How we feel about what we do

<p>As we entered the new year, I started a conversation by asking folks what they were proud of having accomplished in 2013. A number of people were initially uncomfortable about admitting to be proud of any accomplishment.</p>

<p>Sensing their discomfort, I suggested that there's no reason not to be proud of something that you accomplished through hard work. This seemed to reassure folks, and the discussion picked up a bit of steam.</p>

<p>Recently, someone (who has done some very lovely photography, by the way) asked whether anyone considered their work to be fine art. Again, there seems to be some concern about using the "A-word" to describe one's own work. </p>

<p>I'm trying to imagine a musician saying something such as, "I wouldn't call what I do music. I think it's pretentious to do so." (I know a lot of musicians. Believe me - they're not a self deprecating lot.)</p>

<p>How about a sculptor or a painter who refuses to call their work "art." What would you think of them? If I hadn't seen or heard the work that these "reluctant artists" produce, I would assume based solely on their self-assessment and their discomfort with certain terms that their songs and paintings and sculptures aren't very good.</p>

<p>If you won't project confidence in your own abilities, how do you expect other to perceive you? What does it say about your photography and your dedication to your craft, if you are more concerned about sounding egocentric or "pretentious" on a public forum than you are about expressing honestly what you consider to be respectable work?</p>

<p>Maybe the time has come - especially for people who spend a significant amount of time creating works that potentially be inspiring and moving to others - to re-examine the social conventions that discourage people from admitting publicly what they actually do quite well. </p>

<p>Perhaps <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Law">Sturgeon's Law</a> applies here.</p>

<p>It's art when someone buys it and hangs it on their wall!</p>

<p>It's a <em><strong>product</strong></em> when someone buys it.</p>

<p>A lot of Van Gogh's work was never sold in his lifetime. But if you found an undiscovered Van Gogh canvas today, even though it had never been purchased by anyone, I can guarantee that it would be referred to as art.</p>

<p>But it <em>would</em> be bought by someone and hung on a wall. Before that it's in limbo...or an uncollapsed quantum state of being both art and not art. Schrodinger's photograph?</p>

<p>Art is only art when someone cares about it. It's recognized art when someone buys it (even if it's bad)!</p>

<p>I can't agree, Bob. It's art when its intent is to be art, and when at least one person (presumably the photographer) appreciates it as art. I agree with Dan. It seems very strange to me, also, that photographers seem to have this aversion to calling themselves artists. Heck, not all of my photography is artwork, but much of it is, and so I am an artist. This is not to say that my work is necessarily good or meaningful. That's for others to judge. Saying I'm a "talented artist" would be presumptuous and arrogant, but saying I'm an artist is merely a point of information.</p>

<p>Dan, I think the hang-up is that photographs (usually) depict a realistic scene, so our work is seen as documentary or utilitarian, as there can be nothing aesthetic about reality. But I disagree with that premise. The art is in how we interpret and depict reality. It's much like story telling, which is also an art.</p>

<p>I think modesty to an individual sometimes comes from knowing how high the sky is, and some people would rather distance themselves from a title which they feel is undeserving. </p>

<p>It's a personal thing that is often also applied elsewhere in their lives, either way. </p>

<p>It would be ironic if such "modesty" (in at least some cases) turned out to be just a disguised form of bragging, much like the bragging those who modestly claim they are not artists think they're avoiding. Enter the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/fashion/bah-humblebrag-the-unfortunate-rise-of-false-humility.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">Humblebragger</a>. Maybe the self-proclaimed "snapper" (who dares not refer to himself as photographer or artist) is he. The snapper could think he's not as pretentious as the artist and might, in assuming this posture, be even more so. You just never know.</p>

<p>Fred, no doubt personal psychology plays a part, and in the end it's probably easier just to accept individual differences than to analyze their motives. </p>

<p>"<em>It's art when its intent is to be art, and when at least one person (presumably the photographer) appreciates it as art.</em>"</p>

<p>Surely everyone is an artist because everyone tries to create images that they themselves enjoy. By that definition "artist" becomes a fairly meaningless self referential term where you are an artist if you say you are an artist.</p>

<p>If only the photographer considers it to be art it's like Schrodinger's cat in the box. Nobody knows if it's art until someone (an art critic?) opens the box and looks at it.</p>

<p>I don't have any qualms about considering some of my photos art. Most are visual journal entries, a way of recording what I see, as I see it. Some of it is intended to be art. Others may be art without my conscious intention, but that's not for me to decide.</p>

<p>I would only argue against describing much, if any, of my photography as fine art. Few of my photos approach the usual definitions of that discipline, because most of my photos are part of a narrative, not self standing, autonomous or independent entities that can exist apart from the visual and written narrative.</p>

<p>I'm more of a storyteller/illustrator. If I had my druthers I'd be A.A. Milne, Maurice Sendak, Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo or Shel Silverstein. When I'm not pursuing more-or-less straightforward documentary stuff, I'm dabbling in various literary tropes, mixing and remixing allusions, pastiches, puns and fables. It doesn't show so much on photo.net but my Facebook contacts know my annoying penchant for writing fictitious narratives and captions, uninvited, for their photos.</p>

<p>A fine art photo can often, if not always, exist independently of any conscious narrative, particularly any verbal narrative, whether written, spoken or thought in stream of consciousness. The ultimate fine art photograph is the ineffable, the great I AM.</p>

<p>I can't see my own photos that way, or many photos that way. Everything reminds me of other things. I never sit around pondering allusions, puns or silly stories. They pop into my head instantly upon seeing a photo for the first time, or not at all. If I have to think about it, it never works. Because it's not just my story. It's the photo's story, and if I shut up my own brain and just listen, the photo speaks, and we collaborate on a narrative. But the language is akin to the mysticism of the Pentecost, where for a moment we seem to be using the same language... but if we commit the sin of thinking about it too hard or questioning a miracle, suddenly it's gibberish or mute.</p>

<p><strong>Lex:</strong> <em>"but if we commit the sin of thinking about it too hard or questioning a miracle, suddenly it's gibberish or mute."</em></p>

<p>This is not the case for me. Consider Weston's Daybooks to reflect his "sin" of thinking about what he was doing, and yet it's anything but gibberish, at least in my opinion. The magician and the miracle worker have a lot of nuts and bolts to think about. The miracle doesn't just happen. It takes hard work, dedication, inspiration, memory, study, consideration, guts, and lots of other things. Why would I NOT question it? Which doesn't mean I will come up with precise or universal answers, of course.</p>

<p><strong>Michael:</strong> <em>"it's probably easier just to accept individual differences than to analyze their motives."</em></p>

<p>Michael, for me, motivation (motives) is a very important part of photography and plays an important role in how we will "feel" about (the question of the OP) and what we will call what we and what others do.</p>

<p>Gary Winogrand: <em>"I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed."</em> Motivation/Motive.</p>

<p>Richard Avedon: <em>"I am always stimulated by people. Almost never by ideas."</em> Motivation/Motive.</p>

<p><em>"I am / am not an artist"</em> Motive/Motivation.</p>

<p>If I want to understand myself and others, it will help to look at intent and motive. The OP was, rightfully in my opinion, in great part about the motives for how we and others refer to ourselves and why. IMO, it's a valid and interesting question.</p>

<p>PN can sometimes be a place where hostility to or at least misunderstanding about artists (especially self-proclaimed artists) and the art world runs deep. Turning the tables on that seems fair game.</p>

<p>Fred, maybe we're thinking about "motive" in a respectively different context. </p>

<p>I (and I suspect many others) pursue photography as a hobby for the purposes of personal pleasure and enrichment. The thought of identifying myself as an artist doesn't even enter my mind any more than backyard tinkering makes me an astronomer or auto mechanic. I do what I do for fun without a thought of having to meet any expectations.</p>

<p>I can also readily accept how others choose to identify themselves and their reasons for it; there's no right or wrong; besides, what we post speaks for itself independent of how we identify ourselves. </p>

<p>The backlash toward certain arts and artists is understandable particularly as it relates to commerce, probably because everything in the arts is intangible and unverifiable hence the repetitive disagreements. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's art when its intent is to be art</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just... <em>no</em>, Sarah. This is exactly why <em>everything </em>ends up being "art" - like <a href="http://www.saatchigallery.com/artists/artpages/tracey_emin_my_bed.htm">Tracey Emin's dirty mattress</a>.</p>

<p>Art, my foot.</p>

<p>As to photography being art - again, just <em>no</em>. Art is the <em>creation</em> of something from nothing (which is why music <em>can</em> be art, Dan - I'm a musician too): photography does not "create", it simply <em>records. </em><br /> <br /> And even if a given image is manipulated into something "other", not remotely what it was originally, then at best we're back to it being something akin to that bloody mattress - it's still not creativity, it's still not original (in any sense of the word) and <em>it's still not art.</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>PN can sometimes be a place where hostility to or at least misunderstanding about artists (especially self-proclaimed artists) and the art world runs deep.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The only "misunderstanding" on here of what art is, comes from people who have the temerity to consider their "work" to be something it clearly isn't.</p>

<p>Still, if it makes them feel "special"...</p>

<p>I'm not quite sure what Dan's questions is, but the conversation seems to have turned to whether or not we consider ourselves artists. In interpreted his post a bit differently in that I think he is asking if perhaps we (or some) should be more willing to admit that what we create is actually good work. I saw the same sort of attitudes Dan refers to in my recent post on 'What makes a Great Photo.' I won't rehash what 'great' meant in the context I was presenting since that thread is still available, but the conversation turned largely in a direction I hadn't intended because some of the respondents were reluctant to consider that they had a 'great' photo.<br>

As far as what makes an artist, I think it's anyone who creates something simply for the enjoyment of creating it. My wife makes jewelry for her own enjoyment and gives some to friends. She's an artist whether she sells it or not. I will peck around on the piano creating my own compositions that generally exist only for that moment since I rarely record them. I believe that makes me an artist. An artist doesn't have to sell anything nor even reveal his/her art to anyone else. For me, the key factor is the desire to create. Perhaps one can even be an artist solely in his mind, without ever physically creating anything.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It doesn't matter what we call it. It only matters that we do it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As far as what makes an artist, I think it's anyone who creates something simply for the enjoyment of creating it. My wife makes jewelry for her own enjoyment and gives some to friends. She's an artist whether she sells it or not. I will peck around on the piano creating my own compositions that generally exist only for that moment since I rarely record them. I believe that makes me an artist.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed - these are all examples of <em>creativity</em>, not of making a record of what's already there.</p>

<p>A photographer is no more of an artist than is the guy at the back of the hall who makes a bootleg recording of the band he's watching. The <em>art </em>is what's happening on the stage.</p>

<p>As Michael, I do photograpghy for fun, for my own enrichment. A difference, though, with what he wrote, is that I do want it to meet expectations - my own. But my initial driving motive has never been to create art as such. <br />And yet, that does not seem to exclude the idea that whatever I produce could be considered art (by whomever wants to), and hence whether I would be an artist or not. Another (again unrelated) item is whether I myself find it necessary or important to call myself "artist". That, in fact, I do not; but I am a photographer, as I take my photos intentionally, trying to convey an idea. It's not just tinkering and playing around. Snapping every now and then, but more often not and actually actively busy on making the images count.<br>

Which, I think, is the case for quite many here. There is middle ground between art and just snapping; there is a middle ground between artists and snapshooters.</p>

<p>Whether it's all about motives, though, I dare not say either. There is a risk of art for art's sake being the motive. I've read too often artist's statements that are so stuffed with complicated words and ideas, with nothing in the actual works reflecting all the thought. Winogrand's and Avedon's quotes above are great examples, but they're substantiated by work reflecting what is said. So, to me, it seems that the motives for creating, and the creation itself should have some coherency to start calling it art.</p>

<p>A different thought about the reflections in the first post: many people do want to seem to escape the discussion, because they seem happy to just take photos, rather than thinking and analysing their motives, their way of working, the message they're sending out with their photos. And a lot more again just want photos of beautiful things and have problems distinguishing between the beauty of the photo versus the beauty of the subject in the photo. It's asking yourself a bit too many complicated questions, and simplicity can be so deceivingly nice. <br />Plus, enough people still won't consider photography an art-form, because anyone can push a button.</p>

>>> If you won't project confidence in your own abilities, how do you expect other to perceive you? What

does it say about your photography and your dedication to your craft, if you are more concerned about

sounding egocentric or "pretentious" on a public forum than you are about expressing honestly what you

consider to be respectable work?

 

One can easily project confidence, if desired, usually or in many cases through the quality of their work, how they

carry themselves, etc, without worrying about how they are perceived by others. Or worrying about

sounding egocentric or pretentious, public forum or not, self-referencing as a snapper or not.

 

I think that people who claim that not doing so is in the end a kind of even more pretentious false

modesty are really struggling internally with their own issues; what their status is, how they are

perceived by others, how they fit in larger circles, worrying about how others choose to perceive

themselves, questioning whether they are an artist or not, etc. It's absolutely fine if someone wants to

worry about that. But from what I've seen many times, and more so with photographers for some

reason, that internal stirring comes at the expense of producing good/better work, confidence, and fitting into the large picture they are trying so hard to fit into. The artists I know

who consistently produce good work just don't give a whit.

<p>Keith, if I consciously make an effort to take a scene and frame it a specific way and capture the light just as I'd like it, and perhaps even use a unique angle, doesn't that make me an artist? </p>

<p>I agree that simply raising the camera and snapping away might not be considered art, but I think once conscious thought goes into achieving a result (beyond the technical aspects of simply capturing it accurately, like your example of making a recording), you have become an artist. I tend to agree with Sarah.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>PN can sometimes be a place where hostility to or at least misunderstanding about artists (especially self-proclaimed artists) and the art world runs deep.</p>

* * *

<p>The only "misunderstanding" on here of what art is, comes from people who have the temerity to consider their "work" to be something it clearly isn't.<br>

Still, if it makes them feel "special"...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well done! We don't give ourselves enough credit for such perfect ironic illustrations of a point. Not many folks would think to underscore the "humor" by flagging a zinger with visible "air quotes". Give yourself a "pat on the back"! That in itself is an "art" form.</p>

<p>That was the cleverst comment I've seen this weekend, next to the winner of a friendly Facebook competition among friends to use the word "Bacon" in any movie title. One of our friends won easily by simply quoting the movie title "Babe".</p>

I'm a photographer, that's what I do: I photograph.<br>

<br>My photos are "art" if they fit the viewer's definition of art. Since I don't have a definition of art, I don't consider myself an artist. --Sally</p>

<p>I suppose it depends on how one defines an artist. To me, artists are a people who have achieved a level of skill and craft that way exceeds most others. This I hold true to any medium. Such people are rare and have gifts that the rest of us simply do not. Their work will soar while ours will just put-put along. I think art schools are a waste of money unless one is able to make good contacts that will help in the future if the decide to stay with art after they graduate (which many do not or so I've heard.)</p>

<p>We live in a culture where egalitarianism reigns. When every kid on the ball team gets a trophy regardless if they deserved it or not it dilutes the whole idea of effort. The efforts put out by those who achieve results are not given the proper respect and those who fall short are given the idea that they are equal to the kids with more skill which is untrue and gives a false sense of accomplishment. We like equality even though we all differ in our skills and achievements. We like to think that we are all cut from the same cloth, yet we are not. Some are simply more gifted then others. A lot of people think of artists as being a little strange to begin with so I'm at a loss as to why anyone would entertain the idea of being an artist given the mostly negative stereotypes that title carries with it. Still, we like to attach labels to ourselves and we like to think of ourselves as more then just the 9-5 persona we have at work and then persona we have at home. I guess thinking of oneself as an artist is more exciting.</p>

<p>The bottom line is artists are a rare and gifted minority and the strength of their work usually isn't recognized in their lifetime. We can toil away our whole life in the hopes of being able to achieve work that will be considered art, but it will never match up to the results of those who just already have it in them. Our task then is to find fulfillment in the process of working in our chosen medium. We must be content in the long run with our work otherwise why bother? It is not up to the person who produces the work to define what they do as art. The outside world will or will not define it as art. So why bother worrying about something one really has no control over? Just do your work they way you feel it needs to be done and let fate take care of the rest.</p>

<p>In closing, there is a book that sort of goes into this kind of phenomena. I don't recall the author, but the title is "Hello, I'm Special" It's not an art book but it goes on to describe how the internet has created a platform for people to display their quirks and for others to try to create a name for themselves by doing all manner of stunts and endeavors. An interesting read.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Surely everyone is an artist because everyone tries to create images that they themselves enjoy. By that definition "artist" becomes a fairly meaningless self referential term where you are an artist if you say you are an artist.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> There is a paradox at work here. If anyone can call anything art, then the word could potentially become meaningless.<br /> <br /> However, if we take away from the artist the ability to label their own work as art, who gets to make that determination? Are we unqualified to determine when we have created art? Is "art" a designation that we can receive only from others - customers, peer review, publishers, art directors, curators, board of experts, government agency? <br /> <br /> So, either artists are free to declare when they have created art, potentially encouraging a chaotic state where art can mean just about anything. Or artists are required to submit official "Is It Art?" requests to some approved and sanctioned Board Of Art, an oppressive system where control and regulation trump expression. <br /> <br /> I prefer the former.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the conversation turned largely in a direction I hadn't intended because some of the respondents were reluctant to consider that they had a 'great' photo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point, Bill. Your discussion exemplifies that exact same issue. 'Proud', 'art', and 'great' all seem to be explosive words that some would prefer not to handle. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To me, artists are a people who have achieved a level of skill and craft that way exceeds most others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Marc, this is an understandable and defensible definition of art. Unfortunately, to my earlier point, it puts too much focus on technical ability and gives too much power to others.</p>

<p>Is art determined by competition, on being rated among peers, where only the top of the class gets to call what they do art?<br /> <br /> What if you are the best artist in your town? Your neighbors regard your work as art. But then someone from another town shows up with some art that exceeds your skills and abilities. Are you still an artist? Is your work still art now that someone has demonstrate abilities that exceeded yours?<br /> <br /> Do you understand the inherent danger of defining art in terms of skills and abilities?</p>