When "Artist" and "Amateur" Were Synonyms

[kennethwajda]

If you enjoy photography, and you're an amateur, consider yourself lucky to be doing it for the love of it, not shackled by the need to make money!

https://6x6portraits.wordpress.com/...-artist-to-be-an-amateur-is-to-be-unshackled/

Being an amateur means doing it for the love of it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That was probably when the air was clean and words were dirty.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't have to leak arses to be published, get assignments and so on. So, what is new? Oh, "artist". This is just a BS, IMO.

 

[lecarp]

I don't have to leak arses"

Than sounds a bit messy, I hope you at least carry a bucket.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Although you are right in stating that the word "amateur" did not have in the early 20th century the negative connotation it has today, at no point in history - and certainly not at that time - were the words "amateur" and "artist" ever considered synonymous, as you state. Not in music, not in art, not in dance. In music, throughout the 19th century, the amateur musicians had a huge impact in the development of many genres (choral and chamber music mostly), but at no point were they considered the same as "artists".

Other problem is that, at the time you mention, very few people considered photography an art, at the same level as music, painting or dance. For most people, photography was synonym with documentary, and there is a strong possibility that 99% of the people who bought a Brownie never heard of Alfred Stieglitz. To associate the Brownie with amateurs and with art is nonsensical from a historical point of view.

So, not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[jvo]

yes the amateur is not held in high esteem. in America, someone will more easily classify themselves as an artist. In England, most would be loathe to call themselves one. many members of the Photo League were amateurs, or started out as one. they were amateurs learning photography and making art - and loved it.

how do you define your art? i'd say some is art and some is representative, at the other end of the spectrum. the line between the two gets defined differently by the individual and the market - whether or not the individual makes money. the market may agree or disagree.

 

[Horatio]

It sure helps if one is independently wealthy.

 

[faberryman]

If you enjoy photography, and you're an amateur, consider yourself lucky to be doing it for the love of it, not shackled by the need to make money!

What nonsense. Unless you are independently wealthy or someone is supporting you, everyone is shackled to a job to feed and cloth themselves, and put a roof over their head, and to purchase the things necessary to make photographs. You can do that by being a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker, or by being a professional photographer. The later has the advantage of allowing you to put your knowledge, training and experience to good use when working on your personal projects.

 

[jvo]

What nonsense. Unless you are independently wealthy or someone is supporting you, everyone is shackled to a job to feed and cloth themselves, and put a roof over their head, and to purchase the things necessary to make photographs. You can do that by being a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker, or by being a professional photographer. The later has the advantage of allowing you to put your knowledge, training and experience to good use when working on your personal projects.

It seems that photographers feel they have to make money, " 'cause it's an expensive hobby", whether or not they make art. i don't think there are many other leisure activities or hobbies that have that as a widely held aspiration?

 

[faberryman]

It seems that photographers feel they have to make money, " 'cause it's an expensive hobby", whether or not they make art. i don't think there are many other leisure activities or hobbies that have that as a widely held aspiration?

Never heard that before. Is that what your photographer friends tell you?

 

[warden]

If you enjoy photography, and you're an amateur, consider yourself lucky to be doing it for the love of it, not shackled by the need to make money!

https://6x6portraits.wordpress.com/...-artist-to-be-an-amateur-is-to-be-unshackled/

Being an amateur means doing it for the love of it.

The problem with silly quotes like the one you used from Pam Roberts, "Only an amateur, unshackled by the chains of commerce such as bound professional photographers, had the freedom to produce truthful and meaningful work" is that they're so easily disproven by the countless professional photographers throughout history who had regular paying gigs and also produced meaningful photographic art for the love of it. She couldn't have been serious with that quote, right?

The very notion that amateurs photograph for the love of it, while professionals, somehow by definition, do not, is also ridiculous.

Edit: I get what you're saying about it being difficult for professionals to find the time to shoot outside of work, but that's true no matter what your job is.

 

[Wallendo]

I have never associated "amateur" with "art", rather that amateurs pursued photography for the sake of photography alone.
At that time, "professional" simply meant someone who photographed for money. This was not generally considered "art", either, as a very large proportion of "pros" worked as photojournalists, school picture photographers, portrait studios run by large chains, or independent photographers shooting weddings and senior photographs.
"Art" photographers can either be amateurs exhibiting at local shows or professionals selling at high-end galleries or their own shops. And even then, many "art" professionals make most of their living from non-art photography.

 

[guangong]

My late good friend Werner was himself a well known painter and a close friend since school days of one of the giants in modern art. Close to the end of his life, he broke down and wept, telling Werner that he spent decades repeating what he himself considered repetitive mediocre paintings for a lot of money, rather than pursuing his own inclinations. We make choices.​

Not just photography, but all artistic endeavors are expensive. The exceptions may be fiction writing and poetry where cheap paper and a pencil will do.
Working as a full time commercial photographer (which should not be seen as a slur) produces a product for a customer. Crafts must be learned. Over 50 yrs ago a friend widely exhibited for his documentary portraits, volunteered to shot my wedding. Nice pics, but without the skill of a wedding photographer his pics fell short. The trick for the professional artist is to think like an amateur: Picasso in painting and Wagner in opera come to mind.
My favorite Picasso quote: “Live like a poor man, but have plenty of money.”

 

[removed account4]

If you enjoy photography, and you're an amateur, consider yourself lucky to be doing it for the love of it, not shackled by the need to make money!

https://6x6portraits.wordpress.com/...-artist-to-be-an-amateur-is-to-be-unshackled/

Being an amateur means doing it for the love of it.

interesting article. must have been nice back in the day when photography for the masses was getting a running start. the workday back then was long and tiring, and sadly there was no internet to fritter away one's free time. art ( for arts sake ) was made by dilettantes as it often was, and work is made by professionals. these days the work day is less dangerous ( for the lucky ) and less long ( for the lucky ) and even someone who works 12 hour days as a grunt photographer (in a mall portrait mill, or as a product photographer or wedding glad hand or ... ) is able to make their art on the side in their leisure time (something that didn't exist until later). photography NOT being considered and art form hasn't really changed much in the 120+ years since the Brownie was introduced. The streets are still littered with people who push the boundaries of what a camera and film ( or sensor ) is capable of doing and there are still people who want to put their head on a pike, foaming at the mouth within their rigid 19th century patriarchy who say photography can't be painterly, can't be illustration, can't be "something it is not" and can only be straight documentary type imagery. .. just because.
same old say mold ...
whatever. .. do what you like and like what you do whether you want to be considered an amateur or not, too much tribalism too many labels not enough photographs.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

too many labels not enough photographs.

Hear, hear !

 

[foc]

I love reading any thread that contains the words, artist, amateur, professional, in the title.

As Meat Loaf said, " Two out of three ain't bad"

 

[Bazza D]

Amateurs are absolutely artists. But that doesn't mean all artists are amateurs or should be. I get the sentiment that doing something for love is purer than for money. I disagree with that assumption though. Earning money from art allows an artist to create more. How many photographs would we have gotten from Ansel Adams had he not sold any? Maybe he becomes a concert pianists and ditches photography. Then you have Ms. Maier. I think part of the allure of her photos is that she was an amateur. Would her photography been different if she was paid for it? We will never know. In reality only a few can ever actually be paid for their art. And there are too many stories of recognition after passing. But it is the way it is. In the end there is a whole category for amateur artists. It is called folk art. But I think the best part about photography is that it accessible to many levels. We get wonderful professionals and then surprises from amateurs. I cannot sing well, I cannot paint decently, but I can push a button on a camera.

 

[kennethwajda]

I never wanted to imply that by being a professional, that took away your ability to love your work or make artistic photographs. Just that without the need to make money (say you're an IT person in Boulder making a living, or any other job that pays your living wage), the last thing you need is to make money trying to peddle your photos. And that's a freedom. I know a guy who has a Leica M10 and does work in IT, and he loves it. The Leica is paid off, the computers we all have so it's not an added expense, it's not that expensive if you don't go the Leica route. A Nikon DSLR with a lens can set you back $1-2K and you're done. Buying used and it's even less--the main camera I carry that's not my work camera which I keep separate is a D610 I picked up for $300 and a local camera store.

I don't know anyone who buys a boat and then says, "I have to charter it to make money with it because it's an expensive hobby." Or guitar players. Or gardeners. And I bet they can spend as much or more on their hobby.

That is the quote from Pam Roberts, so I assumed she had gotten that info from research back in the day of Stieglitz.

My main point is that if you can make art without needing to get thinking about "making a buck", there's a joy in that. It feels like people go pro just to prove they're worthy, that they're not amateurs, since that word implies poor quality.

 

[faberryman]

It feels like people go pro just to prove they're worthy, that they're not amateurs, since that word implies poor quality.

What leads you to that conclusion? Is that what photographers you know tell you?

 

[Vaughn]

When money is tight and one has three young kids, it is nice to know that the pursuit of one's art does not negatively impact the family finances. Keeping the income and expenses from photography separate from the family income helps to maintain the balance. I have found participating in the world of galleries and workshops has become a way to challenge myself, to push myself in my art and in life in general.

Am I a professional artist? I don't know. I do not derive a substantial portion of my income through photography (other than a State pension for working halftime in the photo education field for 24 years). I have lived the last four decades with my life centered around my art and managed to keep my kids housed, fed and educated. That's good enough for me so far...still some places to go.

But here is a recent pic from a block away. 11x14 neg developed a few days ago, re-photographed on a light table and inverted.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

What people do for a living and what they do for recreation are, normally, different activities. An amateur activity a person does for love doesn't make it in any way superior to what he does to make a living.

There is no reason that what someone does for a living can't be creating art. And there is no reason that what someone does for recreation can't be creating art. Sometimes both activities produce art (professional writer/amateur painter), sometimes neither (farmer/amateur fisherman).

I'm lucky, what I do for a living is something I love. I have to guard against loving it so much that it is the only thing I do, that way lies madness. Yeah, there are times when work is 24/7 or photography is 24/7, and this can be exhilarating, but I keep these periods short. Going camping & hiking with the dog - well, maybe not so short.

 

[kennethwajda]

What leads you to that conclusion? Is that what photographers you know tell you?

Yes, I see and hear from many photographers who are just starting out trying to get work to prove they're good at what they do. It's like wanting to be YouTube famous to prove you have something to offer. I want to say, "You have something to offer already, you don't need a paycheck or YouTube fame to prove you're something."

 

[removed account4]

like wanting to be YouTube famous

Sadly that’s just the time we live in. Not sure why anyone would want to be "internet famous" or famous at all for that matter

 

[faberryman]

Yes, I see and hear from many photographers who are just starting out trying to get work to prove they're good at what they do. It's like wanting to be YouTube famous to prove you have something to offer. I want to say, "You have something to offer already, you don't need a paycheck or YouTube fame to prove you're something."

Over the past decade, I have spoken to a great number of photography students, and, almost without exception, they say they are aiming to become professional photographers not "just to prove they're worthy" as you suggested, but because they want to earn a living and make a career of it. I guess if you are independently wealthy or someone is supporting you, you have the luxury to go pro just to prove you are worthy, but I don't know any of those people.

 

[kennethwajda]

Over the past decade, I have spoken to a great number of photography students, and, almost without exception, they say they are aiming to become professional photographers not "just to prove they're worthy" as you suggested, but because they want to earn a living and make a career of it. I guess if you are independently wealthy or someone is supporting you, you have the luxury to go pro just to prove you are worthy, but I don't know any of those people.

I think those students you mention are really photographers heading to becoming working pros. My initial conversation was started by saying non-pros, people who do photography for the joy of it, who don't think to make a career of it, who have other careers, they don't have to make money to prove they're worthwhile. Those are the ones I'm talking about, they do it strictly for fun, but those non-career-oriented shooters, in my experience, still want to get paid to show they're better than an "amateur" who doesn't make money. It's like money is the proof. I was positing what if someone could feel worthwhile without pay, strictly for joy.