LindaM Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 <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 More sharing options...
trisha jean-angela Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 <p>I believe I have the soul and eye of an artist.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_livingston Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 <p>for a photographer to be an artist, the photographer must wear a beret.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisha jean-angela Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 <p>But William...I do! ;) Maybe I should post a pic of me wearing it! :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wogears Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 <p>I MUST be an artist--I have a VERY cool hat!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith selmes Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 <blockquote> <p>for a photographer to be an artist, the photographer must wear a beret.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't think its working</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a5 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 <p>This hat thing is making me wonder, my assistant said my hat looks like a photographer's hat....and I thought I was an artist?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizore Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 <p>Joanne, you might enjoy the Philosophy of Photography forum, or not. It's full of art teachers and old commercial photographers who are now doing Art.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a5 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 <p>Rebecca, I am all three(?) and find it hard to keep up with those guys--you have to make it a career to follow those threads!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 <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 More sharing options...
dennisgg Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 <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 More sharing options...
spanky Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 <p>I think lables in general are limiting more then anything else. So I consider myself neither. I've been called an artist a few times and I recognize the compliment intended, but it's really not important to me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffm Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 <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 More sharing options...
mio2mio Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 I'm a snapper just love taking shots have a look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_oconnell2 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 <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 More sharing options...
harlequin Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 <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 More sharing options...
kevin_oconnell2 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 <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 More sharing options...
mio2mio Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 A Photographer who loves taking photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizore Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 <p>I'm an explorer with a couple of cameras. Sometimes, what I explore are the cameras.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomwatt Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 <p>I try not to consider myself at all.<br> I just do what I do. That's all anyone can do.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith selmes Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 <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 More sharing options...
eddy_d Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 <p>I consider myself an art photographer and I am strictly film/analog. It is a passion but never will be a career. I do alot of art shows every year though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_hardy1 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 <p>I consider myself to be an <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Arteest%20">arteest</a>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisha jean-angela Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 <p>Thomas, then you too must wear a beret! :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickhilker Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 <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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now