Teaching Photography is pointless...a student's perspective.

Ok Fred, I'll admit that the quotation does have weight, but you are still being over sensitive.

I should be pleased I guess to have achieved a new status here "internet bully" .

You don't make such a very good "innocent victim" however.

OK p.netters, Do I owe Fred an apology? If so, consider it made.

What's it feel like, Fred?

Tim, I'm not sure I want to get into describing what it feels like or that that's even relevant (at least to me). All I can suggest is that what I try to do in these situations is be very specific and correct the record if I think someone has quoted me and then put a negative spin on it in their remarks relative to the quote. I find if I just make the misconstrual clear, I can usually move on from there. (I've been known to hold a grudge, but it dissipates over time!)

Ok Fred, I'll admit that the quotation does have weight, but you are still being over sensitive.

Thanks. I think the quotation does have weight as well, and it wouldn't be the first time I was oversensitive.

I think the reasoning for my sensitivity is that I often hear hobbyists put down relative to artists and that kind of thing annoys me because, as I said, there are some very talented photographer hobbyists and very lousy photographer artists. Since I really don't like it when hobbyists are seen as inferior to artists, to have been associated with that kind of "casting of stones" really did bother me. Anyway, probably the reason for my sensitivity, over or otherwise. Thanks for seeing it through with me.

I think the reasoning for my sensitivity is that I often hear hobbyists put down relative to artists and that kind of thing annoys me because, as I said, there are some very talented photographer hobbyists and very lousy photographer artists. Since I really don't like it when hobbyists are seen as inferior to artists, to have been associated with that kind of "casting of stones" really did bother me.

You raise an interesting point, Fred, about prevailing attitudes toward hobbyist photographers and whether they can be considered artists. There seems to be no other word but "hobbyist" to delineate between those that make money with their work and others who photograph out of sheer enjoyment of the creative photographic process. In addition the very word "artist" attributed to a hobbyist photographer appears presumptuous on its face and implies, unintentionally, professional photographers are not artists, but media content creators or some other sort of definer.

There are some long established now retired professional photographers who seem to bristle at the thought that what hobbyist photogs do is genuinely artistically creative because I'm assuming the pro thinks they haven't really put the time, work and sweat required to reach some creative maturity provided by the pressure of working on deadline as a professional. Doesn't make a lot of sense IMO.

I think some hobbyists simply like photographing things well but don't have much interest in creativity. Of course, many are creative. A too-creative hobbyist risks becoming an artist! ;-)

There are several different distinctions coming into play here. Professional, amateur, hobbyist, artist. For me, these distinctions will often have overlaps. So, a professional wedding photographer may have, among his wedding photos, some photos many of us would consider art. On the other hand, some wedding photographers keep their wedding work separate from their art and maintain fairly separate portfolios.

I think a hobbyist can come up with an art photo now and then and I think artist photographers will produce some amount of non-art. So, when I make these sorts of distinctions, I'm not drawing strict lines in terms of "you're either one or the other." It's more a matter of some elusive combination of intent, approach, goal, and final result. Often, an art photo will start off with someone's intention to make art, but not always. I do believe art can happen without such an intent. That's why these classifications are tricky, I think.

Just as I don't think a hobbyist is necessarily inferior in photographic talent or accomplishment to an artist, I don't think calling a hobbyist an artist is necessarily pretentious. I understand some hobbyists do feel that way and eschew the label, and as I said I respect that they feel that way. But my respect for them doesn't mean I'd agree that their being called an artist would necessarily be pretentious. I grant that, sometimes, "art" and "artist" are used pretentiously. But, just as I find hobbyists often maligned as inferior to artists, I think artists are also sometimes maligned as elites or pretentious. I try to deal with personalities and the work itself on a person-by-person basis.

I tend to view "artist" somewhat holistically. For me, that means "artist" is often associated not just with product but with lifestyle or, if not lifestyle, at least with one's approach to one's craft. That being said, I still do think non-artists occasionally create art. So I am separating, at least to some small degree in certain instances, art from artists. Not every art photo is made by an artist.