'Fine Art' and 'just another pitcher'...

jd callow · Jun 17, 2006

MacDonald's has teams of liars whose job it is to invent and write supportive text for their promotional garbage. The poor bloke at this show borrowed an ill conceived phrase and may not have had the foresight to think of how to support it.

Meanwhile, it is the same old story:

Q: How many artists does it take to screw a light bulb into a socket?

A: One, but it requires the rest of the art community to discuss how derivative the effort was, that the only reason s/he got the job was politics or who s/he knows/slept with married, etc..

jd callow · Jun 17, 2006

jerry lebens said:
Hi Mr Callow,

I like your formulation, although I have a feeling that the plain 'artist' may sound a little less loaded in a US context than it does in the UK - I'm not sure.
I think most of the british artists I've met do tend to say something along the lines of "I'm a painter" smile, look down, "not a house painter", or "I'm a writer" and leave someone else to chip in with the "yes, darling, and you've just been listed for the Booker Prize", anything rather than say "I'm an 'artist' ". It's just too pushy.
Yes, it's very self effacing, very english. My last outburst notwithstanding, I'd honestly rather starve and be thought of as a "nice, polite, person" rather than a pushy, ill mannered, artist. And I suspect that a lot of people on this side of the Atlantic would act the same - regardless of talent.

If you can say it without putting people off - good for you.

In the first instance -- being English or living on the continent of Europe - you feign modesty. It is not truth that keeps the 'painter' or 'writer' from saying "I try to tell a larger truth or uncover hidden meanings or reveal something important about me/you/society, try to create simple beauty or I try to communicate something of significance via the pictures I paint or the words I write. In other words I'm an artist." It is some absurd convention that some have agreed upon.

In the second instance, no one finds it easy to call themselves an artist in most any social situation. This does not mean that they are not artists or creative if they should say they are.

I am simply saying that a person can call themselves an artist (book keeper, floor sweeper, footballer, etc....) if they can justify the statement. To say that they cannot is BS.

catem · Jun 17, 2006

Ed Sukach said:
I'm convinced that the really good ones DO NOT "pump themselves up". There is no need for them to do so ... and they have fallen out of the habit.

That's why the Brits are so self-effacing and self-conscious about calling themselves artists, writers, poets, photographers, creative types etc.

It's not because they're self-effacing and humble at all but because they were taught from an early age to think that if they pretend to be then that's the only way to be ultimately really really good and to be taken seriously. Instead, any sort of 'artistic' activity more likely simply becomes something to be vaguely embarrassed about. Those who don't confirm to this norm easily and quickly overcompensate and become labelled as arrogant time-wasters (if they're hugely successful, like Tracey Emin, they are labelled vastly overpaid and all the other nasty things that we can think up aswell).

I think we're appalling in this country (U.K.) in our attitude to creative people. In general we don't value it and we don't subsidise it. We vastly overpay a few well-known artists and writers and then we ignore everyone else. And if we - heaven forbid - do anything of it ourselves we spend half the time apologising for it.

In fact I don't think we have even now grown away from the historical roots where artistic (including photographic) and literary activities were seen as the leisure pursuits of the well-off. That coupled with the snobbery associated with the 'art world' makes it inaccessible to many. Maybe things were more democratic in the U.S. - historically at least - and that is what makes it easier for people to admit that they are 'artists'.

doughowk · Jun 17, 2006

Most people I've met who pretend at self-effacement have a superiority complex. From a knowledge of British history, I have to wonder if its a national character trait.

I am an artist because I revel in the act of creation. I think all humans are capable of being artists but most are satisfied with killing time (watching sports, etc..). I strive to create a fine print; so, why not declare that I'm an artist who produces/creates fine prints - shorthand is fine art print.

jerry lebens · Jun 17, 2006

David H. Bebbington said:
Not too clear what point you're making here, Jerry, but as you are a professional photographer, let me ask you just one question: How do you sell yourself to potential customers? What quality do you suggest to them that you have which would make them come to you and spends hundreds if not thousands of pounds instead of taking the pictures themselves on a digital point and shoot? I would be astonished if, whether overtly or by implication, you did not suggest to them that you are more imaginative and creative (and also more highly skilled) and thus able to produce better pictures!

Best regards,

David

I'm lucky. I've been around long enough to have a reliable group of clients who ask when they need me (touch wood!) - there are new clients but they tend to arrive by recommendation. So, I'm in the fortunate position of rarely needing to persuade people of what I can do. This is doubly good because I'm not really very good at selling myself.

Believe it or not, I don't believe that my professional photographs are creative. Mostly I'm working within a brief and there's an Art Director telling me what they want. Often my brief is to emulate another image in another book or magazine. If the AD is good and experienced I'm even happier.

I'm not denying I have skills but they are of a practical/technical nature. My clients don't want me to be creative, they want me to take the pictures in the brief. I count things like exposure, lighting and even composition to be technical problems to be solved with my technical knowledge - I didn't invent any of the techniques I use. So, I'm not being "more creative" if I move the light further to the left.

If you must use the word, my creativity is in problem solving. Knowing how to get the job done. A bit like solving a crossword - but I didn't invent the crossword. I may be a good problem solver, but so are most other people in their own way. Given time I can show people how to do what I do - there's no magic to it. And I don't for a minute wish to belittle the huge satisfaction others get from doing or looking at art.

My "Creative" skills are exactly the same ones I used when I was a teacher, solving everyday problems in the classroom - or the ones I used yesterday when I repaired the plumbing. I really adore making pictures and I'm totally engrossed in what I do, but it's not the sacred activity some "Artists" would have us say. If the "Artists" would accept that they are no more nor less "Creative" than the average teacher, baker or candlestick maker, then I'd join the club tomorrow, gladly. Until then I'd rather be just a jobbing photographer.

Regards
Jerry

jd callow · Jun 17, 2006

doughowk said:
I strive to create a fine print; so, why not declare that I'm an artist who produces/creates fine prints - shorthand is fine art print.

A very reasonable explanation, but if it is the print that is fine it might be better written as fine, art print. Otherwise it is the art that is fine, which may be what you are saying and is more than OK with me. I can't bring myself to say that my art is fine, because too much of it is most assuredly not.

catem · Jun 17, 2006

doughowk said:
Most people I've met who pretend at self-effacement have a superiority complex. From a knowledge of British history, I have to wonder if its a national character trait.

I agree - it's historically a very British characteristic, but only of a certain class, associated mainly with the power and wealth that generally supported it.

doughowk said:
I am an artist because I revel in the act of creation. I think all humans are capable of being artists but most are satisfied with killing time (watching sports, etc..). I strive to create a fine print; so, why not declare that I'm an artist who produces/creates fine prints - shorthand is fine art print.

I agree with that - with the proviso that rather than 'most being satisfied..' I think that is certainly true of lots of people, and why not, but I also think many people just don't get the opportunity to explore their artistic potential. It's not taught well in schools, here at least, and the arts aren't supported enough in the community. But if you do it, do it and be proud of it!
Whether a 'fine print' is different from a 'fine art print' well, I think it is. Certainly the person who makes the fine print isn't necessarily the creator of the image, so in that way it's different. It's also possible to make fine prints of your own work, but not consider your work 'art'. For example, I don't think of the portraits I may 'fine print' as art (or much else as it happens but I appreciate that other photographers do).

I absolutely believe that photography can be a 'fine art' - I thought that discussion had been talked out decades ago - but I think that is different from thinking about how people engaged in 'creative activities' view themselves and are viewed by society at large. I just think there should be more of it in general and we should be proud of and support more all our 'creatives' - whether writers, artists, photographers, scultors, musicians, film-makers.....Most 'artists' do not want to be put on pedestals. They want what they do to be seen as a reasonable thing to do that at least sometimes brings in some dosh as well as some recognition.

I think far more people should call themselves artists, then eventually the word may lose some of the negative conotations that seem to be associated with it.

bill schwab · Jun 17, 2006

jerry lebens said:
Believe it or not, I don't believe that my professional photographs are creative. ... Often my brief is to emulate another image in another book or magazine. ... My clients don't want me to be creative... I didn't invent any of the techniques I use.

Considering all of these things you've described about yourself, it amazes me that you feel you have the experience and expertise to criticize how other "creative" types might express and portray themselves.

jerry lebens said:
...If the "Artists" would accept that they are no more nor less "Creative" than the average teacher, baker or candlestick maker, then I'd join the club tomorrow, gladly. Until then I'd rather be just a jobbing photographer.

I don't know Jerry, it might be a club that is quite happy not having you as a member. Why would you think an artist feels they have any more credibility than those bakers, teaches and candlestick makers you speak of? They sell their trade, don't they? Why have you such distiain for "artists" that you feel that promoting themselves in anyway is unseemly? Also, your description of UK "artists" being any different than those here, in my experience, is BS. I spent time in an "art school" in Glasgow, met many accomplished Scottish and otherwise "artists" and found none of them to be the creeps you describe. Why do they so threaten you and others that use those same, tired stereotypes?

Bill

Ed Sukach · Jun 17, 2006

Stargazer said:
That's why the Brits are so self-effacing and self-conscious about calling themselves artists, writers, poets, photographers, creative types etc.
It's not because they're self-effacing and humble at all but because they were taught from an early age to think that if they pretend to be then that's the only way to be ultimately really really good and to be taken seriously.

I won't argue with this ... I'm sure that you, being from the U.K., know quite a bit more than I do about the British "conditoned responses".

I *did* know AB, though, and he was not pretending. That was a clear and honest statement on his part... He was, very nearly, amazed and ... uh ... "puzzled" at his success, and his status among the Art Dealers, and the ragged-ass public. I'll only say that he was not alone: if there was anything like a "common ground" among those who have "made it" ... it was this attitude - at varying strengths.

bill schwab · Jun 17, 2006

Ed Sukach said:
I'll only say that he was not alone: if there was anything like a "common ground" among those who have "made it" ... it was this attitude - at varying strengths.

I cannot agree more Ed. I have had the good fortune to meet and speak with many some of us might find "famous" and never once has there been one that projected the attitude I see referred here so often by some as the "wearing black", "sipping on a wine glass" while looking at you down their nose type. Sometimes I can't help but feel it is the people who speak with such contempt for "artists" that are the ones with a "superiority complex." Some people like to wear black (it is a more formal "color", isn't it?) and I know many love wine. The perception some formulate about them often speaks more of those that perceive than those who are perceived.

B.

blansky · Jun 17, 2006

Yeah. So there.

Some of us wear black because we sip so much wine. When we spill, it doesn't show up.

Michael

Stoo Batchelor · Jun 17, 2006

art. human creative skill or its application; the branch of creative activity concerned with the production of imitative and imaginative designs and expression of ideas, especially in painting; products of this.2. any skill; craft or activity requiring imaginative skill. blah, blah, blah. [Hutchinson Consise Encyclopedic Dictionary]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

doughowk said:
doughowk said:

I am an artist because I revel in the act of creation.

Click to expand...

Doughowk

You have every right to call yourself an artist.

MurrayMinchin · Jun 17, 2006

I wonder...if someone who disdained the whole 'fine art thing' was happily (yet infrequently) selling their photographs at craft fairs for around $75.00 was approached by a gallery owner who could increase their sales, and raise the amount they got for each print to $400.00...what would they say?

Murray

blansky · Jun 17, 2006

MurrayMinchin said:
I wonder...if someone who disdained the whole 'fine art thing' was happily (yet infrequently) selling their photographs at craft fairs for around $75.00 was approached by a gallery owner who could increase their sales, and raise the amount they got for each print to $400.00...what would they say?

Murray

WHAT. And sell out. I'd feel so unclean.

Michael

bill schwab · Jun 17, 2006

blansky said:
WHAT. And sell out. I'd feel so unclean.

!!!!!

gnashings · Jun 17, 2006

I heard once that the difference between art and pornography was a government grant Does this still apply?

Personally I find people who ask the rationalle behind prices to be obnoxious - its not a case of a state run grocery store charging too much for the food you need with no choice (or car insurance). You look at the price, if you think its just - you pay it. If not, you go elsewhere. Or you offer the person less money - then the ball is in their court, they either take it or leave it. But why ask why? It actually is a bit annoying, not to mention even more pretentious than wine sipping and black wearing. The guy feels his "pitcher" is worth $800 - he is either right, or wrong. Trust me, if he is wrong, he will know that soon enough. If he is right (as in, his stuff sells), your opinion will matter none to him, as it damn well should in either case.
The place where this whole exchange makes the photog look like an ass happens precisely when he justifies his prices by calling his work fine art. He should have just said that he believes they are worth that much and let the lady argue that with her wallet.
As to the definition of Fine Art, I think the "Art" part you can apply by yourself based on the reason you are making the image. If its a creative pursuit rather than "here we are under the xmas tree", then it is inherently art. The "Fine" part is not really up to you. It gets to be applied by the same people who can apply the term "shit" to your work. And if you fancy yourself an artist, you bare your soul knowing this possibility.

Peter.

catem · Jun 17, 2006

Ed Sukach said:
I won't argue with this ... I'm sure that you, being from the U.K., know quite a bit more than I do about the British "conditoned responses".

I *did* know AB, though, and he was not pretending. That was a clear and honest statement on his part... He was, very nearly, amazed and ... uh ... "puzzled" at his success, and his status among the Art Dealers, and the ragged-ass public. I'll only say that he was not alone: if there was anything like a "common ground" among those who have "made it" ... it was this attitude - at varying strengths.

Actually I don't think this sense of humility is at all a bad thing, or an assumed thing. I imagine that most of the writers/artists/photographers I admire most shared or share it. Certainly Jane Bown, who was mentioned recently on another thread; HCB of course. One of my siblings who's a successful artist in Australia! A friend of mine who is a gifted portrait painter. They all share a sense of surprise at any success, I suppose. That's fine and admirable and good.

What I was trying to criticise (and perhaps not very clearly, or in rather a bitter and twisted way!) is that sense in which creative activity - in the U.K - is often unsupported. A by-product of this is that artists can appear self-deprecating when compared to those from possibly(?) more enlightened countries. A lack of arrogance about what you do and achieve is to be admired, but it saddens me if I think people feel undervalued in a wider sense.

bill schwab · Jun 17, 2006

gnashings said:
...happens precisely when he justifies his prices by calling his work fine art.

Allegedly...

Remember, only one of us was there and that person has not chimed-in since starting this whole thread. Apparently the photographer we are all talking over does come here as stated by the original poster who also presented a biased attitude that makes me question what really happened. I would still very much like to hear the photographer's side of this story.

B.

removed account4 · Jun 17, 2006

peter

you should know by now, some people just like to complain.

if it isn't about the weather, it is about how some people sell photographs for less than $30 and if it isn't about that, it is about the people who sell photographs for $800 or more, or someone is an artist, or a "wannabe/sell-out". at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.

i don't know what i am, i am just here for the ride.

john

gnashings said:
I heard once that the difference between art and pornography was a government grant Does this still apply?

Personally I find people who ask the rationalle behind prices to be obnoxious - its not a case of a state run grocery store charging too much for the food you need with no choice (or car insurance). You look at the price, if you think its just - you pay it. If not, you go elsewhere. Or you offer the person less money - then the ball is in their court, they either take it or leave it. But why ask why? It actually is a bit annoying, not to mention even more pretentious than wine sipping and black wearing. The guy feels his "pitcher" is worth $800 - he is either right, or wrong. Trust me, if he is wrong, he will know that soon enough. If he is right (as in, his stuff sells), your opinion will matter none to him, as it damn well should in either case.
The place where this whole exchange makes the photog look like an ass happens precisely when he justifies his prices by calling his work fine art. He should have just said that he believes they are worth that much and let the lady argue that with her wallet.
As to the definition of Fine Art, I think the "Art" part you can apply by yourself based on the reason you are making the image. If its a creative pursuit rather than "here we are under the xmas tree", then it is inherently art. The "Fine" part is not really up to you. It gets to be applied by the same people who can apply the term "shit" to your work. And if you fancy yourself an artist, you bare your soul knowing this possibility.

Peter.

MurrayMinchin · Jun 17, 2006

My turn to kick it!

(WARNING - MASSIVE GENERALIZATIONS TO FOLLOW)

I'm looking at this from the perspective of non-affluence, as I've taken the lifestyle choice to be happy and humble. Next you have folks with disposable income; you know, a nice house, a couple cars, a fancy vacation every year. Then you have the ones the galleries prefer to snuggle up to; those with Disposable Income. They have a huge home, a vacation home, several cars at each residence, and maybe even a crewed yacht.

This last group doesn't want to spend the time to seek out unknown photographers, and are willing to pay a premium - like 100% above what the photographer receives - to get a galleries stamp of approval regarding a photographers work.

I can't wrap my head around this, because if I had that much money I would enjoy seeking out new and undiscovered photographers who needed the support, and sure wouldn't have a crew on any boat I owned! These folks are from a different world than I, and I'll happily answer their questions a hundred times over

Murray

clay · Jun 17, 2006

I keep getting strange looks when I hand out my business card:

Clay Harmon
Fine
ART
Photographs

What gives?

JBrunner · Jun 17, 2006

Perhaps a Fine Art Photograph is one that is meant to be appreciated on the merits contained within, with no back story or personal connection before the observation, and containing elements that promote a visceral individual response in the observer, that is personal to the individual, whom ever that may be. If it succeeds, it becomes what it purports to be, to that person.

Or maybe it just means that you are invited to purchase it, and hang it on a wall, or place it within your collection, in hopes of appreciation, in observation or financially, or both. If it succeeds, others will appreciate your taste and savvy, through social or financial interaction.

Or maybe it really doesn't mean much at all, and is just an affectation, aside from pointing out that it is not a snapshot taken by the grandmother of somebody's young nephew at a child's birthday party. (Unless somebody decides it is a Fine Art Photograph)

Jim Jones · Jun 17, 2006

MurrayMinchin said:
I wonder...if someone who disdained the whole 'fine art thing' was happily (yet infrequently) selling their photographs at craft fairs for around $75.00 was approached by a gallery owner who could increase their sales, and raise the amount they got for each print to $400.00...what would they say?

Murray

For me? Yes, if it didn't involve so much work that it became drudgery. That would happen quickly. However, I'd rather continue selling 11x14 archivally mounted, matted, and framed B&W prints for $40 to people who appreciate them than to work hard to get rich in a snobbish market. Photographs and other prints can bring affordable pleasure to many. Also, in the local market I don't have to wear a suit to impress people that I am an arteeest.

MurrayMinchin · Jun 17, 2006

Jim Jones said:
For me? Yes, if it didn't involve so much work that it became drudgery. That would happen quickly. However, I'd rather continue selling 11x14 archivally mounted, matted, and framed B&W prints for $40 to people who appreciate them than to work hard to get rich in a snobbish market.

Hi Jim,

Don't get me wrong here (because by choice, thus far, I'm an invisible nobody in the art world and haven't sold locally for a while) but would you really rather have your photographs go unseen in the greater scheme of things? Wouldn't you want to see where your images land amongst your peers? Don't you feel what you have to say has more than a local interest?

I don't know how old you are or how many jobs you've had, but I'm in my mid 40's and have found that every job comes with compromises. I'm a letter carrier right now, which is THE BEST JOB I'VE EVER HAD! Yet...it takes time away from my being in the forest photographing.

I would gladly exchange my sure-thing job for an almost-sure-thing chance at being what I really am...a fine art photographer. I use that label because I'm not a portrait, school, mug shot, architectural, wedding, mall, passport, stock, sports, or forensic photographer...not that there's anything wrong with any of those if that's what you want to be!. Fine art photographer is the best label to describe what I do, which is to only photograph that which amazes me.

It's our choice...sure-thing money for a job that takes us away from what we're meant to do, or tedious hours in the darkroom balanced with free time to photograph, and rubbing elbows with people with complicated lives who wish to purchase a piece of our way of seeing.

Murray

bill schwab · Jun 17, 2006

Jim Jones said:
I'd rather continue selling 11x14 archivally mounted, matted, and framed B&W prints for $40 to people who appreciate them than to work hard to get rich in a snobbish market.

You making a living doing that Jim? Or is this just a hobby for you? No tongue in cheek.. I'm seriously curious.

Bill

'Fine Art' and 'just another pitcher'...

jd callow

Moderator

jd callow

Moderator

catem

doughowk

jerry lebens

jd callow

Moderator

catem

bill schwab

Advertiser

Ed Sukach

bill schwab

Advertiser

blansky

Stoo Batchelor

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

blansky

bill schwab

Advertiser

gnashings

catem

bill schwab

Advertiser

removed account4

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

clay

JBrunner

Moderator

Jim Jones

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

bill schwab

Advertiser

'Fine Art' and 'just another pitcher'...

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Advertiser

Advertiser

Membership Council

Advertiser

Advertiser

Membership Council

Moderator

Membership Council

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency