Photography, craft vs. artistry.

elrick · Nov 16, 2004

This article was posted to my site today. What do you think about it?
http://www.cityphotolab.com/ar_001.htm

Hertz van Rental · Nov 16, 2004

Arguments like that have been knocking around for many years. Some people will say one thing, some the other. A few may even say both.
It is one of the many spurious and pointless arguments that abound in Photography - and stem from basic ignorance.
Is the writer talking about the PROCESS of Photography or about the ACT of Photography? He is not seem to be aware of the differences (or indeed that there ARE differences).
Photography is fundamentally a science: it is how the science is applied (and to what end) that he is arguing about - and the bottom line to that is: are you doing it for money or are you doing it for love?
But at the end of the day, does it matter? If one person wants to call himself a craftsman and another an artist, let them. It won't affect how I use photography. Nor, I suspect, will ir affect anyone else.

elrick · Nov 16, 2004

Hertz van Rental said:
Photography is fundamentally a science: it is how the science is applied (and to what end) that he is arguing about - and the bottom line to that is: are you doing it for money or are you doing it for love?

and the two can not be combined together?

Hertz van Rental · Nov 16, 2004

if you do it for money it becomes commercial art, so it has to be one or the other. They are mutually exclusive

bitterillusions · Nov 16, 2004

In most of the cases the craftsman spends more time mastering his skills the artist does.

I just want to say, I don't agree w/ this statement in anyway... The way I look at it, art is a craft, and thus photographyis both... I do think money is much a matter. I take pictures because I love to do it. But being a photographer, you have to have money, because it cost a lot for camera's lens, printing, and even developing... So I sell it to get something back. Does that take away from the fact it was created from love and want to do it?

I don't know if anything I just said made any sence... but yeah... there it is... what I think...

mygrain · Nov 16, 2004

I see where Bitter is coming from. I've studied art for most of my 31 years and I don't consider myself a craftsman... I strive to be an artist. Honestly i want to make tremendous amounts of money from my art so I can do nothing but create art. Plus If I didn't sell art it would be tossed in the trash or be piled in mounds around my house...i have too much art supplies and too little space to hang on to art. It has to be considered disposable by the artist no matter how much you love a piece because there is always something better afoot.

I think a craftsman is someone who creates functional work. Chairs, houses, etc... trade skills. And in some cases, as Bitter also stated, the procedures of creating art- like darkroom processing, touches a craft skill. So would building a canvas from raw lumber and and un-stretched canvas. I can spend hours shaping the wood just right and have the perfect consistency of gesso for the canvas, using my artistic education to accomplish a craft which will be later used to create art.

Elrick, I think a happy medium would resemble "folk art". Most folk art is created by craftsman. People who have been taught a craft such as woodworking and applying it to art in a more direct way. And it shows.

But all in all Hertz has a valid point. What is art? One person's wobbly chair can be another's Shellnut(a lesser known sculptor who makes chairs, non functional oddly enough :lol:

).

Hertz van Rental · Nov 17, 2004

My problem when I was a pro was that I loved Photography so much I felt guilty asking for money for doing it. Sort of 'I get PAID as well? Wow!'
But I always kept it clear in my head as to why I was doing it.
If I was being arty then I didn't care if people liked my work or not. I liked it and that was what mattered.
If I was doing it for money (being a craftsman* if you like) then I was aware that I had to produce something the client liked and my personal tastes did not enter into it.

*I really hate that word - especially when used to describe Photography. My dictionary defines it as 'one who practices a handicraft'! That's making twee little figures out of pine cones, or knitting toilet roll covers....

ksmattfish · Nov 17, 2004

Hertz van Rental said:
If I was being arty then I didn't care if people liked my work or not. I liked it and that was what mattered.
If I was doing it for money (being a craftsman* if you like) then I was aware that I had to produce something the client liked and my personal tastes did not enter into it.

I agree with the idea that while you can do your own work exclusively for yourself with no regard for the likes or dislikes of others, you must compromise with the client for paid work. On the other hand, I assume that when a client chooses to hire me, it's because they like my style, so I can't completely abandon that either.

The thing with all these labels (fine art, craft, professional, etc...) is that they can mean something different to any particular person. When in doubt about a word's meaning the first place I go is the dictionary. One thing I noticed when looking up "art" and "craft" is that they are each the first word listed on the other word's list of synonyms.

mygrain · Nov 17, 2004

ksmattfish said:
One thing I noticed when looking up "art" and "craft" is that they are each the first word listed on the other word's list of synonyms.

Thus the everpresent fine line...Matt, yer such a pureist!! (that's a complement in my book) I can barely keep my feet on the ground bro. :lol:

John E. · Nov 17, 2004

Seems to be a matter of semantics to me.

Alison · Nov 17, 2004

ksmattfish said:
I agree with the idea that while you can do your own work exclusively for yourself with no regard for the likes or dislikes of others, you must compromise with the client for paid work. On the other hand, I assume that when a client chooses to hire me, it's because they like my style, so I can't completely abandon that either.

I agree. That's a tough line. I usually comprimise with myself by selecting a few shots that I think can be both artistic and pleasing to the client. I also try to meet with them and get to know them so that when I am shooting I have their preferences in mind.

And I also agree with Hertz that's it's really odd to get paid for this. It's a service, but for me it's so much fun it doesn't seem right to ask for money.

elrick · Jan 29, 2005

so one of keywords is "money"? If photograph first made for the pleasure, and sold afterwards it's sure is art, and if it's made for the client, it depends of the client?

ksmattfish · Jan 29, 2005

Here's a quote I always enjoyed and identified with...

"The word 'art' is very slippery. It really has no importance in relation to one's work. I work for the pleasure, for the pleasure of the work, and everything else is a matter for the critics." -Manuel Alvarez Bravo

There is nothing wrong about getting paid for something you enjoy. Would you rather eat a meal prepared by someone who enjoys cooking for others, or a meal prepared by someone who doesn't like to cook, and doesn't want to be in the kitchen? They're just there because they have bills to pay. When talking to folks about my personal work (work done with no concern of it's monetary value) no one ever asks me if I enjoy photography; maybe it's obvious, but it never comes up. On the other hand, many people ask if I enjoy photography when interviewing me before hiring me to photograph their wedding or family. People wouldn't want to hire a photographer that doesn't enjoy their job.

If I won the lottery would I still shoot weddings and portraits? Yes. Probably not as many weddings as I do now, but I'd still shoot 2 or 3 a year. And with the extra time I'd have not having to worry about working, I'd probably end up taking even more portraits than I do now.

Hertz van Rental · Jan 29, 2005

elrick said:
so one of keywords is "money"? If photograph first made for the pleasure, and sold afterwards it's sure is art, and if it's made for the client, it depends of the client?

We are looking at the reason why you are creating a piece of work.
If someone hires you and pays you then you try to produce something that you think they would like. (Try producing something that a client hates and see what they do!). If you produce something that they are lukewarm about they may pay you but they won't hire you again. If you do something they love they will happily pay and recommend you to all their friends.

If you want to make a career out of Photography you need to keep the work coming in. Principles and posturing do not put food on the table or keep a roof over your head so you swallow your pride and sell your soul.
The only two situations that I know of where you can ignore the client's tastes are where you have world-class stature as an Artist or when you don't need the money.

If you create a piece of work for yourself and someone likes it and buys it - well, that is the dream. In my experience, though, when it happens you find it is either a one-off or that subsequent patrons want more of the same thing. And that leads to selling out....

Art has always been a balancing act between being true to yourself and being 'commercial'. Every practicing Artist I have ever known has suffered this torment - do I sell out or starve? The best path has always been to fund your personal work by doing a day job. If you get the balance right it works. It ain't the best solution, but it's the best that most of us can hope for.

As an aside I believe that 'Artists' fall in to two main categories:
The Great Artist who pushes Art forward but doesn't care if people like it or not. These are the true gems but people rarely hear about them until it's too late - and their work is frequently stolen or copied.
The Big Name who is more concerned with PR and Image and who's work is, at best, pedestrian. If you spend most of the time selling yourself you don't have much left to be creative.
The second type are the ones that you hear about and who's work everyone knows and who muddy the waters.

Don't get these two confused with Artists who's work is hyped by others for their own ends - van Gough is a classic case.

(To any passing Mods - I think this thread might belong in my parlour down at the bottom?

)