Do We Prevent Photography from 'Being Art'

[bill schwab]

maybe in the minds of the public we can have them start looking at photography as art instead of a medium of reproductions.

Since when has the public not accepted photography as art? I'm wondering where it is this notion that photography needs saving as an art form comes from. I don't see where there is any problem at all with photography's acceptance as legitimate or "real' art as you say. It seems to me that the only people that have a problem with it are certain photographers.

 

[kjsphoto]

Luckily I am not a photographer but rather an artist, so I am not sure who you are referring to. Like it or not, most of the public does not see photography as art form, so you can continue to believe what you like.

It is a shame that photographer are unable to think outside the box and move away from the old models. Luckily for me being an artist, I can see differently.

PS: I am not on a Crusade, I just see it differently.

 

[JBrunner]

Luckily I am not a photographer but rather an artist

Main Entry: se·man·tics
Pronunciation: \si-ˈman-tiks\
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Date: 1893
...

3 a: the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

 

[bill schwab]

Luckily I am not a photographer but rather an artist...

Well, please excuse me. As I said before, I mean no disrespect. I really don't see any reason to be defensive and get upset here. I am really interested in why you think people don't accept photography as art. I too do this for a living and all I can say is it gets better and better every year. I don't know where this hostility is coming from. I look at your work, of which you have done only one, and don't see why this makes it any more art than say a Weston Pepper or Adam's Moonrise. If you could explain better without getting upset, it would be great.

As for the crusade part, I will also use a dictionary definition... "any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc".

Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[kjsphoto]

I never said it was more art I said people don't perceive photography as art. I said making only one makes it an orginal, exclusive, not a copy like everyone else does, that is what I said.

Imagine if there was only 1 Moonrise or only 1 Pepper #30 or only one Running Deer... Imagine...

How much do you think they would be worth now?

 

[kjsphoto]

Main Entry: se·man·tics
Pronunciation: \si-ˈman-tiks\
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Date: 1893
...

3 a: the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

No not at all. An artist creates original artwork only one original, photographers create multiples in either editions or open edition...

Huge difference...

 

[MurrayMinchin]

So all I am saying is to get people to start thinking of photography differently why not start treating photography like other mediums and maybe people will start to change their opinions on photosphere as being a REAL art form over time from just another pretty picture..

You're not helping your argument tonight - maybe you should try again after some sleep...

Many Artists produce more than one copy of their original work, such as sculptors, printmakers, stage actors and actresses, musicians, lithographers, and yes, even photographers.

It sounds to me like you're trying to carve out a niche for yourself, to separate yourself from the thundering herd, to make your images stand out based upon their exclusivity instead of their content.

Murray

 

[kjsphoto]

yeah your right Murray your right. What ever you say...

 

[JBrunner]

No not at all. An artist creates original artwork only one original, photographers create multiples in either editions or open edition...

Huge difference...

So, Edward Weston was not an artist. Nor HCB, nor AA, nor Dorthea Lange, nor Edward Steichen, nor Alfred Stieglitz, nor Imogen Cunningham, nor Man Ray, but because you choose to print one of something, using the exact same technique that I or they might print ten with, you are an artist, and they and I are mere photographers? Sorry Kev, but it's a bunch of pretentious hooey. (a bigger pretention than editions)

I'll hang with the photographers. You can do editions of one, more power to you, and I hope it works out. I just don't think you get to reserve the term "artist" all to yourself, based on an arbitrary definition.

 

[bill schwab]

How much do you think they would be worth now?

Dollars? That's what you're talking about? What money would the dead photographer see anyway?

You say you make a living at this. How many one-offs would one have to sell to create a living wage? Do the math and it isn't pretty. Frightening in fact. And this is providing one can make A LOT of photographs people want to buy. I don't think photographers create a work of art with every shutter click... do artists?

I don't know Kevin, this doesn't seem like a sound business strategy if worth is the criteria.

 

[kjsphoto]

You are correct, they were photographers...

Sorry JB but I am an artist and only create original works of art not reproductions like the rest...

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Imagine if there was only 1 Moonrise or only 1 Pepper #30 or only one Running Deer... Imagine...

How much do you think they would be worth now?

Then again, maybe they became more valuable over time because there were enough copies out there to create further interest. Put another way, most photographers will never sell out their editions (if they sell that way) but if they're lucky they might have a couple photographs that do sell out. Answer me this Kevin, which do you think would be worth more to a collector; an edition of one that nobody knows about, or a famous photograph purchased many times over by serious collectors, museums, and institutions?

I'm trying to wrap my head around what you're proposing here, and to me it sounds like you're trying to increase the initial worth of your photographs without thinking about the people who will be buying them, and what their intentions may be.

Murray

 

[kjsphoto]

Dollars? That's what you're talking about? What money would the dead photographer see anyway?

You say you make a living at this. How many one-offs would one have to sell to create a living wage? Do the math and it isn't pretty. Frightening in fact. And this is providing one can make A LOT of photographs people want to buy. I don't think photographers create a work of art with every shutter click... do artists?

I don't know Kevin, this doesn't seem like a sound business strategy if worth is the criteria.

Well if photography was considered art and I sold one original artwork a month for $5000 then I could make living easily. Living painter's do this all day long so your point isn't valid.

 

[JBrunner]

You are correct, they were photographers...

Sorry JB but I am an artist and only create original works of art not reproductions like the rest...

Edward Weston was not an artist... wow. I had no idea....is there an example of another living or dead photographic artist, besides yourself?

 

[kjsphoto]

Then again, maybe they became more valuable over time because there were enough copies out there to create further interest. Put another way, most photographers will never sell out their editions (if they sell that way) but if they're lucky they might have a couple photographs that do sell out. Answer me this Kevin, which do you think would be worth more to a collector; an edition of one that nobody knows about, or a famous photograph purchased many times over by serious collectors, museums, and institutions?

I'm trying to wrap my head around what you're proposing here, and to me it sounds like you're trying to increase the initial worth of your photographs without thinking about the people who will be buying them, and what their intentions may be.

Murray

So what you are saying is that by me selling my originals with destroyed negatives for $125 - $425 is too much for collectors? No one that has bought my work has complained so far... I don't think my prices are expensive.

 

[kjsphoto]

Edward Weston was not an artist... wow. I had no idea....

Well now you do

 

[bill schwab]

Sorry JB but I am an artist and only create original works of art not reproductions like the rest...

I can't believe you could be this pretentious Kevin. You're pulling our legs,... right?

I'm with Murray. I really am trying to wrap my mind around this. Please tell me it is something more than simply giving yourself props. You really think the fact that you make only one print makes you an artist?

I'm completely confused.

 

[kjsphoto]

is there an example of another living or dead photographic artist, besides yourself?

Sorry missed this. yes there is Jorge Gasteazoro...

 

[bill schwab]

Sorry missed this. yes there is Jorge Gasteazoro...

Well... say no more. Now I get it. Just a bunch of legend in their own mind stuff. It's been a commercial all along.

Time to move on...

 

[kjsphoto]

Takes one to know one. Thanks appreciate it

 

[JBrunner]

Sorry missed this. yes there is Jorge Gasteazoro...

You and Jorge. Cool.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Well if photography was considered art and I sold one original artwork a month for $5000 then I could make living easily.

So what you are saying is that by me selling my originals with destroyed negatives for $125 - $425 is too much for collectors? No one that has bought my work has complained so far... I don't think my prices are expensive.

Only $4,575.00 to easy street!

You may be right Kevin, but you're like the King standing at the oceans edge demanding upon your Royal edict that the tide to rise no further. While you may create a niche, you're fighting against the history of photography, and all the past greats.

Murray

 

[bill schwab]

Takes one to know one.

Sorry Kevin. I'm nowhere near your league. You have me beat hands down! I've only had a few $5,000.00 sales and you're pulling down one a month! Good job.

 

[kjsphoto]

Sorry Kevin. I'm nowhere near your league. You have me beat hands down!

Well I am just going deeper inside myself like you do to try and create my style.

I learned from the master!

 

[kjsphoto]

Only $4,575.00 to easy street!

You may be right Kevin, but you're like the King standing at the oceans edge demanding upon your Royal edict that the tide to rise no further. While you may create a niche, you're fighting against the history of photography, and all the past greats.

Murray

Yes Murray your right.