Artist Or Time Recorder?

InaGlo

InaGlo

TPer Emerita
Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,683
Name
Glo
Edit My Images
Yes
I was just wondering (again)... who amongst us see's photography as a way to be creative and who enjoys a simpler approach of wanting nothing more than to record the moment.

For instance, when you plan a photograph, do you attempt to convey your own feelings & thoughts about whats in front of you? do you feel there's something of yourself in your shot?
Do you shoot in such a way that brings comments on your 'style'.

Or

Do you see the camera as a means to catch a moment in time, to shoot as is, what is there infront of you ... a record if you like, and nothing else.

I guess Im just interested to know who enjoys expressing their artistic side through their photography, and who enoys nailing the technicalities more.

Or better still, do you feel you have the ability do both?
 
Great question Glo !!!

It has to be artistic for me - I don't consider myself technical at all. Images, shapes, colours are what I try to capture. That doesn't mean I won't go for the 'moment in time' stuff but primarily its the former I go after.

As for style...no idea if I have 'a style' (apart from my bludgeoning the HDR thing to death!!!)
 
more of a time recorder here , just not artisic at all . thats why my pics are all rap . but at least we can remember what the kids looked like when they were little oiks , as opposed to the big ones they are now !
 
There's a quote I always remember - 'the camera looks both ways'

I think once a certain level of technical ability has been achieved - i.e. the photographers ability to capture the image in the way that they want is not constrained by their knowledge, then whatever is shot is an expression of their personality.

There are exceptions of course - very contrived situations like product photography where the aim is display an object in a very specific way.

I'm not keen on the label of 'artist' being applied to photography, I prefer to think of photography as a separate discipline to 'art'.

Duncan
 
A bit of both. I'm always snapping with my compact, merely recording events and the kids growing up, then I do try to be a bit more creative - I'm a bit technically challenged :D but I do have a go though.

I've always wanted to be able to paint but I'm not very good so the camera in some ways tries to compensate. Haven't really got a style but flowers seem to feature a lot!!!!:lol:
 
WeddingHack said:
I'm not keen on the label of 'artist' being applied to photography, I prefer to think of photography as a separate discipline to 'art'.

Duncan
Click to expand...

Why? If you take a photo of something that you're passionate about, and put a lot of feeling into making that shot incredibly expressive isn't it art? If someone looks at your photo and feels exactly how you felt, gets all the meaning and emotion in the image, isn't it art? I think the ability to take a tool and craft something expressive means its art. We all have the same lenses and cameras, we can all take the same picture. However, we don't. We put ourselves into the image. Its not different than an architect, a painter, a sculptor, a poet. You take a little box that captures light and you shape that light into something amazing, something you saw. Photography is what you saw, what you felt and what your camera saw.

I know artists who use photography but are not photographers, they are artists. I know photographers who are not artists. I see myself as a photographer. Thats what I do. If people want to say I'm an artist fine, but its a larger generic label. I take photos. My HDR work allows me to put lots of what I feel and saw into an image. If I'm out and theres a stunning sunset over a landscape I can capture everything I saw and then tweak it to represent the amazement I felt. When people look at it and go "Wow" I know I got it right. They're not saying "Wow look at the depth of field" or commenting on the high dynamic range. They are commenting on the moment I saw. Thats all art to me.

I do time recording too. I've photographed gigs, processed them while listening to the bands tunes and instantly I'm right back there at the gig. Events I document are mostly about capturing the moment, but that doesn't mean I can't create something artistic with that moment.
 
I felt the same way Pete, people told me I take photos in an artistic way - fair enough, I just take them in a way that is pleasing to me - like you I prefer to see myself as a photographer. For me photography is more immediate than art - as you say the 'wow' factor is more important to me than understanding the artists struggle or the message implicit within the work.

To be honest, most 'art' annoys me, there's a lot of toss talked about it and any piece that you can only understand by reading the card next to it just turns me off. So for me photography isn't art, it's better than that :D
 
Not going to argue with that :D Though I do believe its still technically art, just art that pleases you. I think someone once said that there is no such thing as bad art, just art you don't like. I don't get "art" either. I can goto the Tate and think "Er..." I've seen photo realistic paintings labelled at £8,000 and I'm thinking why? I took a better photo and priced it at £450. Maybe I should charge £8k too. Its crazy.
 
As a street photographer I'm principally interested in the "defining moment", although I'm trying to be more artistic in some of my captures. I'm just not artistically creative :bang:

Lol
 
The painting is worth £450, the little card next to it explaining the artists motivation is the bit that cost the remaining £7550 ...
 
Comparing a photo-realistic painting to a photograph is like saying it doesn't matter if you run a marathon or catch a bus as both will get you 26 odd miles down the road.

Or put it another way Pete, anyone capable of pressing a button could have taken any of your photos as only the end result is what counts, not the effort it took to create...
 
Ok well whats the point in doing a photo realistic painting of what would really be a very dull photo?
 
But now you're arguing about the artistic merit of the painting which is subjective. The value of a painting isn't just about what you see but also the skill and technique of and by the artist to create it.
 
I'm going to avoid the art argument, it's as old as the hills anyway. ;) On the face of it you'd think that anyone pressing the shutter would get the same result, but you only have to look around these forums to to see it isn't so. The work of a lot of people is instantly recognizable after a while, so whether it's done intentionally or not, people do stamp their personality and there own interpretation into what they take, which for me means there's more going on than just time recording.
 
When doing events although I am capturing a moment I still put all the feelings that I felt at that moment into the photograph. If im bored by a particular event I often find the photographs I take are quite generic and tend to lack any sparkle because I dont try to capture my emotion as there is a lack of it.

When doing shots for myself im only ever even remotely happy with the shot if when looking back at it I and other people can feel exactly what I felt at the time of taking the photograph. Otherwise whats the point? Nothing would seperate me from every other person who picks up a camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top