There are several different issues being discussed in this thread.
1) Relation of craftsmanship to artistry,
2) Artistry as a way of finding new ways of expression,
3) Discussion of artistic merit,
4) Whether photography is a craft, an art, or both
5) Whether one can be a photographic artist without knowing the craft
6) The role of galleries in maintaining certain standards
7) Whether self-declaring oneself as an artist makes one an artist.
Apologies in advance to those with short attention spans this is going to be a longish post. If lots of words offend you, please move to the next post with ROFLMAO.:greenpbl: (or scroll to the bottom).
Now then.
As was pointed out in the definition of craftsman (quoted by Bribrius in post 23), a craftsman is a) one who is highly skilled in a craft, and/or b) an artist. If we look up the definition of artist, we have various definitions but two that apply in this context are: a) A person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria, and b) A person whose work exhibits exceptional skill. There are further definitions regarding commercial artists, performing artists, and quick-buck artists.
The phrases highly skilled and exceptional skill both imply a technical mastery of the craft or art. The artistic part comes in when the quality of the result is subject to aesthetic criteria. In general if it appeals to the imagination and/or emotions (excitement, awe, envy, anger, disgust) it is art. If it leaves you with feelings of indifference, boredom, disinterest, or I dont get it., it will go into the crap category. However, well-executed "crap" that goes against the current artistic grain may well become the new "art" if it gets accepted (for conceptual, stylistic, or other reasons). Poorly-executed "crap" stays for the most part in the "crap" category, no matter how many flowery words are used to perfume it. In other words, your art may be someones crap and youll both be right.
When it comes to technical equipment, highly-skilled usually describes a technician. Here the definition is: a) a person who is an expert in the practical application of a science, and b) a person skilled in the technique of an art or craft. The focus is on the fidelity of execution, and subjective criteria do not apply. The operating words are accuracy, precision, and conformance to performance criteria. Since cameras, photographic equipment and processes are technical in nature, it is quite possible for someone to be a superb photographic technician, without having any artistic component. Crime photography, training photography, illustrative photography and scientific photography are some examples of where technical execution is much more important than any esthetic attribute.
And yet, being human, very few of us can put aside all emotional criteria, and even in the case of purely technical photography, there is the attempt to create pleasing images. We see this in the choice of colours by astrophotographers, in the framing of subjects by microscopists, in the positioning and lighting by product illustrators. This appeal to engage the aesthetic components of our perception contributes to our engagement with the image, beyond the purely intellectual. So the technician becomes the craftsman/artist, if the image can be judged on aesthetic grounds.
Ok, but is it art? One definition of art 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. This definition skips lightly over literature, poetry, theatre, dance, music, and other forms of expression, but it is adequate for discussion of photography.
The current debate in this thread is that "art" is in the eye of the beholder, and that is true, in that the assessment of beauty or emotional power is subjective and can be conditioned by cultural norms, experience and training, personal psychology, world-view and personal character. And yet, it is common to find groupings of opinion that declare THIS is ART, and others outside that group that shout just as vehemently NO, that is CRAP!. If the in-group controls the galleries and the art schools, chances are excellent that the art they champion is or will become the established artistic norm. That is, until they get replaced by the next in-group. And so we see the progression of a work through stages of 1) Ugh Crap. 2) Avant-garde and edgy. 3) Genius finally recognized! 4) Kinda, old school. 5) It was important at a time... 6) Who? What?
Which brings us to the subject of the taste-makers the galleries and art schools. Some are run as money-making enterprises, churning out (or exhibiting) whatever is the current flavour-de-jour. If youre willing to buy it, were willing to teach it or sell it. The only colour that is relevant is how much green there is. And as such, these tend to follow trends, not make them.
Then there are galleries and art schools that have an agenda they have a mission to educate the rest of us unwashed and ignorant clods into having some inkling of appreciation for the true art. If they succeed in their propaganda and mission, they become the new king-makers and make a ridiculous amount of money in the process. Usually, however, they fail and are displaced by either the money-makers or new agenda-pushers.
There are also galleries that are more community-oriented, and their mission is to expose and feature local talent (whether the local talent has any or not is not the point). If the person or committee in charge of the gallery has any arts training or experience, then there is usually some sense to the curation that they provide. It usually doesnt take long for the approach taken by the curators to be widely know, and the gallery will then preferentially appeal to certain types of artists. As with friends, you get judged by the kind of company you keep (or are exhibited with).
In my community, we are fortunate to have a number of public and private galleries available to exhibit in. Some cater only to established, well-known artists. Others will exhibit unknown artists who satisfy the aesthetic criteria of the gallery owner. Some encourage new artists. Others will exhibit anything for money. Members of my photo club regularly exhibit in these galleries, but as noted earlier, not every gallery will accept any exhibition proposal. You have to know if 1) your work fits into their mandate, and 2) if their exhibition practices are acceptable to you. We have had the better-known photographers sponsor (ie, co-exhibit) with lesser-known ones to ease the entry of the new photographers into the harder-to-access galleries, with some success.
One thing that has come out of these exhibitions is the range of expression of what is good. There are the ones that focus on the pretty and cute, some go with conceptual (abstract, b&w, patterns, stylistic), and a few (actually only one that Im aware of) go for the gut-wrenching emotional (a series on the dying, another of the homeless, another of abused animals). The latter were featured at a community gallery by a curator with a strong social vision. Many members of her community felt very offended that this crap was being exhibited at their gallery. Shes still around, but the background buzz was that she had a few tense meetings with the board of her community center.
On the other hand, pretty and cute do appeal to the majority of viewers, just as most people want food that tastes good and dont care about nutrition, fat-and-sugar content, or other such details. The obesity and diabetes epidemics are partly due to the fact that many want tasty, easy and cheap ahead of whats good and nutritious. Why should the visual arts be any different?
Oh, if youre still reading youre an anomaly.
@Lew - you need to find a better gallery.
@ those who think Lew is hogging the soap-box: He has his opinions. We've also seen his images. I don't know what the other exhibitors were showing, but if it was one of the community galleries that display anything and everything, then I'm not too surprised that there is a difference in quality. It doesn't make Lew the arbitrator of taste (as some have implied) - it means he needs to get into a gallery that is compatible with his standards.
ROTFLMAO. So there.