You may be a photographer but are you an artist?

Vaughn · Mar 26, 2018

One thing good about starting making photographs in 1977 is that one knew little (relatively speaking) of what everyone else in the world was photographing! While I grew up with some incredible photographs on our walls, art and photography were not family topics of discussion. When I started to make landscape photos and naturally drifted in the direction of the West Coast landscape tradition, I had not yet heard of or seen images from Weston, Adams, Cunningham, and so on. It did not feel like I was copying anyone. Two of the photographs we had growing up were 16x20 Carleton Watkins original prints...walking past those prints everyday in the hallway and growing tall enough to see the detail in the contact prints of that that size must have influenced me some though!

I am lucky to live in Humboldt County and I love working in the light of the redwoods. The light and the chaos is not easy to handle...being there at the right place at the right time takes experience, luck, and patience -- it is a an advantage living so close. So being 'unique' is a little easier. I also photograph in Yosemite a bit, and there is always risks, for example, of finding a favorite image I have made is also Plate 46 in John Sexton's Listen to the Trees. Oh well, mine is a horizontal and I like mine better. But I might be biased.

Anyway, too many words to say, its art if you want it to be -- and great art if you can take it even further.

benjiboy · Mar 26, 2018

I have spent more than half a century trying to become a competent photographer, I have no aspirations to consider myself an "Artist", indeed I don't consider photography an art, but a craft, the idea that photography should be considered an art has largely only come to prominence since WW 2 largely promoted by photographers agents and galleries marketing photographs work, and most of the photographers themselves would probably laugh in your face if you told them their work was "Art"..

trendland · Mar 26, 2018

macfred said:
Joseph Beuys told us that every man is an artist - photographers not excluded ...

Not for me.

The diferency of being an artist or a photographer is in most cases the money.
Photograpers with much money (often shot soulless scratch) want to be better artists - but they can't change (devil own their souls - allways not willing to give them back : A normal deal....)
Artists allways want to eat but mostly no way with their art - they would sell their souls for having enough money - but the devil want to see real scratch then
Some art is indeed scratch with lot of money - I wonder about because some art is also scatch without money - who lost his soul there ? Both....?
with regards

Michael Firstlight · Mar 26, 2018

My signature on another site is as follows; I think it say it all on the subject in my opinion:

Tell me you know all about your camera and can use it well, and I will call you a photographer.
Tell me that you understand and can apply advanced concepts, and I will call you an enthusiast.
Tell me that you've mastered capture and processing techniques, and I will call you a craftsman.
Tell me you can do it with excellence, consistently, under any condition, and earn a major portion of your living from it, and I will call you a professional.
Show me images that reach the heart, touch the soul, and capture the imagination - and I will call you an artist.

MFL

Ko.Fe. · Mar 26, 2018

Does it really matter? Does it really matter how you are calling yourself? Photographer or Photographer and Artist?
So, the question 8 is - are you into photography or into chasing of titles for benefiting?
Because creativeness exists in photography well without artist title.

Arklatexian · Mar 27, 2018

Theo Sulphate said:
There used to be a column in Popular Photography called "The Hattersly Class" (I'm unsure of the spelling). I contemptuously skipped this column every month because I didn't want to read about philosophy, but rather wanted to read about equipment (the prime focus of U.S. photo magazines). Anyway, many years later, I returned to those columns and began to appreciate them. One in particular was about someone who photographed elderly people as a way with dealing with the fear of death.

I have thought about this some over the years and I have decided that, for me, if a person makes a picture that viewers enjoy and maybe are inspired by, that person is an "artist". If a person uses a camera to do that, that person is a photographic artist. On the other hand, if a photographer takes photographs that don't do that, he/she is not an artist no matter how hard that person tries.. Does this mean that a few times over a long period of time, that person might produce a few pieces of "art"? Certainly, but it is up to the viewers to make that decision..................Regards!....Me, I am still a photographer, only.

Vaughn · Mar 27, 2018

macfred said:
Joseph Beuys told us that every man is an artist - photographers not excluded ...

I agree with JB, but I will also include women and everyone in between. Just different levels of abilities, potentialities, realization of those abilities, skill, training, experience and so on. If someone wants to call him/herself an artist, that is fine with me, because I feel it is true (they might not be a very good artist, but that's a horse of a different color.) However, claims of mastering any particular art form requires outside verification. Actually, any claim of reaching any level of endevour in the Arts usually requires outside verification -- all an artist can really claim is being an artist.

Funny thing -- the only time I seem to call myself an artist is in discussions like these. I usually introduce myself as a photographer. The word 'artist' would only come up if pressed to describe the kind of photographic work I do. Talking with other artists, being an artist is assumed if one is talking about one's art...and I think artists tend to be more liberal with the lable of 'artist'. But I might be biased because of the artists I know here in Humboldt County (highest artist per capita in California...we're all over the place!)

I was associated with a photo program that was the second or third university in the USA to establish a photo program under an art department (instead of the Chemistry, Engineering, or other departments). Photography was taught as a mode of expression, as an art form. I took my first photo class there in 1978 and retired from there in 2015. Good technique was taught, but it did not have top billing, that is saved for personal expression. No classes in studio/lighting, no large format classes, no table-top classes...just beginning/inter/advanced B&W photography classes, and an occasional color class. All the skills were taught as needed (4x5 was introduced in the intermediate classes, for example). A large part of my job as the darkroom tech was to get students up to speed on technical issues they needed to get an idea onto film and/or paper...or provide techincal assistance for their oddball ideas, from liquid light on ceramics, to making mural prints.

BTW...I took all my photo classes there as a non-art major, and got hired as the darkroom tech with a BS in Resource Planning and Interpretation after working 12 years for the US Forest Service as a mule packer/wilderness ranger/etc. It was a great art department.

macfred · Mar 27, 2018

Vaughn said:
I agree with JB, but I will also include women and everyone in between...

+1 !
I guess Joseph includes women and 'all inbetween' - from dict.cc : man (pl.: men) = Mensch (mask.) (pl.: Menschen)

dpurdy · Mar 27, 2018

Vaughn said:
Funny thing -- the only time I seem to call myself an artist is in discussions like these. I usually introduce myself as a photographer. The word 'artist' would only come up if pressed to describe the kind of photographic work I do. Talking with other artists, being an artist is assumed if one is talking about one's art...and I think artists tend to be more liberal with the lable of 'artist'. But I might be biased because of the artists I know here in Humboldt County (highest artist per capita in California...we're all over the place!)[/QUOTE

Exactly. I don't need to label myself for myself, it is only when someone asks what do I do or what type photography do I do. Once I responded that I do fine art photography and the person then asked "do you mean you take photos of fine art?" I was in the uncomfortable position to say "no, my photography is fine art". That person's reply was "oh OK, I guess photography is sort of art" . I have tried responding that I am a visual artist and then asked what I do I say paint, draw, play music and work with mixed media.. oh, what sort of mixed media, I make found object sculptures and light it then take a photo of it and then paint a piece of water color paper with emulsion I mix myself and print it in the sun. Oh cool.

trendland · Mar 27, 2018

macfred said:
+1 !
I guess Joseph includes women and 'all inbetween' - from dict.cc : man (pl.: men) = Mensch (mask.) (pl.: Menschen)

Declaration is also speaking about "men".....all men are created equil
with regards

Vaughn · Mar 27, 2018

Images and words, and through them, symbols, have great power. When the common usage of a word reinforces the staus quo and one wishes to change the status quo, then changing the word is an important step in the process. "Men" when it is used to represent all genders is one of those words. Just my personal point of view. Two hundred plus years ago when "All men are created equal" was writtten, women were not considered equal and were denied rights men enjoyed. We have come a long way, with miles to go.

Stephen Prunier · Mar 28, 2018

dpurdy said:
I am a visual artist, born that way and for good or bad can't change it. It isn't an achievement or level of success, it is just the way my brain functions.
Musing over the meanings or definitions of it is philosophy not art.
Writing articles is writing.
I would be happier and have more family and more money if I hadn't been born that way.

I think we were twins at one time. I come from a long line of painters, musicians, jewelry makers etc. Only 2 of my uncles, and my father, made their living at something else. My dad was also a wonderful photographer and painter. Every time someone tells me "how artistic and creative I am" I tell them thanks. For me, it's a blessing and a cures. I guess I see things in a way that others don't. At one time I was a carpenter/builder/designer. Clients were always saying, I look at things like it's a work of art. That I look at everything like I'm creating something special. It could be as simple as laying out wood being used for flooring so it's pleasing to the eye. Or explaining why something may not look right if I do it that way etc. For me the blessing is creating things I like to do, like, my photography, one of kind pieces of furniture that I usually design as I'm building it with my hand tools, or playing my guitars etc. For me the curse is finding others who not only like what I do, but who will part with their $$ to own it. I'm finally at an age where I can just create, and not worry about the other stuff. Now I just need to convince my body to follow in the fun!

dpurdy · Mar 28, 2018

Stephen Prunier said:
I think we were twins at one time. I come from a long line of painters, musicians, jewelry makers etc. Only 2 of my uncles, and my father, made their living at something else. My dad was also a wonderful photographer and painter. Every time someone tells me "how artistic and creative I am" I tell them thanks. For me, it's a blessing and a cures. I guess I see things in a way that others don't. At one time I was a carpenter/builder/designer. Clients were always saying, I look at things like it's a work of art. That I look at everything like I'm creating something special. It could be as simple as laying out wood being used for flooring so it's pleasing to the eye. Or explaining why something may not look right if I do it that way etc. For me the blessing is creating things I like to do, like, my photography, one of kind pieces of furniture that I usually design as I'm building it with my hand tools, or playing my guitars etc. For me the curse is finding others who not only like what I do, but who will part with their $$ to own it. I'm finally at an age where I can just create, and not worry about the other stuff. Now I just need to convince my body to follow in the fun!

Yep sounds like my story. I too have worked with carpentry and painting and ceramics and started life as a musician, first trumpet then guitar, then photography. Only difference in my story is my parents did not support my decision to go to art school even though they paid for my younger brothers art schooling. They would have supported my sticking with music theory and becoming a teacher but the idea bored me. I too can now concentrate on my photography but I also am finding my aging of body and mind a difficult obstacle. It makes me feel sorry for those who lived their life for financial security thinking they would do their art work when they retired.

foc · Mar 28, 2018

I would see myself as a creative person rather than an artistic one. I have family members that are creative in various fields. I believe that creativity is in the genes and how it is nurtured is important. Creativity comes in many forms, music, visual arts, literature, culinary art, architecture ( to name a few) and many fields I don't understand.

The one thing I have noticed over all the years as a professional photographer, is that a creative person will look at something differently, they see a different angle. They take two steps to one side and change the whole perspective.

removed account4 · Mar 28, 2018

too bad the turnip doesn't stop in
i am sure he would have something to say
in this thread... after all he changed his name to
"the turnip".
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/announcement-from-clay-turnip.34320/

TheRook · Mar 31, 2018

I paint, draw, sculpture, write music... and take photos. To me, photography is simply another art form, as valid as any other, a means of expression and creativity, by method of light manipulation. Although I am somewhat fascinated by the technical aspect of photography, that alone cannot keep me interested for very long.

jtk · Mar 31, 2018

Probably because my first and only serious instructor (after my mother, seen in 'Media") was a Minor White "direct" student, I become anxious when somebody labels me "photograper" (tho considered that proper when I made my living that way). And only recently have I begun to be comfortable with the "artist" label. It's too difficult and weird to make that distinction when I'm introduced. Besides, sometimes I'm a great cook.

For me, photography is some entirely different category...which is irrelevant, given that among the best shoot video with phones.

KenS · Mar 31, 2018

After many years of recording images for Biological Scientist I earned my Board Certification from a Professional Photographic Organisation. After retirement I went to the local University and earned my 'Fine Arts" degree. I feel I have the legal 'parchments' that should support my claim of being both a "Photographer" as well as being an "Artist" [of sorts... ]

But... Who cares?

Ken

Alan Edward Klein · Apr 1, 2018

His pictures are freaky. Not sure what they have to do with all his points. Taking pictures that "shock" could be art or maybe not. It's not something I would do. Whether what I do is art I'll leave to the viewers to decide.

Ces1um · Apr 1, 2018

I think if someone intentionally goes out to create a thing of beauty, then the person is an artist. That doesn't mean they are a good artist. Just an artist. It also doesn't mean that other people would consider them an artist. I find it's difficult for me to differentiate between "photographer" and "artist" because for the most part the photographer is going out to create something beautiful. Now people that are using a camera merely to RECORD something to be recalled and used at a later date, like evidence of damage to property, to ensure they're purchasing the right brand of milk, or to simply show a family member the new colour they painted the walls, then I consider this being more of a technician, with no creative process involved at all. Neither artist nor photographer. I also think to be elevated to what the average person would consider an "artist", then you must show skill and proficiency above and beyond what blind luck would produce.

One thing for certain here is that everyone seems to have their own opinion on what an artist is and what a photographer is. Perhaps because of our current day in age the line is blurred simply because of the sheer volume of photographs taken and the number of people taking them.

jtk · Apr 3, 2018

One key question: how much have you intensely experienced?

Many artists and photographers never experience anything. To them, their work is "just a hobby."

Ces1um · Apr 3, 2018

Alan Edward Klein said:
Taking pictures that "shock" could be art or maybe not. .

I've heard that art should shock and provoke but I'm not sure it's always used properly. Sometimes I think shock is used to strengthen mediocre art.

Sirius Glass · Apr 3, 2018

Ces1um said:
I've heard that art should shock and provoke but I'm not sure it's always used properly.

From Porgy and Bess, "It ain't necessarily so".

removed account4 · Apr 3, 2018

Ces1um said:
I've heard that art should shock and provoke but I'm not sure it's always used properly. Sometimes I think shock is used to strengthen mediocre art.

robert hughes wrote a book called "shock of the new"
the shock has to do more with ...
modernism, post modernism and thinking a litle bit, instead of being spoon fed.
the televion series that is related to the book
is on yoou tuube and it is narrated by robert hughes ..
it seemed like common sense when i read it but that was 35+ years ago.

Ces1um · Apr 3, 2018

jnanian said:
robert hughes wrote a book called "shock of the new"
the shock has to do more with ...
modernism, post modernism and thinking a litle bit, instead of being spoon fed.
the televion series that is related to the book
is on yoou tuube and it is narrated by robert hughes ..
it seemed like common sense when i read it but that was 35+ years ago.

I'm thinking shock more in the terms of things like "meat dresses". There's no skill and talent sewing meat into a rudimentary garment. It's shock value was the only thing that let it be called "art" because people defended the dress as art as it provoked an emotional response. I can't personally consider that art. If that's the case, what count vlad did to his own villagers and a few hundred pikes would have been considered art rather than an atrocity.

You may be a photographer but are you an artist?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency