Do you consider yourself an Artist or a Photographer

[rossb]

<p> Those labels sound awfully serious to me. I do not want to be an artist because I don't have a cool hat and I don't want to be a photographer because then I would have to buy more stuff.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Don't know. Still working on that question "Is there in truth, No Beauty?"<br>

I just do what I want to do the way I want to do it. After all. I'm the one who's buying all the supplies!</p>

[jgalyon]

<blockquote>

<p>I am very much an artist with a camera. I get constantly critiqued about not being technically correct and try and apply all these rules to my work. I just laugh and ignore. I am hardly ever out of work and am hired for my originality and uniqueness. It does get tiresome having to explain my way of working to an anal tog who shoots kingfisher for a living with photoshop as a back up!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Joanne, I left one of those critiques concerning "rules and technique"...but as you'll recall, I made a point to be clear that I wasn't suggesting that you do anything differently...basically, just passing on information. You responded very politely, but I suppose the reality is that you laughed at and ignored what I had to say? ;) I think you have some very nice work and I'm not the least bit surprised that you're never out of work!</p>

<p>You told me that you "don't do rules...". Isn't that a rule ...in and of itself? <em>Always</em> making a point to break the rules doesn't equate to <em>always</em> producing imaginative, creative art. In fact, it can greatly hamper the very thing you've set out to do. For me...breaking rules just because <em>you can </em>...says nothing to me. I have no problem with breaking rules. In fact, I rather love to do it myself! However, there came a time when I realized that if there wasn't purpose in breaking a rule...doing so was nothing more than being rebellious.<br>

<br />I respect and commend you for making art through a process that works for you. But I would also point out that there's nothing more noble about your process than that of the photographer who believes that rules and technique are important to producing art.</p>

<p>Cheers! John</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>I make happy snaps - snaps that make me happy! And because it's a hobby, I guess that makes me a hobbyist.</p>

[alan_ginman]

<p>"You told me that you "don't do rules...". Isn't that a rule ...in and of itself? <em>Always</em> making a point to break the rules... "</p>

<p>There is a difference between deliberately breaking rules, and not thinking about them in the first place. I tend to not think about rules when taking pictures, but that is different from going out of my way to break them, which would be perverse.</p>

<p>I've never really gone along with the whole "I'm an artist with a camera" idea, because this has always sounded a tad pretentious. Surely an artist with a camera is a photographer. Anyway, Joanne, whatever you call yourself, you take nice pictures. And that's the main thing isn't it? And my 4 year old daughter has made me laugh every day of her life. And there's not many people I could say that about.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Honestly I haven't thought about it. Honestly I don't care about it. I don't think so.<br /> <br /> I just go around with a camera, when I can. I guess that makes me a guy taking photographs.<br /> Some I like, some bore me.<br /> But I keep watching. Sometimes I succeed capturing what I see, most of the times I don't. Sometimes I don't see things. Sometimes my photos surprise me.<br /> <br /> I try to recognise my mistakes - what I think are my mistakes - and I try to do better.</p>

<p>Art: a combination of talent and hard work. As concerns myself: talent - I don't know. Hard work - not enough.</p>

[jgalyon]

<blockquote>

<p>There is a difference between deliberately breaking rules, and not thinking about them in the first place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, but in this case...everything Joanne has said thus far indicates that she thinks a good deal about rules...and breaking them. You might want to read her bio. It's a treatise on the topic of "I HATE RULES!".</p>

<p>David LaChappelle is a very successful photographer who has little use for rules and anything technical, but he doesn't seem to feel the need to write off photographers who don't share his philosophy as being "anal togs"....or "knobs", or boasting about the virtues of his way of seeing and shooting. He just lets his pictures do the talking.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I see this as a two folded question. First...photography is Art. Here I'm talking about the visual arena. Like compared to paintings. What makes a photograph different than a painting? Essentially the tools you use. Once you get past the actual physical tools used, you enter into what the person using them can do with them. The "best" produce Art. The rest do it as a hobby or past time. There's tons of people who paint never expecting to do anything with the final product other than completing it. Sure they'de love be hung in a museum....but 99% of them don't. Photographers are no different in this respect.</p>

<p>Is my own personal stuff Art......well, this is the second fold of the question. Some of my stuff is Art.....and some of it is pure crap. Most of my stuff is shot as a "snap"....especially when it comes to Street and Candid Portraits. My nature and abstracts tend to be a little more thought out. But, believe me, the way I take the shot, snap or contemplated, has NO bearing on how far away it gets from crap on the way to Art.</p>

<p>To answer the question as a whole......it's a photographic piece of Art. Or it's a photographic piece of crap. Just like some paintings I've seen.</p>

[laurent_jaussi]

<p>Why is it so important what people consider themselves...photographer, artist, both ?<br>

<br /> I just hope anyone could have faith in themselves, do their best, progress & enjoy, and be realistic about one's work. It does'nt take long when looking at master's work (that are available everywhere now) to see the difference with your work for quality, consistency and expression...<br>

<br /> I have difficulty to understand why it is so important for people to ask others to self judge their own work...It could be easier and more direct to say "show me your images and I will see for myself if you're a photographer, an artist or both"....</p>

[joannahaha]

<p>Thanks Alan. Some photographers get more of a thrill about their equipment and gadgets that accompany cameras than the actual image itself. Many photographers drag a shot into photoshop and check for correctness before they make a judgement on the shot. I know this is crucial for commercial photographers and advertisers. <br>

I just do not work this way, even if I see a shot that is out of focus or at the wrong speed, sometimes it is then that you find real gems. The shots that photographs discard are the ones I love. I do not think it is a crime to be out of focus or to chop limbs off, or heads. Look at Richard Billingham his shots of his dysfunctional family as he was growing up are sublime, but would have the technically correct reeling in horror. Why? </p>

[joannahaha]

<p>Thanks Alan. Some photographers get more of a thrill about their equipment and gadgets that accompany cameras than the actual image itself. Many photographers drag a shot into photoshop and check for correctness before they make a judgement on the shot. I know this is crucial for commercial photographers and advertisers. <br>

I just do not work this way, even if I see a shot that is out of focus or at the wrong speed, sometimes it is then that you find real gems. The shots that photographs discard are the ones I love. I do not think it is a crime to be out of focus or to chop limbs off, or heads. Look at Richard Billingham his shots of his dysfunctional family as he was growing up are sublime, but would have the technically correct reeling in horror. Why? </p>

[will_daniel1]

Many, but not all, rules are in place not for you -- they are there to enhance the viewing experience of those who will see your art. For example: You may disagree with and completely ignore the rule that states your "horizons should always be horizontal," but viewers of those photos will know immediately that something is wrong. I suppose you can say that one who doesn't give a fig about the rules and/or the viewers of his or her art is an artist. One who has a camera and applies the generally accepted rules of good photography is a photographer. A good one. And perhaps also an artist.

[jgalyon]

<p>Joanne, Thus far all I'm hearing you talk about are two distinct types of photographers,i.e. those who, as you said..."HATE THE RULES" and put no importance on anything "technical"... and , those who obsess so much about rules and techical issues that the creative end of their photography suffers. Wouldn't you agree that the vast majority of photographers fall somewhere in the middle of these two extremes?</p>

[joannahaha]

<p> I was starting to worry you have a personal vendetta against me John? I just see time and time again perfectly good shots being rejected by amateurs and enthusiasts for fear of the ' rules '. </p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>This thread is now about rules/no rules. It was about artists/photographers.<br /> Probably first came - and comes - the photograph and then we might consider rules.</p>

<p>It might be just nonsense to judge a photo merely looking at it's verticality, at how the subject is placed in the frame, at the contrast. It might be even more nonsense to judge a photo by the medium or a particular technique. A photo can be wonderful even if the horizon is not horizontal, if limbs are cut off, if the rule of thirds is trashed.</p>

<p>I personally do not manipulate photos, except for those manipulations I did in the darkroom (wet) many years ago. And normally I do not like the effect of "photoshopping". But I have to say that there are photos which have a visual impact on me even if heavily post-processed.</p>

<p>The visual impact of a photo is much, much more than the respect of rules. It has to do with perception, emotion, experience, aesthetic values. Each of us has their own.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>joanne, I think the problem is only when one draws sarcastic divisions, as if one way is better than another or a higher ground. It probably gets irritating having people criticize work that doesn't come up to their standards, but it is only your own standards that matter. My opinion is that when one understands their medium and the visual principles, it is then when a person can be truly be creative by intuitively knowing what to do to transact their vision, technically and visually, --and that is when you realize that there aren't any mistakes!</p>

<p>As to the artist thing, I do think that one doesn't need to concern oneself with it. You are a photographer if you use a camera--maybe to different degrees to be sure--and then some reach a way of working and thinking that is that of an artist (not mutually exclusive monikers). One might or might not get external validation that they are an artist, but I think it is much more an internal sense one has about themselves. But in the final analysis, we all know that people will call us what they will....</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Photography is a medium which can be used in numerous ways. Technique does not hurt as a means to an end, it becomes fatal to art when it is an end in itself (no matter how impressive it may be as craft). People who use cameras in ways that the art world calls art are likely to work according to principles such as avoiding the obvious, confounding/subverting viewers' expectations and never repeating themselves.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>joanne...vendetta? not at all! in fact, while we may disagree a bit on some aspects of this topic...we're far more alike in our philosophy than you might think. actually...you're a breath of fresh air, in that you're not afraid to speak what's on your mind...although, there might be a little room for tempering your comments so as to not offend others, maybe? :) i'll drop you an e-mail, as i'd like to continue the conversation...but i don't want to bore the rest of our friends!</p>

[john_a5]

<p>"I just see time and time again perfectly good shots being rejected by amateurs and enthusiasts for fear of the ' rules '."</p>

<p>John, maybe the discussion is germaine here, to some degree anyway. In the past, this site would include all photos rated over the last "period" defined by you in the "Top Photos" not just those ranked fairly high. When I would peruse the site, I always started backwards, with those ranked the lowest, sometimes 1's or 2's. Although there were certainly some bad images along the way, I found more gems there than going from the top down. Sometimes this low rated work was creatively mature and sometimes it was rough, but it was creative and original as to seeing or idea, but panned by the masses. We aren't going to change the way the masses see or critique an image and it will mean that many, not as strong, might bend to the crowds' standard of excellence and abandon brilliance. For those of us who know better, we should find ways to encourage these people--I just wish you could still find them.</p>

<p>But a case in point would be the POW of the tricycle a couple of weeks ago. A few people seemed to have meltdowns over the image. Sometimes it is not a matter of liking just a matter of trying to understand and thus grow! What impressed me was that the artist who created the image never got involved and let the work talk for itself--and probably could have cared less what others thought in any case.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I think photography is a craft. Choosing what to shoot and how is the art part. Taking class portraits is a craft with little art. Some wedding and documentary photography is craft, while some is elevated to art. To me it's a bit like cooking - you need to understand the craft of food preparation first, then some chef's can elevate food to an art, while others can't or don't try to.</p>

<p>It's always easier to detect fine craftsmanship, while art is more in the eye of the beholder.</p>

[joannahaha]

<p>I was banned from another photographic site for speaking my mind against camera owners who use photographic websites to validate their degrading offensive portrayals of women. I only wanted to ask him' WHY ' and if he was an artist, photographer or misogynistic piece of animal excrement? <br>

I was told to put up and shut up basically. The ' Birds ' and ' Tarts ' are not offensive! Of course I did not put and shut up, I went kicking and screaming. Anyway I am now here annoying you all with my bolshi ways. <br>

So where were we? Yeah I still hate rules and love freedom of speech. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"Some of my stuff is Art.....and some of it is pure crap." <strong>--Thomas Sullivan</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know what you mean here, and it seems a very genuine statement. Perhaps worth talking about a little bit.</p>

<p>For me, not every great photograph is art and not every crappy photograph is not art.</p>

<p>I think there is good art and bad art. Being crappy does not mean it's not art. Many artists make some good and some bad art. Many artists make all bad art. Definitions of art are really hard to achieve, especially in one brief post in an Internet chat room, so I won't be coming up with one.</p>

<p>Vaguely, I think art has a lot to do with purpose and a level of what I'll quickly call "beauty" which is different from pretty and different from very pretty . . . It's got nothing to do with pretty. I also think art is about an attitude both on the part of the viewer and the creator, HOW we look at something and HOW we make something. If someone is working in this manner, with this sensibility, he is often producing art. Some will like it and think it's good. Others won't. Good and bad are generally matters of taste. The thing about art is that tastes will vary. Taste has a lot of power. It makes us judge good and bad. It makes us buy something or not. But I don't think it has the power to make something art or not art.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>to answer to question - both. I've studied the craft and mastered technique sufficiently that I can express myself with a camera. I also work on craft regularly and study. When I played music professionally, I always practiced regularly and kept learning. Photography is no different. </p>

[joannahaha]

<p>

 

<p>I did a degree in Drawing and Applied Art. This was crucial for me to 'see' more. I learnt about different artist and stopped myself using a camera for a whole year. What a difference it made to me. When I picked up my cameras again it was like seeing the word in a different light. I had learned and read about all aspects of art, from 3D to life drawing, and also art theory, Baudrillard, Sontag and John Berger had massive influence on my how I see things. </p>

 

 

</p>

[john_a5]

<p>So, knowing about the principles of art and the technique usually does breed contempt for the rules, why, because most who spout them don't know what is behind them. When someone knows what is behind them they can see how many times they are thrown about without perspective or a sense of what an image is all about, only that the rules weren't met! I have made the statement that I hate rules, but only the fact that telling someone an image doesn't fit a rule, without an explanation of "why" it matters--what does the image say because a rule wasn't followed--generally means absolutely nothing. If one explains what breaking a rule did to a photograph, visually or in its message, then you have something to talk about--and maybe it, the result, was the intent all along! But having the words of explanation allows communication and a learning process on both sides. If both sides make absolute statements, then nothing is accomplished.</p>