Poll: artistry

[The_Traveler]

Ok, so if I can come up with a cartoonish overcooked yellow tinted overexposed out of focus HDR shot with no discernable subject then I am an ARTEEST!

So, what I get from your characterizations is that all artists produce work that is " cartoonish overcooked yellow tinted overexposed out of focus HDR shot with no discernable subject."

And so you don't want to be associated with them.

Following that generalization, how do you rationalize the fact that many people who post work here, a place that you chose to frequent, classify themselves as 'artists'?
Is all of the work you see here, or at least a major percentage of it, ' cartoonish overcooked yellow tinted overexposed out of focus HDR shot with no discernable subject'?

 

[Steve5D]

So there's never been in a moment, however fleeting, in your photographic life that you've wanted to be, or considered yourself to be, an artist?

There probably was.

And that would be why I made the statement I think everyone who picks up a camera would like to consider themselves, at some point, an "artist".

Essentially, though, you're allowing what other do to dictate what you do. You no longer allow yourself to consider yourself an artist because of what others are doing...

 

[PixelRabbit]

Instead of just goofing around in the thread I'll give an answer a shot

I agree with Steve, there should be an option for both technical proficiency plus artistry, like my sig says learn the rules so you can break them. It was through learning the rules and pushing the limits that I have found a lot of inspiration.

Some images ask for technical perfection while some ask to bend the rules but they are all made from decisions I've made to result in the final image. The more I know about the technical aspects of my tools the more control I have over my art. I think the key is balance between the two.

 

[pixmedic]

So there's never been in a moment, however fleeting, in your photographic life that you've wanted to be, or considered yourself to be, an artist?

There probably was.

And that would be why I made the statement I think everyone who picks up a camera would like to consider themselves, at some point, an "artist".

Essentially, though, you're allowing what other do to dictate what you do. You no longer allow yourself to consider yourself an artist because of what others are doing...

Granted, I have not been into photography as long as some of you, but I have never considered myself an "artist". I have never thought of the photography I do as "making art". I have never considered my processing any sort of "artistic style". maybe that is because i do not WANT to be an artist. Just no desire for it.
I do not consider myself an artist, nor do i consider my photography art. that's just how I feel. I cant give you any rational thought process for those feelings, no logical reasoning behind it. I cant point to some particular fact and say "THATS why". Its simply how I feel about it.

I suppose you could just completely disregard my feelings and opinions and say that by your definition (or someone elses definition) I am an "artist" whether I like it or not simply because I take pictures. I guess I could not really argue that point, except for the simple fact that I personally feel it is wrong.

I have a friend that painted for a living. houses, fences, barns...whatever
she never considered herself an "artist" either, even though she could produce different looks and textures depending on what brushes/sponges she used, and what brushstrokes she used.

 

[amolitor]

I find it fascinating that some photographers (apparently) think that technical skill is somehow opposed to, or at any rate orthogonal to, artistry.

This is not how other artists see things. At ALL.

 

[runnah]

I find it fascinating that some photographers (apparently) think that technical skill is somehow opposed to, or at any rate orthogonal to, artistry.

Ignorant really. All art forms are incredibly technical. I've "played" with lots of different mediums, painting, pottery, jewelry and metal sculpture and can say that all have daunting technical aspects that go hand in hand with making great art using that medium.

 

[pixmedic]

I thought this thread was about whether or not you consider yourself an artist, not a debate on artistic vs technical merits.

 

[runnah]

I thought this thread was about whether or not you consider yourself an artist, not a debate on artistic vs technical merits.

I thought it was a place for Lew to preach from upon high.

 

[amolitor]

I thought this thread was about whether or not you consider yourself an artist, not a debate on artistic vs technical merits.

I thought it was a place for Lew to preach from upon high.

Pfft, that's the whole forum!

 

[pixmedic]

I thought this thread was about whether or not you consider yourself an artist, not a debate on artistic vs technical merits.

I thought it was a place for Lew to preach from upon high.

I don't see Lew as preachy at all.
I THOUGHT that this thread was a pretty straightforward question. Do YOU consider YOURSELF an artist, or are you just looking for technical accuracy?

How is there even a wrong answer to this? How can you debate or dispute how someone feels about themselves?

So no... Im not seeing Lew being preachy at all.

 

[runnah]

How is there even a wrong answer to this? How can you debate or dispute how someone feels about themselves?

I gave an honest answer and got flak from it.

 

[pgriz]

I also do not see Lew as preaching in this thread. The words we associate with this activity carry with them some assumptions, attitudes and world-views that colour the practice of photography, interpretation of the results, and critique. If one chooses to exclude "artistry" when discussing photography, then that choice eliminates a great many aspects that would be relevant if "artistry" was present. It's not a binary answer of "right/wrong", but more a question of which perspective one takes in understanding the usage and effect of the medium. By way of analogy, the cook that sees food solely as a delivery mechanism for essential ingredients for the body, will have a very different take on it than someone who sees it primarily as a way of engaging the senses. There is overlap between the two, but the emphasis taken changes dramatically how one can discuss a meal to be prepared.

 

[amolitor]

I think Lew's got a point. Photographers tend to shy away from the "artist" label, and use the word "ARTEEEST" and similar. Why is that? I think it's somewhat tied up with the completely false technical excellence/artistry dichotomy.

Somewhere along the way the community has decided to worship sharpness, full tonal range, the usual gamut of St. Ansel qualities, and to denigrate Art as such, and to perceive Art as somehow opposed to technical excellence. We see something similar at the beginning of the 20th century with f/64 versus the pictorialists, but I'm pretty sure they had not entirely lost their heads at that point. Both sides saw themselves as Artists, but disagreed on the proper approach to Art.

Now that we are liberated from such silly ideas as there even being a "proper approach" to Art, we've distilled that debate to "are you an artist, or are you technically proficient" which is really unfortunate.

 

[The_Traveler]

I find it fascinating that some photographers (apparently) think that technical skill is somehow opposed to, or at any rate orthogonal to, artistry.
This is not how other artists see things. At ALL.

Ignorant really.

I thought this thread was about whether or not you consider yourself an artist, not a debate on artistic vs technical merits.

I thought it was a place for Lew to preach from upon high.

Pfft, that's the whole forum!

My point in the poll was to see where peoples' main emphasis lay. No one, at least none of the posts I read, implied that technical execution was irrelevant or unimportant but only that technical issues were subordinate to artistic goals.

If anyone thinks I am preachy, either here or 'the whole forum!', then the best way to avoid what I write is to block me. That is very effective and not nearly as rude as making negative comments about me in a thread that I have started.
If you feel you want to continue to read - and want to criticize me, then have the courtesy to address me directly.

 

[pixmedic]

How is there even a wrong answer to this? How can you debate or dispute how someone feels about themselves?

I gave an honest answer and got flak from it.

we don't call it "flak" anymore.
it is now called "artistic recrimination"