You may be a photographer but are you an artist?

Remarqable - just AS I read this older post I felt to state something again on this theme. Something (a bit provocate :that you are an artist if you belive you are)!!!
Now (I just noticed it) Beuys told something simular.

OK - my difference to Beuys is the folowing : There is no need that others see you as artist.
There is no need to create something special. The Definition is : If you simply belive you are - you are indeed an ARTIST !
Beuys feld the same within his early days as he himself wasn't an artist to most others.
It isn't necessary to be real good in your Art to felt as artist of course.

with regards

PS : The Definition sure is on a ground that you have to create something. Or you have to declare something as "creation".
Example : A driver can not say I am an artist every day -I drive my bus and that is Art for sure!
But if he declares his bus Tour as " performance " it is Art. Beuys is right if there have been a need of (to me just a little bit) something different or special.
Costumers would pay to come from A to B and would ASK : What I'd to pay for this special performance....
Beuys came in simular conflict with min. One of his installations.

Is this ART or could that be wasted?

 

I agree. If one believes one is an artist, one is. Then others can (if they so desire, and they usually do) form their own opinions about the quality of the art the artist is involved with.

 

Yes

 

This is all about communicating. That means one person has to communicate to another in some mutually meaningful way. If you think you are an artist and you cannot communicate outside yourself....

 

Sometimes the communication is with oneself, and does not need to be shown, so I am relunctant to use outside communication as a deciding criteria in defining what makes an artist an artist. In addition, we have no idea which art will communicate (and how) to viewers 20, 60, or 200 years from now. A 'failure' to communicate now could easily be an audience that was not ready yet for the message, and in 50 years be considered highly communicative and important.

 

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

While I'm a great admirer of Beuys I must disagree. This idea has become a well-known cliche that many believe. But indeed, the problem with "art" is that it requires an artist, and those are few and far between.

 

Then we need to go back and determine what an artist is again, because you can hardly walk the streets here in Humboldt County without bumping into one!

 

The serious fact is the folowing : Real artist often have much too lot doubts.They can't realize their Art is real Art - so they doubt many years about their artwork. Their pricing is often much too low.
If such People would simply change their mind AND TRUST THEMSELVES - they would feel better.
To those Kind of People my sentence is more than correct.

with regards

PS : Artists who feel born as an artists are often the opposite - they shouldn't hear my sentence.

 

The problem with Photography is simple : Photography is a relative new kind of modern ART.
So the basis of relativation as Art has to do with modern Art.
To me (sorry to say and sometimes strange to belive) modern Art has simple structures : There is no need to create something with outstanding quality. There is also no need to have great intention. It does not go (in most cases) about conception.
So if one has an idea of anything else he is able to start. The fact that is making such persona to a great Artist is the simple factor TIME. If you just spent 10 - 25 years within you idea of Art (and if you can affort to spent this time) the chances are best to get real reputation. Whatever your work is showing.
But it should be not a normal routine. So if you shot fat men on the beach during 20years with different styles over the years (in variations) it could be a possible way.
The key is "Interpretation" not conception !
If you would trample ants on shieds of white paper (80x80/ 160x160) in cm! And you have the capability to proceed with such strange workflow (without coming into the hands of a psychatrist over the years) you definitivly would come to variations of structures over after a long phase of periods.
Different types of ants for example, different materials (yellow papers,red papers, "untitled = (ants on wood) a.s.o.
So you will have modern Art because their will be attention once a day about your strange " ant compositions"
But the key is "Interpretation" and within to world of modern Art is a lot of Interpretation
also about "murdered ants" but it has to be the need to proceed over many years.
That sounds real strange isn't it so ? But think about !
The Interpretation is allways coming from recipients. And has to do with THEMSELVES.
Better the artist is most cautious with his own Interpretation or conception - because today it is no need for.
with regards

 

Change it from "real artists" to just "artists" and I can agree.

Question, then I need to hit the road...so I will not get to any repies for a couple days. It is rhetorical anyway. How can a person try to 'become' an artist -- how can they act and think like an artist unless they see themselves as an artist -- and believe it? Especially difficult when others around them say, "No, you are not an artist yet -- you still have to do three things from List A and accomplish two from List B before you are allowed to think like an artist might think."

 

To become an artist has the need to intent. But not allways. Real genius could be artists without knowing. Think of Vivian Maier ! Some stated her name has to be on a llist of greatest photograpers of the 20th century.

I can not say for sure if her work is as great enough to be compared.But if you could had asked her during her livetime if she is an artist she would have had denied to be a photographer!

But sure it is a bad way to come in business with Art (to earn money) if you are not able in self marketing when you doubt that your Art would be wanted from anybody.

But therefore agents are allway the suitablest solution.

with regards

 

This is awfully close to being a legend in one's own mind. A further distinction must be made. As far as future goes, what sort of timeline are you thinking, otherwise anything goes. I'm guessing that applicability of such a consideration is pretty limited statistically.

 

IDK i am certain there are people who just do their thing, they just make chairs, or tables or do-dads or photographs or cupcakes
and their intent is not to make "art" and even when people call them artists they deny it and say im not i just make
chairs or tables or do dads or photographs or cupcakes ...
there are plenty of people who believe they artists and make chairs or tables and do dads or photographs or cupcakes
and people shrug their shoulders and say nope, sorry ...

i don't think it has anything to do with intent but how the person and stuff made is perceived by other people

 

No.

 

With some 60+ years 'under the dark-cloth of which 'almost 40 ''working" as an image maker, A BFA degree, Board Certification as a "Registered Biological Photographer" I believe I might be allowed to 'refer' (by my past income earning experience) as a Professional Photographer might just be enough to qualify and to allow me to consider myself an "Artist"
Under my name on my 'card" use the word "Photographist", since I cannot come up with a 'better' expression of what I can 'do' or 'how well I can 'do it'

Shove that in you pipe... and 'smoke it"


Ken

 

The Original Question is sophomoric.

 

About a mile and a half. My 20 years is a bit short -- reasonable predictions can be made. After couple of generations, predictions I would say become nearly impossible -- though there are always lucky guesses.

 

Well it certainly must be engaging outside the artist's mind in any case.

 

does it ?
ive seen plenty of egoists who claim to be "artist" just like the egoists who claim to be "geniuses"
and its what keep them happy. they don't seem to care that no one else thinks the same thing ..

 

I make art, "artist" is a label others might apply to my work but it would be hubris to label myself that.

 

Nonsense. If you make art, then you're an artist. If you fix pipes, then you're a plumber. Artists are no more special than anyone else. The term artist doesn't elevate one above anyone else. It's merely a label affixed to your profession or vocation. It also doesn't carry with it any assurance that you're good at what you do. You can be a crappy artist, or a very good one. Just like there are good plumbers and bad ones. Calling yourself an artist doesn't mean you have excessive pride or unwarranted self confidence. It just describes that you attempt to make art.

 

However, a bad artist is likely to cause far less trouble than a bad plumber.

 

I'd have to concur, unless the artist's medium is flamethrowers.

 

I'm a well driller's son and do my own plumbing but I don't call myself a plumber either.