Is a photographer an artist?

[TheFlyingCamera]

emotionally and spiritually and nothing to do with the maker ???

WHAT ?

the onlything that separates "art' from anything else is it was the INTENT of the maker to make it.
it can be a banana taped to a wall or something that when purchased was shredded, or a bronzed turd.
ART serves no purpose other than to be ART.

The history of the museum goes hand in hand with the invention of "art"





YES YES.
BTW
you rock!

I think there's one other factor in being an artist - one has to have the desire to communicate with others. If you are creating for an audience of one, and never share your work with anyone, then it isn't "art" and you're not an "artist". You can become one after-the-fact, like Vivian Maier. But in her lifetime, she was not an artist - she just created stuff for her own consumption and had no desire to share it with anyone else.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Typically, (in most cases) photographers are not artist. But in some instances, a photograph will document a thought, that will be viewed by many as art. Now, the person who was the “photo-graphing’ing” person, actually may not be recognized as the person who did the work. Usually the assistant was the person who “clicked” the shutter, and the “lab” processed the film and printed the image. So now coming full circle, the photographer will get credit for doing nothing. Same goes true for digital.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My CPA has to record my occupation on my tax return. When you are in an art business, there is a specific "hobby law" you fall under.
You must show a profit in at least three of the last five years; if not, you are not considered a business and cannot operate as such.

After three years, start your business as a new entity.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My CPA has to record my occupation on my tax return. When you are in an art business, there is a specific "hobby law" you fall under.
You must show a profit in at least three of the last five years; if not, you are not considered a business and cannot operate as such.

Of course, follow your accountant's advice, not mine.

But I'm curious. What is the hobby law and what is a hobby artist?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

LOL! Actually I have to make an income to survive just like everyone else.
Creating and selling art is a legitimate business. Where do you think advertising art comes from?
Ad agencies are one of the largest employers of artists and photographers.
I worked in NY ad agencies in the beginning of my career. Back then there was lots of work for commercial artists.
Eventually I broke away and started my own business in Atlanta. I had enough work to hire employees.
I did everything I ever wanted to do in the business. I like where I am at now. Slowing down and taking it easy.
A lot of work, but the journey was worth it for me.

My friend Mel Greifinger who died recently was a commercial artist all his life. He used to do softback covers for novels and other books, and drawings for the Fox auto. When much of it was computerized, he lost a lot of work and moved to story boards and other stuff.

Here's his web site. https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/melgreifingercom

Here's a painting he did of me shooting my camera. The added goose posing was his joke. He had a great sense of humor.

https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/-shooting-the-goose-mel-greifinger.jpg

 

[Don_ih]

You can use any tool to make art. The tool doesn't make someone and artist. Making art makes someone an artist. If the end result is art, then the person who made it is an artist.

Whether or not you consider a photograph art has more to do with what you consider art to be than whatever the photograph is.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You can use any tool to make art. The tool doesn't make someone and artist. Making art makes someone an artist. If the end result is art, then the person who made it is an artist.

Whether or not you consider a photograph art has more to do with what you consider art to be than whatever the photograph is.

That's why art is in the eye of the beholder.
Only then is the person who made it the artist.
Until then he's only a photographer, or sculptor, or painter.

 

[MattKing]

That's why art is in the eye of the beholder.
Only then is the person who made it the artist.
Until then he's only a photographer, or sculptor, or painter.

If you are in a group of 4 people, and three of them think a work is art, while you don't it is art, is the person who made the work:
1) an artist;
2) not an artist;
3) only 3/4 of an artist; or
4) none of the above?

 

[Don_ih]

That's why art is in the eye of the beholder.

No. An art work is a product of a particular activity. The activity depends on the art work created. (You paint a painting, write a novel, etc.). Why would it be in the eye of the beholder? At any rate, the expression is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," which is about how fickle taste is.

It's important to maintain the idea that not all art is great. Most of it is unsophisticated, poorly executed, insufficiently informed, and meaningless. Great art is incredibly rare. But mediocre to good art -- people can be trained to make that.

 

[Pieter12]

'Maker' is a very powerful word.
It is the maker that challenges the viewer to see (and possibly be emotionally or spiritually moved). It is all about the maker...


This is what the IRS officially sees me as (copied from the Schedule C instructions)...

And the IRS recognizes photographers as different from artists, having their own category, under Other Professional, Technical & Scientific Services: 541920 Photographic services. So it is up to you to determine if what you do for a living is art (with photography as the medium) or photography as a service, i.e. commercial, wedding, portrait, etc.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you are in a group of 4 people, and three of them think a work is art, while you don't it is art, is the person who made the work:
1) an artist;
2) not an artist;
3) only 3/4 of an artist; or
4) none of the above?

Well if your mother thinks you're an artist and no one else does, then you're still an artist.

 

[Pieter12]

Well if your mother thinks you're an artist and no one else does, then you're still an artist.

My mother thinks I'm a genius. I'm still waiting for the MacArthur Foundation to get in touch.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No. An art work is a product of a particular activity. The activity depends on the art work created. (You paint a painting, write a novel, etc.). Why would it be in the eye of the beholder? At any rate, the expression is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," which is about how fickle taste is.

It's important to maintain the idea that not all art is great. Most of it is unsophisticated, poorly executed, insufficiently informed, and meaningless. Great art is incredibly rare. But mediocre to good art -- people can be trained to make that.

Wouldn't it be egotistical to consider yourself an artist if no one else considers your work artistic? That's why I consider work art if the viewer, not the maker, considers it artistic.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My mother thinks I'm a genius. I'm still waiting for the MacArthur Foundation to get in touch.

You might have a long wait. Maybe you should stick to photography.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Wouldn't it be egotistical to consider yourself an artist if no one else considers your work artistic? That's why I consider work art if the viewer, not the maker, considers it artistic.

Making art is already an incredibly egotistical act - it takes major chutzpah to think that anyone else wants to hear/see what you have to say/show. But in your argument, I'd say that if someone creates something as a work of art, and none of their audience sees it that way, then they're just a failed artist, because what they created didn't resonate with an audience. Doesn't mean they're NOT an artist - just an abysmally bad one.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Making art is already an incredibly egotistical act - it takes major chutzpah to think that anyone else wants to hear/see what you have to say/show. But in your argument, I'd say that if someone creates something as a work of art, and none of their audience sees it that way, then they're just a failed artist, because what they created didn't resonate with an audience. Doesn't mean they're NOT an artist - just an abysmally bad one.

Well if I was in an abysmally bad artist, I wouldn't call myself an artist and remind everybody how bad I really am.

 

[Pieter12]

Making art is already an incredibly egotistical act - it takes major chutzpah to think that anyone else wants to hear/see what you have to say/show. But in your argument, I'd say that if someone creates something as a work of art, and none of their audience sees it that way, then they're just a failed artist, because what they created didn't resonate with an audience. Doesn't mean they're NOT an artist - just an abysmally bad one.

Take the Impressionists as an example. Their art was denigrated, ridiculed and criticized by the art institutions and the general public at the time. So it was obviously all bad art and they were all in denial and illusionary. They should have been ashamed of themselves and never made any more of that garbage.

An artist (and that is such a misused term) makes art to express and sartisfy themselves. I will never forget an art teacher I had who basically said the only reason to become an artist is you must, it is not a choice--it is a drive to create.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Take the Impressionists as an example. Their art was denigrated, ridiculed and criticized by the art institutions and the general public at the time. So it was obviously all bad art and they were all in denial and illusionary. They should have been ashamed of themselves and never made any more of that garbage.

An artist (and that is such a misused term) makes art to express and sartisfy themselves. I will never forget an art teacher I had who basically said the only reason to become an artist is you must, it is not a choice--it is a drive to create.

The Impressionists had their fans in their day, even though they were not popular. I was making an (hyperbolic) example, but you get my point - the public doesn't get to say to someone "you're not an artist". They do get to say "I don't think you're a very good one, because nobody understands what you're trying to say", and unless someone else comes along who DOES get what you're trying to say and can convince others of it (as what happened to the Impressionists), then you are likely to fall into the dustbin of history to be lost forever and forgotten. And certainly opinions can change about whether a given work of art (or a given artist) still has value and relevance.

 

[Pieter12]

The Impressionists had their fans in their day, even though they were not popular. I was making an (hyperbolic) example, but you get my point - the public doesn't get to say to someone "you're not an artist". They do get to say "I don't think you're a very good one, because nobody understands what you're trying to say", and unless someone else comes along who DOES get what you're trying to say and can convince others of it (as what happened to the Impressionists), then you are likely to fall into the dustbin of history to be lost forever and forgotten. And certainly opinions can change about whether a given work of art (or a given artist) still has value and relevance.

Not at the outset. Outside of their immediate circle, they were pretty much universally ridiculed at first. And take Van Gogh, for example. He never sold anything during his lifetime--implying no collector or institution took him seriously as an artist besides his few friends and family.

 

[Don_ih]

Wouldn't it be egotistical to consider yourself an artist if no one else considers your work artistic? That's why I consider work art if the viewer, not the maker, considers it artistic.

What @TheFlyingCamera said was a good reponse. I would add: What is the problem with being egotistical, exactly? Or, if you have something you express, what is wrong with expressing it? The short period that is your life is all you actually have, so you should try to make it count - at least to yourself.

 

[Pieter12]

Doesn't mean they're NOT an artist - just an abysmally bad one.

I would add that being appreciated does not make one a "good" artist. There is a lot of crap that gets gobbled up by the general public all the time.

 

[MattKing]

Ego is a quality that is both valuable, and easy to have in unhealthy excess.
There is nothing overly egotistical about considering yourself an artist when no one else does.
If you start considering yourself as a better artist than anyone else, when no one else does, you may have a problem.
There are some similarities in science. Creative and valuable work isn't always appreciated in its time -- Gregor Mendel comes to mind.

 

[Pieter12]

A few quotes from Helmut Newton on art and photography (whether you like his work or consider it art is another matter):

In my vocabulary there are two bad words: art and good taste.

Some people’s photography is an art. Mine is not. If they happen to be exhibited in a gallery or a museum, that`s fine. But that’s not why I do them. I’m a gun for hire.

Art is a dirty word in photography. All this fine art crap is killing it already.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When I was younger, Frank Sinatra was a singer or often called a crooner. Henry Fonda was an actor. Baryshnikov was a great ballet dancer. No one was an artist back then. It's a modern affectation. Everyone today wants to be an artiste.

 

[MattKing]

There is a lot of artistry here ....

Or one of my all time favorites: