Do you consider yourself an "artist?"

[nathangardner]

<p>People say photography is an art, which would make a photographer an artist, but I've never really felt like an artist. If I were an artist, I would paint a beautiful picture, and Lord knows I can't paint anything other than the outside of a barn. I think of myself more like a mechanic. Mechanics use the tools the have available to get the most out of a job or project; I think of my camera more as a tool, and I'm just using it to get the most from it. Does anyone else feel this way?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think of myself in many different ways.</p>

<p>Sometimes I feel like an artist and sometimes I don't think much about it. Some of my photographs are more art than others. I straddle the line between personal expression/creativity, on the one hand, and appeal (because I would like people to want me to make portraits for them), on the other. So my work is mostly on a continuum along that line or around that circle.</p>

<p>I suppose I am an artist like I am a son, a friend, a philosopher, a typesetter . . .</p>

<p>The more I make photos, the more I feel like an artist. For me, though, "artist" is also an approach to living.</p>

<p>If your photographing feels like mechanics to you, I think that's a perfectly legitimate and appropriate way for you to think of yourself. I think photography can be done very mechanistically and that aspect of it certainly has many draws and much power.</p>

<p>The reason I think some photographs are art is that some photographs are more creations ("creation" being a combination of the productivity and imagination of the photographer and the response of the viewer) than others. Not Photoshop creations, necessarily, but creations of the photographer's imagination and emotions along with his vision and the mechanics of the camera.</p>

<p>Paint brushes and canvasses are no less tools than lenses and shutter buttons.</p>

<p>I think art is to be found more in our imaginations than in our mediums.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Nathan-you seem to be saying that you're a 'mechanic' rather than an 'artist' because you think of your camera as a tool and you're just using it to get the most from it. What would you be using to paint a picture? Is an artists brush any more or less than a tool than a camera? As a photographer, I think of my camera as a tool and I just use it to get the most from it just as a painter thinks of his brush in the same way, <br>

I guess my answer to your question is: no</p>

<p>cb</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What do you photograph, and <em>why do you photograph it</em>?<br /><br />Photography is a form of communication. If you have no purpose in your communication, no point to make, no perspective to bring to your subject, and no expression in the way that you <em>use</em> that tool, then sure, it's possible that you're artlessly using your camera. Say, as a forensic photographer would. Just the facts, ma'am. <br /><br />On the other hand: isn't it possible that when you write, you choose your words with a bit of forethought, because they'll help convey the tone of what you're trying to communicate? In your post, above, you've presented an image of someone who has doubts about what art is, or whether he is creating any of it. You've <em>artfully</em> chosen to compare yourself to a mechanic, to make a point.<br /><br />If you can do that when you write, you can do it when you make a photograph, too. Choosing camera angles, focal lengths, light sources/modifiers, composition ... that's just like choosing your words when you write. Think of art as the deliberate use of a medium (and thus its tools) to communicate. If you're worried that your photography is empty of that spark, then step back and look for something you feel like <em>saying</em>, and then find a way to nip at its heels using a photograph instead of prose.</p>

[KyleE]

<p>I think of myself as an artist. I paint, I draw, I model in 3d on the computer, and I photograph. I don't feel that any one medium is more valid as art than any of the other mediums.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<p>My degree says "Fashion Design", I studied Graphic Design also.<br>

I use the camera as the fastest way to get my ideas onto paper.<br>

My photography is Fine Art photography, and in that context I am an artist.</p>

<p>As far as the camera being "just" a tool, the paintbrush or pencil can be viewed the same way.</p>

<p>It's up to you.....</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I don't label myself in any sense. I happen to express myself (also) in photography. If someone out their describes me as an artist or not, so be it. It would not influence my photographic work in one way or another. My degrees tell me I'm an economist and my profession that I don't work like one ! Life is complicated. </p>

[chris_autio]

<p>I think Matt has touched on the mode to which photography may be seen more and more: communication. Communication is in essence the photojournalist's intent, though art may be inherent in journalists' trade.<br>

By modifying what is seen is art. The mechanic with the best tools available in the best manner achievable can forge the smoothest working engine. Is this not art? <br>

A photographer using photoshop tools to convey the sense of printmaking with the mosaic tool isn't actually using acid etching on a zinc plate to create a texture or shadow, though it may look like a zinc plated print. If art is modifying "what is seen" then photoshop is art, but only insofar as pressing a button. Making a zinc plate print requires a whole set of tools and knowledge of how they work, and time, patience and I do dare say, reflection upon what is being created. An argument could then be made that the more time is spent on creation of a print AND reflection upon what is created more suitably defines art. <br>

Now, how does one draw the two together, the mechanic's and printmaker's art (or craft)? Robert M Persig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, thoroughly worked over classical philosophy to come up with the idea that care for our craft is paramount. If we sincerely care for what we are pursuing, then quality will shine. Whether to call what is crafted is art, I think, he left untouched. <br>

Perhaps then, in photography, if the most is made out of the tools available, WITH care, then art will shine. Using a modifier in the studio on a model in the face with two - thirds rules, hair light, etc, well, then, that's a passing grade, but will it shine? Maybe for communication purposes, yes: to communicate that he/she is being lit to show a product or person smiling for a wallet photo. But to use that modifier on the far edge of the face to help silhouette, so the model's gesture is ambiguous, well, then, that may be art. It's all communication. But whether it goes beyond the sense of communication, and into gesture, and knowledge of tools, then it is more art. It's pursuant of idea. <br>

I would hate to summarize anything, because I've just touched the surface. Huge compendiums of aesthetic criticism do exist. But do your work with care. That's your art.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>All very good points. I may have been misleading with the statement. I don't feel empty or unqualified, in fact I am perfectly okay not considering myself as an artist, but I guess everyones' definition of artist is different. To me, other photographers are artists; I see a creative photo with a unique perspective, and I say "that's art" b/c someone had the creativity to look at something differently and express it. For me, I find myself having a hard time developing a creative eye so I make up for it on the mechanical side. Maybe that's why I think of myself as a mechanic and not an artist. But maybe I don't think my eye is creative b/c it comes from my mind; to a different person I guess it may be a new perspective and creative to them. I was just wondering if anyone else had ever contemplated when photography crosses the line from "a camera making an image" to "art."</p>

[Julie H]

<p>You've changed the question. I am going to hold you to the thread title: <em>Do you consider yourself an "artist?"</em> (I like the question mark being within the quotes. Nice touch.)</p>

<p>If any of you remember Richard Dreyfuss in <em>Close Encounters of the Third Kind</em> with the mashed potatoes, that's a good illustration of how I feel and why I am an artist -- (not an "artist?"). I've got things that need to be made; if I can't use a camera and Photoshop (my method of choice) I'll use whatever -- right on down to mashed potatoes.</p>

<p>It's not all fluffy fun, either. If I can't figure out how to get something to work in a picture, it can feel a little like I've got one of those <em>Alien</em> beasties inside (okay, maybe not quite, but wouldn't it be an interesting sight ...?)</p>

[laurent_jaussi]

<p>no (but I still do like photography).</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>Photography can be art. It is not necessarily art. Painting can be art. But when I paint my room eggshell white to match the new sofa, it is a far cry from art.</p>

<p>The camera is the tool I use when I create art. A painter uses her tools to create art, an easel, a brush etc.</p>

<p>Is your problem that the camera is mechanical, where the paint brush is not? What about the sculptor who used a torch on metal? What about the painter who uses airbrushes? What about the film maker who uses CGI? What about the wood worker who uses a table saw? </p>

<p>The issue is not the tool, but the result from the artist using the tool. </p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>I think you'd be better off working on making interesting photographs than dwelling on whether you feel you're a mechanic or an artist. What do you mean by "...using it to get the most from it."?</p>

<p>Have you ever made a photograph that surprises you when you see it? Have you ever made a photograph that rekindles a feeling or makes you think about the image? Do you ever challenge yourself in trying to make a photograph? Do you find visual exploration through photography important to you? If you start working on those type of issues - using the tools is a secondary consideration.</p>

<p>As for me - I don't ever think about it - it just doesn't matter. Trying to make new, and interesting photographs is what matters.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Why not be content with <em>photographer</em>. If someone calls him/herself a painter or a sculptor it's more automatically assumed that he or she of course has to be an artist, which is fine. <em>Photographer</em> doesn't quite ring that bell and photographers - perhaps by some lack of confidence in the qualities of their own medium vs that of other mediums - are often too busy concerning themselfes to express that "they are artists too you know, just like the guy that paints". I always liked this Weston quote :</p>

<p><em><strong>" Photography, not soft gutless painting, is best equipped to bore into the spirit of today."</strong></em> </p>

<p>It doesn't say that photography can't or isn't art or that Weston didn't considered photography to be art as opposed to, ahum, "gutless painting", but it does speak about a man who was confident in the direct qualities of his medium, and I think one who considered himself <em>a</em> <em>photographer</em> first and only secondarily the necessary "artist". </p>

<p>"I'm a painter" doesn't have the same cachet as when saying " I'm an artist", so perhaps painters refer to themselfes more readily as artists since that is what they are believed to be anyway. Photography as a medium can stand on its own, it doesn't need a generic supporting label of any kind.</p>

<p> But I agree with Fred that art is made more by and through our imagination than it is made by any medium.</p>

<p> </p>

[edrodgers]

<p>Art only happens in the mind of the audience. If what you create is perceived as art to at least one individual, then you are an artist.</p>

<p>It's not something that is hard to be. We are all artists. Someone out there will say that the oatmeal dribbling down your chin is art.</p>

<p>If you play with the requirements, you can raise art to any level you like.</p>

<p>New Rule: Art must be perceived by a majority of viewers in a pool of at least 50 random individuals.</p>

<p>New Rule: The tangible or intangible object must be created intentionally for the purpose of being art in the mind of the audience.</p>

<p>New Rule: An artist must focus at least 33.3% of his or her time on art projects, and earn an absolute minimum of 51% of their income through the sale and exhibition of their art.</p>

<p>With these new hypothetical requirements, being an artist is slightly more difficult.</p>

<p>Personally, I am more liberal with the word "artist". However, when some people start creating rules and requirements for entry into the exclusive "artist" club, I find it humorous. Of course there are levels of art quality, but I feel it is entirely subjective.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>... 51% of their income through the sale and exhibition of their art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well...I guess you could count out Van Gogh and a host of other artists one could name....</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Ed</strong>, I assume you're being a bit tongue and cheek, but a couple of things:</p>

<p>Since art is different from psychology and physics* (also from tables and chairs**) and -- though groups of people will likely never agree completely they are likely to make very meaningful and somewhat objective statements about the differences between psychology, physics, tables, chairs, and art -- art (in my opinion) is not entirely subjective. Often, complete subjectivity diminishes the concept of art to meaninglessness (anything anyone wants it to be). I prefer to give art more credit than that.</p>

<p>*There are overlaps in these disciplines.<br /> **Some tables and chairs are art. Some are not.</p>

<p>No, in my opinion, we are not all artists any more than we are all plumbers.</p>

<p>Michelangelo was many things, including an artist, before any audience ever saw his work. I do agree, though, that once the audience gets involved, they become part of art.</p>

<p><strong>Chris</strong>, I think adding "gesture" to "communication" is significant and builds beautifully on what Matt inspiringly said. I appreciate that idea much more than your limited examples of how Photoshop can be used.</p>

<p><strong>Julie</strong>, perhaps <em>gesture</em> is like gravy on those mashed potatoes.</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>We are all indeed (amateur) plumbers. You know how to use a tap and flush a toilet. You operate plumbing. You know how to turn a monkey wrench to remove a trap under your sink. Does that not make you a plumber? It entirely depends on the qualifications applied to the term.</p>

<p>I am being a little tongue-in-cheek as you say, but I do believe it. To me we are too self important. Everyone has it in them to be an artist. It is impossible to go through life without creating something beautiful or interesting from time to time.</p>

<p>I guess I like to keep the definition of an artist all-inclusive because putting subjective requirements on the term is bound to cut out people who really are artists: Just like Van Gogh mentioned above. When it comes down to it, the only reason to restrict the term is to build an exclusive class of people that are somehow special and different, leaving out people that don't want to play the silly game.</p>

<p>Art is a human experience from which nobody can be excluded, from the 4-year-old finger painter to the geriatric paint-by-number enthusiast. Some are more successful at it than others, but I refuse to draw a line in the sand.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Ed</strong>, a little tongue-in-cheek and a little seriousness back at ya:</p>

<p><em>"Does that not make you a plumber?"</em></p>

<p>No. It makes me alive.</p>

<p><em>"creating something beautiful or interesting"</em> . . .</p>

<p>. . . falls well short of being an artist. Everyone might, as you say, create something beautiful or interesting in their lifetime. That makes them an occasional creator of something beautiful or interesting.</p>

<p><em>"the only reason to restrict the term is to build an exclusive class of people"</em></p>

<p>No. Words are meaningful and they help us communicate. I don't see utilizing words meaningfully as a restriction. If anything, for me, it's liberating. I think opening words up to meaning everything and anything diminishes communication and thinking. I agree, it is sometimes used to suggest an exclusive, even superior class. That's an unfortunate misuse of the word. </p>

<p><em>"Art is a human experience from which nobody can be excluded"</em></p>

<p>It may be difficult to imagine anyone being excluded from art as a human experience, especially as viewer or listener, since it seems so ubiquitous. But I imagine there are cases. I think anyone can potentially become an artist (though some would disagree and think there has to be some innate gift) but most choose not to . . . or a variety of circumstances contribute to the fact that they are not.</p>

[trisha jean-angela]

<p>I have always considered myself an artist but refrain from ever describing myself as one because I don't want to be misunderstood. I have always seen and felt things very deeply; always pulling apart the layers and finding ways in which I can express myself from the center of me. I have always been a writer, photography is a new way I am <em><strong>learning</strong></em> to express myself...it is a new language for me. When I write I paint with words, revealing myself a layer at a time.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Matt nailed it. I am trained as a writer. A writer learns the tools of written communication, alliteration, repetition, parallelism etc etc. A photographer learns the tools to communicate graphically. If you have and use those tools to communicate, for me, that is an artistic expression. I am an artist who happens to use a machine to make my art. Sorry, gear heads, its just machinery, no mythical sword pulled from stone warranting bowing to the west. No different than a welder with his torch or sculptor with his chisel. If I had learned that I could paint before immersing myself in this art, I wouldnt be toting sandbags and hundreds of pounds of gear to make my art, just an easel, canvas, some brushes and paint. By no means, by describing myself as an artist, am I claiming to be an accomplished artist, just an artist. A mans got to know his limitations. Clint Eastwood. But, like many of you, I certainly suffer for my art. </p>

[pnital]

<p><em>What do you photograph, and why do you photograph it? Matt</em></p>

<p><em>Well said.</em></p>

<p>I think that first it is the urge to express yourself and communicate, than it is the long way to develop your skills, understand the medium you create with. All my youth and adult life were directed to know better and understand what I'm doing and want I want to express. I learned painting ( art school, 4 years),history of the arts, printing methods ( etching / engraving) and photography . In all those years I have learned the different tools and how to use them, experimenting a lot. I learned to look and observe, and I still do.A very long process. I have found my personal voice, I work constantly on cultivating and refining my expression. I think that art has all sort of different definitions ,but if it communicate to a larger audience, exhibited, published, and yes ,also being sold, it can be called art. It took me long years of practice, experimenting, writing, and referring to myself as creating art, by using the camera as a tool.</p>

[david_wyatt2]

<p>I think of myself as an artist in that I enjoy capturing images that show emotion, or that freeze moments in time that will (possibly) never occur again, but still feel that I have a long way to go before I can create some of the scenes in a photograph that I imagine and would like to create. So... an artist, but a slowly developing one. And definitely one who recognizes his limitations.</p>

[philipward]

<p>Not all painters produce art either,altough some have become quite successful producing "chocolate box" paintings.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>I don't usually consider myself an artist. For a lot of landscape type pictures, nature has done the hard work and the camera is just documenting it. The resulting images could be considered as art though.</p>