Photographer Or Artist?

[ChrisGilbert]

The right to holding our own views of what constitutes X or Y or Z is something that should be defended to the death and I accept that this is how you see the world but I would also argue that it's somewhat restrictive. Art is just art. It's not science. It's whatever we want it to be. Not what someone else wants it to be.

But I also recommend you have a look at Synaesthesia, if you're not already farmiliar with it, both from the perspective of the creator and viewer because I do recognise and understand where you're coming from with this.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Art is just art. It's not science. It's whatever we want it to be. Not what someone else wants it to be.

That's a cop out used as a defence to avoid contradiction of the artistic value of whatever you choose to call art.

If it's legitimate for someone to call themselves an artist, it's just as legitimate for someone to claim not to be an artist - even if they are both producing work in the same medium.

Equally if someone claims what they do is art, it's just as valid a standpoint for someone else to claim that is it not.

If art is only art because someone (a self-proclaimed artist) says it is, then, logically, if someone else says it is not art, it isn't.

You can't have it that only artists can declare what is or isn't art if the counter stance isn't allowed.

If I claim to be a non-artist making non-art. You can't gainsay me.

Art is dead. Long live non-art. :bonk:

 

[ernesto]

It all depends on why someone would think it is not art or the person is not an artist. If it is because they don't like the work then that is irrelevant.

 

[Rustico]

That's a cop out used as a defence to avoid contradiction of the artistic value of whatever you choose to call art.

If it's legitimate for someone to call themselves an artist, it's just as legitimate for someone to claim not to be an artist - even if they are both producing work in the same medium.

Equally if someone claims what they do is art, it's just as valid a standpoint for someone else to claim that is it not.

If art is only art because someone (a self-proclaimed artist) says it is, then, logically, if someone else says it is not art, it isn't.

You can't have it that only artists can declare what is or isn't art if the counter stance isn't allowed.

If I claim to be a non-artist making non-art. You can't gainsay me.

Art is dead. Long live non-art. :bonk:

I like.

 

[ChrisGilbert]

That's a cop out used as a defence to avoid contradiction of the artistic value of whatever you choose to call art.

I don't call that a cop-out at all. I call it not allowing someone else to tell you what you can or can't do while at the same time acknowledging that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Live and let live (rather than kill and be killed). What system of rules are you trying to force this thing to fit into ?

 

[SimonH]

Indeed. If one insists that a photographer cannot call himself an artist then by extension one is insisting that photography cannot be described as art. But we know that it can, and therefore that the proposition is false. QED.

 

[Ed Sutton]

What system of rules are you trying to force this thing to fit into ?

None. Non-artists don't have rules.

 

[ChrisGilbert]

None. Non-artists don't have rules.

On that we definitely agree

 

[Ed Sutton]

 

[norters]

So what do you call yourself?

Every child can pick up a paintbrush and paint and call it art, he may even say, "Look Mom, I'm an artist." And it may very well be true because he is working at the limit of his potential. Then take one of us. We create a photograph (generally considered art) and then sell it or hang it up, and everyone call it art. That makes us, the maker of the art, an artist. Don't we then have the right to call ourselves an artist?

It's all very subjective; this is just my take on it.

This is the most perfect response in the thread. Sums it up to a tee.

Myself? I like to call what I do art so yes, I would call myself an artist. A crap one but an artist all the same. Every shot I take has meaning to me. If you like to call yourself a photographer that's fine too. But calling people who aspire to create art an idiot is a little bit silly.

 

[Phil Young]

photographer
noun /fəˈtɒg.rə.fər//-ˈtɑː.grə.fɚ/ [C]
Definition
a person who takes photographs, either as a job or hobby

art
noun ( EXPRESSION ) /ɑːt//ɑːrt/
Definition
• the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings

artist
noun /ˈɑː.tɪst//ˈɑːr.t ̬ɪst/ [C]
Definition
• someone who paints, draws or makes sculptures
Monet is one of my favourite artists.
• someone who creates things with great skill and imagination

Pretty hard to argue that photographers are not actually artists by definition and technicality. Photographers are both photographers and artists but as is a painter both a painter and an artist. Or a dancer is both a dancer and an artist.

It really is ignorant to say otherwise no?

 

[POAH]

no but I would have thought it - if someone wants to call themselves an artist that is their opinion. its not going to be everyones.

if this was Ansel Adams time I'd probably have never heard of him

Did you perhaps miss my earlier question? If so, here it is again:

If Ansel Adams were alive and described himself to you as an artist would you have called him an idiot for doing so?

If a painter described themselves as an artist would you call them an idiot? If a songwriter called themselves an artist would you call them an idiot? If not, why not? Why is photography any different in artistic terms to painting or writing a song?

 

[PMN]

if someone wants to call themselves an artist that is their opinion. its not going to be everyones

I'm not saying it has to be, I made that point because I'm extremely curious of why theurbanclown would "question someone's personality and how they view themselves" if they did describe themselves as an artist.

 

[Steve]

I'm not saying it has to be, I made that point because I'm extremely curious of why theurbanclown would "question someone's personality and how they view themselves" if they did describe themselves as an artist.

Because he is trolling?

 

[PMN]

Because he is trolling?

I'll decide when he answers. If he answers...

He didn't really answer my previous question to any great extent so I'm not expecting much to be honest.

 

[Pookeyhead]

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

And you are qualified to make that statement because?

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.

Well.. what if the builder also designed the building, as well as actually built it.. where does that leave us?

Yes, the photographer may have taken the image, and operated the camera, but he or she would also have thought of the idea, the image in their minds, or had the drive to go out and represent something in a way that made people think in a way he or she wanted them to think.... you know... like "proper artists" do.. so what does it matter if they use a camera or not?

You are suggesting that taking photos is merely a mindless task... point, press, print... no thought. If that was true, then yes, you'd be right... photography could not be art, but the reality is very different from that, and many photographers have real intent behind the work they produce.

So creating ANYTHING is art, as long as there is intent?

If it serves no practical purpose other than to express something inside, and that was the intent, then yes, I suppose so.

It's nothing to do with ability, I've seen work from, what I believe to be some of the best photographers in the world. But none of them would go anywhere near calling themselves an artist.

That's their prerogative. However, if they produce work to evoke emotion, or challenge the viewer, or ask questions of the subject matter, then it's probably art whether they think so or not. The fact that it was produced with a camera is immaterial.

Are we just going to suggest that anybody who takes a photo is an artist then?

I'm going to take a photo 5 stops over exposure, then increase by 4 stops in Lightroom. It will be completely white, but that's what I intended.

I'm an artist then, yeah? No, just pretentious for claiming to be one.

That's quite a narrow minded, and ignorant attitude. Is whether photography is art predicated upon it's correct exposure? Seba Kurtis produced a brilliant piece of work called "Human Detector" which was exploring the plight of illegal immigrants who get smuggled into the country in trucks, only to be discovered by x-ray machines and sonic equipment that can detect a human heartbeat inside. He deliberately over exposed portraits of these people.. massively so, so each sheet of film was just white... he then scanned it, and progressively pulled things back, and back, and back until you could just start to see the last vestiges of the latent image. The idea was that these people's fate was decided upon by a machine that detected their very essence, their heartbeat etc.

http://www.sebakurtis.com/index.php?/heartbeat/human-detector/2/

It's fascinating work. He INTENDED to overexpose... Whether you LIKE it or not, isn't the point... it makes you think, and highlights the plight of these people in a way that taking a normal portrait can not. No it's not conventional work, and if you had it in a RPS panel portfolio all the old men with beards would just slag it off for being over exposed... because like you, they refuse to accept that the photographic medium can be used as an art form, and has the full gamut of expression as any other art form.

I wouldn't be pretentious enough to do that Simon.

yet you're being pretentious enough to blithely dictate what is, or is not art. What qualifies you to be able to do that?

I don't undertsand why people are so hung up about calling themself an artist here.

It is almost like an inverted snobbery and anyone who is an artist is somehow pretentious.

Reflects more badly on the people who have a problem than those than are happy to call themselves an artist...

I'll tell you why. Hobyists like that deny photography is art because it makes photography a safe ground where technical ability reigns supreme, and those with no creativity can mix it up with the big boys. The minute you admit it's art, then it's no longer so simple, and they fear their work will be judged as art, and found wanting.

They're scared of photography being art because they don't understand it, and fear they can not compete on a level playing field like they can if it's merely a technical exercise.

So all people who use a camera are photographers but only some of them are also artists.

I would say that is correct, yes.

A builder could lay a few bricks following a set pattern layed out for him to follow. Or he could be creative and produce something of higher aesthetic or emotional value while still creating a functioning building therefore being an artist.

Yes.. although to be art, the building would have to go beyond mere utility.. something like the Guggenheim centre in Bilbao.. it is designed to move you in some way, or evoke a response, or illicit a reaction.

You could just as easily ask why some people are hung up on wanting to call themselves artists. Perhaps they snobbishly think it makes them more important than mere artisans?

Why assume they are "hung up" on it though just because they consider themselves to be an artist?

That's just changing settings. Everybody can do that, and I mean everybody.

Does that mean everyone is an artist?

You're clearly not, so no, of course not. If you haven't got the point by now, then just accept that you just do not understand, and carry on "taking" photographs.

So what if someone considers themselves to be an artist? Why is that pretentious? You only think so because of your bigoted, narrow minded view of what art even is in the first place. It's accessible to everyone, not an elitist pass time.

You sir, are an anti-snob.... the very worse kind of snob.

How about "photo artist"? It seems to fit nicely in between "artist" and "photographer".

(That's how a landscape photographer local to me describes himself.)

What's the point of that? Why not just call them an artist? Would you describe Manet as a painter-artist?

This is just ridiculous. Photography can be art just like any other creative medium.. stop trying to find ways of denying that. Anyone else would be DEFENDING the right to call their creative endeavors art.. not the hobbyist photographer though... oh no... We don't want no art here... LOL

I call myself somebody who takes photos; a photographer. If I danced I would call myself a dancer. If I acted I would call myself an actor. If I built things, a builder.

So is Rembrandt merely a painter?

I've sold photos in galleries. Would I call myself an artist? Never.

Perhaps, despite selling them in a gallery, they actually weren't art, which, considering your attitude and general ignorance is highly likely.

Technically, maybe. But look in the mirror whilst recording yourself saying "I am an artist", then play it back and laugh at how ridiculous you sound

I thought I'd experience the worst of hobbyist photography attitude in this forum, but my god... it just keeps on giving


I'm out of here. People like this make me ashamed to be a photographer. Ben... I'd dearly love to see your work... but like most big mouths on here.. no link, no gallery pics.. just bad attitude.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Why assume they are "hung up" on it though just because they consider themselves to be an artist?

Erm, I wasn't asuming anything, I was responding in kind to someone else:

I don't undertsand why people are so hung up about calling themself an artist here.

 

[Laudrup]

Show us your art, Dave.

 

[ZoneV]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZoneV
How about "photo artist"? It seems to fit nicely in between "artist" and "photographer".

(That's how a landscape photographer local to me describes himself.)

What's the point of that? Why not just call them an artist? Would you describe Manet as a painter-artist?

This is just ridiculous. Photography can be art just like any other creative medium.. stop trying to find ways of denying that. Anyone else would be DEFENDING the right to call their creative endeavors art.. not the hobbyist photographer though... oh no... We don't want no art here... LOL

Ah, the ambiguity of the written phrase. What didn't come across in my post is that I actually agree that photography is art (excluding the obvious, totally prescriptive genres of course). If you can stick a frame around it, hang it on the wall and enjoy looking at it, then to me it is art and therefore the person who created it was an artist at the moment they created it. Even if they were wearing egg stained Y-fronts at the time.

My question was more aimed at those who have issues with linking "photographer" and "artist", I hope you get my drift.

Edit: The landscape photographer I was talking about - here's the guy's blog (It's very good, as is his work).

 

[simonblue]

Photographer here nothin more nothin less

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

For me the answer goes something like...If you intend to make art and are using a camera as your chisel, then its art no matter how terrible it looks. If you make a nice picture and then decide to call it art, its still not art no matter how fantastic it is.

Its a bit like if you purposely go out of your way to upset the establishment with your views, you're an artist. If you accidentally upset the establishment with your views, you're just drunk again...Passion and Intent makes one understandable and even acceptable, while the other is irritating and quickly ignored.

 

[ernesto]

If you make a nice picture and then decide to call it art, its still not art no matter how fantastic it is.

How did you make the nice picture. Did you accidentally press the shutter while you were getting your camera out of your bag?

If not, and you had some creative decision behind where to point the camera and why then it is immediately an art work. Whether you call it art before or after is irrelevant.

I think people are mainly struggling on this because they feel art is not for them and not something they can produce without a qualification or access to an elitist club or something. It quite simply isn't that.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

No im with you, i meant made without thought. Yes, a creative decision to wow the viewer with emotive thoughts is all the intent needed I feel.

 

[-Paul-]

I consider myself first and foremost a photographer with hopefully ever increasing standards! Which can make photography very frustrating for me at times! As for being an artist, well I do like to dabble in photoshop with again ever increasing standards. So yes, I am both a photographer and an artist........I think?

 

[theurbanclown]

Well.. what if the builder also designed the building, as well as actually built it.. where does that leave us?

A builder and designer/architect

That's their prerogative. However, if they produce work to evoke emotion, or challenge the viewer, or ask questions of the subject matter, then it's probably art whether they think so or not. The fact that it was produced with a camera is immaterial.

That's quite a narrow minded, and ignorant attitude. Is whether photography is art predicated upon it's correct exposure? Seba Kurtis produced a brilliant piece of work called "Human Detector" which was exploring the plight of illegal immigrants who get smuggled into the country in trucks, only to be discovered by x-ray machines and sonic equipment that can detect a human heartbeat inside. He deliberately over exposed portraits of these people.. massively so, so each sheet of film was just white... he then scanned it, and progressively pulled things back, and back, and back until you could just start to see the last vestiges of the latent image. The idea was that these people's fate was decided upon by a machine that detected their very essence, their heartbeat etc.

http://www.sebakurtis.com/index.php?/heartbeat/human-detector/2/

It's fascinating work. He INTENDED to overexpose... Whether you LIKE it or not, isn't the point... it makes you think, and highlights the plight of these people in a way that taking a normal portrait can not. No it's not conventional work, and if you had it in a RPS panel portfolio all the old men with beards would just slag it off for being over exposed... because like you, they refuse to accept that the photographic medium can be used as an art form, and has the full gamut of expression as any other art form.





yet you're being pretentious enough to blithely dictate what is, or is not art. What qualifies you to be able to do that?




I'll tell you why. Hobyists like that deny photography is art because it makes photography a safe ground where technical ability reigns supreme, and those with no creativity can mix it up with the big boys. The minute you admit it's art, then it's no longer so simple, and they fear their work will be judged as art, and found wanting.

They're scared of photography being art because they don't understand it, and fear they can not compete on a level playing field like they can if it's merely a technical exercise.

Perhaps, despite selling them in a gallery, they actually weren't art, which, considering your attitude and general ignorance is highly likely.

I thought I'd experience the worst of hobbyist photography attitude in this forum, but my god... it just keeps on giving


I'm out of here. People like this make me ashamed to be a photographer. Ben... I'd dearly love to see your work... but like most big mouths on here.. no link, no gallery pics.. just bad attitude.

I'm sure there was a point in here somewhere, but all I could see were assumptions and total loss of what the original question was about.

I don't really care too much about settings, traditional photography rules and what not, they're just options to give your image a certain look. If a photo is way over exposed, I don't care - as long as it looks good and conveys a message. I'll never look at a photography project, disregard that message and say "Oh god, that doesn't really follow the rule of thirds". I like photos to tell stories. I like imperfections.

That project you mentioned above sounds great, but that's not really important. It's just whether the guy who did that project, calls HIMSELF a photographer or an artist. Not you, or anybody else. My guess is photographer. I haven't said photography cannot be art, just that to call yourself an artist is a bit pretentious.

You seem to have gone off track now though, and just assumed that everybody who says they are merely a photographer is a scared hobbyist, when I've already told you that's not the case.

 

[PMN]

I'm sure there was a point in here somewhere, but all I could see were assumptions and total loss of what the original question was about.

Every single word of what he said is perfectly relevant to the attitude you've approached this with, you've just chosen to conveniently think it isn't.

And you still haven't answered my question, so here it is yet again. You consider it pretentious for someone to call themselves an artist, yet you seem to consider your own opinions important enough for you to justify questioning people's personality and the way they view themselves if they do. In my mind this makes absolutely no sense on any level; questioning such things in this context is the height of pretentiousness to me and I'm extremely interested to hear why you consider it acceptable. To me it's just a massive double standard and outright hypocrisy.

In the spirit of good debate can you please answer?

 

[theurbanclown]

Every single word of what he said is perfectly relevant to the attitude you've approached this with, you've just chosen to conveniently think it isn't.

And you still haven't answered my question, so here it is yet again. You consider it pretentious for someone to call themselves an artist, yet you seem to consider your own opinions important enough for you to justify questioning people's personality and the way they view themselves if they do. In my mind this makes absolutely no sense on any level; questioning such things in this context is the height of pretentiousness to me and I'm extremely interested to hear why you consider it acceptable. To me it's just a massive double standard and outright hypocrisy.

In the spirit of good debate can you please answer?

Past experience, on more than enough occasions.

 

[PMN]

Past experience, on more than enough occasions.

Thank you, you've confirmed you genuinely don't get any of this and your opinion is based on nothing but pure arrogance. I can now save myself the effort of reading further posts from you.

 

[Phil V]

I'm a photographer, it's not that I don't believe that any photographer can be an artist. But what I do isn't what I'd call art - maybe I'm being self conscious, or just honest.

 

[Digitalize]

I study Photography at an art college, and whilst it is an 'art', and a photographer can be an artist, there's also the type of person who I would consider a photographer, but in no way an artist.

There's 2 sides of it, I don't consider myself an artist, but I am a Photographer. A painter is an artist, and a painter.

 

[ernesto]

I study Photography at an art college, and whilst it is an 'art', and a photographer can be an artist, there's also the type of person who I would consider a photographer, but in no way an artist.

What does the photographer who is not an artist take pictures of and how do they do it and why is there no art involved?

 

[HopefulM]

I'm surprised so many have voted photographer... I'd say artist, because you are always using your own interpretation of the subject

 

[Rustico]

I'd say artist, because you are always using your own interpretation of the subject

I love this, and think it's pretty much true. People can argue exceptions but I think this is generally true. And thanks to this, I place my vote.

 

[Phil Young]

I'm surprised nobody has seen the definitions and said "oh yeah that's true!".

Artists are:

Painters.
Drawers.
Writers.
Dancers.
Singers.
Actors & actresses.
Sculpters.
Photographers!!!!!!!!

You can't just say "I'm an artist" as it's too broad. It would be more correct to say "I am an artist, I draw" or "I am shooting artist, I make my art from photos" or "I am an artist, a vocal artist"

COME ON FOLKS! it's so simple once you read the definitions and think about it with a teeeny weeeeny amount of logic.

 

[Pookeyhead]

That project you mentioned above sounds great, but that's not really important. It's just whether the guy who did that project, calls HIMSELF a photographer or an artist. Not you, or anybody else. My guess is photographer.

Then you'd be wrong. He's a friend of mine, and he calls himself an artist.

He's also the most down to earth, simple, humble and uncomplicated person you could hope to meet.

You on the other hand, are an idiot.

 

[Steve Smith]

I think making pictures makes you an artist

Pictures or photographs don't have to be artistic. They can be documentation or illustration.

I posted this in the 'What is Lomography?' thread. Probably relevant to repeat it here:

It's quite easy. Photography isn't art, painting isn't art, sculpture isn't art.

They are all mediums which can be used to create art. They can also all be used to make utilitarian, non art products too.

Steve.

 

[Keith W]

If would be nice if we could just discuss and debate

Or just agree to disagree

But please don't let the personal insults creep into the thread

 

[Rustico]

I'm surprised nobody has seen the definitions and said "oh yeah that's true!".

Artists are:

Painters.
Drawers.
Writers.
Dancers.
Singers.
Actors & actresses.
Sculpters.
Photographers!!!!!!!!

You can't just say "I'm an artist" as it's too broad. It would be more correct to say "I am an artist, I draw" or "I am shooting artist, I make my art from photos" or "I am an artist, a vocal artist"

COME ON FOLKS! it's so simple once you read the definitions and think about it with a teeeny weeeeny amount of logic.

I like this one too. I cast my lot with the artists... we'll see how things turn out for me! :nuts:

 

[Rustico]

I've been thinking about this too much, as I've run into a small dilemma.

If someone asks me what I am, I'll still tell them I'm a photographer, not an artist. Does that make me a photographer and not an artist if that's how I refer to myself? Or is it only an expression of being artistic, as a person who sculpts would refer to themselves as a sculptor, not an artist? Maybe being an artist is an essence, whereas photographer/sculptor/painter is an expression of the artist.

Anyways, it's too late for this kind of thinking. 'Night.

 

[toadstool]

Both... at different times.

When I take kids photos, it's photography. My aim is to produce a nice photo for the parents. Weddings are photography. But when I do "personal" shoots, that have been borne purely from my own mind, that is when I'm both a photographer and an artist.

I'll also admit to having far less self esteem and confidence than the average person; about as far from pretentious as one could get. But, sometimes, I am still an artist whether you agree or not.