Photographer Or Artist?

Photographer Or Artist?

  • Photographer

    Votes: 59 77.6%

  • Artist

    Votes: 17 22.4%
  • Total voters
    76
Keith W

Keith W

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,408
Edit My Images
Yes
So are you a photographer or an artist?

Would be interested to know peoples thoughts
 
If I could choose I would be an artist - I don't really count myself as either though!
 
Artist. Everyone's a photographer these days... :thumbs:
 
Don't think I'm either tbh - just someone who gets a lucky shot every now and again ;)
 
Of the two, a photographer - I have problems drawing the curtains!
 
Both!

I can take a reasonable photo (with or without artistry involved) and can also be artistic with the photos I have taken.

Need 2 more options on the poll, "Both" and "Neither"


Heather
 
Both

Img_1861.jpg


steamnostalgia.jpg
 
To be honest I consider myself to be both, if I'm taking standard photo's by this I mean normal kind of shutter speeds etc for things like flowers etc then I think of myself as a photographer, but if I'm doing my crazy after dark stuff then I most certainly consider myself an artist, if that makes me pretentious then so be....
 
Vous? (Or may I "tu-toiyes[?sp?]" you?)
 
Both. And I don't see anything pretentious about that. I see the difference between a snapper, and photographer, is one not only capturing moment, but creating an image that tells a story, or at least has the viewer in mind, I think there is a definite art to that. A happy snapper never thinks ahead of the final image, they're happy to just capture the moments regardless of how the end result comes across. Don't be shy about calling yourself an artist I say!
 
Last edited:
I think making pictures makes you an artist ;)

I don't know why people are so adamant to be neither.
 
One of the reasons I took up photography was because I can't draw or paint and I wanted to be creative.
Can't take a picture to save my life either but that's another story :lol:
 
Both, but I've had to get my head around being an artist.

At school I was never artistic, couldn't draw, or paint, or sculpt, genuinely terrible at all the artistic stuff (even stickmen I draw are crap).

As I've developed as a photographer I've had to get my head around what I create being art, they're not record shots designed to show just what was there, I think about the composition, the light, the feel, to put the viewer in the location, that in my opinion makes me an artist.
 
Always call your self an artist. That way when your photos are rubbish You can always it's my artistic impretion of the scene.
 
Don't go thinking documentary photography can't be art. Art is supposed to invoke an emotion.

When was the last time a painting made you cry?
 
Last Monday. On the antiques road show. Painting of young men maching to the first world war. Artist thad left a gap between the old man and the young boy watching then. Made me thing of the generation that was lost.
 
vetonbike said:
Last Monday. On the antiques road show. Painting of young men maching to the first world war. Artist thad left a gap between the old man and the young boy watching then. Made me thing of the generation that was lost.
Click to expand...
Now that sounds like really good art.
 
Oh gawd, University flashback! Too many hours spent debating whether photography could be considered an art form and if an individual photo could be art!

For me, photography (well, good photography) can be "art" if it is a representation of a reality.

Ok, getting deep now! :D

Cheers
 
BOTH! Have had Photographs published as well as taking them plus I have had my artistic take on the image shown in galleries
 
POAH said:
I don't use that much photoshop so I'm a photographer lol
Click to expand...

So photography can't be art?

theurbanclown said:
I don't know anybody who takes photos, pretentious enough to say they are an artist.
Click to expand...

Why is that being pretentious?




Cagey75 said:
I think making pictures makes you an artist ;)

I don't know why people are so adamant to be neither.
Click to expand...

Who'd have thought I'd agree with Cagey in one of "these" conversations?



Rustico said:
This! But documentary photography isn't really art,
Click to expand...

Why isn't it?

Photography can be art... or it can be a creatively redundant recording of a scene. Just the same way that pigments on a piece of paper can be art, or a blueprint. It's the intent of the author that decides whether it's art.
 
It's pretentious to call yourself an artist if you are the only person who thinks what you make is art.

Making pictures certainly doesn't mean you are an artist.

Therefore I am not an artist.

I don't consider myself a photographer because making photographs is not the predominant practice that occupies either my time or thoughts.

Hence, I am neither artist nor photographer but someone who uses a camera to make pictures. :)
 
Ed Sutton said:
It's pretentious to call yourself an artist if you are the only person who thinks what you make is art.
Click to expand...

No.. whether you're a good artist then becomes the question :) Any creative endeavour with the intention of doing more that methodically following a process can be describes as art. Anything that is created just to please, or provoke thought... could be described as art. It may be rubbish art in some cases.. but still art.


Plus.. it depends where you are and who's opinion you're talking about.

Ed Sutton said:
Making pictures certainly doesn't mean you are an artist.
Click to expand...

Not if your intent is merely to accurately record the scene before you, no. If what you produce causes people to re-evaluate what they thought they knew about a subject in some way, then it transcends mere picture taking. Many photographers can, and do that on a regular basis.

Photography, especially amateur and commercial photography is the only art form I know of where calling someone an artist is regarded as pretentious. I reckon it's because it's one of the few art forms where you can still create passable results (on a technical level) without any creativity whatsoever, and therefore removing "art" from the equation gives a fighting chance to those who are not creative. When someone comes along and suggests it's art, then that threatens such people because then there's a chance that their work could be appraised as artwork and creative content and not just on technical merit alone. That threatens some people.



Ed Sutton said:
Hence, I am neither artist nor photographer but someone who uses a camera to make pictures. :)
Click to expand...

Not very ambitious, but fair enough. It doesn't mean that those who do create art, or regarded as creating artwork are pretentious though. And since when should we be deciding our worth based on what others think? Personally, I couldn't give a stuff what others think of my work. I create it for me, and because I need to do it. I'd carry on with as much enthusiasm even if everyone hated it... which actually, they often do.

Sometimes I produce art, sometimes I produce photographs. There wasn't a "both" option to tick.
 
Last edited:
Camera operator
 
robhooley167 said:
Camera operator
Click to expand...


That's a bit self deprecating isn't it? :) Like toaster operator, or motor vehicle operator :) Do you not put any soul, or passion into your work?
 
Pookeyhead said:
That's a bit self deprecating isn't it? :) Like toaster operator, or motor vehicle operator :) Do you not put any soul, or passion into your work?
Click to expand...

So you need to have soul and passion to be an artist or a photographer?
 
SimonH said:
Asking the same question back to the person that asked. You said "camera operator".

Do you? Don't you?
Click to expand...

When necessary yes, not all of my images have soul or passion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top