Artist or Photographer?

I have noticed a lot of people referring to themselves as "artists" with respect to photography, especially

wedding photographers. I am a wedding photographer myself, but also focus on other areas of photography. I would

never consider myself to be an artist, as I am a photographer. There is a clear difference in my mind. Being an

excellent photographer has nothing to do with being an artist, in my opinion. I guess using the term "artist", in

my opinion, is a slight illusion of grandeur, or trying to hype things up in order to sound better to others, or

maybe just for self esteem purposes, maybe also for putting a bit of gloss on a sales pitch when marketing one's

photography to potential clients who may well fall for it. To me photography is instantly recording a single

moment in time, whereas being an artist allows one to start with a fresh canvas and slowly make things up as you

go or slowly illustrate the image present in your mind or before you, and carry your interpretation through onto

the canvas.

 

It really doesn't matter too much, its just the use of language. I see a clear separation, and I think usage of

the term is more prevalent in certain (global) geographical areas, from what I have seen and read. But, I was

wondering what makes some people consider themselves as "artists" and not "photographers" when in control of a

camera....?

"Artist," in addition to many other things, can be a state of mind, an approach to the world. Many photographers start

with "blank canvases" and make things up as they go along. Instantly "recording" a moment in time doesn't preclude a

creative process beyond that moment. That moment may come in the middle of a much greater process of creativity.

 

You are right. Not all photographers are artists. Nor, for that matter, are all people that put paint on a canvas or take a

piece of charcoal to paper. It's not all about the medium.

 

I also think you are right that "artist" can be an illusion of grandeur as well as an excuse for getting away with anything

one wants. You know what, though? "Doctor" can be an illusion of grandeur, "President," "Manager," etc. All depends on

attitude and actual accomplishments that back up your claims at who or what you are.

Good points Fred. Regarding your comments, I concur that "President", "Manager", "artist" and also "photographer" can all, and are often all, illusions of grandeur. "Doctor" I instantly have more respect for, at least in the medical sense as they have all passed a rigorous number of years and heavy examination before qualifying. The same cannot necessarily be said for the others. Owning a camera and taking a few shots doesn't make one a photographer. I am barely comfortable calling myself a photographer, and certainly never "artist"

1. wondering what makes some people consider themselves as "artists" and not

"photographers" when in control of a camera....?

 

Back in the day (50-s to 60's) the headlines blared from photo publications: "Is Photography an Art?" At that time, art students were being taught life drawing and photo students learned the traditional craft of making and processing/printing high-quality photographs. Come the '70s and art students were being advised not to waste time on learning technique unless it would help them realize or amplify their chosen expression. Photo education stood still for a while as photographs began migrating into the art collector's world, and it was there that the distinction between artist and photographer began to fall apart.

I think everyone should learn how to sketch freehand (took talentless me ten years), and how to make camera or photosensitive pictures.

I'm an artist, one of who's expressions is a love of the classic silver process. I have Metol stored up in my bones although from negatives it's straight to Photoshop to create prototypes.

 

2. "Doctor" I instantly have more respect for"

 

What do you call the person who graduated at the bottom of his/her med school class?

 

'Doctor'

When i was young "artist" meant painter. Now it means everyone. Toothbrush artist, crotch scratching artist, exercise artist, coffee making artist, makeup artist. The NY Times will often publish an arts section with no art in it.,

Art is created when the client pays me and the check clears.

Photographs can be art, and

 

Since photographers make photographs,

 

it follows photographers can be artists.

 

But few are.

 

And most of those who call themselves artists,

 

are not.

Bill has defined a new art form: payment art.

Jeff, top or bottom of their class, I have a great deal more respect for any doctor than I have for most other professions. Maybe it is because of their power to very often pull people back from the brink, when emotions are running very high if it affects yourself or a loved one... They obviously aren't all superheroes and there are some weeds amongst the flowers so to speak. Graduating as a doctor requires true hard work over many years, not just a DSLR or a paintbrush. I also have huge respect for numerous artists and photographers.

Bill, I like that one!

"Jeff, top or bottom of their class, I have a great deal more respect for any doctor than I have for most other professions. Maybe it is because of their power to very often pull people back from the brink, when emotions are running very high if it affects yourself or a loved one..."

 

I myself was pulled back from such a brink by a confident and experienced team of specialists. So I don't mean to impugn the medical profession. I'd just point out that the "brand value" of a professional title, such as doctor, artist, or photographer, shouldn't always be taken for a statement of competence. John Szarkowski once wrote something like:

"The professional photographer needs not always to be competent as long as he remains serious."

<I>And most of those who call themselves artists, are not.</I><br> And who appointed you the one who decides who is an

artist and who isn't? Some nerve! The only one that you can speak for is yourself and no one else. Only the person who

created the work can decide whether he/she is an artist or not. Others can certainly give an opinion that the work created is lousy,

poor or terrible art and the person that created it is a bad artist but no one can tell someone that they are not an artist.

<P>As far as photography, or any other medium for that matter goes, is not whether it can be art, but in

confusing art with finished product or the technique employed. It is the artist’s psychological attitude toward the process of

creation alone that signifies the artistic validity of the act that produces the “work of art”.<P>"Art is nothing tangible. We cannot call a

painting “art”. As the words “artifact” and “artificial” imply, the thing made is a work of art, made by art, but not itself art; the art remains in

the artist and is the knowledge by which things are made. What is made according to the art is correct; what one makes as one likes may

very well be awkward. We must not confuse taste with judgement, or loveliness with beauty, for as Augustine says, some people like

deformities.".............<I>.Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy</I>

Fine art photographers are artists.

We, as photographers, or for that matter anyone, are probably too close in time to make any type of determination of the relationship between photography and traditional art (account the recent invention of the photographic media).

 

Photography, and computer software, I believe, are in a process of melding into the realm of fine art. Certainly, there are wonderful images created with both, together and separately. As with anything relatively new, there is much speculation as to their validity, especially from the traditionalists. And, much speculation from photographers, wondering just where they fit in the artistic world.

 

In general, photographers who try to create something special in an image, and take the time to think about what will make an image special to himself and especially to others are artists. Create means just that, something that comes from within, not just a snapshot of your dog laying on it's back taking a nap. There is no creativity there. That is just capturing a moment.

 

We see the latter in such multitudes (exploded by the digital age) that we have become anesthetized. There are so many photographers that, I'm sorry, just don't have not a clue what creativity is. They are not artists. But there are many photographers who do step over the line with some type of special creativity who can be called artists, and this is before the full vote is in whether photography is in itself an art.

Seriously, this discussion again?

The only thing required for art is that it is created by humans. Beyond that definitions fail.

 

Art can be intentional, it can accidental. Art can be inspirational, art can be objectionable. Art can be

everything, art can be nothing. Only the individual experiencing the art can define it for themselves and only

for themselves. Art critics be damned.

You can argue the nuances of definitions till end of time but it doesn't change the very simple fact that art

simply is. Art is not limited to some text-book definition any more than love is. How can something so essential

to the human condition and essentially human be given such a limited worth as a definition would assign.

 

And as there is no definition, outside a very personal definition of art, there can be no definition of who an

artist. Those who quite insist on creating such distinction quickly learn that such categories are worthless when

confronted with the myriad examples of creations that spring from the human mind.

 

So if a person chooses to use a camera, a paintbrush or welding torch to create, it is enough that she does. Who

cares what title they wear.

I think William John Smith above stated pretty well how I feel about what is art and who is an artist. I will add, however that with new digital technology, that more people are attempting art than before.

 

For many years, I was a painter and considered myself an artist. Then I began to make pen and ink illustrations of archaeological artifacts for publication. That was not art, anymore than just shooting pictures is art. That was illustration work. There is a difference. I no longer do those pen and ink illustrations because of my shaking and difficulties seeing clearly enough. I do take pictures still, and occasionally try my hand at photo art. Digital helps me achieve something that the naked camera cannot. I have power with PS which wasn't available to me before. Still, sometimes I look back on those B and W days and remember some that I felt were artistic. . . way back then.

Certainly, I would consider photography a medium for art. If you're creating something, and you have a certain intent and process, you're probably some sort of artist, even if you don't know how to hold a paintbrush.

I think that if you view the world in a different way - see light, shapes, angles, lines, color compliments, photo compositions in regular everyday life, create something beautiful from an everyday item that most people wouldn't even notice or use it to create an abstract photo that people cannot identify, yet find attractive. I think that qualifies as an artist. Not every artist is Michaelangelo, Renoir - there is always learning and growing. I suppose it could be an artist's eye (some people question its existence), but may not be able to produce what you envision. Much of the best or art photography requires timing, lighting (landscape photographers will often see a scene, and wait days, weeks to get the desired combination of lighting, environmental conditions, etc.), money (especially if the scene is not close to your residence and requires travel). Now indoors and sometimes outdoors the lighting can be done artificially (but some of that lighting once again can cost alot of money or transporting light tripods, reflectors, possibly an assistant, etc.). You still have to be able to visualize what kid of light, composition, how the camera sees, framing, angles, etc. Now taking a good photo of something that is already considered beautiful is not art, that is a good snapshot. 2 people can take a photo of the same subject with the same conditions, time, lighting and get totally different results - even one being art the other being a snapshot. I think it is different when you have people come up to you totally confused at what you may be photographing (unable to see artistically) and yet be very pleasantly surprised with the results. I think that qualifies, maybe as just an amateur. Why does the term artist have to be elitest (annoying as that term has become due to the election)? Just as art photography without post processing is art as can digital art with photoshop can be art IMO.

 

Dennis

A photographer choosing to call himself or herself an artist is presumptive at best. The term "artist" has become degraded and cheapened with time. However, it does provide the insecure with a false sense of worth.

 

I'm a photographer, a painter, sculptor, designer, etc. I don't consider myself an artist, although, there are people who say that I am because of what I produce. They are welcome to their opinions, but it still doesn't make me artist.

I've had 4 gallery shows, two more coming up. Does that make me an artist?

Photography is a medium just like collage, paint, sculpture. Of course photography CAN be art. I frequently go on shoots with Julius Shulman. He is a commercial architectural photographer who is paid to shoot buildings for a daily fee. He never really just took his own "art" photographs. Nonetheless, his work is exhibited at the Getty here in LA and he is a world-wide celebrated photographer, his signed, un-serialized prints selling for $5,000 and up. Can anyone argue that THAT'S not "art"?

g

Well, I could start calling my car Nikon, doesn't mean it will start behaving like one. It's just semantics. Mind you, some will call themselves just that because a lot of people are gullable enough to be impressed by that (and are sometimes willing to pay an increased fee because of it).

 

More than anything else photography is a craft. In some cases it can indeed evolve into art.

 

To be fair though in our country calling yourselve an artist can get you subsudized by the government (at least it used to) also it can get you benefits from the Chamber of Commerce like a special entry fee as well a reduced taxes in some fields, so it can be based on economical considerations .

Bruce Cahn wrote: "When i was young "artist" meant painter."

 

Congrats Bruce. You are doing well for your age, I hope? You must be older than Marcel Duchamp.

 

tongue -in-cheek, Stefan

Joseph - "Fine art photographers are artists."

 

Nope - fine art photographers are photographers.

This is never going to be a fruitful discussion. "Artist" is one of those words (like so many) that mean exactly what you want them to mean.

My background is graphic art and design, with a degree in Fashion design. I use the camera as the fastest way to

capture my ideas. Period. I see that most photographers are obsessed with their gear, and will prattle on into the

wee hours about 'control' and how they're one lens away from that great photograph. Yet most photos I see are over-

retouched contrivances with little to no aesthetic merit.

 

I'm sure that Michelangelo had some interest in his choice of chisels, but was far more concerned about how he

used them artistically than their alloy compostiition and 'sex appeal'.

 

I create graphic art. I currently use a camera to create that graphic art. That would make me..............

 

Bill P.