Photographic terminology and words you hate.

[benjiboy]

It's a more accurate description for me that hoarder/collector or gear whore.
We don't all have to be artists, but why not if our pursuit in photography is mostly artistic?

Because in my experience of about sixty years in photography they are mostly barely competent photographers, and anybody these days who owns an entry level D.S.L.R. considers themselves one, and in my book "self advertisement is no recommendation" and talk's cheap.

 

[jp498]

Then "professional" and "wedding photographer" and "photojournalist' and "journalist" should have gone along with "artist."

What about photographers who make sandwiches at Subway? They are sandwich artists.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Then "professional" and "wedding photographer" and "photojournalist' and "journalist" should have gone along with "artist."

What about photographers who make sandwiches at Subway? They are sandwich artists.

My humble opinion in the matter is that it's pretentious to call yourself an artist. It's better to call yourself a photographer.

 

[benjiboy]

Then "professional" and "wedding photographer" and "photojournalist' and "journalist" should have gone along with "artist."

What about photographers who make sandwiches at Subway? They are sandwich artists.

And people who drink alcohol to excess are " piss artists". Professional photographers, wedding photographers,and photojournalist are not by definition artists, but craftsman,or artisans.

 

[erikg]

My humble opinion in the matter is that it's pretentious to call yourself an artist. It's better to call yourself a photographer.

Not to me. But I live in a region and in a community that is thick with folks who make art and consider themselves artists. It's just a job description basically. Individuals may or may not be pretentious about it. The art may or may not be great. That's the way it goes. If someone will hate me for it without knowing me or what I do that is their problem, seems prejudicial to me.

 

[fretlessdavis]

Can't stand 'High-Dynamic-Range' / HDR. Especially when occasionally seen as a verb.

How about we replace it with 'the range of the scene was too much, so I had to fake it in Photoshop with multiple images'

 

[jp498]

Nothing pretentious about artist here either. It basically means you are either poor, married well, or a little bit crazy. There's a zillion of them around. You setup a view camera or painting easel in the downtown here, and you'll be completely ignored.

More often then not, pro photographers or wedding photographers are people who got a DSLR and are better than their facebook friends at that, and sell their services on Clist for 1/3 what an experienced and skilled craftsman might.

 

[benjiboy]

It's strange I worked in a professional photographic dealers for almost twenty years where more then 90%of the customers were working professionals and I never heard any of them refer to themselves or any of their associates as "Artists". It's only wannabes who do.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Not to me. But I live in a region and in a community that is thick with folks who make art and consider themselves artists. It's just a job description basically. Individuals may or may not be pretentious about it. The art may or may not be great. That's the way it goes. If someone will hate me for it without knowing me or what I do that is their problem, seems prejudicial to me.

Yes, I do judge, and I'm not ashamed of it either. (People judge all the time, but just don't like to admit it).

And in my judgmental ways I think calling yourself an artist is pretentious. Why? To be an artist assumes a high degree of skill, that you are very good at what you do. To be the judge of your own skill and deem it very high and to therefore call yourself an artist is - pretentious (to present yourself to be more impressive than you maybe really are).

'Photographer', 'Painter', 'Sculptor', etc is simply more honest and to the point, and doesn't sound like anything other than exactly what one does to express.

 

[cliveh]

My humble opinion in the matter is that it's pretentious to call yourself an artist. It's better to call yourself a photographer.

I would agree, as others should judge if you are worthy of that title.

 

[Roger Cole]

Yes, I do judge, and I'm not ashamed of it either. (People judge all the time, but just don't like to admit it).

And in my judgmental ways I think calling yourself an artist is pretentious. Why? To be an artist assumes a high degree of skill, that you are very good at what you do. To be the judge of your own skill and deem it very high and to therefore call yourself an artist is - pretentious (to present yourself to be more impressive than you maybe really are).

'Photographer', 'Painter', 'Sculptor', etc is simply more honest and to the point, and doesn't sound like anything other than exactly what one does to express.

It does?

I don't think so. "Artist" is a noun, not an adjective. By itself it says nothing about whether one is claiming to be a good artist or a bad one (or anywhere in between.)

I think this comes up WRT photography over the notion that photography has to rise to some undefined but better-than-common level to be "art" otherwise it isn't. I'm not so sure of that. I've seen some pretty awful art that I still admit is "art" just bad art. This is as true of photography as it is any other art form.

Not all photography is done for "artistic" (meaning, for me here anyway, "self expressive") purposes, but when it is, it is art, even if it is not GOOD art.

"Art" is just a more general term than "photographer" "sculptor" "painter" and so on, just as "musician" is more general than "guitarist."

 

[erikg]

I would agree, as others should judge if you are worthy of that title.

In my world it is a profession, a professional title, not a value statement or honorary title conferred by others who deem you worthy. I know many who derive some or all of their income from artistic endeavors. They pay taxes and list 'artist' as their occupation. Nobody thinks it strange or putting on airs.

 

[benjiboy]

It's not when you call yourself an "artist", it's when Artists call you one.

 

[erikg]

It's not when you call yourself an "artist", it's when Artists call you one.

What's not?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Find a dictionary.

It does?

I don't think so. "Artist" is a noun, not an adjective. By itself it says nothing about whether one is claiming to be a good artist or a bad one (or anywhere in between.)

I think this comes up WRT photography over the notion that photography has to rise to some undefined but better-than-common level to be "art" otherwise it isn't. I'm not so sure of that. I've seen some pretty awful art that I still admit is "art" just bad art. This is as true of photography as it is any other art form.

Not all photography is done for "artistic" (meaning, for me here anyway, "self expressive") purposes, but when it is, it is art, even if it is not GOOD art.

"Art" is just a more general term than "photographer" "sculptor" "painter" and so on, just as "musician" is more general than "guitarist."

 

[erikg]

For the curious:
Merriam-Webster's definition of "artist":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artist

They say "noun".

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

For the curious:
Merriam-Webster's definition of "artist":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artist

They say "noun".

For the even more curious:

art·ist
noun
\ˈär-tist\


: a person who creates art : a person who is skilled at drawing, painting, etc.


: a skilled performer


: a person who is very good at something


Full Definition of ARTIST


1 a obsolete : one skilled or versed in learned arts
b archaic : physician
c archaic : artisan 1
2 a : one who professes and practices an imaginative art
b : a person skilled in one of the fine arts
3: a skilled performer; especially : artiste
4: one who is adept at something <con artist> <strikeout artist>

 

[Roger Cole]

Find a dictionary.

Uncharacteristically snarky Thomas - I guess this is a real sore spot with you. But ok:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artist

art·ist
[ahr-tist] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria.
2.
a person who practices one of the fine arts, especially a painter or sculptor.
3.
a person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.: a commercial artist.
4.
a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician, or singer; a public performer: a mime artist; an artist of the dance.
5.
a person whose work exhibits exceptional skill.​

You seem to be using primarily meaning #5. I think of it as mostly meaning #1, or 2 when photography is included, which I think by now it should be.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

This is strange! All manner of interpretations this way and that.

Here in Australia, I am a long-standing practitioner member of the National Association of Visual Arts which is the umbrella organisation representing the interests of artists around the country. My listing in their services handbook is ARTIST PHOTOGRAPHER, and has been since 1997. It is not an archaic term by any stretch. I do not make it wished for that I am any sort of exclusive artist (but there are a few who definitely are), just that I am a photographer and produce photographic work to as very high finished standard. My brethren are yet more photographers, digital artists, animators, traditional brush and media practitioners, ceramic artists, sculptors, 3D modellers, abstract designer-artists and many more categories that would probably come across as obscure in this thread. We are all and one under many different categories. I'm sure other countries have organisations representing artists and their interest in professional and interactive practice.

Photographers are also very commonly referred to as visual arts practitioners when they exhibit either solo or in a group. This might come across as a strange term to a lot of people; I think Photographer still says everything necessary and obvious, succinctly and without floss!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Sorry about snarky, but as you can see, it depends on how one interprets the word.

To me 'artist', or the status of being one, is earned, by recognition of others.

Uncharacteristically snarky Thomas - I guess this is a real sore spot with you. But ok:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artist

art·ist
[ahr-tist] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria.
2.
a person who practices one of the fine arts, especially a painter or sculptor.
3.
a person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.: a commercial artist.
4.
a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician, or singer; a public performer: a mime artist; an artist of the dance.
5.
a person whose work exhibits exceptional skill.​

You seem to be using primarily meaning #5. I think of it as mostly meaning #1, or 2 when photography is included, which I think by now it should be.

 

[Roger Cole]

I had a print in an art show last month. My print was actually the only piece in the (one day) show that sold. I don't claim that makes me a GOOD photographer or even an "artist" much less a good one but what does one put in an art show? "Objects with pretension to art?"

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I had a print in an art show last month. My print was actually the only piece in the (one day) show that sold. I don't claim that makes me a GOOD photographer or even an "artist" much less a good one but what does one put in an art show? "Objects with pretension to art?"

If you are a photographer you enter photographs, if you're a painter you enter a painting, if you're a screen printer you enter a screen print.

Look, I'm not going to agree with you, and you're not going to agree with me. It's time to agree to disagree and move on, otherwise I'm just going to have to have the last word.

 

[Roger Cole]

Hum, ok then. One guy did a performance too (wonderfully - and he's a friend of mine) so he, well, performed a performance.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Roger, if you are well known in arts circles, if you are a member of a professional organisation representing artists (visual or any other type), you and others will be known as artists, visual artists or arts practitioners as a term of professional acknowledgement of your craft and/or work. It it not about pretentious status. The other thing that here in Australia at least, artists do not have an Artist Wage; whatever income is derived from the production of work is the wage, and it can be well below the poverty line, thus many artists struggle, many more photographers struggle too. The very best work will not guarantee a sale. Reputation, community involvement, word-of-mouth and professional practice all combine to define the success (or failure) of practising artists (and photographers).

True, too, photographers are regularly represented in art shows. Good that you sold a print. But to survive as a visual artist, you must sell several a week, continuously, every week. Every month. Every year.

 

[Roger Cole]

Well I'm none of those things, nor do I call myself an artist, I was just tossing out a reason why the term maybe ought to be pretty broad. I entered a print in something billed as an art show (or actually "art ashram" see my post in the southeast region US forum here about it) along with other photos, paintings, sculptures, a performance piece etc.