Photographic Snobbery & Other Annoyances...

[laverdure]

what colour was he?

 

[jovo]

the horse? the camera? algernon? Flying's friend?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The camera: black
My friend: also black (bordering on albino, but that's another story)
Algernon: pale n' pasty of course!
Algernon's flowers: blue gentians, perhaps?
The horse: chestnut brown (quomodo nume, spadix equus?)

 

[laverdure]

Thank you.

(I meant his cameraship Algernon, of course.)

But of course, as a matter of course, if I had a 'blad, I'd name him Ingmar.

 

[Roger Hicks]

But of course, as a matter of course, if I had a 'blad, I'd name him Ingmar.

Nah. Bruce. Avoids confusion.

As an aside here, why do people name cameras/motorcycles/cars etc? Always struck me as a bizarre custom.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jstraw]

why do they name boats?

 

[laverdure]

Transference? If I had a boat, I'd name it Cidrolin. After a character in a French novel, speaking of pretentiousness (The Blue Flowers, by Raymond Queneau, by the way, highly, highly recommended).

Sandwiches, anyone?

Canapes?

 

[copake_ham]

.....

Sandwiches, anyone?

....

Why, yes, thank you. But only if your offering those little triangular ones with the crusts removed!

 

[Craig]

Why, yes, thank you. But only if your offering those little triangular ones with the crusts removed!

Cucumber and watercress if you please, and served with Earl Grey!

 

[laverdure]

Egg and cress sandwiches... are truly the great justification for English civilization. And soft bacon. And scones. And the word "fruiterer." But I have to ask... Earl Gray? At this time of day? What kind of time zone are you in?

 

[Black Dog]

Please feel free to add to the list. I'll get things started:

- Referring to lenses as “glass”.

- Referring to film developing as “souping”.

- “Photography means nothing – it is life that interests me”, or something like that. With apologies to HCB, far and away my favorite photographer.

- The merits of shooting RAW v. JPEG. Digital, I know, but what is more boring than listening to such drivel?

- The merits of today’s FB v. RC papers. Seriously folks, does anyone actually think an RC print won’t archive as well, all else being equal?

- Closet-gearheads who profess that the equipment really doesn’t matter.

- On Photography, by Susan Sontag.

- No-name photogs who think anyone would possibly want to dish out hundreds or thousands of dollars their “limited edition” prints. Check any issue of B&W for a reference.

- The idea that photographs must "say something". PLEASE. Most of the photographs I love most say nothing to me. I just like looking at them.

Hmmm........1) Don't mind this really
2)I'll have some fresh parsley with my APX 400 LOL...
3)All things are one, grasshopper
4)Well cooked for me....but no stain no gain
5)RC for contacts and workprints, FB for portfolios/shows
6)It's what you do with it that counts LMSO
7)Thought provoking
8)Ok as long as prices don't get too silly. Anyway it's the image that counts for me.
9)Formalism and technique just aren't enough on their own-it's good to go a little deeper.

 

[Craig]

Earl Gray? At this time of day? What kind of time zone are you in?

It's 4 o'clock, perfect timing for afternoon tea. I'll ring for a footman to bring us a tray of scones and clotted cream.

 

[Pete H]

It's 4 o'clock, perfect timing for afternoon tea. I'll ring for a footman to bring us a tray of scones and clotted cream.

But how do you pronounce "scone"?

I went to a teashop on my own
and ordered myself a buttered scone.
The silly girl has been and gone
and brought for me - a buttered scone!

It rhymes.

 

[Early Riser]

There are other forms of photographic snobbery besides equipment and jargon, there's the "artist" snobbery. I have come across in forums, not so much here, amateur photographers who think they're an artist because no one buys their work and they shoot photos just for themselves. That's fine, however many of these same people think that someone like me is not an artist because I do sell my work. That the act of selling my work means that I'm not doing the work for myself but for a market and that means that my work is commercial and not art. I can't speak for others who make their living selling their prints, but I didn't leave my studio and switch to landscape photography to do photos for someone else, I shoot for myself and if someone wants to buy it, great.

Many of them express that if you've ever done commercial work you can never be an "artist" and that you're some kind of hack. It's funny because in most fields experience and accomplishment are respected yet there seems to be a resentment level that some people have for those who actually made their living doing this.

I find it hard to refer to myself as an artist, I find the term pretentious, even though others would refer to someone who does what I do as an artist. When asked what I do, i go through an uncomfortable explanation in order not to use the word artist. I wonder if my discomfort at the artist title is partly because of the comments of those who would deny me the right to use the term, or because they use the term and I don't want to be associated with them.

 

[DougGrosjean]

Nah. Bruce. Avoids confusion.

As an aside here, why do people name cameras/motorcycles/cars etc? Always struck me as a bizarre custom.

Maybe for the same reasons we name our kids - so we can tell them apart.

Serious answer: humanizing the object, I guess.

My own case: most of my stuff never gets named. It all came off an assembly line somewhere, nothing unique there.

But...

A couple cars and a couple motorcycles have had names. They had to have some personality before I'd do so.

Suzuki Samurai:
Sam (for short)

Jeep that gets 18 MPG:
Thirsty

BMW (bike) R11rs with ABS computer and EFI computer:
Hal (see movie "2001, a Space Oddessy")

BMW (bike) R100gs:
Opportunity (after the Martian Rover, because both seem to keep going and going and going way beyond expectations)

 

[jovo]

I find it hard to refer to myself as an artist, I find the term pretentious, even though others would refer to someone who does what I do as an artist. When asked what I do, i go through an uncomfortable explanation in order not to use the word artist.

Interestingly, two much heard/read commentators have totally opposite views about the term 'artist'. Brooks Jensen uses the term as often or more often than even the term photographer IIRC. David Vestal avoids it nearly altogether as pretentious and premature, i.e.....one is a photographer who makes photographs that may or may not be ultimately regarded as 'art'.

The popular music world refers to anyone who makes a noise on a recording as an artist, which makes me shudder when hearing what some of them have the nerve to call their art. And then there are painters who have much more commonly been referred to as artists as a matter of course.

Of course, ya can't just say ya take pitchurs.....or maybe you can with a wry smile and a twinkle in your eye.

 

[Early Riser]

John, I end up trying to define what I do because there are also so many bad connotations with being a photographer. Often the press or people's perceptions about photographers are quite negative. As an example Larry Birkhead, famous impregnator of Anna Nicole, is a photographer. Need I say more?

 

[jstraw]

I tend to say "I make photographs." But that said, it kind of comes down to whether "artist" is a noun that refers to the the verb "art-making" or is it a noun that refers to the maker of objects that have the word "art" applied to them as an adjective.

I feel like most people that make creative works should be less sheepish about the word "artist." I think the circumspection comes from the lack of clarity about how "art" plays along the noun/verb/adjective continuum.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I often just say 'freelance'. Surprisingly few people ask, 'Freelance what?'

Cheers,

R.

 

[mtbbrian]

Perhaps Holga users are photography reverse-snobs?

I do't think that is the case, at least for me.

On a Holga/snobish note....

I once started attending a local photography club meetings and was showing some of my Holga photographs and cameras to the "Masters" of the group.
And this one particular woman, asked me point blank, "Is that your only camera?"
I replied no, I also had an F100 at the time, but I should have made some witty comment owning other toy cameras.

Brian

 

[eddym]

I often just say 'freelance'. Surprisingly few people ask, 'Freelance what?'

If they do ask, do you answer "Writer," "Photographer," "Writer about photography," or "Photographer who writes"?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm perfectly happy to own both the "Photographer" and "Artist" labels. I see myself as an artist who works with photography as his chosen media. The two are entirely compatible, and in no way mutually exclusive. I find it simultaneously amusing and sad that folks in both camps are afraid of the other label. Photographers being afraid to be called "artist" and artists being afraid to be called "photographers". Neither is a dirty word. I guess the photographers are afraid of being called artists for the association of being un-serious, a dilettante, and artists are afraid of the photographer label for being thought incompetent at craft. It returns to that silly age-old debate about "is photography art?".

 

[Roger Hicks]

If they do ask, do you answer "Writer," "Photographer," "Writer about photography," or "Photographer who writes"?

Dear Eddy,

Varies.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Katharine Thayer]

artist vs photographer?

I don't understand the logic of the dichotomy. I call myself an artist, because I am an artist; I create art objects. There's no snobbery or value judgment involved; it's not a matter of considering my work "art'" because I think it's more artistic than anyone else's work. it simply is art, just as a painting is art or an etching is art. It is art by virtue of fitting in the category of art objects and by virtue of being sold in art galleries.

Maybe it seems different to me, because I also paint besides photographing. It doesn't make sense to me to call myself an artist when I'm painting and to shun the title when I'm making photographs, which since I work in gum bichromate, are also art objects which use paint and paper as materials. They don't seem that different to me; the fact that one is printed from a negative doesn't make it seem less "art" to me than the other. I am simply an artist, working sometimes in one medium and sometimes in another.
Katharine

 

[Katharine Thayer]

I don't understand the logic of the dichotomy. I call myself an artist, because I am an artist; I create art objects. There's no snobbery or value judgment involved; it's not a matter of considering my work "art'" because I think it's more artistic than anyone else's work. it simply is art, just as a painting is art or an etching is art. It is art by virtue of fitting in the category of art objects and by virtue of being sold in art galleries.

Maybe it seems different to me, because I also paint besides photographing. It doesn't make sense to me to call myself an artist when I'm painting and to shun the title when I'm making photographs, which since I work in gum bichromate, are also art objects which use paint and paper as materials. They don't seem that different to me; the fact that one is printed from a negative doesn't make it seem less "art" to me than the other. I am simply an artist, working sometimes in one medium and sometimes in another.
Katharine

Another way of saying this is that to me, "artist" is nothing more or less than a job description. I am an artist; it's what I do. Painters, sculptors, printmakers, photographers who exhibit in fine art venues, are all artists regardless of the perceived worth of their work to anyone, simply because art is their work. And to say it's pretentious to call oneself an artist, is a form of reverse snobbery, it seems to me. No one would call a painter pretentiious who called himself an artist, even if the observer didn't think much of the artist's work. Like I said, I don't understand the dichotomy; it seems like a false dichotomy to me.
Katharine