Alleged abstract photos are tiresome......wrong medium, too easy.

[removed account4]

I think that is just storing up goodwill for when they post.

or maybe .. they liked the photograph ?

too much elitism/snobism for me ...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Calling yourself an artist is just ego. You're not an artist unless the viewer thinks you're one.

 

[faberryman]

Calling yourself an artist is just ego. You're not an artist unless the viewer thinks you're one.

Why does the viewer get to decide whether you are an artist?

 

[Vaughn]

Calling yourself an artist is just ego. You're not an artist unless the viewer thinks you're one.

That's a rather egotistic way of thinking.

Continued... egotistical in the manner of thinking that you (or anyone) have the right to tell anyone else how to think of themselves.

However, after reading your post again, I have to agree -- as long as you include the creator of the work as one of the 'viewers'.

From a logic-based POV... If a work is in the act of being created and has not yet had a 'viewer' (beyond its creator), when does it become art? After the the first viewer sees it and says it is? Or is it when its creator first has the spark and started his/her creative process. I say the art starts with the person -- not a viewer's opinion. The only thing the viewer can judge is if s/he likes it or not, and if a little bit educated, perhaps judge it based on further criteria. And from the work the viewer is welcomed to base his or her opinion of the quality of the artist...but not if he or she is an artist.

 

[warden]

Calling yourself an artist is just ego. You're not an artist unless the viewer thinks you're one.

Can I be a poet if I don't know it?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Can I be a poet if I don't know it?

If you can make it rhyme anytime.

 

[removed account4]

Calling yourself an artist is just ego. You're not an artist unless the viewer thinks you're one.

not so sure about that
what about critcs and geniuses ?

 

[jtk]

"artist" as an identity is not enough...too easy.

 

[Vaughn]

Why make life more difficult than it is? Besides, to be able to apply only a single lable to oneself is mightly rare. I am an artist. I am also a father, for example.

According to Alan, then, I guess the easiest way to 'officially' be an artist is to enter an art competetion. If you get a piece accepted, one has had a judge who considered your piece as art. Art is made by an artist, therefore you are an artist! Congrats!

 

[removed account4]

"artist" as an identity is not enough...too easy.

nope not easy at all,
look at the artists uploading videos to the youtube
always have to have new content to get ahead of the
algorithm or they don't get enough 1¢ / click recent
reports and interviews with artists on that platform and trained professionals
say it is hazardous to their health, if that is easy, i don't know what hard is..
photographer artist artist photographer artist &c make it hard to
keep it going. look at the darlings of the past few years
faking auction sales, appropriating other people's work
and claiming as one's own .. sounds like it is hard to keep up the swimming to me ..
maybe it is too easy for people who haven't acquired the label ?

 

[jtk]

If the photographer tells viewers that his/her photograph is "abstract" it means she/he is afraid to let viewers think on their own, even for a moment.

He/she gets to enjoy labeling other photographers as professionals while he pretends to something else.

Some people need labels. Dogs easily learn to beg.

 

[jtk]

Why does the viewer get to decide whether you are an artist?

.....

You "get to" decide whatever you want. Other people "get to" evaluate, or "get to" laugh or just walk away.

For example, "you get to decide" you're an astronaut, and not just a space cadet. .

But I think identity is a lot more complicated that that, and a lot less significant. Many fine photographers are space cadets.

I think that when photographers call themselves "artists" it's often a dodge.

The work "gets to" speak for itself....unless of course, it's labeled "abstract."

 

[removed account4]

If the photographer tells viewers that his/her photograph is "abstract" it means she/he is afraid to let viewers think on their own, even for a moment.

He/she gets to enjoy labeling other photographers as professionals while he pretends to something else.

Some people need labels. Dogs easily learn to beg.

you forgot the part about belittling

 

[Sirius Glass]

Frankly we all have better things to do than argue about who is or is not an artist.

 

[jtk]

Frankly we all have better things to do than argue about who is or is not an artist.

Agree completely. This OT has to do with useless "abstract" photo labels.

 

[removed account4]

Frankly we all have better things to do than argue about who is or is not an artist.

yeah, but but, but SG

Jaimes, Olivia. “Nancy by Olivia Jaimes for April 27, 2018.” Today's Comics Online | Read Comic Strips at GoComics, 27 Apr. 2018, www.gocomics.com/nancy/2018/04/27.

 

[DonJ]

If the photographer tells viewers that his/her photograph is "abstract" it means she/he is afraid to let viewers think on their own, even for a moment.

No, it means I'm telling them what I intended; they're free to decide whether I succeeded, whether they like it, and whether I'm an artist.

 

[jtk]

If the photographer tells viewers that his/her photograph is "abstract" it means she/he is afraid to let viewers think on their own, even for a moment.

He/she gets to enjoy labeling other photographers as professionals while he pretends to something else.

Some people need labels. Dogs easily learn to beg.

 

[Sirius Glass]

yeah, but but, but SG
View attachment 212132

For decades I read the Nancy comic to see if it would ever be funny. I never found one that was.

I have read and reread this particular comic several dozen times and I still do not understand it. I have shown it to eight people and none of them understand it. Can you explain what the heck it means? You do not even have to display any humor in it.

 

[removed account4]

For decades I read the Nancy comic to see if it would ever be funny. I never found one that was.

I have read and reread this particular comic several dozen times and I still do not understand it. I have shown it to eight people and none of them understand it. Can you explain what the heck it means? You do not even have to display any humor in it.

not sure whats not to get
some old cranky guy complaining about kids these days

 

[Sirius Glass]

not sure whats not to get
some old cranky guy complaining about kids these days

But not funny.

 

[removed account4]

But not funny.

- NAH-

 

[jtk]

yeah, but but, but SG
View attachment 212132

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

 

[removed account4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

CITED!

Jaimes, Olivia. “Nancy by Olivia Jaimes for April 27, 2018.” Today's Comics Online | Read Comic Strips at GoComics, 27 Apr. 2018, www.gocomics.com/nancy/2018/04/27.

 

[BrianShaw]

CITED!

Jaimes, Olivia. “Nancy by Olivia Jaimes for April 27, 2018.” Today's Comics Online | Read Comic Strips at GoComics, 27 Apr. 2018, www.gocomics.com/nancy/2018/04/27.

Fair Use.