Lens-based art

[Jose A Martinez]

I'm partner of a Fine Art Photography gallery, for 5 years, and up to now the hardest concept to define has been what is considered "Fine Art Photography", and it's OK, it's part of the trade.
The next level of concern is that some of the artist we represent call themselfs "visual artists" meaning that they use a photography media or process but they aren't photographers, they work in a more "conceptual" ambience, so that give them a wider spectre in the art scene, they don't want to be pigeonholed, and it's OK.
Now, lately, I've been hearing the term "Lens-based art" and "Lens-based artists" among some artists, curators, theoreticians, etc.

About this, the questions are: have you hear this terms?; if so, related with?; do you think that it will be of common use?

Thanks

 

[gone]

"I've been hearing the term "Lens-based art" and "Lens-based artists" among some artists, curators, theoreticians, etc."

You'd probably have better luck asking the bums on the street what they thought than that crowd :} I've not heard of this term. If you let the trade decide what to call themselves, you'll never get anywhere. Just present them as contemporary/avant garde/cutting edge/New! whatever, image makers of photographic based mixed media and let the chips fall where they may.

The standard ArtForum definition of "Fine Art" is anything that costs more than a hundred bucks, and offers something that is at least one step up from Ripple and Velveeta at the opening (although truly, Ripple and Velveeta is fine w/ me as long as someone else is paying).

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Seems a bit silly to me but the art world has always confused me.

 

[tedr1]

I have a picture book that was made using a scanner to capture the images, this is an example of non-lens based imaging

 

[Gerald C Koch]

"Lens based art", "visual artist"? How about "conceptually challenged." That's as good a term as any.

Is there any reason why the gallery can't call them photographers? If the arti'sts don't like the term let them go to somewhere else.

 

[Jose A Martinez]

I have a picture book that was made using a scanner to capture the images, this is an example of non-lens based imaging

A scanner is a camera that is design to "photograph" documents, they have a lens and a digital sensor to produce a binary file of an image. The images produce through a scanner are sort of photographs, and, precisely, they are considered "Lens-based Art" pieces, "scanographies", and not "photographies".

"Lens based art", "visualartist"? How about "conceptually challenged." That's as good a term as any.
Is there any reason why the gallery can't call them photographers? If the arti'sts don't like the term let them go to somewhere else.

We have frequent discussions at the gallery about let them go, or make them go, but is not that easy when you have a market for their work. Personally I don't mind how they call themselves. The issue is about the generalization of the terms, the question is if "Lens-based Art" could or would become a standard, a term generally accepted.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

IMO, anything imaged by photons in any way is technically a 'photograph'.

 

[BrianShaw]

IMO, anything imaged by photons in any way is technically a 'photograph'.

I see photons imaging on my retina right now, but it's real not a photograph!

 

[benjiboy]

The idea that photography is "Art" and not craft is a very recent one mainly since WW11 one promoted by photographers agents, galleries and auction houses. The world is full of self-styled fine art photographers most of whom I wouldn't pay out in spring washers, as my long dead mother used to say " self advertisement is no recommendation ". In fact I bet if you would called many of the photographers who are considered as great these days "artists" they would have laughed in your face.

 

[BrianShaw]

I love your mothers saying!!!!!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I see photons imaging on my retina right now, but it's real not a photograph!

They would be if you were a cyborg with a printer port.

 

[AgX]

IMO, anything imaged by photons in any way is technically a 'photograph'.

But not anybody using photons for imaging is a 'photographer'.

 

[cliveh]

I think that anyone who refers to them self as an artist is a prat. Their value as an artist is for others to judge.

 

[dpurdy]

I guess pin hole photography isn't lens based. As long as art is defined by the quality or means of the end result rather than the intent of a person, photography is never going to be accepted as an art medium. People who are driven by their creative inspiration and have chosen to use photography are always looking for a different personal definition than photographer because a photographer can't be an artist even though they know themselves to be nothing more and nothing less than that.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Then there are shadowgraphs where no lens or anything similar is used. Man Ray and László Moholy-Nagy made some very famous ones. So what kind of art is that.

 

[benjiboy]

I think that anyone who refers to them self as an artist is a prat. Their value as an artist is for others to judge.

Who called the artist a prat ?, who called the prat an artist ?

 

[scheimfluger_77]

I think that anyone who refers to them self as an artist is a prat. Their value as an artist is for others to judge.

My American upbringing is showing, what is a "prat"? Agree whole-heartedly with your comment though. Perhaps once is legitimately called an artist by someone else, you could call yourself that.

 

[benjiboy]

My American upbringing is showing, what is a "prat"? Agree whole-heartedly with your comment though. Perhaps once is legitimately called an artist by someone else, you could call yourself that.

As in "pratfall" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=prat

 

[CMoore]

I am far removed from the art world and am not use to dealing with "artists".
I have a rather "blue collar" approach to things.
If this topic involves your Revenue/Income, I am always in favor of intellectual kowtowing. I had to do it all the time as a painter.
I would suggest advertising "The Photographs of .....XYZ"
If the person wants the XYZ to be "Lens Based Artist".....so be it. After they and their art have moved on to another gallery, you can laugh at their obsessions behind their backs.
Will such and such a label become common/accepted.?
No Doubt It Will.....until the next, tragically hip, euphemism for Photographer is dreamed up by somebody with an over-inflated sense of self importance.
Do whatever is best for you and the gallery.

 

[KidA]

Everyone's an artist but here's the catch...some are incredible and some suck. And as far as I'm concerned, a self-proclaimed photographer, is equally pratty as a self-proclaimed artist. Who cares what you call yourself; is you art good????

 

[removed account4]

Then there are shadowgraphs where no lens or anything similar is used. Man Ray and László Moholy-Nagy made some very famous ones. So what kind of art is that.

they are called rayographs and photograms,
although moholy nagy made the light prop
and a movie from it called black white and grey.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why not, "whogivesadamnagrams".

 

[John Koehrer]

Can't forget Christian Schad's Schadowgraphs

 

[scheimfluger_77]

As in "pratfall" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=prat

So the kind of person we all know well, thank you.

 

[blockend]

The distinction is important because some people use photography as an end in itself - the descriptive power of the lens being the whole point - while others use the photograph as a starting point for ideas that aren't exclusively about description.