Are Photographers (Artists) born or made?

Are Photographers (Artists) born or made?

 

Would appreciate if people here could point me to any archives or

publication that argue on the above subject. Discussion here also

appreciated. Thanks.

BORN!

I believe you either have an "eye" or dont.You can learn to type,but it doesnt make you Ernie Hemingway!

This is a question that will bring you opinions as varied as the people voicing them. This a question that I have thought about a good bit. So for my opinion...

I believe artists are both born and made. By this I mean that a person is born with certain physical, emotional, and mental capabilities. During the potential artists's life, he or she is exposed to certain influences that spark his or her imagination, is driven by a strong desire to express or communicate a vision or ideas, develops the skills or craft necessary to present that vision or ideas, and makes the effort to do so.

At that point the potential artist becomes a practioner of his or her craft. With a combination of talent, hard work, and the creation of a body of work, the practioner may become recognized as a master craftsman. When a master's work displays certain characteristics of craft, technique, content and vision that communicate to the viewer in a strong emotional and/or intellectual way, the master becomes recognized as an Artist.

From what I have seen and read of the lives of people recognized as artists, this seems to be the way it goes. Depending on a number of variables, the process can be accomplished early in one's life, or after one's death.

I have met a number of people who call themselves artists. I personally do not believe a person is an artist until that person is recognized as such by numbers of other people who have experienced their work. To me the term artist applies only to those who have achived the highest level of their craft. Loading a camera, making exposures, producing prints, and calling it fine art photography in itself, and in my opinion, does not qualify the photographer as an Artist.

The comprehensive answer re "creative people" is contained in the book, WHO ARE YOU REALLY by Gary Null. The short answer is: BORN - and there is no doubt - but those with the 'gift' can enhance latent skills and creativity through training and study. Actually, though - and this IS interesting - due to the rather mechanical nature of some photography and the special skills necessary to succeed in an unrelentingly tough business, a number of the more successful photographers are likely not 'creatives' but actually 'dynamics' and 'adaptive agressives.' They will never have the creative reach of true 'creative assertives' (Null's term for the creative individuals of society), however, in the cutthroat world of commercial work, people savvy rather than high-end creative interpretive gifts often rule.

I don't mean for this to sound flippant, but it's hard to give a serious answer to this question. It's the old "nature versus nurture" debate. That question can't be definitively answered yet.

 

Artists create art. It's art because they say designate it so. They are artists if they say they are. They may produce good art or they may produce bad art. But who is judging? Art is in the eye of the beholder. Some people believe there are certain universally recognized qualities that make something recognizable as "art", but maybe there are really only learned prejudices.

 

Photographers use cameras. They may or may not consider themselves artists, but they are artists if they say they are. Whether or not the art they produce is good art can be debated, but to what end? It's all a matter of opinion in the final analysis.

 

We are all born. Whether due to nature or nurture or some of each, we all have differing capabilities at different times in our life. Anyone who wants to improve his craft in any field of endeavor can do so if he applies himself. If the rest of us agree that his craft has reached the level of "art", then we call him an artist. If not, then perhaps only he calls himself an artist.

 

I reserve the right to change my mind if someone presents better arguments, but for now, I think the distinction regarding artits being born or made is an entirely artificial one.

Interesting question, and one that has been discussed endless times over the ages. I think I agree with Mr. Burnley, and his conclusions from reading Gary Null's book, on this. (If I were Gary, however, I'd change my last name. I'd hate to be called a "nothing" author! ;-) )

 

I believe certain people are predisposed to having an artistic bent. I like to refer to them as "sensitives" - they tend to "see" more about nature and/or humanity than the average Joe or Jill on the street. They feel compelled to communicate what they see and feel. And, given the opportunity, they can indeed convey a sense of their vision that will resonate with others - either in text or with images of some sort. Often, if a visual artist, they will instinctively pick compositions that are compelling and well-balanced. These are the folks who are said to "have The Eye".

 

But, there is also an element of craft, or learned mechanics, to the process of image creation. Thus, with the right amount of training and effort, a person who doesn't have The Eye can produce excellent, craftsman-like work. They simply approach the process in a different, more check-list sort of manner, so the line between art and craft becomes rather fuzzy.

 

Ultimately, I'm not sure that it makes a great deal of difference in the grand scope of things whether one is an artist or a craftsperson. The artist feels like their itch has been scratched, the craftsperson has a sense of accomplishment, and some third party says, "Oooo, I like that!".

It is a combination of "nature' and "nuture". See Stephen Shore's book <U>The Nature

of Photographs</U> and any book by photographer Robert Adams but particularly

<U>Beauty and Photography</U> and <U>Why People Photograph</U>.

Aaron,

 

Maybe both.

 

Considering that many photographers neve even give LF a try, probably because the expense is too great, you might rephrase you question as: Are Photographers(Artists) born, made, or bought? ;-)

 

To add some habaneros to the topic, you could add: Are Photographers(Artists) bred or formed? Do Artists get together to spawn the next generation of artists? Or are future Photographers "developed"(couldn't resist that!) by being exposed to looking at things with an artistic eye at an early age?

 

A good topic for a doctorial dissertation!

I think photographers are made not born. Artists on the other hand may have inherited tendencies or talents but also are to some degree made as well.

Oh, that's easy: true artistes are definitely born, not made.

 

So if you're not one--and you know if you are or aren't--then I highly recommend you just quietly leave the field, preferably with your tail between your legs.

Artists are born artist, but art is a skill, not an instinct. All great artists learn by one method or another.

 

As technical as photography is, it is particularly true, but technique aside, the greatest artists have had mentors or companions.

it has to do with the ability to see. then you choose your medium !

Not born, but made.

Most times it takes a lifetime of doing it over and over and to get

better at it. Those who persist and allow their own creative

energy to flow unimpeded are in the game of being artists. To be

an artist is to be participating in a journey of selfdiscovery. To be

an artist it to be human, to be human is not a destination but an

ever changing endeavour.

Recognition is another matter. To me recognition does not make

an artist. Most artists never get recognized or known in their

entire lives.

Both.<p>As an example, my father had precious little formal training but nevertheless managed to earn his living as an artist for his entire adult life. I too have scraped a living for over 30 years as a painter, illustrator and photographer, but here the similarity ends. My father was a born artist. He had more natural talent in his little finger than I have in my whole body. For him everything came naturally, but for me it was formal training and a hard slog.<p>What I did inherit from my father was an interest and a desire to create, but I would have given the world to have just a fraction of his natural inborn talent.<p>At art college I must have known the work of at least 100 fellow students intimately, many of whom went on to become successful in various fields of art. Of these perhaps only <b>one</b> had what I would call an inborn talent, that is, a talent that cannot be explained by experience.<p>Most of my peers as an illustrator were successful due to damned hard work, though I admit that a few had a talent that seemed to transcend pure experience.<p>Perhaps though the truly <b>great</b> artists <b>are</b> born. Who knows?<p><a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a>

To borrow a truism from boxing: Boxers are made; punchers are born.

 

Corollary: All the punching power in the world is useless if you can't hit your target.

 

Applicability to photography?

 

Who says photographers have to be artists? To phrase a question about photographers/artists is to disregard whole segments of photographers who may not be fine artists but may be fine photographers.

 

For example, Bruce Barnbaum, John Sexton, Michael A. Smith, Paula Chamlee and others are recognized as fine art photographers because their work is part capture and part execution.

 

What about the color work of Jim Bones, Jr. or Carr Clifton? Fine art? Or "merely" fine photography?

 

And what of the many, many talented and skilled (two different faculties) documentary photographers working in small, medium and large format?

 

Even more complicated, what about the fine artists whose photographic skills may not have matched their unique vision?

everybody is born. After that, I think it has much to do with what type of photography you are speaking about. If it is a highly stylized shot, then of course the photographer is the artist. However, if it is a photograph of nature at its finest, then in my opinion the art was already created and all the photographer did was record what was there, and that which anyone else who saw the same thing could have recorded as well.

 

Final Answer. Artists are made, and they are made through the influences and happenings in their life.

 

Kevin

To re-enter the disussion... Skip and Christian made comments that I thought interesting and would like some feedback.

Skip stated that one can designate oneself an artist and, therefore what is produced by that person is art, whether on or not it is recognized by others as such. The term photographer and artist are synonomus? If everyone is an artist, is anyone an artist? In the medium of photography, are all photographs a piece of art? Maybe this is a question of definition, what makes a piece of work art?

Christian stated, if I understood correctly, that being an artist is lifestyle, something more than the work that is produced; and one can be an artist without recognition. I would certainly agree that to be an artist is to be engaged in the process of becoming. Also, I would agree that recognition is not necessarily the primary motivation for creating work. But to my mind a component of a work of art is the "gift" portion, the sharing by the maker of his or her vision, as expressed in the work, with others. It is my belief that the acceptance (or connection with the work) by another, or others of the work as art elevates the work to art. Otherwise, it is a photograph, a picture, an image, like the hundreds we are exposed to daily. Recognition by others does not have to mean celebrity, fame, and fortune. To me, the truest recognition of one's work as art would be for the work to be accepted as such by one's peers. So much the better if professional critics and the general public want to celebrate the work and smother you with money. I would further state that having an individual work recognized as art does not necessarily qualify all of one's work as art.

Made.

 

I couldn't even get the exposure right when I was two years old :)

 

I look at my first few pictures from my archives and realise just how far my work has progressed in 12 years. My ability to see and select from the scene in front of me has been developed through much practice. That's a sign of a skill that has been learnt rather than an innate talent.

 

If anybody else is able to look through their own body of work and not see a progression, I'll either withdraw my comments or question their current abilities.

 

Made, and still forming .....

Thanks to John Burnley for recommending the book by Gary Null.

 

Ralph Barker refers to artists as being "sensitives" who "feel compelled to communicate what they see and feel." Agreed! But can sensitivity be nurtured or is it inborned?

 

Lex Jenkins said,

"Who says photographers have to be artists? To phrase a question about

photographers/artists is to disregard whole segments of photographers who may not be fine artists but may be fine photographers."

 

You're right! There are other fields of photography that do not fit this equation. It's interesting documentary photographs are bought and hung on walls and regarded as works of art.

 

John Kasaian mentioned,

"To add some habaneros to the topic, you could add: Are Photographers(Artists)

bred or formed? Do Artists get together to spawn the next generation of

artists? Or are future Photographers "developed"(couldn't resist that!) by

being exposed to looking at things with an artistic eye at an early age?"

 

Thanks to John for giving me a whole lot of things to think about.

 

I agree with Skip Abadie's view that some people believe there are certain universally recognized qualities that make something recognizable as "art." I know of many who cannot accept anything beyond Ansel Adams.

 

Anno said,

"As technical as photography is, it is particularly true, but technique aside,

the greatest artists have had mentors or companions."

 

Good point! Why hasn't this subject been discussed here before? Or has it?

 

kevin kolosky's

"...if it is a photograph of nature at its finest, then in my opinion the art was already created and all the photographer did was record what was there, and that which anyone else who

saw the same thing could have recorded as well.

"Final Answer. Artists are made, and they are made through the influences and

happenings in their life."

 

Thanks Kevin. That was the most profound thing I've heard in a long time. I think you've answered my question.

 

Thanks to all who reponded to this post.

Born with the desire and talent...then comes the work....

YES!

Born.

As a father of two little girls I see daily incredible bursts of

creativity. Just as every other parent does. I think every child has

all the creative potential and original vision it would ever need to

become a great artist (what ever that is).

 

BUT! We can very easily "unmake" the potential artist in them by

not giving them the right stimulation or environment in witch to

grow. It's so easy to take this ability away from them through our

methods of child raising, our schools etc. We don't meen to of

course, but it nearly always happens any way.

 

Hence the scarsity of original artists in the world.

"Mais sans technique, un don n´est rien

Qu´une sale manie..."

 

Le mauvais sujet repenti, Georges Brassens, 1952.

 

(But without technique, a gift is nothing

but a dirty obsession)

Yes and yes, it dedpends on your definition of artist. If being an artist depends on the opinion of a small elite bunch of critics and gallery snobs who feel that they know art when they see even though they have never created any of their own, then artists are born,born very lucky, and are often dead before anyone notices. My own definition of artist is one who uses various mediums(photography is only one) to express their OWN interpretation of inner truth as they have seen it. To extent that they can communicate this to the masses they are successfull. And the whole purpose of making art is to participate in a creative process......lets face it only a very select few ever get to make a living at it and fewer get the recognition they deserve. The conclusion being if you are looking for fame and fortune its a crapshoot at best no matter how good you are, so keep creating for the benefit of your own soul and let the rest go.