" connotation of segregating art into separate groups for hanging and moving photographs away from the "real art," it seems the best way to show each to best advantage.<br />So, although I consider a photographer who approaches his work as an artist to, in fact, be one, I recognize that we're still dealing with the common perception that those who create art with a camera are no different than any shutterbug who runs around clicking his camera aimlessly. I'm hopeful that by showing photography in a separate but equal venue, we'll be able to present it as an art form in its own right and worthy of the respect accorded all the other classes of art.</p>
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...