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

[AlanO]

A mediocre or bad artist, who knows that he is exactly that, is really someone to be pitied.

I'm not sure most self-proclaimed artists think they are bad, maybe some do.

 

[pgriz]

I’m kinda wondering, Lew, if you’re having a little bit of fun with us.

By my understanding and usage, craftsmen/women, are those who have an intimate knowledge of their tools and craft, and the skills to use that knowledge to create objects that the non-crafty can only admire and envy. To my mind, to be a true craftsman practically requires one to be an artist.

Perhaps the word you’re thinking of is “technician” – someone who has an excellent technical grasp of the tools and processes, but uses these in a purely utilitarian way. A superb technician transforms a set of plans into an exact real-world creation, faithful in the smallest detail to the concept he or she is implementing. Most of the time, you do NOT want the technician to add their own “contribution” as this will usually screw up the thing being created.
I make these comments with the background of being surrounded by examples of crafty people who are artists, and technicians who are not.

As for the definition of “artists”, if you wish to debate that, you will need to do it in the proper forum, such as an intimate pub with a good selection of beer and fortified spirits.

There really are two groups of artists – those that are self-declared, and those who have the descriptor bestowed on them by others. The first are describing an aspiration, as they usually don’t deserve it. The latter, on the other hand, have shown through their work that they have the mastery of the medium sufficient to attract the admiration of their peers. Perhaps this is the reason why so many people avoid using the “artist” description, as they don’t want to join the ranks of the self-declared (but self-deluded) “artists”.

I would also mildly disagree with your characterization of bad artists who know they are bad – they are already much ahead of those who are bad but have no clue how bad they really are, for they already have an idea where they fit on the scale of artistry, and they know the direction of the improvement arrow.

@ Kathy: you’re being modest. While it is true that you probably don’t want to be an artist at nursing (I would fear nurses who are artistic with their injections, or dosages, or application of defillibrators), I can’t say the same of your photography. In the latter field, you create the images of people that probably are better than what they look like in real life. It is in the art of framing, posing, lighting, staging, and post-processing, that you create a better version of reality than can be captured by other people at the same event wielding point-and-shoot cameras. Actually, I have two nurses in my extended family, and see that even here there is room for the artistic – in the form of empathy, caring, and supporting ways that calm the patient and ease their discomfort.

 

[RawRusty]

I have many in my family that are nurses. Indeed my oldest daughter is a RN. IMO Kathy, you are all such a blessing to the sick. As far as photography, I feel your statement represents my feelings about it also. I am just a beginner and my efforts are totally unworthy for posting in this forum. But I am reading, researching, getting ideas and trying them out to gain as much perspective and knowledge as my talent will take me. I am learning a lot from all you people's posts. I shall quietly keep reading and learning. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge. RR.

 

[JerryLove]

What really set this off is my coming across a number of people proclaiming themselves as artists and being accepted as such in the local 'arts' community and yet they have no skills and are seemingly unaware that skills are required. The local galleries show these people and are seemingly themselves unaware of how truly awful they are.

If you had to be good to be an artist, then "bad artist" would be an oxymoron.

I'm reminded of tech support calls where people, rather then telling me what *their* problem is, tell me what they think the technical problem, or worse, solution is. Wastes a lot of time. I think perhaps you are too busy focusing on use of terms like "artist" or "technician" or whatever when your real *problem* lies elsewhere. It lies with whatever negative experience you had at the show that you attribute (perhaps correctly) to someone unskilled showing with you.

 

[71M]

There really are two groups of artists – those that are self-declared, and those who have the descriptor bestowed on them by others. The first are describing an aspiration, as they usually don’t deserve it. The latter, on the other hand, have shown through their work that they have the mastery of the medium sufficient to attract the admiration of their peers. Perhaps this is the reason why so many people avoid using the “artist” description, as they don’t want to join the ranks of the self-declared (but self-deluded) “artists”.

I would also mildly disagree with your characterization of bad artists who know they are bad – they are already much ahead of those who are bad but have no clue how bad they really are, for they already have an idea where they fit on the scale of artistry, and they know the direction of the improvement arrow.

imo, many good artists were and are self-declared; a great deal of Modern Art's relentless progress over the last hundred years has been due to such people. Many great artists certainly didn't enjoy the admiration of their peers, e.g Salon des Refusés, Degenerate Art. (The Turner Prize even.)

No-one fully engaged in the plastic arts that I know, ducks the appellation, although they may prefer something more specific like painter, sculptor and so on; why would they?

 

[D-B-J]

But there will always be people with limited or no skill who are touted as "great" and "awesome" in certain aspects or at specific things... I have friends who are considered (and they themselves consider their selves to be) "smart" and "great students," while in reality they are neither. I've noticed this phenomenon that, as long as you present yourself with confidence and "apparent" knowledge and prowess, many others will follow you and believe in you blindly. I guess all you can do is try to not let it bother you, and hope that, when compared to your work and ACTUAL knowledge, their "ruse" will fall apart.

Best,
Jake

 

[minicoop1985]

This is quite an interesting post, and a lot of stuff to really think about. Makes for a great start to an introspective.

As a photographer, I'm not an artist. I take pictures of things so I represent them faithfully to the public I'm selling to. I don't feel like the way I do it is really artistic, and that the camera's more of a tool than anything else in these circumstances.

As an artist, I know that I don't have the ability to get what I see onto that sensor and into that memory card quite yet. I try, and I'm getting far better, but I'm not sure if I need more specialized equipment or just more skills (well, more skills is a definite) and more education to achieve my goals with more regularity. My gut says... go for the education and skills first, then get the equipment.

 

[bribrius]

[h=2]crafts·man[/h]/ˈkræfts

mən, ˈkrɑfts-/ Show Spelled [krafts-muh

n, krahfts-] Show IPA noun, plural crafts·men. 1. a person who practices or is highly skilled in a craft; artisan.

2. an artist.

---

Origin:
1325–75; Middle English craftes man man of skill, earlier craftman; compare Old English cræftiga craftsman, workman (derivative of cræftig crafty

 

[sashbar]

By my understanding and usage, craftsmen/women, are those who have an intimate knowledge of their tools and craft, and the skills to use that knowledge to create objects that the non-crafty can only admire and envy. To my mind, to be a true craftsman practically requires one to be an artist.

Of course we can admire the craft or a craftsman, because we admire skill. But it does not mean he/she is nesessary "an artist" as understand the word. I would say for every 10 thousand true craftmen of highest caliber in photography probably one or two can call themselves an artist. Some can pretent, of course, but that's their problem. To me they are just great photographers, not artists.

I have a concept of an "added value" in photography. You may call it "artistic value" if you wish. Unlike fine art you do not start here with empty canvas, you push the button and you already have something, some picture. This is what makes photorgraphic art so democratic and so deceptive. You can go and grab a perfect professional exposure of a fantastic sunset. It will be outrageously beautiful. But there may be no artistic value in that photograph whatsoever. It will be just a nice picture, a wallpaper. That is what a great craftsman is able to produce - a very, very nice wallpaper. Or a very nice picture that we would love to hang on the wall.

There is a huge difference between a nice picture and an object of art. It is too complicated for a forum post, but to put it short and simple, a nice picture beautifully presents a moment. An art trascendes the moment and shows us something bigger and more important. That is where my "added value" is. So if you aspire to be an artist you have to answer a simple question: "What do I want to tell the people? What am I able to tell? What do I know, what do I feel that others do not?". And if you have the answer, you can be an artist. You chose the medium, be it a camera, a canvas or a piece of rock, this is a secondary question. Sadly most artists-wannabes try to go the other way round. So for most photographers calling themselves "an artist" is rather pretentious. I have seen some artists in photography, but very, very few.

 

[sashbar]

This is quite an interesting post, and a lot of stuff to really think about. Makes for a great start to an introspective.

As a photographer, I'm not an artist. I take pictures of things so I represent them faithfully to the public I'm selling to. I don't feel like the way I do it is really artistic, and that the camera's more of a tool than anything else in these circumstances.

As an artist, I know that I don't have the ability to get what I see onto that sensor and into that memory card quite yet. I try, and I'm getting far better, but I'm not sure if I need more specialized equipment or just more skills (well, more skills is a definite) and more education to achieve my goals with more regularity. My gut says... go for the education and skills first, then get the equipment.

I think this is a very sensible point of view of a true professional.

 

[sashbar]

crafts·man

/ˈkræfts

mən, ˈkrɑfts-/ Show Spelled [krafts-muh

n, krahfts-] Show IPA noun, plural crafts·men. 1. a person who practices or is highly skilled in a craft; artisan.

2. an artist.

---

Origin:
1325–75; Middle English craftes man man of skill, earlier craftman; compare Old English cræftiga craftsman, workman (derivative of cræftig crafty

Well I can tell my 9 y.o. daughter who can draw animals very beautifully "You are a true artist". But it would not mean what I really think the Artist is.

 

[jenko]

As far as craftsmanship and art go, the artist need only know enough to produce their vision for a piece to be successful.

Ironically, it is typically the vision/idea that is lacking, and not the craftsmanship. There are plenty of well-crafted images that say very little about their subjects. If given a choice, I would prefer to see an image that lacks in craftsmanship but explodes in vision/idea over one that is perfectly crafted, and utterly meaningless.

 

[Steve5D]

Nothing makes me cringe like the phrase "I'm an artist". I acknowledge that photography is an art form. I acknowledge that it allows someone to be creative.

"Artist" for me simply isn't descriptive enough. "Photographer", "sculptor", "painter", etc... Those work for me...

 

[pgriz]

It may be an interesting debate as to whether (the majority of) photographers can be considered craftsmen. For a typical craftsman (in wood, metal, clay, stone or paper), each item of creation takes days, weeks and even months of work, and uses a variety of skills in the production of the item. Along the way, many choices are made - for instance, a furniture maker may select the appropriate type and cut of wood, decide on the best method of joining the wood, deciding on the best stain or finish to highlight the wood's properties, and so on. In photographic terms, the investment of effort required to create an image is rarely comparable, unless one is guided by an overall vision that shapes the setting up of the scene, arranging the lighting, providing the appropriate staging, then doing the post-processing and finally transferring to a display medium. The "value-added" aspect that sashbar refers to, comes, at least in the case of the craftsmen (and craftswomen) I know, in the creation of an esthetically-pleasing, often sensuous piece that almost demands to the touched and handled - to be experienced. Often it is the combination of senses (touch, smell, sight) that opens up the trap-doors of emotion at a sub-conscious level.

I have seen works by photographers who I would consider to be craftsmen/craftswomen, and their work has almost always consisted of rather large printed pieces, usually of a set, arranged in a suitable way to allow a continuation of vision. They were made to be experienced (as opposed to just looked at). And these photographic craftsmen/craftswomen very obviously had an artistic expression that resonated emotionally with the viewers.

 

[bribrius]

It may be an interesting debate as to whether (the majority of) photographers can be considered craftsmen. For a typical craftsman (in wood, metal, clay, stone or paper), each item of creation takes days, weeks and even months of work, and uses a variety of skills in the production of the item. Along the way, many choices are made - for instance, a furniture maker may select the appropriate type and cut of wood, decide on the best method of joining the wood, deciding on the best stain or finish to highlight the wood's properties, and so on. In photographic terms, the investment of effort required to create an image is rarely comparable, unless one is guided by an overall vision that shapes the setting up of the scene, arranging the lighting, providing the appropriate staging, then doing the post-processing and finally transferring to a display medium. The "value-added" aspect that sashbar refers to, comes, at least in the case of the craftsmen (and craftswomen) I know, in the creation of an esthetically-pleasing, often sensuous piece that almost demands to the touched and handled - to be experienced. Often it is the combination of senses (touch, smell, sight) that opens up the trap-doors of emotion at a sub-conscious level.

I have seen works by photographers who I would consider to be craftsmen/craftswomen, and their work has almost always consisted of rather large printed pieces, usually of a set, arranged in a suitable way to allow a continuation of vision. They were made to be experienced (as opposed to just looked at). And these photographic craftsmen/craftswomen very obviously had an artistic expression that resonated emotionally with the viewers.

I agree with this. Photography, by and large I wouldn't even consider a craft in fact it is becoming less of one. The further it gets away from doing it yourself (carving with a wood chisel) to technology (running a item through a cnc) the less of a craft it becomes. My grandfather carved the horses for merry go rounds (for example). Comparing that to photography, least the majority of the photography I have seen. I cant even take that seriously. While there are people in it that know enough in it to be considered craftsmen they are few and far between. And most of the artistic vision people discuss is crap.