Artist or Photographer?

[matthew_newton]

A painter is a painter, a sculpter is a sculpter, a photographer is a photographer, a whittler has 9 fingers. I wouldn't use the title artist, that is like saying someone is a construction worker when actually they are a roofer, or a framer or a plumber.

 

Sure I think I can consider photography art under a lot of circumstances, but I think there can be a fine line when it goes from simply cataloging things to art.

[serocchio]

On my opinion, anyone perform any creative activity with sublime results can be considered an artist.

[jpo3136b]

On presumption and "artist": I'd direct you to the local "art district" in my town for a chuckle.

 

In my view, the "artist", like the "poet", is the doer or maker. That's it. Think that's glamorous? A bunch of people do.

Now, that same bunch of people who think "art" is glamorous, do you see them hanging out with the Fry Guy, asking him

about philosophy, sales and art? The Fry Guy makes french fries. He's a maker. He's the doer. He's the guy Who

Gets It Done. The Fry Guy. Same for most any trade. Welder, carpenter, painter, coater, roofer, surveyor, factory line worker; they are all

doers and makers.

 

I don't see why we couldn't include photographer in there. What I think is foolish or pretentious, though, is the idea that

somehow being a Doer or Maker in this world is some kind of excuse to pretend you're upper class, when art is obviously

and observably a primitive, working-class job.

 

Why go to my local "art district" for a chuckle? Because it's actually the Patron's District. There are almost no artists

hanging out there. Walk into an "art district" cafe and ask, "Who knows how to operate a gas torch in here? I want to

cut a lump of scrap into a sculpture." If your local "art district" is like mine, chances are you'd be lucky to find one in a

hundred people in that place who would know how to run a torch. It'd be the same for photo chemistry, textile and

pigment characteristics in painting, wood grain orientation and carpentry, etc.

 

If a genuine artist parked his beat-up cluttered work truck outside your average "art district" cafe daily; then walked in there, grabbed a cup

of joe, hung out with the guys, starting the day cursing the stupidity of the boss or situation, as many of us do; soon, the "artist" would find

himself asked to leave the "art district" for good.

 

People calling themselves "artists" are frequently trying to pretend they are counselors to patrons.

 

There's no problem with calling yourself an artist. Just remember it's the name of one of the most unwanted collection of

jobs anywhere.

[william l. palminteri]

<<John O'Keefe-Odom , Nov 14, 2008; 10:04 a.m....On presumption and "artist": I'd direct you to the local "art district" in my town for a chuckle....In my view, the "artist", like the "poet", is the doer or maker. That's it.>>

 

John, I remember in the sixties when commercial art was looked down upon in favor of the silver painted muffler titled "Loud", and nonsense like that.

 

Let's keep in mind that Michelangelo was a commercial artist........

 

Bill P.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Let's keep in mind that Michelangelo was a commercial artist........ "

 

Was he now?

 

Maybe he was a professional artist.

[pathways]

For some time I lived in a small town with few photographers and a lot of “artists”, so I called myself a “photographic artist”.

That does not make me either a real photographer or a real artist, but my approach to that issue is that in the production of

"Art", one is seeking to produce an image that can create an emotional or spiritual response within the viewer.

 

Such an example might be Ansel Adams' photograph of Moonrise Over Hernandez. Here, the photograph is really not that

of a moon rising over Hernandez, New Mexico - that has been proven by countless photographers who have gone to the

same place at appropriate times and gotten a simple photo. What Adams did was not to copy the moonrise that day at that

place, but to actually photograph "Moonrise", itself, perhaps we could even call that "Moonriseness". (Take your choice

between Plato or Jung, but now we are really talking about what it means for a moon to rise in our own consciousness.)

This photograph has become a creative work of art to which other photographs and even actual moonrises, themselves,

have been compared, and can be measured against.

 

Now, to carry that image farther, when we go out to replicate Adams' photo, whether in New Mexico or North Carolina, are

we using art or craft? I would say it is craft if we are trying to copy a photo similar to the Hernandez photo, but it is art if we

can give a permanent and physical form to the attunement we are experiencing when we really understand the subject. The

archetype is always filled with possibilities, whereas a model is fixed and limited

 

The paintbrush artist who is painting a barn is another example: If he or she is preparing to paint a picture of Bob Jones'

barn, then the painting can never be more than just a copy of that barn; but if he or she is painting the concept of “Barn”,

itself, perhaps involving memories from one's childhood or tales one has heard from parents, then the possibilities are

limitless. The photographic artist can create these feelings also, particularly if it is possible to display a series of

photographs showing different parts of the subject.

 

Well, that’s my take on the matter. Such discussions are entirely too rare, and I think we all profit from such exchanges.

[william l. palminteri]

Ellis Vener , Nov 14, 2008; 10:22 a.m....."Let's keep in mind that Michelangelo was a commercial artist........ "

 

Was he now?

 

Yes.

 

Bill P.

[steve_swinehart]

I'm at a loss as to why any of this matters. You either make interesting photographs or you don't - no matter what you call yourself. At one point in time, a few of us thought it would be funny to cover up the word "Art" on the sign outside of the art building so that it read, "Department of Fred" - just to see if that would change anything that went on inside the building. It didn't - and I don't think calling yourself an artist versus a photographer will change the way you approach making a photograph - or if the images you make are interesting or not.

[Norma Desmond]

I don't think art is decided by the one who makes it and I don't think it's whatever we call "art" and it's not everything or just anything.

<p><p>

How would you figure out what plumbing is? Read a book about it. Read a good book on the

history of art. This will

give you many definitions and, rather than being able to give a specific and definitive answer to the question "What is

art?" you will be able to have a historical perspective and a really good feel for it, as many of us already have.

Rather than saying in a couple of words what it is, and rather than brushing it off as "anything," you will be able to discuss it.

<p><p>

Someone has to be willing to listen and accept in order

for the word "art" to be communicative, otherwise its pronouncement is meaningless and useless, like with any other

word. If I call my truck a horse, I am simply wrong unless I can give darn good reasons why I'm saying what I'm saying.

Likewise, only if I can <i>convince</i> you that the feces in my toilet bowl is art have I actually said something

meaningful. Of course, I can declare the banana to be an apple, just as I can declare that the snapshot of my daughter

is art. The first is never (well, almost never) true. The second is rarely true. And most objective eyes know it, even

though there may be disagreement at times. We disagree on the fine points of many words, "patriot," for example, and we likely disagree

in some cases on who is and who is not a patriot. That doesn't mean we can't define "patriot" in understandable, if a little vague, terms.

<p><p>

My guess is that if we discussed what art is, we'd come up with overlapping themes that could be understood by all of

us. Just because a lot of art is magical and mysterious doesn't mean defining it is. Categorization is a different matter.

You might classify something as art that I think is trash, etc. But because we might all place different objects under the

category, because some of us may <i>like</i> some things more than others, does not mean we don't know what each

other are talking about when we use the term. In fact, we have a very good idea of what art is. We just don't always have

as good an idea of what is art.

[Norma Desmond]

Hey, Steve, I resemble that remark!

[william l. palminteri]

<<In fact, we have a very good idea of what art is. We just don't always have as good an idea of what is art.>>

 

"What is art?" --- Andy Warhol

 

Bill P.

[ferensen]

Some of you might enjoy the Errol Morris photography Blog in the NY Times, although it's a lot to wade through, parts are very interesting. Link:

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/

[sarah_fox]

When I'm doing commercial work for a client, I dont' call myself an artist. When I'm shooting fine art, I call myself an artist. "Artist" is little more than the hat I'm wearing at the time. I don't see why the term should imply any arrogance or narcissism. It's not like I'm calling myself a "talented" artist -- or a "brilliant" artist -- or even a "good" artist. Just an artist. [shrug]

[charlesheckel]

In response to Fred's next-to-last post, I knew a guy who got a canning machine and used it for a variety of

contents, just to can them. Finally he canned his own excrement and put a pyramid of the cans in a gallery, each

with a very commercial-looking label: "Artist (honest down-to-earth product description which is here deleted)."

The price was right, and his oeuvre sold

like hotcakes (appropriately enough).

[Ian Shalapata]

Here's a twist on things. If photography is not an art, then is it science? Considering the chemicals used in the darkroom or Photoshop, et al., in the digital medium, would it not stand to reason that photography is more science than art? And would it follow that photographers are, in fact, scientists?

[patrick j dempsey]

I'm not sure how calling one's self an artist is an illusion of grandeur. There are three kinds of photographers, artists, craftsmen/technicians, and photo album fillers. They all have their unique perspective on photography and the three kinds are not exclusive. For instance, one can be a technician and an artist or one can be a photo album filler and a technician and in some cases people wear a different hat when they are doing different kinds of photography. There are lots of artists who supplement their income with professional photography where art does not pay the bill. But how is one an artist? If one is making art. If you think artists are self-diluded people suffering from an illusion of grandeur than it's very likely you are just not an artist and don't understand too much about what art is. There are plenty of gear snobs and technicians who suffer from illusions of grandeur as well. I understand why the word artist has gotten a bad name in our society, but it's really not fair to people who really ARE artists, who live breathe dream and think in poetry and line and form and light to be labelled a snob. The unique thing about being an artist is that unlike being a doctor, the student of art can call themselves an artist if they want. A student of medicine can't go around calling themselves a doctor. Maybe the term is abused, and there's alot more to art than just calling yourself an artist, but who are any of us to say what another person is thinking or feeling when they are creating their art?

[patrick j dempsey]

Ian, in the way it's being used in this thread, it's a technical craft, like drafting or achitecture or precision machining.

[nolan_ross]

I think photography can be art. The term is used loosely I think. You can have two shooters standing side by side taking pictures and one guy say's his work is art and the other one says he has taken some pictures..Are the images art. I would say no they are just snapshots..But I have my own rule about photography art and it's

 

"It ain't art unless I say it is".

[davebell]

Good discussion here, thanks to all for their opinions. Patrick Dempsey, I tend to agree with your take on the matter. In essence, and the reason for my original post, is my annoyance at so many wedding photographers, in particular, describing themselves as artists when clearly they are not, which I think is purely for egotistical and probably also marketing purposes. But its a free world and we can call ourselves what we like, as long as it doesn't require a formal qualification as a prerequisite.

[sandysocks]

Semantics . . .(holding one's nose.) Laurie Anderson said "Language is a virus." Now that is art. Remember the artist formerly known as Prince? Presenting a dry fly (Or night crawler for that matter) properly is an art. I think anyone who is starving deserves to be called an artist.

[william l. palminteri]

This just keeps getting better and better!

 

LOL

 

Bill P.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Laurie Anderson said "Language is a virus." " -RL Potts

 

And she was quoting William Burroughs (and crediting him for it) when she performed that piece.

 

How about "Your right to call it art while swinging your hands in the air ends 1 mm from the tip of my nose."

 

You can quote ME on that as I just made it up whilst balancing on one leg dancing about the shoulders of giant

archetypes.

 

Or something like that.

[erlajo]

A wonder(?) ful question, so let me add a brief thought: I truly feel that photography has enormous potential, however I

am amazed how stuck it remains inside itself, simply put; photography will be able to move into the realm of "ART" then it

stops being narrative...........

[john_macpherson]

Ellis V (I think) posted this a few weeks ago, and I found it very interesting:

 

 

I thiink it's possibly relevant to this dicussion - Sam Abell talks about how it feels to have your (photographic) work 'copied' by an 'artist' and suddenly it becomes a piece of art in a way it never was before. And becomes worth thousands of dollars more in the transformation.

[atlatling]

To be a true artist, one must starve. . .

 

Come to think about it, I have not eaten since breakfast!