[]Photographer []Artist []Cameraman (Check only one)

Consider this staement from professor, artist, scholar and intellectual who does not practice photography,

not really. He hasn't even the basic skills of focusing, selective focus, exposure. Most of his work won't

even print But now he's a photographic critic and teaches the subject.

 

When seeing some work which uses certain devices (vocabulary of photography) such as selective focus,

selective exposure, attention to rare light, a certain moment and such he says, "The person who did that

isn't an artist; he is just a good cameraman."

 

Obviously my usual detachment came apart when I felt this in-person.

 

So... I'm a cameraman. Beats being an artist.

 

N'est pas?

 

Thoughts.

Artist that uses a camera to create my art. <BR> BTW, first I heard the term "cameraman",

who made this statement?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. :)

The quote that you love to hate applies:

 

"I am at war with the obvious."

 

. . . . as opposed to shooting "mature" subjects.

 

Having said that, I can't image why even the most insightful creative person wouldn't want to put his subjects in the best possible light, given a choice.

 

I also wonder why you chose to quote someone who seems to lack even minimal craftsmanship, given that his sentiments have been expressed by others whom I suspect you would judge less harshly.

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

 

And thoise who can't do either well , apparently spend lots of time ranting anonymously on

"philosophy of whatever" internet forums (re: the OP).

Once I was studying with a sculptor who knew Picasso, Brancusi etc. back when. This was a long time ago and my teacher was 98 years old. Someone asked him what he thought of Brancusi. He answered " a good carpenter". This was pure jealousy. Brancusi was the single most influential sculptor of the 20th century, and my teacher certainly was not.

<em>(re: the OP)</em>

<p>

Ellis - With apologies for not being up on forum lingo - what's the OP?

<b>Ellis Vener</b><br>

<i>And thoise who can't do either well , apparently spend lots of time ranting

anonymously on "philosophy of whatever" internet forums (re: the OP).</i><p>

 

To the rest, "OP" means Original Poster. Ellis has made what I believe is a first in this

forum: he has declared that someone here (me) as one who cannot photogaph or

teach.<p>

 

Well, I've lots of photos online and elsewhere to prove I'm a lousy photographer. Have at it,

Ellis. Make another first: rip 'em apart. Be specific. I know you can do it.

That wouldn't be a first in this forum.

When I read this:

 

"He hasn't even the basic skills of focusing, selective focus, exposure. Most of his work won't even print But now he's a photographic critic and teaches the subject."

 

...All I could think was: "Who hired the guy?" If he's that incompetent he was probably happy to accept any job, so in a way, I can't blame the "teacher/critic" as much as the person who thought he was the right man for the job.

 

(Incidentally most music critics are failed musicians.)

 

It also took me back to my one and only photography course at a community college, back in the 70's when I was fresh out of high school. That "teacher" made everyone want to run, screaming from a dark room and never touch a camera again. Which is sad. Maybe it's the same guy.

 

As for his comment: "The person who did that isn't an artist; he is just a good cameraman." Well, IMHO that's a very silly statement. Of course all photographers aren't "artists", nor should they be. A photojournalist comes to mind as a rather glaring exception and there are plenty of others, I'm sure.

 

I kept stumbling over the word "cameraman" and when I Google the definition, I get "a photographer who operates a movie camera". Its synonym is "cinematographer". Perhaps someone could enlighten the said teacher/critic as to the difference because this is certainly the first time I've heard the word used to describe someone who performs still photography.

 

Ergo, when this (relatively) hairless ape picks up his little box with a button on it that magically records a moment in time, I guess I'd have to call myself a photographer. I'd feel very pretentious (and rightfully so) to call myself an artist. In fact, I find that notion quite amusing!

Seldom are great food critics also great cooks. This is true for nearly every form of criticism - the ability to critique effectively is seldom linked to the genius to perform that sort of work oneself.

 

But when it comes to photography, if one is not a famous photographer with a respected body of work, one may not utter a word of criticism.

 

Fragile egos. Sad.

<i>...All I could think was: "Who hired the guy?"</i><p>

Once a person gets tenure, it doesn't matter.

<i>I kept stumbling over the word "cameraman"</i><p>

One who is competent with a camera, regardless of the cine precedence. Like this chap.

<i>But when it comes to photography, if one is not a famous photographer with a respected

body of work, one may not utter a word of criticism.</i><p>

Ah, I am relieved of all responsibility. At last. Freedom. This will be my last post ever.

Plenty of good teachers can also do: all my law professors practiced before and during their tenure. Medical professors likewise (so I understand)

 

A good critic needn't be that good at the craft, but they should be out there trying, or at least should have been at some point. Otherwise, their "criticism" boils down to nothing more than "I like this, don't like that", in a flood of the current academic vernacular

Jack,

 

That's utterly untrue. It takes a completely different set of skills to make images than it does to criticize them. Very few people are talented in the former, and fewer still in the latter. Nearly no one is equally talented in both.

 

Art criticism is a discipline - it is far more than "I like this, I don't like this." That is like saying a food critic is saying nothing more than "This food tastes good, this food tastes bad."

 

No one likes to have one's work trashed - whether one is a chef, a photographer, a painter, or a horse breeder. But it makes one seem very small when one has to engage in pointing out the critics' lack of photographic abilities as a sop to their injured pride, as if that mattered in the slightest.

A few random thoughts.

 

"Those who can't, teach." Bollocks. Teachers should be and usually are competent at the craft.

 

"But when it comes to photography, if one is not a famous photographer with a respected body of work, one may not utter a word of criticism." Szarkowski? Coleman? Most of the top photography critics, excepting Minor White, have not been great photographers.

 

Pico was ambiguous in his OP: "But now he's a photography critic and teaches the subject." What's "the subject": photography or photography criticism? He strikes me as unqualified to teach the first, not necessarily the second.

 

The food critic analogy seems apt to me. A good food critic should have eaten a lot of food, not necessarily cooked a lot. A teacher of chefs should have cracked a few eggs.

 

[X] None of the above.

OK, let's go with the food critic analogy. They DO say one chef's dish tasted better than another's. If they lack any culinary skill to tell me WHY one chef fell down on the job, it's just "I like"

 

If an art critc lacks any experience in the medium, I don't much trust them to point out anything except some sort of academic consensus, or maybe an historical perspective or progression.

 

I'll pay some attention, and don't just dismiss all criticism out of hand, but I do consider the source

 

OT/BTW, Wig (may I call you Wig?) good point on the "understanding" the Ontario Co., NY shooter and the sheriff's office came to

A few comments...<p>

 

<i>Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.</i><p>

 

This is a trite saying and has very little basis in reality, particularly in the art world. Many who do art can't make enough money, especially if their art is truly innovative or they lack business skills. That doesn't make them good teachers, but they still teach. The trite saying is insulting to some of the best teachers I have had. That doesn't mean they all could do, but many did do.<p>

 

<i>This is true for nearly every form of criticism - the ability to critique effectively is seldom linked to the genius to perform that sort of work oneself.</i><p>

 

This is very true, with one exception, which is literary criticism. The skills for criticism are very close to the skills required for writing. However, and this is a big however, there are certainly many people who are skilled in both. They are not mutually exclusive.<p>

 

<i>They DO say one chef's dish tasted better than another's. If they lack any culinary skill to tell me WHY one chef fell down on the job, it's just "I like"</i><p>

 

This is just plain wrong. Good food critics don't just say "I like," they analyze the food. But one doesn't have to be a cook to understand that a dish is over-spiced, under-salted, falls apart, has no character, etc. One doesn't have to be able to fix these faults, just understand them. You don't have to know how to baste to tell that a turkey is dry.<p>

 

Great criticism isn't about how to expose/focus/etc better, it's about how the work translates when viewed. I've had a formal critique done by a person who never photographed, but did run a major photography gallery, and I've had some excellent critique from people who have been artists but know nothing about photographic process. I've had a great photographer just stutter when he tried to comment on my work, looking for words to explain what he was thinking. I had the feeling his knowledge of the process got in the way.

Jack,

 

Anyone can criticize, but that does not make them a 'critic'. A critic is trained, educated, and well-versed in subtleties and history of their field of criticism. A wine critic has a developed palette, an art critic has absorbed the history of art criticism and has a thorough understanding of where art is today.

 

I agree that if a person criticizes your work and has no background as a critic, then their comments, perspectives, and conclusions may be suspect. Likewise, some critics have reputations for preferring one sort of work to another - no one said they were all impartial judges or that they were incapable of error.

 

However, a 'Critic' (and let's use a "C" to distinguish between one who merely criticizes a work) does not have to have grown grapes or have paintings hanging at MoMA or have made a feature film or have several coffeetable books of photography out to be well-versed in their art, which is criticism.

 

One makes a mistake if one feels that the discipline of criticism requires expertise in the art being criticized.

 

A Critic might just as well complain that a photographer objecting to criticism had no chops as a critic, and therefore no standing to object.

 

A photography Critic is not a photographer; a photography Critic is a Critic.

The art of this life is to be who you are, not measure your success or failure on the view of others.

 

Go shoot yourself with a smile Pico. With the camera..please.

 

Entitle it, The Cameraman, and post.

 

Thou Art Pico.

Sorry Pico but a camera is really just a recording device so actually you are a recording engineer (as I guess most of us are lol)

<i>The art of this life is to be who you are, not measure your success or failure on the view of others.</i><p>

 

That is only true if a) you don't need to sell your art, and b) you don't care if you share your art with others. For many people, selling and sharing are major objectives and your success is very dependent on the view of others.

On the other hand...the art of trying to sound clever is pretty much not sounding like somebody trying to sound clever whilst talking to someone.

 

Woops!

<I>And so it goes.</i><P>

 

Claudia and Wigwam must be Vonnegut fans. ;-)