Photographer Or Artist?

[SimonH]

When necessary yes, not all of my images have soul or passion

Not all, or not any? Dave's question was:

Do you not put any soul, or passion into your work?

Sometimes I'm an artist, sometimes I'm a documentarian. Most of the time I'm just an explorer. I can get passionate in any of those modes, though.

 

[Pookeyhead]

When necessary yes, not all of my images have soul or passion

Then sometimes you're a camera operator, and sometimes you go beyond that... definitely a photographer, possibly an artist.


Camera operator implies no great passion for what you do... you merely operate a camera.

 

[PMN]

This is actually a great question. Personally I class myself as a documentary photographer and don't class myself as an artist, the main reason being I consider it other people's place to judge whether what I do is art, not mine. My photography is more about letting scenes, places, people, etc, speak and be expressive for themselves rather than me personally being expressive and saying something. Perhaps being tuned into a situation and capturing the essence of it is in itself a form of expression - I don't know, I haven't figured that out yet but I don't class myself as an artist.

This is a quick example of the kind of one of my recent images, I'd actually be intrigued to see if anyone would class it as art!

(Damn Flickr making the smaller version look horribly oversharpened...)


Untitled by Paul Nichols, on Flickr

 

[SimonH]

An artist might place his soul in his images, a documentarian might capture the soul of his subjects, and an explorer has wire wool and a 9v battery.

 

[SimonH]

PMN, I understand what you're saying, but surely you're the one facilitating the way the story unfolds, even in documentary photography. Writers come in many different genres, from fantasy fiction to documentary. It's all story-telling, just like photography. It's whether the story is good and/or is told well which is important.

I don't see a reason to defer to others in judging whether what you do is art or not. They can debate among themselves whether it's GOOD art, but I see no reason why you shouldn't view your work as artistic expression, and therefore see yourself as an artist.

 

[Ed Sutton]

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.

I've never felt a need for ambition in anything (other than avoiding working too hard ), but we have some common ground. I also don't care what people think of the pictures I produce.

It's not the result that's important it's the process. As Conrad put it n Heart of Darkness; "I don't like work - no man does - but I like what is in the work - the chance to find yourself. Your own reality - for yourself, not for others - what no other man can ever know. They can only see the mere show, and never can tell what it really means."

My contention is that it should be enough for photography to be photography, and photographs to be photographs (although I think they ought to be pictures). Christ knows photography is a multifaceted and confusing enough medium as it is without aspiring to be 'art' as well. Then again I'm not sure what 'art' is either.

Unfortunately I don't have the intellectual capacity to formalise precisely what I mean quickly in a concise manner.

 

[PMN]

PMN, I understand what you're saying, but surely you're the one facilitating the way the story unfolds, even in documentary photography. Writers come in many different genres, from fantasy fiction to documentary. It's all story-telling, just like photography. It's whether the story is good and/or is told well which is important.

I don't see a reason to defer to others in judging whether what you do is art or not. They can debate among themselves whether it's GOOD art, but I see no reason why you shouldn't view your work as artistic expression, and therefore see yourself as an artist.

You may well be right. To be honest I feel like a lot has clicked into place for me with photography recently in terms of discovering my style and being able to shoot with the mood and feel I have in my mind, but for everything that's become clearer there's something else come along for me to figure out. One of those things is actually kind of covered by the OP's question, and something that clicked is I generally feel like it's not me being the expressive one in what I do and because of that I don't really feel like an artist as such. As you say though and as I mentioned in my previous post, maybe being able to get the mood of a situation across effectively is in itself art and expression. I genuinely don't know, hopefully this thread will help me figure that out.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Christ knows photography is a multifaceted and confusing enough medium as it is without aspiring to be 'art' as well. Then again I'm not sure what 'art' is either.

It doesn't have to aspire to being art. It is art... or can be anyway. Saying a photograph is just a photograph is like saying a painting is just a painting, yet some people just automatically assume painting = art. Why not photography?

It's all very well saying it isn't art, but I think in order to make such a statement, you need to be able to provide a rationale - you can't say "it just isn't"

I get the feeling most hobbyists don't want it to be art. Photography being art raises the bar a little uncomfortably high for some I think; Makes things complicated. It implies there's more to this photography lark than just sharp focus, good exposure and composition.


Photography is what you make of it. It's no more, or less art than any other creative medium, and I challenge anyone to provide a reason why that is not so.

 

[simon ess]

I think you put your view well Dave. I happen to disagree, but not strongly.

I think most people have a tendency to limit themselves with their own internal dialogue, usually learned from others, often at an early age.

When I pick up a pencil, am I "just" drawing?

When I pick up a brush and watercolours, am I "just" painting?

When I pick up a camera, am I "just" taking a picture?

In each case, sometimes the answer is yes. Sometimes the answer is no, I'm producing art; usually crap art but art nonetheless because that's my decision and my intention and I too don't care what anyone else thinks.

 

[PMN]

Photography is what you make of it. It's no more, or less art than any other creative medium, and I challenge anyone to provide a reason why that is not so.

I agree entirely, perhaps words are getting in the way a little here. I say I let others decide whether what I do is art more because I don't think it's my place to say whether what I do is good or not. If someone somewhere happens to like one of my images and considers it to be art then great, if not then that's absolutely fine but I don't think it's my place to say whether it is or isn't. I guess what I should really have said is it's for others to decide whether it's good or bad art (or somewhere in the middle), which is basically what you said originally.

 

[Pookeyhead]

In each case, sometimes the answer is yes. Sometimes the answer is no, I'm producing art; usually crap art but art nonetheless because that's my decision and my intention and I too don't care what anyone else thinks.

Exactly. Screw the world, screw the RPS, screw camera clubs, screw you all LOL

It's very liberating once you reach that point. I decide what I produce is, no one else. Make of it what you want - it's a matter of indifference to me... or at best, mild curiosity. Does that make me arrogant? I don't think so. It means I've spent nearly 28 years as a photographer and creative, and for about 19 of those years I obsessed over what other people thought of my work... to the point of making me miserable. One day I had an epiphany: I decided that regardless of what people think, I will always create artwork of one form or another... because... I enjoy it. That, and only that is what actually matters.

I can churn out any number of commercial shots for clients to order, and that paid the bills, but it wasn't MY work.. not really. It allowed me the financial freedom to create what I wanted... and THAT work is mine, for me, and no one else. If others appreciate it, then I am happy that is so and I will always show it wherever possible. If they do not, they can simply walk away from it and find something that interests them. To get upset about what others think about work you produced to please yourself is a little like being bothered about what others may think about the pants you wear while slobbing out in front of the TV: Pointless.

It really IS that simple.

 

[SimonH]

Well, Dave, you walked me headlong into almost the same epiphany some months ago. I'm predicting Paul will be the next!

 

[new2me]

I'm a photographer who takes the pee.
Does that make me a pee artist?

 

[SimonH]

I'm a photographer who takes the pee.
Does that make me a pee artist?

Would work SO much better if you dared to use the proper word!

 

[Pookeyhead]

Well, Dave, you walked me headlong into almost the same epiphany some months ago. I'm predicting Paul will be the next!

Woah... I'm not trying infleunce anyone.. I'm explaining myself. Some people will argue strenuously against that attitude. I'm not suggesting you should pay no attention to critique either. Mistakes are mistakes, and if someone suggests something that you feel can move your work forward you'd be mad to ignore it, especially if deep down, you agree.

I'm a photographer who takes the pee.
Does that make me a pee artist?

Absolutely!

 

[new2me]

Would work SO much better if you dared to use the proper word!

You are welcome to practice artistic licence if you so wish

 

[SimonH]

Woah... I'm not trying infleunce anyone.. I'm explaining myself. Some people will argue strenuously against that attitude. I'm not suggesting you should pay no attention to critique either. Mistakes are mistakes, and if someone suggests something that you feel can move your work forward you'd be mad to ignore it, especially if deep down, you agree.

LOL! Calm yourself! For me it was fairly indirect, but what you said provided an alternative way of viewing some things for me which resulted in a cascade effect of clarity which I've benefited from.

 

[ChrisGilbert]

I say I let others decide whether what I do is art

Whether they take it as art is none of your business. Whether you yourself define it as art is none of thier business. We all percieve the world in slightly different ways. There is no point in trying force-fit everyone into the same set of world-view rules. If it isn't science then it is whatever it is and whatever we want it to be.

 

[PMN]

I'm predicting Paul will be the next!

Ha! I reached a similar point in music (my job) a good few years ago and I've kind of carried a bit of that attitude/way of thinking into my photography. I basically shoot for my own enjoyment with the vague hope that someone somewhere will like and appreciate what I do but it's fine if they don't, I just find it fascinating to get how I think about all this stuff settled - to use a really overly-dramatic term it's almost like a self-discovery thing which I think everyone needs every now and then. I haven't really thought about this particular subject too much but I think it's a great subject to discuss.

 

[simon ess]

Whether they take it as art is none of your business. Whether you yourself define it as art is none of thier business. We all percieve the world in slightly different ways. There is no point in trying force-fit everyone into the same set of world-view rules. If it isn't science then it is whatever it is and whatever we want it to be.

I like that

 

[Rustico]

Interesting discussion here. Still trying to make up my mind which one to vote for, or to vote at all!

However, I am inclined toward artist, as I think no photograph can be viewed completely objectively. Our predispositions will always be in front of us, even if the photograph was not "supposed" to evoke an emotion.
In addition, I think a camera is just another tool to make art, just as paintbrushes and chisels are tools. It's the product that's important.

 

[Pookeyhead]

LOL! Calm yourself! For me it was fairly indirect, but what you said provided an alternative way of viewing some things for me which resulted in a cascade effect of clarity which I've benefited from.

I'm glad something I said clarified things for you... I'm just cautious of others thinking I'm beating people over the head, and into submission. I've been accused of that before now. Feel free to dismiss what I say as utter balls... as many already do

 

[Ed Sutton]

OK I'll play your paragraph by paragraph game for a minute.

It doesn't have to aspire to being art. It is art... or can be anyway. Saying a photograph is just a photograph is like saying a painting is just a painting, yet some people just automatically assume painting = art. Why not photography?

At the root of things. A painting IS just a painting. That 'some people' automatically assume every or any painting is 'art' is not the fault of painting, it's a fault of education.

It's all very well saying it isn't art, but I think in order to make such a statement, you need to be able to provide a rationale - you can't say "it just isn't"

I'm not saying photography isn't art. I'm saying it's photography. Just as painting is painting - and not automatically art.

If I'm opposed to anything it is the labelling of stuff as art. It's all just stuff. I quite like the idea of visiting a Stuff Gallery - and would be happy to call myself a Stuffist!

I get the feeling most hobbyists don't want it to be art. Photography being art raises the bar a little uncomfortably high for some I think; Makes things complicated. It implies there's more to this photography lark than just sharp focus, good exposure and composition.

I agree with that.

Photography is what you make of it. It's no more, or less art than any other creative medium, and I challenge anyone to provide a reason why that is not so.

And that.

 

[PMN]

Whether they take it as art is none of your business. Whether you yourself define it as art is none of thier business. We all percieve the world in slightly different ways. There is no point in trying force-fit everyone into the same set of world-view rules. If it isn't science then it is whatever it is and whatever we want it to be.

Huh? Force-fit everyone into the same set of world views?

I don't understand your point there at all but I think you perhaps misunderstood me. I'm not saying I need feedback on their opinions but I think it's more the viewer's place to decide whether they consider something to be good than it is mine. I have my own personal opinions on whether I think my work is good or not but it's for other people to make their own decisions on it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

However, I am inclined toward artist, as I think no photograph can be viewed completely objectively. Our predispositions will always be in front of us, even if the photograph was not "supposed" to evoke an emotion.
In addition, I think a camera is just another tool to make art, just as paintbrushes and chisels are tools. It's the product that's important.

Eloquently put, and quite true.

 

[artyman]

A dead cow in formaldahyde........ but is it art

 

[PMN]

A dead cow in formaldahyde........ but is it art

-opens massive can of worms-

 

[Pookeyhead]

One day, we will have a discussion about art without someone referring to Hirst.,... and the sun will explode.

If he decides it is art, then it is art so long as there are enough who agree. Even if no one agrees, it's still art to him... and he'd probably still be producing his art if no one paid money for it, just as artists have been doing for centuries. SOme of the best known artists to have lived had no recognition in their lifetimes. It didn't stop them did it? You know why? One day they woke up and thought "Screw you all".


Try it... it's refreshing.

 

[Rustico]

I can see them crawling out now...

Shall we attempt to put them back in the can?

 

[artyman]

I think Mr Warhol painted some Cans of Soup

 

[simon ess]

A dead cow in formaldahyde........ but is it art

Of course it is - if only because in every discussion about art it's wheeled out as an attempt to discredit the defenders of art.

By definition then, it has utterly transcended its physical form. Almost the definition of art.

 

[specialman]

Both. I draw. I photograph. I make music.

 

[Keith W]

There is some good discussion here, thanks everyone

I was listening into a discussion when the question was posed are you a photographer or an artist

The person who was asked the question replied: "When I take a picture I am a photographer but when I take that pictures and then post process it, this is when I become an artist"

Anyway that's what led me to ask the same question here

 

[Pookeyhead]

Post processing has no bearing on it for me. Some I massively post process, some I don't touch at all. It depends what's right for the work I have in my head. Whether it's art or not is down to my intent. If others regard it as art is down to them.

Some images are just technical exercises... to see how far I can push my gear.. like the star shots I've been doing recently... I don't regard them as art. The reason I'm suddenly taking star shots is because I'm doing it as part of a wider project that I do regard as art. I may show the results of that when finished, I may not... I've not decided yet... I don't know if it's finished or not. Sometimes I work on a single project for years... sometimes it's a week. (shrug). Like I said, it makes a pleasant change from the pressure cooker, and creative starvation that can be commercial photography.

 

[thorton]

Neither, I class myself as a creative.


Although I also do graphic design & creative advertising, so that's why I say that.

 

[ernesto]

A dead cow in formaldahyde........ but is it art

Yes, it is absolutely art. Whether you like it or not has no bearing on whether it is art or not. You don't decide whether something is art or not.

One definition is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power"

The difference with photography is that I can pick up a camera set to auto, point it at something and press the shutter.
- Have I used skill or imagination?, most probably not
- Have I produced something that others may appreciate aesthetically or emotionally, maybe.

 

[ChrisGilbert]

OK, I've had a sleep on this and offer the following.

I put it to you that visual art is a deliberate manipulation of patterns of colour and tones with the intent to stimulate the brain of the viewer - whether that is to induce pleasure or discomfort is neither here nor there - irrespective of the medium from which those patterns and tones are derived. Someone who paints with a brush is applying pigment to a surface such that it will reflect to the viewer variations in colour and tone. Someone who deliberately arranges objects, in certain lighting conditions, inside a frame and captures that image using a camera is just as much a visual artist as the person using the brush - or a chisel, or a light show.

Also, it is important to seperate intent from perception as it is perfectly possible for colour and tone to fall accidentally into natural patterns that induce the same feelings in the viewer and what affects some people will not necessarily affect everyone in the same way, even if that is the intended effect.

(Small addendum - Photography is a type of visual art. Painting is also a type of visual art.)

 

[POAH]

So photography can't be art?

if you think its art its art to you - same way I think certain photographers are crap and you don't.

 

[tamphotography]

photographer, i document life, i don't create it

 

[theurbanclown]

Why is that being pretentious?

Because most people who say they are artists, are far from it.

Being a photographer is matter of fact i.e somebody who takes photos. It's a bit like a builder, claiming he is an artist because he layed a few bricks. Of course that person is to think that, but it doesn't make it true.