What's new

I want to be a photographer – or maybe an artist. - small rant

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some evaluate art. Other rely on critique. Often it is a cultural. The accepted idea of art changes in some instances. Art Dada great for some, crap for others. Price line to often dictates the value of art.
 
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 don’t 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 someone’s “crap” and you’ll 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 you’re willing to buy it, we’re 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 doesn’t 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 I’m 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. She’s 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 don’t 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 what’s good and nutritious. Why should the visual arts be any different?

Oh, if you’re still reading – you’re 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.
 
What seems to be most threatening to the group at large is that someone has an opinion that is different from theirs and won't give it up.
So the group responds by trying to argue him out of it.
And if that doesn't work, the group tries to denigrate the opinion by making fun.

I think, exactly what I thought when I started, which is that when technical imperfections get between the viewer and the art, that is the only time that technical issues matter.
I also thought that it was a shame that gallery committees, and it was a committee that chose that show, knew so little about photography that they ignored the issues with the photographers and pictures chosen.
I also thought that 'artists' of a caliber to show should have mastered their craft enough so that their technical inadequacies didn't disrupt their work.

If any of you had any point to make about those issues, besides telling me that I didn't have the right to have an opinion or that I was angry and therefore wrong, well that was totally missed.

Well ok, a little hard to determine who if anyone this is supposedly addressed to, since you didn't quote anyone and normally that would indicate it was directed at the OP - which really doesn't make a lot of sense since you are the OP.

So I will respond on my own behalf, because I don't speak for this "group" you speak of, I don't belong to any such group, I don't represent a group or post with a group in mind. I only speak for myself, as I have always done. There are times when I do agree with some of the other people here and the points they wish to make, and there are times when I disagree with them even though it's the same people. I've actually agreed with some of what you've posted on occasion, so if anything by your assertion that would make you part of the very "group" that you now decry.

Again, speaking solely of my own responses on the topic, I never tried to "talk you out" of anything. I did express that yes, there are a lot of folks out there who think buying a DSLR automatically makes them a professional photographer, even though they lack the skills and experience to use it properly. On that point we actually agree as far as I can tell. What I did express that you apparently take issue with, however, is that it's a little difficult to define "art" the way you would need to define it to make your point at all valid.

Somebody brought up the cross in urine thing earlier. To me, eh.. not art. I just saw it as cheap attempt at ginning up controversy and therefore selling tickets. But you know, some people did consider it art. I don't get it myself, but I don't get to appoint myself grand poohbah and keeper/defender of what is or not considered art.

So until somebody can come up with an objective definition of what is and is not considered art, all we can truly judge is what we do and don't like - not what should or should not be labeled as art.

You'll also note that at least for my part I never once told you that you were wrong, what I did try to tell you in as gentle a way possible was that your point was entirely moot before it was even posted. Since the gentle version was ignored completely and dismissed outright I will take you at your word and assume that your intent here really is one for discussion, the exchange of ideas, and give it to you in the same blunt hard hitting style that you use on so many others, myself included. So, here goes:

You can frankly piss and moan about stuff like this till you are completely blue in the face and it won't change a thing. We are still going to see several postings this month from the "Hi, just picked up my first DSLR and I've opened my own wedding photography business" crowd. So my only point to you was that maybe that's something you just need to learn to accept, rather than having it be something you apparently let drive you crazy all the time. An assumption on my part, at least to a small extent, but a logical one considering the amazing amount of time you seem to spend bitching on this topic.
 
robbins.photo said:
You can frankly piss and moan about stuff like this till you are completely blue in the face and it won't change a thing. We are still going to see several postings this month from the "Hi, just picked up my first DSLR and I've opened my own wedding photography business" crowd. So my only point to you was that maybe that's something you just need to learn to accept, rather than having it be something you apparently let drive you crazy all the time. An assumption on my part, at least to a small extent, but a logical one considering the amazing amount of time you seem to spend bitching on this topic.

I wonder how long before a, "Just picked up my first d-slr!" person needs to wait before self-proclaiming possession of artist status? Any ideas on that from the OP, or from other members? Are there a series of ever more difficult and challenging photographer's guild tests to separate apprentice from journeyman from master from grand master skill levels?
 
robbins.photo said:
You can frankly piss and moan about stuff like this till you are completely blue in the face and it won't change a thing. We are still going to see several postings this month from the "Hi, just picked up my first DSLR and I've opened my own wedding photography business" crowd. So my only point to you was that maybe that's something you just need to learn to accept, rather than having it be something you apparently let drive you crazy all the time. An assumption on my part, at least to a small extent, but a logical one considering the amazing amount of time you seem to spend bitching on this topic.

I wonder how long before a, "Just picked up my first d-slr!" person needs to wait before self-proclaiming possession of artist status? Any ideas on that from the OP, or from other members? Are there a series of ever more difficult and challenging photographer's guild tests to separate apprentice from journeyman from master from grand master skill levels?

Hmm.. ok, like this idea. Can we use spears? Or at least a pipe wrench? I mean if you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a ball, right? - lol

I am pretty curious though to see a response on this one - if any.
 
robbins.photo said:
You can frankly piss and moan about stuff like this till you are completely blue in the face and it won't change a thing. We are still going to see several postings this month from the "Hi, just picked up my first DSLR and I've opened my own wedding photography business" crowd. So my only point to you was that maybe that's something you just need to learn to accept, rather than having it be something you apparently let drive you crazy all the time. An assumption on my part, at least to a small extent, but a logical one considering the amazing amount of time you seem to spend bitching on this topic.

I wonder how long before a, "Just picked up my first d-slr!" person needs to wait before self-proclaiming possession of artist status? Any ideas on that from the OP, or from other members? Are there a series of ever more difficult and challenging photographer's guild tests to separate apprentice from journeyman from master from grand master skill levels?

I dunno, Derrel. I'm thinking we're beating the "artist" tag to death. If someone's work appeals to the emotion in a viewer, then the work can be considered "artistic" . How well does that appeal work, and to how many people it affects, is probably something that will indicate how "good" the artist is. With many people, it takes training and study to fan the ember of talent that they may have into a flame. Some people have their talent level already at "very hot", and they don't need much edikashun to make that work for them.
 
AN interesting note on "artist" versus "photographer" differentiation. One of America's premier commercial shooters, Joel Grimes, a guy so well-known that his style of images have earned a name, specifically "the Joel Grimes look". He recently did a three-day course on CreativeLive.com, and one of his central messages was for people to, "Define yourself as an artist, not just 'a photographer'," because as he explained very pointedly, the work of a photographer is a cheap commodity, with limited earning potential, but "an artist's work" has basically, unlimited value in the marketplace. He stressed that art directors, editors, and other buyers of photography VALUE the work of artists, but the work of 'photographers' is nowhere near as highly-valued, nor does it earn anywhere near the prestige or the monetary compensation that the work of an 'artist' commands.

Take a look at his web site's URL...it contains the word ARTIST--in all caps!!! as in joelgrimes.com/ARTIST

Joel Grimes Portfolios
 
Thank you, Derrel - excellent link. Yes, the man is an artist. No other way to describe his work.

Perhaps the dichotomy between "photographer" and "artist" is that the first usually records "what is", and the artist shows us "what could/should/may be".
 
Thank you, Derrel - excellent link. Yes, the man is an artist. No other way to describe his work.

Perhaps the dichotomy between "photographer" and "artist" is that the first usually records "what is", and the artist shows us "what could/should/may be".

For those who did not see the Joel Grimes CreativeLive course, let me relate a story from it. Grimes mentioned that he often uses a wide-angle lens from "too close" of a distance to take the "face" or "person" shots; the face or person is then later composited onmto a suitable background image; he also mentioned that he KNOWS that his lighting scheme with its two bright accent lights, one on each side of a person's face, sends the subliminal message that, "There are two suns!"; he KNOWS that the faces have distortion from shooting from three feet away with the short end of a 24-70mm zoom; he said he KNOWS that technically or traditionally speaking, these things are "wrong". His reasoning that these things are fine? "I'm an ARTIST! It's part of MY artistic vision."
 
robbins.photo said:
You can frankly piss and moan about stuff like this till you are completely blue in the face and it won't change a thing. We are still going to see several postings this month from the "Hi, just picked up my first DSLR and I've opened my own wedding photography business" crowd. So my only point to you was that maybe that's something you just need to learn to accept, rather than having it be something you apparently let drive you crazy all the time. An assumption on my part, at least to a small extent, but a logical one considering the amazing amount of time you seem to spend bitching on this topic.

I wonder how long before a, "Just picked up my first d-slr!" person needs to wait before self-proclaiming possession of artist status? Any ideas on that from the OP, or from other members? Are there a series of ever more difficult and challenging photographer's guild tests to separate apprentice from journeyman from master from grand master skill levels?
Good one. Unfortunately photography is not a real profession, anyone can claim it and anyone can say he is an artist. There is no licence, no overviewing body, no bar to pass. Society decides. You can make money on this - good for you. You can't ? Find a real job.
 
robbins.photo said:
You can frankly piss and moan about stuff like this till you are completely blue in the face and it won't change a thing. We are still going to see several postings this month from the "Hi, just picked up my first DSLR and I've opened my own wedding photography business" crowd. So my only point to you was that maybe that's something you just need to learn to accept, rather than having it be something you apparently let drive you crazy all the time. An assumption on my part, at least to a small extent, but a logical one considering the amazing amount of time you seem to spend bitching on this topic.

I wonder how long before a, "Just picked up my first d-slr!" person needs to wait before self-proclaiming possession of artist status?
At least 3 weeks. That's about the minimum, really.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top Bottom