How we feel about what we do

jordan2240 · January 12, 2014

Perhaps the distinction is in the form of the word. Some are artists (ie. getting recognition and pay for their work), while many are artistic. Some are athletes, while many are athletic. Some are musicians, others are musical. I think an argument could be made for that differentiation.

dan_south · January 12, 2014

photography does not "create", it simply records.

</blockquote>

Keith, if this is what you believe, then I respect your viewpoint. Cameras do record what we put in front of them. Although we certainly influence what they record and how we light and frame it.

I'm a bit surprised to read a statement like this on a site for photographers. It sounds like something that the photographic lay person would say.

We, on the other hand, understand how the photographic process changes what we record - the effect of wide angle and telephoto perspective, for instance, of the merge of three dimensions into two, the freezing of time, or the effect of contrast curves and dynamic range that differ significantly from the human eye.

I could go on. The effect of colors filters on black and white film, for instance. That's not a recording, it's creative manipulation. Manipulation of aperture and shutter speed for effect. Film selection. Post processing. Burning and dodging.

An analog in the music world might be running a specific guitar with specific pickups through a tube amplifier and a specifically selected cabinet that's mic'd at a certain position with a microphone selected by the engineer, into his preferred preamp, compressor and reverb algorithm. The signal chain is deliberately designed to create a specific sound (unless the engineer just plugged into whatever gear happened to be available). It's not just a recording of a guitar. It's an artistic statement.

MichaelChang · January 12, 2014

"A photographer is no more of an artist than is the guy at the back of the hall who makes a bootleg recording of the band he's watching. The art is what's happening on the stage."

</blockquote>

If that were true, then nothing that comes out of Hollywood can be characterized as art which clearly isn't the case.

Hollywood award Oscars for technical achievements which enable recordists to bring a movie to life, and that very act of bringing a film to life makes it art.

The same applies to photography - it's all about bringing the image to life.

Conversely, merely sitting at the piano banging keys does not make an artist. It might, however, loosely make a pianist or musician which are names given to craftsman independent of their competence.

sarah_fox · January 12, 2014

Just... no, Sarah. This is exactly why everything ends up being "art" - like <a href="http://www.saatchigallery.com/artists/artpages/tracey_emin_my_bed.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Tracey Emin's dirty mattress</a>. Art, my foot. As to photography being art - again, just no. Art is the creation of something from nothing (which is why music can be art, Dan - I'm a musician too): photography does not "create", it simply records.

</blockquote>

Hmmmmm... OK. So if Joshua Bell were performing Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto in D, who would be the artist? Tchaikovsky? Bell? Both? I would argue both. Bell would be the performing artist, but he'd be an artist nevertheless. As a performing artist, he would not be creating something from nothing. He'd have Tchaikovsky's score. His job would be to interpret it, add a bit of himself to it, and perform it per his and Tchaikovsky's shared vision. Such is music.

In photography, there is not a composer. The universe is the score, and the photographer is the performing artist. What he or she imparts to the work is his or her own vision and interpretation. That's where the art lies.

Also photography does not just record. That's what my camera does. It's not an artist, but rather a machine. The artistic aspects of photography come both before and after the recording performed by my machine.

Am I concerned that this makes too many of us artists? Nah! The world is a better place for art. I would rejoice if everyone were an artist! It seems ridiculous for us to make "art" the sole domain of impoverished weirdos spattering paint on canvasses.

MichaelChang · January 12, 2014

If I may elaborate on art at a high level of practice, or indeed what constitutes art without dispute, with an example:

The epic film <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ark">"Russian Ark"</a> is a 90 minute movie, filmed in one take, that tells the story of 300 years of Russian history. It was filmed at the Hermitage Museum which was closed for one day for this movie shooting to take place. The set involves over 30 rooms, 300 actors, nearly as many support staff, 4 years in the planning, and no room for error.

"In one breath" is the documentary describing how the Russian Ark was made and truly allows viewers to appreciate the interdisciplinary effort required to make it happen, not the least is the artistic effort at every level:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0Z4bUfUYdw&list=PL0FCE72C98A80C6AD&index=1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0Z4bUfUYdw&list=PL0FCE72C98A80C6AD&index=1</a>

This is the full movie:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE2jRxToAjQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE2jRxToAjQ</a>

To a lesser scale, this level of practice also exists in certain photography genres, all of which makes me reexamine what it means to be an artist.

cyanatic · January 12, 2014

Dan South -- If you won't project confidence in your own abilities, how do you expect other to perceive you? What does it say about your photography and your dedication to your craft, if you are more concerned about sounding egocentric or "pretentious" on a public forum than you are about expressing honestly what you consider to be respectable work?

Sarah Fox -- It seems very strange to me, also, that photographers seem to have this aversion to calling themselves artists. Heck, not all of my photography is artwork, but much of it is, and so I am an artist. This is not to say that my work is necessarily good or meaningful. That's for others to judge. Saying I'm a "talented artist" would be presumptuous and arrogant, but saying I'm an artist is merely a point of information.

Bethe Fisher -- I'm starting to think too many photographers try too hard to not call their photographs "Art." Why? What's so bad about calling something Art?

Fred G -- "I'm not sure why someone should be deemed pretentious for calling himself or herself an artist."

Brad -- The artists I know who consistently produce good work just don't give a whit.

</blockquote>

I think Dan makes a very good point. There does seem to be a tendency on PN for many posters to downplay their abilities and to rarely dare to utter the word "art". Possibly because there is a good deal of indignant and curmudgeonly backlash toward that word and the use of it. I have no idea why that is. I could make some educated guesses, but I don't want to unfairly ascribe motives, fears, or jealousies to people. Yet, whether it is someone who has the chutzpah to call some of their own work "fine art photography", or if it comes up in a discussion of certain photographs recognized as art by curators and galleries -- there always seem to be those who immediately give a derisive and dismissive snort. "It's crap. It's garbage. They're fooling the gullible. The "art world" is BS." etc. What is telling is that rarely do I see such comments backed up by reasoned argument. They almost always take the form of a curt and sneering dismissal. Hopefully, for their sake, such dismissals arise out of considered study and not merely an ignorant irritation. Even a hopeless "geek" like Sarah champions the right of photographers to consider their work "art"! ;-)

I can see another side of the coin -- the concern that "art" loses its meaning if everything can be considered art. I don't want to put words into the mouths of Dan, Bethe, Fred, or Sarah, but neither they, nor I, am arguing for a meaningless, "feel good", New Age relativism ("Everyone's a winner!").

On the occasions when I talk about my own work in a PN thread, I always avoid the word "art" for some of the very reasons that others have already mentioned. I do what I do, regardless of what I call it. But I guess I will have to come out of the closet and declare, with pride, that I do consider some of my photographs to be art, and do consider some bodies of my work to be art. There. I said it.

But I also don't talk about my work as "art" because, along the lines of what Brad has said, it's not really necessary. Brad chooses to call his work "snaps". But what he does falls within my definition of art. But it doesn't matter to me if he chooses not to call it art. Nor should anyone care if I refer to my own work as art. Maybe some here are conflating "art" with "great", or "genius". I find the work of a number of posters here to fall within the scope of art. That doesn't make them pretentious, nor does it mean that they are fooling themselves.

Brad_ · January 12, 2014

>>> A photographer is no more of an artist than is the guy at the back of the hall who makes a bootleg

recording of the band he's watching.

<a href=

"http://artsconnected.org/media/73/72/b3b2940718f59ad565ece0f5f6ab/1024/768/95516.jpg">Art</a>? Or

how about <a href= "http://gregor.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/pearblossom-highway.jpg">this one</a>?

Sometimes photography is more than just literal recording. Though if a photographer wants their own work to go no further than

that, that's fine too. The two very well known pieces I happened to pick were chosen to make a point. But there are certainly photos, millions no doubt, that are far more subtle that could be used as well.

jordan2240 · January 12, 2014

So, either artists are free to declare when they have created art, potentially encouraging a chaotic state where art can mean just about anything. Or artists are required to submit official "Is It Art?" requests to some approved and sanctioned Board Of Art, an oppressive system where control and regulation trump expression.

</blockquote>

I think that's the crux of the matter Dan. We've all been to galleries where we'll look at something and wonder why it deserves wall space. The question of what is or is not art is purely subjective and has no basis whatsoever beyond the opinion of the viewer. There is no education or experience that makes one person more qualified to judge something as art than another. So, we should all be free and willing to label ourselves as artists when we've created something that we might look at on someone else's wall and consider it art.

cyanatic · January 12, 2014

Interesting examples, Brad. You can probably guess my answers. ;-)

I have been critical of those who make curt dismissals of photographs that some people think are art. I'm primarily talking about the type of photograph, or group of photographs, that might fetch a high price at an auction or appear at a prestigious exhibition. It's often the case that many of us look at certain of these types of photographs and say, "What the hell is that!?".

To be honest, I criticize people who make such quick dismissals because I guard against that in myself. Years ago I posted something in the POP forum about the photographer/artist Richard Prince. I was basically indignant that he photographed another photographer's image (a cowboy for an old Marlboro ad), made his own adjustments, and ended up selling it for a large sum of money. Luis G (whatever happened to Luis? I miss him, and hope he is well. I have not seen a post by him in ages) took me to task and we had quite a spirited exchange. Among many of the things that Luis said was "How many people 'get' what you do?" That statement, and Luis' reasoned arguments for things that lay behind Princes work, made a lasting impression on me. I don't have the time to look deeply into every photograph, famous or not famous, that I come across. But I always try to reserve judgement until I've given something a good look, or made an effort to understand the thought, rationale, and aesthetic perspective that lies behind a given photograph. To be honest, I don't always succeed. I have found that it takes much more work to understand than to sneer.

jenkins · January 12, 2014

photography does not "create", it simply records.

In it's very RAW state, yes it does.

J.W. Wall · January 12, 2014

FWIW: One online dictionary defines "art" as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination...." No reference to the agency making that determination, which obviously is subjective as to existence and quality.

wogears · January 12, 2014

As to photography being art - again, just no. Art is the creation of something from nothing (which is why music can be art, Dan - I'm a musician too): photography does not "create", it simply records.

</blockquote>

Man, I don't know what I did before I had people like you to tell me the real truth about things. Y'know, I used to think Albrecht Dürer's portraits were art. What a fool I was. He wasn't creating, he was just recording.

EDIT: I guess if I sing a Verdi aria, I'm just not an artist.

tholte · January 12, 2014

"How about a sculptor or a painter who refuses to call their work "art." What would you think of them?" I would think very highly of them and would want to see their work.

AlanKlein · January 13, 2014

I create the photo. It requires a viewer to call it art.

spanky · January 13, 2014

"Do you understand the inherent danger of defining art in in terms of skills and abilities?" - Dan South.

Apparently Dan I do not. If a work of art is not the outcome of a process rendered by one with exceptional skill and vision, then what is it? What separates the work of an artist like Picasso from everyone else? Why do so many people who visit Yosemite and take pictures yet have not achieved the acclaim that Adams has? Is it luck? If so then anyone who picks up a chisel and hammer in theory can produce a work of art on the scale of Michelangelos "David" Really, though, how realistic is that? Can someone who takes piano lessons just start composing works on par with Mozart? If not was Mozart just lucky then? In any medium, the effectiveness of an artwork is how well the artist synced form and content. The basic techincal skills of the medium must be first mastered before one can break the rules to render content in the most effective way intended. This takes skill. Picasso showed tremendous skill in drawing from an early age. With his vision, he then changed the course of modern art by introducing Cubism. Therefore, I still stand by my assertion that artists are a special breed of people who posses a exceptionally high degree of skill.

Wouter Willemse · January 13, 2014

The argument that art implies being created from scratch is of course silliness. How can any poem be art is all the words it contains have been used before? How can music be art if all the notes it contains have been used before, or even worse, works like the Haydn Variations by Brahms, or the Metamorphosen by Richard Strauss, which contain literal quotes from other composers? Any art form leans on something that preceeds it - tradition, culture, even a revolution requires predecessors to break away from. There is no such thing as "nothing" to start from.

But there is a good point that Steve Gubin made - there is a risk of everything being called art. Also the discussion between Dan and Marc shows that. Sure, skill counts, abilities count. They're just not the end-all-and-be-all of what makes art art. Nor is it, in my view, just the artists proclaiming something art - that is a discussion starter, but it's not enough. The work must carry the qualities and intentions the artists have; it has to carry a bit more than just "being art". A message of sorts should be there, the work should be able to force you to stop and think for a while (either the message it carries, the techniques used or the display of excellent skills). Just a cliché image of a sunset and call it "art" won't cut it.

thomas_k. · January 13, 2014

Just a cliché image of a sunset and call it "art" won't cut it.

</blockquote>

In life we often enjoy "cliche" experiences. We enjoy our favorite dish over and over, watch never ending TV shows, make love, experience and watch with our own eyes seemingly identical sunsets. Why can't "cliche" images be enjoyed in a same way and sometimes be elevated to status of art?

Wouter Willemse · January 13, 2014

Thomas, I wasn't saying it can't be art ever; nor that it cannot be enjoyed (but enjoying something and calling it art are for me two completely seperate things - there is a lot of art I do not enjoy). My point is that the "proclamation of art" needs a bit more meat than just saying "this is art". If I would say <a href="/photo/17644855">this photo</a> is art (it's a totally random example), wouldn't you want me to tell a bit more? Why it would be art, what my artistic intents were, why I feel this image is more than just a dead branch? Calling something art should start the discussion on whether it actually is, else it's a rather empty label.

Maybe using a sunset cliché as example was unfortunate. Actually, I'm quite sure it was.

thomas_k. · January 13, 2014

Wouter, If you say "this is art" - personally I'm more inclined to pay attention to whatever image you have to show, than if you would say "this is a snap".

dan_south · January 13, 2014

Regarding technical skill as a basis for art, how about the comic strip Dilbert? The drawings are crude, but they communicate

ideas very effectively. Another case like that is The Simpsons, one of the most successful television programs of all time.

Are these not art because the illustrators lack the drawing skills of Picaso of Michelangelo?

The Pulitzer Prize winning photos that I have seen are not the most technically perfect photos, but they communicate and

inspire more than a thousand perfect sunrises.

Technique is not art. Technique is technique. There's a difference.

Norma Desmond · January 13, 2014

Thomas: we often enjoy "cliche" experiences

Thomas, I indulge clichés sometimes. But I don't think they're art. Actually, according to the definition of cliché, supplied below, enjoying a cliché may be an oxymoron. A cliché, by definition, is something irritating, not enjoyable. It may well be the case that what's a cliché to me won't be to you and you might enjoy something as art that I don't but, given the definition of cliché, it's hard to imagine a cliché being art. Now, to qualify that, I think some artists work with clichés and are able to transform them into art or back into art because of some new meaning or feeling they imbue them with. But just a cliché, on its own face value, can't—IMO—be art, since it's the thing that robs art of its art-ness.

Cliché an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning, or effect, and even, to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.

AlanKlein · January 13, 2014

This whole thread is edging, more quickly than slowly, to what is the definition of art. It seems in all the other threads about the definition of art, we never were able to pin it down. So I suppose we can all figure our work is or is not art according to our own definitions.

If calling your photo art makes you feel better about it, so call it art. However, if you can look at it and feel good about what you've created and have others enjoy it too, isn't that enough, what it's all about?

lex_jenkins · January 13, 2014

Most familiar looking photos I see are tropes rather than cliches. We're

exploring certain conventions and forms, hoping to impress our personal

style or vision. Haiku is constrained by formal format, and explores

certain tropes, yet not all haiku are cliches.

Norma Desmond · January 13, 2014

Good point, Lex. Repetition is important in all the arts. Repetition is not cliché, nor is familiarity. Cliché has a specific negative meaning, implying triteness and loss of meaning. Neither repetition nor familiarity are necessarily trite or meaningless.

_________________________________________________

Alan, I don't know that calling oneself an artist is done to make oneself feel better as much as it is done simply to communicate. A doctor calls himself a doctor to give introductory and contextual information, cursory though it may be. So does a plumber, so does a teacher. None of these folks is reducing themselves to that label or using it to feel better or worse. Labels are easy means of giving some information. They are an important part of our language. A problem with all such labels is that they can be superficial and not really provide all that much information or they can be used to foster stereotypes.

If I'm asked what I do, I may say I'm a photographer. If I'm asked what kind of photography, I'll say "mostly portraits." If I'm asked what kind of portraits I will say "art portraits" or "creative portraits." That's a simple and quick way to distinguish them from portraits people might pay for at their local Costco or portrait service. I don't charge for my portraits and I don't do them to flatter people or for people to add them to their scrap books, though that happens sometimes. I do them without such a commercial purpose and I choose to call that art for a variety of other reasons. It seems to convey something to those I communicate with.

Often, I ask others what they do. They may say something like "I am a teacher." Each of us may feel good about what we do, their being a teacher and my being an artist. Feeling good about what I do is rewarding. I feel good about what I do, which is very different from calling myself by such and such a label in order to feel good about myself.

AlanKlein · January 13, 2014

However, if you can look at it and feel good about what you've created and have others enjoy it too, isn't that enough, what it's all about?

</blockquote>

Just to pickup after my comment above. A little story about this picture that just culminated a few minutes ago with an email I received. <a href="/photo/17648203">http://www.photo.net/photo/17648203</a>

I was driving after a snow storm and saw this pictureque scene that was just calling to be photographed. Since the pond abutted the county road, and there were no private property signs or fences, I thought the water belonged to the county and not the people who had a house on the other side of the lake. So I parked my car across the highway and dragged my cameras and tripod to the pond.

Suddenly, while getting off a few shots, a woman from the second floor back terrace of the house across the pond started yelling at me. "Who are you? What are you doing?. What's that thing hanging from your neck? (my light meter on a cable). This is private property." Aghast and guilty, I yelled back an apology, said something inane about what I was doing, packed my stuff and briskly went back to the car.

While packing away the gear, up drives her husband in an SUV. He rolls down the window and I stick my head into the passenger side apologizing for what happened. He told me how others made similar mistakes but it gets his wife pretty upset. I should have knocked and asked if I wanted to photograph. Apologizing again, explaining how I made a mistake, I asked for his email so I can send the picture to him. That was about a month ago. Since it was film, I didn't get around to developing it and scanning and emailing it to him until last week. I thought he was still upset because he didn't respond. Just before I finally got his response by email. He and his wife thanked me for the pictures and told me they were beautiful. (not artistic).

So this is what photos are all about - communications. Not only for what the picture is saying to others but also by allowing us photographers to to have a real relation with other people. What started off tense, ended very well. He never did call my photo artistic but did invite me back to shoot some more - just knock. So this is another payoff for what we and our photos do, more meaningful than giving it a title.

Sign In

How we feel about what we do

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in