Do you consider yourself an Artist or a Photographer

[eddy_d]

<p>Anything you Create is art, in my opinion. Houses/buildings, even food. Photography is art as well. So yes we are artists and that encompasses literary, performing and visual arts. We are all artists. Plain and simple. Dick you have a cool job, I always wanted to work in a gallery. You are blessed.</p>

[dldula]

<p>I would have to say that that I'm a little of both .... so I reckon you could call me a "phartist" !</p>

[philip_leonardson]

<p><strong>What rules ?</strong> Who discards their own photographs or labels those of others as non-artistic ? Who can say that a photograph taken today in one geographical area will not be considered an art-form by someone in a completely different geographical area ? Or by someone viewing it 50-75-100 years from now? <strong>What rules ?</strong> Who cares which camera you shoot with ? You are either a working photographer or you are not, but rules don't make that decision..<strong>What rules ?</strong></p>

<p>--Phil Leonardson<strong><br /> </strong></p>

[graham_thompson1]

<p>It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer. You need less imagination to be a painter, because you can invent things. But in photography everything is so ordinary; it takes a lot of looking before you learn to see the ordinary. -<br />Quote by David Bailey.</p>

[dickhilker]

<p><strong>"What rules?" </strong>Maybe it would help to think of them as a discipline of expression that enables us to convey what we mean with some accuracy. If we consider them a form of language, we could equate ignoring them with "speaking in tongues" or attempting to communicate in a foreign language: no matter how loudly you shout, it's not going to help.<br>

If we consider rules to be guidelines that help the viewers of our art to understand what we're trying to express, they lose their constrictive connotation and become signposts that keep everyone on course.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>o.k., I get it......no rules, you're kewl. it's becoming comical at this point.</p>

[philip_leonardson]

<p><strong>What rules ?</strong> Who discards their own photographs or labels those of others as non-artistic ? Who can say that a photograph taken today in one geographical area will not be considered an art-form by someone in a completely different geographical area ? Or by someone viewing it 50-75-100 years from now? <strong>What rules ?</strong> Who cares which camera you shoot with ? You are either a working photographer or you are not, but rules don't make that decision..<strong>What rules ?</strong></p>

<p>--Phil Leonardson<strong><br /> </strong></p>

[dickhilker]

<p><strong><em>Who discards their own photographs or labels those of others as non-artistic ?</em></strong><br>

I do all the time, my own because I realize most of them aren't worth keeping, and those of others because a gallery can't afford the space for junk.<br>

<strong><em>Who can say that a photograph taken today in one geographical area will not be considered an art-form by someone in a completely different geographical area ? Or by someone viewing it 50-75-100 years from now? </em></strong><br>

You're right, but who is going to archive their output on the slim chance it may be true? Even if the work is eventually considered worthy somewhere, sometime in the distant future, the likelihood is that it won't be.<br>

<strong><em>Who cares which camera you shoot with ? You are either a working photographer</em></strong> <em><strong>or you are not, but rules don't make that decision.</strong></em><br>

If you're a working photographer, you should realize that, to some extent, prospective clients will judge you not only by your portfolio but also by the professionalism of your equipment. Do you feel that being a working photographer and an artist are mutually exclusive? Rules? "The man with the gold makes the rules" applies to the photography business and it's the client who has the gold.<br>

<strong><em> </em></strong></p>

[jim_artist]

<p>You have to admit that their is a difference. I think some photography is definitely art and some isn't, even if its beautiful and here is why I think this way. I can get up this morning and go into the city and take a long exposure picture at sunrise and it wins first place in a photo competition. Before I leave I mark where the tripod was and have all my technical info written down with exact time of the day, my exposure, film and all. I give my camera gear and step by step instructions to a friend who sells cars and he goes the next day. He will get the same picture. A painter can give someone the same instructions but if you aren't as good of a painter as him, you will never make the same painting.<br>

Granted, the salesman would never have done this on his own but it does make one think about the difference.</p>