Let's talk about this...

Sometimes the process is critical in determining the impact and significance of a picture.

An ink-jet picture of a unicorn is worth a chuckle, particularly if it is well done.

A photograph of a unicorn is worth a million bucks. And it does not have to be perfect, just unambiguous.

This is why I don't call myself an artist. I'm a hobbyist. I like what I do and I like my results. Pretty simple this way.

Regards, Art.

I'm not an artist. I'm a photographer. Actually I'm an A.S.E. Certified Counter and Road Sales Person (auto parts).

Anyone who thinks their work is good art because of the process they use is pretty foolish. I don't acually know anyone who thinks that. I do know people who think one process is better than another.

I think any process has it's own unique visual language and a photo artist can lend a lot more power to his/her work by having a feeling for the process they are using. An image might work in one medium and not another because of how that medium conveys the image. You can't seperate process from the art as a maker of that art but it is annoying to show work and have people only interested in how you made it and decide whether it is good or not because of that. I work in pl/pd because I like the way it works and feels but it is very annoying that every time I have had an exhibit the gallery or exhibitor insists on emphasizing the process as the main point of interest. Personally I think the process is my business as an artist, not the viewers business.

Christopher Walrath said:

But I think that craft and art can coexist. In fact, I think that they truly have to sometimes.

Click to expand...

Yes, it needs to be said; it is true. It's sort of like the mind/body dichotomy. Of course they coexist. If one ain't there, what's left?

Mind without body?
Body without mind?

Thanks Chris.

L.