Becoming an 'artist'

[bribrius]

People go on and on about how art is undefinable or how it is so hard to classify but there is a reason its so hard to define art.. it's because of what people think of when they see art compared to what art's actual use and purpose for existing is. Everyone gets stuck in these loops like "Art is this because its got a craftmanship to it" or "This isn't art because it was too easy to make or had no thought to it" but really that's not the point at all.. Art has a simple explanation. Art is expression of emotions, thoughts, and any other thing someone may want to express. Art is expression.

It may be hard for artists to admit to this simplicity of art because.. if that's all art is.. then everyone is an artist. Suddenly that makes those who have spent a long time training and working to create their art feel less significant. It destroys their egos. Suddenly the smile on a person's face or the swing of an angry fist are just as much works of art as a painting that took 12 years for an expert to create.

The people that can't except that art is such a simple thing either have too much invested in the idea that they are "special" as an artist or are somehow above the masses, or they think too much of art as a craft rather than a form of expression.. and you can understand why if you take a good hard look at how society treats artists and art in general...


Craftsmanship and art are two entirely different things that tend to get blurred together in the world of art. Art is simple and crafts are not. Crafts require skill and practice, art just requires ideas and feelings. Everyone is an artist, but not everyone can be an expert craftsman.

i like buildings for a example. A craftsman can put up a ugly square box that can excel in building standards. A artist can put up a beautiful period like building or one with great design, but may mis use floor space or sacrifice elements of the structures integrity. However the greatest buildings might be the combination of both craftsman and artistry. Engineering and artistic masterpieces.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Yeah. The whole discussion about people not being artists or being artists because of this and that is kind of like telling someone they don't have a job because they work at Wal-mart rather than being CEO at a Fortune 500 company. Sure, there are lots of differences between the two jobs, one can be considered better than the other, and one most likely takes a lot more time and effort to get and keep.. but they are still both jobs.

Telling a person who works at Wal-Mart "You work at wally world?? That's not a job!" would be extremely rude and degrading.. but for some reason people don't see it that way when they say it to an artist.

 

[bribrius]

Yeah. The whole discussion about people not being artists or being artists because of this and that is kind of like telling someone they don't have a job because they work at Wal-mart rather than being CEO at a Fortune 500 company. Sure, there are lots of differences between the two jobs, one can be considered better than the other, and one most likely takes a lot more time and effort to get and keep.. but they are still both jobs.

Telling a person who works at Wal-Mart "You work at wally world?? That's not a job!" would be extremely rude and degrading.. but for some reason people don't see it that way when they say it to an artist.

Most people i know involved in art have very little to do with photography. Not to say they don't, but it isn't their primary choice of a medium. Being a artist in photography is difficult. Not only are you attempting to circumvent the copying or record nature of the medium but the long term learning and skill level is high. You can spend many years learning photography. As i had a discussion with someone else a few weeks ago. The problem with learning the craft of photography (camera, lenses, gear talk, processing, basically gear and tech talk) is it is easily a creativity killer. The more you attempt to learn and get caught up in the technical, the more creativity is sucked out of you. Why some of the more knowledgeable photographers may be considered great craftsmen but zero for artists. Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art. As you mentioned they are very different. And balancing the two sides of that coin is exceptionally difficult. I can't speak for others, but when i read through about a lens, pick up a book for a while, look at stats or lighting diagrams. It pretty much sucks the creative life right out of me. Why i still reduce myself down to a simple point and shoot sometimes and stop thinking. But to achieve great art in photography it takes the vision and the skill is my thoughts. That is a huge amount on ones plate to balance and digest. why it is such a difficult medium for artists, not to mention the nature of the medium itself (record) has to be surpassed also. There are other mediums that lend it much more easily for someone to explore their creativity and express themselves.

 

[qleak]

Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.

Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?

Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.

Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Yeah. The whole discussion about people not being artists or being artists because of this and that is kind of like telling someone they don't have a job because they work at Wal-mart rather than being CEO at a Fortune 500 company. Sure, there are lots of differences between the two jobs, one can be considered better than the other, and one most likely takes a lot more time and effort to get and keep.. but they are still both jobs.

Telling a person who works at Wal-Mart "You work at wally world?? That's not a job!" would be extremely rude and degrading.. but for some reason people don't see it that way when they say it to an artist.

Most people i know involved in art have very little to do with photography. Not to say they don't, but it isn't their primary choice of a medium. Being a artist in photography is difficult. Not only are you attempting to circumvent the copying or record nature of the medium but the long term learning and skill level is high. You can spend many years learning photography. As i had a discussion with someone else a few weeks ago. The problem with learning the craft of photography (camera, lenses, gear talk, processing, basically gear and tech talk) is it is easily a creativity killer. The more you attempt to learn and get caught up in the technical, the more creativity is sucked out of you. Why some of the more knowledgeable photographers may be considered great craftsmen but zero for artists. Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art. As you mentioned they are very different. And balancing the two sides of that coin is exceptionally difficult. I can't speak for others, but when i read through about a lens, pick up a book for a while, look at stats or lighting diagrams. It pretty much sucks the creative life right out of me. Why i still reduce myself down to a simple point and shoot sometimes and stop thinking. But to achieve great art in photography it takes the vision and the skill is my thoughts. That is a huge amount on ones plate to balance and digest. why it is such a difficult medium for artists, not to mention the nature of the medium itself (record) has to be surpassed also. There are other mediums that lend it much more easily for someone to explore their creativity and express themselves.

I get what you're saying but I also think that the general lack of absolute control over the medium is something that forces artists to push the boundaries when it comes to photography. A painter or drawer can imagine something and with enough skill bring that imagination to life on a two-dimensional plane. If I want to draw a Walrus with a lions head or a fictional creature I can. I can't photograph those things, because they don't exist. This brings a sort of realism to the medium that isn't present in some other mediums. It forces the person to work with what they've got in front of them rather than whatever their imagination can come up with. I think that the creative process in photography is therefore much more demanding and complex in certain ways. While its certainly harder and less forgiving(creatively speaking), its also much more rewarding when you get it right.

That's not to say that other mediums lack their own problems or their own special rewarding feelings. I'm sure painters find the completion of a single painting very rewarding compared to a photographer who may have captured their image in a fraction of a second. But for photographers getting it right is more like making that game winning basket at the last second rather than pushing that big rock down a sheet of ice and getting it to land perfectly on a target. Both are rewarding in their own right, but one took skill and reflexes while another took skill and deliberate thoughts paired with subtle action.

(Yes I did just compare photography and painting to basketball and curling, wutcha gunna do about it?! )

 

[limr]

Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.

Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?

Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.

Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.

This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?

Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while

 

[bribrius]

Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.

Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?

Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.

Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.

This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?

Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while

Don't know about anyone else. But in school we seemed to have a pretty distinct divide between those following a art path and those following a business path. Two entirely different mentalities. Not only was much of the courses different for the degree programs i didn't see many art majors lined up and beaming with smiles to take calculus. But in the most simplest terms. Just look at the differences in classes required for the program.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.

Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?

Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.

Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.

This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?

Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while

Don't know about anyone else. But in school we seemed to have a pretty distinct divide between those following a art path and those following a business path. Two entirely different mentalities. Not only was much of the courses different for the degree programs i didn't see many art majors lined up and beaming with smiles to take calculus. But in the most simplest terms. Just look at the differences in classes required for the program.

Well just because there is a lack of creative thinking in learning something doesn't mean that that something isn't a creative process in and of itself. It took a lot of creativity for mathematicians to come up with mathematics in the first place, and don't get me started on how creative scientists had to be to come up with relativity and quantum physics...

 

[bribrius]

Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.

Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?

Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.

Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.

This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?

Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while

Don't know about anyone else. But in school we seemed to have a pretty distinct divide between those following a art path and those following a business path. Two entirely different mentalities. Not only was much of the courses different for the degree programs i didn't see many art majors lined up and beaming with smiles to take calculus. But in the most simplest terms. Just look at the differences in classes required for the program.

Well just because there is a lack of creative thinking in learning something doesn't mean that that something isn't a creative process in and of itself. It took a lot of creativity for mathematicians to come up with mathematics in the first place, and don't get me started on how creative scientists had to be to come up with relativity and quantum physics...

Please don't. I actually despised math. I only signed up for calculus myself as it was a core course requirement. Pretty much struggled to get through all math ( little interest). I much preferred the social atmosphere of classes like "creative writing" or anything religious or cultural for studies LMAO. Some people like math. For me it was a small version of hell. And even since then i have spent much more of my free time reading and contemplating religion to the point of Aramaic translation and hebrew studies but have yet to find a need to review my calculus text after all these years. Seeing the Isaiah scroll would be something i like. Quantum physics probably not.

 

[pgriz]

I probably flunked more math courses than most people will ever take. The analogy of math to be like a language is apt. The basic formulas are the letters. The transformations and substitutions are phrases. The problem descriptions are the sentences. In learning to read, we have to move beyond the letter by letter reading, to recognizing words as units, and then to whole phrases. In doing math, my weakness had been to not practice the forms enough, so I was doing the equivalent of reading by spelling out the individual letters. Once I realized that I really had to go beyond that to the "phrases", it became much easier and more useful.

In relation to photography, our "letters" are the individual settings that we combine to get what we want. The higher-order thinking is about the visual phrases and sentences which are in the realm of timing, framing, composition and lighting. Whether it is photography, or math, or science or writing, there are sets of elements that tend to go together, and it is the learning and eventual mastery of those combinations that allow us to move our skill level to the point that we can look for something novel or interesting.

 

[The_Traveler]

coincidental email just received

 

[runnah]

Umm...

 

[The_Traveler]

Well just because there is a lack of creative thinking in learning something doesn't mean that that something isn't a creative process in and of itself. .

What an insightful sentence - and it applies perfectly to coding, mathematics and photography.
What is interesting beyond that is that only in photography is there the phenomenon of people who have attempted only the technical learning who then try to denigrate those who go further.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

coincidental email just received
View attachment 97313

While I find this almost hysterical. I know many people who would be proud that coding and its intricacies have reached that level of respect. It's all about perspective. Like you said earlier.. The less you know about something the more likely you are to dismiss it.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Well just because there is a lack of creative thinking in learning something doesn't mean that that something isn't a creative process in and of itself. .

What an insightful sentence - and it applies perfectly to coding, mathematics and photography.
What is interesting beyond that is that only in photography is there the phenomenon of people who have attempted only the technical learning who then try to denigrate those who go further.

I'm sure its happened in other places. It seems to be human nature for some people to respect technical perfection over creative vision. The art world was historically closed off to all non-classical ideas for a long while. Many artists who people think of as classical now were scoffed at for painting things like dark shadows or using creative brush strokes.

The history of art is essentially a bunch of technical and ideological snobs beating down new ideas until one of those ideas decides to take over and then a repetition of that process occurs. Kind of like the history of mankind in general now that I think of it..