Is a photographer an artist?

[CMoore]

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

I know he was huge in his day, but i never liked what I SAW of his stuff.
However, i DO LIKE his philosophy as you quoted above.

He hit the proverbial nail on the head...........and he hit it HARD..!!!

 

[Don_ih]

He hit the proverbial nail on the head...........and he hit it HARD.

Why? What did he say in those quotes that is meaningful in any way to anyone else? And what about being "a gun for hire" prevents the result from being art? He was just seeking vindication for the "bad taste" his photography exhibited.
I don't find it bad taste at all. It is what it is.

 

[Pieter12]

Why? What did he say in those quotes that is meaningful in any way to anyone else? And what about being "a gun for hire" prevents the result from being art? He was just seeking vindication for the "bad taste" his photography exhibited.
I don't find it bad taste at all. It is what it is.

He is expressing his opinions. Don’t get so worked up.

 

[CMoore]

Why? What did he say in those quotes that is meaningful in any way to anyone else? And what about being "a gun for hire" prevents the result from being art? He was just seeking vindication for the "bad taste" his photography exhibited.
I don't find it bad taste at all. It is what it is.

Everything he said is very meaningful to ME, and is completely relevant to the topic at hand.
As always................. YMMV

 

[Don_ih]

Don’t get so worked up.

That wasn't getting worked up. Those are questions. I wanted to know what nail it was he hit on the head.

is completely relevant to the topic at hand

In what way?

If he's not doing art, what is he doing? What is special about his photography that it features carefully executed compositions and produces prints, yet is not art? That is, how could it not be art? The compositions were constructed, the situations were directed. He made those photos.

Art isn't magic.

 

[snusmumriken]

The question has become 'What is art?', rather than what the OP asked. However, perhaps we do have to struggle with that first. I don't know the answer, but find it deeply interesting. With so many trillions of photos taken worldwide every year, they surely can't all be art. But most of us - I think - would accept that at least some photographs or collections of photographs are genuinely art. So what distinguishes those? Mass appeal definitely isn't the answer.

 

[Don_ih]

they surely can't all be art

Why?
What if they're all art but almost all of them are worthless?

 

[benjiboy]

You can consider yourself an "artist", when artists consider you an artist.

 

[snusmumriken]

Why?
What if they're all art but almost all of them are worthless?

That would devalue the usually understood meaning of art, wouldn’t it? Mind you, I do recall reading (in a book about bicycles) that there is some South Sea language which has no word for art ‘because we do everything as well as we can’.

 

[guangong]

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.

I would only add that it has been my observation that the better artist has a power of discriminating their own work between the weak and the strong, Most of us lack the ability to view our own work objectively.
Sometimes a great injustice occurs when professors and curators unearth stuff that the artist knew was below his par. An example was a novel Hemingway rolled up and stashed away in a shoe box which was later published so that he could be described by NYT as a mediocre writer.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The question has become 'What is art?', rather than what the OP asked. However, perhaps we do have to struggle with that first. I don't know the answer, but find it deeply interesting. With so many trillions of photos taken worldwide every year, they surely can't all be art. But most of us - I think - would accept that at least some photographs or collections of photographs are genuinely art. So what distinguishes those? Mass appeal definitely isn't the answer.

Of course, Johnathan, you cannot define an artist until you define what art is. My definition of art is anything that inspires emotional, mental or spiritual feelings in the viewer.

That's why I feel it's the viewer that identifies the artist. The creator of the work cannot know if their creation inspires these feelings. It's up to the viewer to decide.

 

[busrider]

Of course, Johnathan, you cannot define an artist until you define what art is. My definition of art is anything that inspires emotional, mental or spiritual feelings in the viewer.

This is your definition of what art is, certainly has nothing to do with people who make art, buy art, curate and sell art believe. It doesn't seem that much of what is being designated "art" for the past 200 plus years fits your personal definition.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Though I'd add a little fuel to the fire. Should a photographer be concidered an artist if he/she doesn't do their own printing? Why or Why not???

Manny photographic artists didn't or don't do their own printing.

 

[Pieter12]

Of course, Johnathan, you cannot define an artist until you define what art is. My definition of art is anything that inspires emotional, mental or spiritual feelings in the viewer.

That's why I feel it's the viewer that identifies the artist. The creator of the work cannot know if their creation inspires these feelings. It's up to the viewer to decide.

Disgust, repulsion, indifference, anguish and hatred are all feelings. I am not necessarily attracted to art that inspire those.

 

[Pieter12]

If he's not doing art, what is he doing? What is special about his photography that it features carefully executed compositions and produces prints, yet is not art? That is, how could it not be art? The compositions were constructed, the situations were directed. He made those photos.

Looking at Helmut Newton's work, you can see he enjoyed being a bit of a rebel and going against accepted social norms of the day, with a bit of twisted humor thrown in. I think you have to take his quotes in that same vain, looking to scandalize and arouse the establishment.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is your definition of what art is, certainly has nothing to do with people who make art, buy art, curate and sell art believe. It doesn't seem that much of what is being designated "art" for the past 200 plus years fits your personal definition.

That's what I said. It was my definition of art. Others are certainly entitled to their opinions as well.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Disgust, repulsion, indifference, anguish and hatred are all feelings. I am not necessarily attracted to art that inspire those.

While I prefer uplifting art as well, art that disgusts or creates hatred is art as well. The world isn't all lovey-dovey.

 

[benjiboy]

Many of the photographers who are now considered to be " Artists" if one had referred to their work as that in their presence, would have laughed in your face.

 

[Pieter12]

While I prefer uplifting art as well, art that disgusts or creates hatred is art as well. The world isn't all lovey-dovey.

Never said it wasn't art. Just that I might not like it. Some art is created with the intention to shock and instigate. Some art is absurd, some propaganda. Some art is pablum and better left to greeting and postcards. And some art is better left unseen and forgotten. But it is all art.

 

[Pieter12]

Many of the photographers who are now considered to be " Artists" if one had referred to their work as that in their presence, would have laughed in your face.

Examples?

 

[choiliefan]

Man Ray was an artist -- only because he could paint, draw and scope-out a readymade.
His snap-shots aren't really art.

 

[Pieter12]

Man Ray was an artist -- only because he could paint, draw and scope-out a readymade.
His snap-shots aren't really art.

And his portraits, polarizations or Le Violin d'Ingres?

 

[Pieter12]

Man Ray was an artist -- only because he could paint, draw and scope-out a readymade.
His snap-shots aren't really art.

Coincidentally, a quote from a recent NY Times article (about the William Klein show at ICP): "...Man Ray, another illustrious New Yorker who began as a painter but made his most important contributions as a photographer..."

 

[Pieter12]

All art is a middle-finger in some way. And your NFTs are worthless in real money.

 

[busrider]

All art is a middle-finger in some way. And your NFTs are worthless in real money.

My NFTs are worth plenty of money. I actively bought and sold and convert my BC into CM. They are worth more than my downgraded worthless KODAK stock.