The Art

[bentcountershaft]

I don't know. Maybe we could ask them. What's that got to do with the point I made? I.e., Why do photographers want to be called 'artists'?

It has to do with your supporting point:

Here is the website of a typical 'artist' wanna-be:

Barbara White Uses Her Camera as a Paintbrush to Create...

"Working within a narrow depth of field, painting with light and color, Barbara White creates fine art photography that is reminiscent of still life Impressionist works. With out-of-focus backgrounds, they are often indistinguishable from paintings."

This sort of thing is everywhere.

You give an example of a photographer imitating a painting as evidence that photographers want to be painters. My reply discounts your evidence. I'm sorry you didn't take it well.

did you know that art rhymes with fart ?
If i could actually photograph a fart would that be considered art ?

You can with the right camera, and yes it would.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I don't know. Maybe we could ask them. What's that got to do with the point I made? I.e., Why do photographers want to be called 'artists'?

It has to do with your supporting point:

Here is the website of a typical 'artist' wanna-be:

Barbara White Uses Her Camera as a Paintbrush to Create...

"Working within a narrow depth of field, painting with light and color, Barbara White creates fine art photography that is reminiscent of still life Impressionist works. With out-of-focus backgrounds, they are often indistinguishable from paintings."

This sort of thing is everywhere.

You give an example of a photographer imitating a painting as evidence that photographers want to be painters. My reply discounts your evidence. I'm sorry you didn't take it well.

did you know that art rhymes with fart ?
If i could actually photograph a fart would that be considered art ?

You can with the right camera, and yes it would.

I must confess your logic does not follow. I said photographers are constantly comparing their work to paintings and claiming to be 'artists'.

Secondly, I believe this is because photographers feel inferior to, and jealous of, artists (painters and sculptors) (which continues to astonish me; do you know how many artists are penniless bums?).

How does the fact that you have seen a mosaic that you think looks like a painting have anything to do with this? Is the mosaic-maker claiming anything? No? It is irrelevant. Besides, a mosaic is a work of art...a photograph isn't.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I'm sorry you have a problem following my logic. Read it slower.

 

[Overread]

Why have they continued to fall for the lame lie that artists (meaning painters) are 'better'?

I'm starting to get the feeling that you not only dislike photographers but also greatly dislike painters.

It's a joke! Painters have no greater status than photographers!

Who has stated that painters are better than photographers or that photographers are better than painters? Does saying that photos are art instantly rank them lesser than other forms of art simply because they are considered art?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Why have they continued to fall for the lame lie that artists (meaning painters) are 'better'?

I'm starting to get the feeling that you not only dislike photographers but also greatly dislike painters.

It's a joke! Painters have no greater status than photographers!

Who has stated that painters are better than photographers or that photographers are better than painters? Does saying that photos are art instantly rank them lesser than other forms of art simply because they are considered art?

I don't follow your last sentence here.

If photographers don't think that being called 'artists' makes their activity more prestigious, why say it? Why the constant comparisons to painting, and why the references to the camera as a paint-brush? I'll tell you why! It's because photographers feel inferior to and jealous of artists.

Why do photographers want to be called artists, unless they think they are inferior to artists otherwise, unless they can get into the act, and join the club, and be called 'artists'? The joke is, artists are nothing to look up to or be jealous of!

Why would you want to be called 'artist' unless you thought that conferred some additional status upon you?

 

[fwellers]

did you know that art rhymes with fart ?
If i could actually photograph a fart would that be considered art ?

You can with the right camera, and yes it would.

You are such an encourager.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I'm sorry you have a problem following my logic. Read it slower.

No, it is irrelevant.

 

[fwellers]

Why do photographers want to be called artists, unless they think they are inferior to artists otherwise, unless they can get into the act, and join the club, and be called 'artists'?

Why would you want to be called 'artist' unless you thought that conferred some additional status upon you?

I don't know about any status or thinking anyone is better than anyone.
My goal is to become a photographer with an artistic flair. In other words I want to be good enough to be considered a photographer by other photographers and I want to use that medium to develop my artistic / creative side.

I believe many "photographers" feel the same way, and this would make your sweeping generalization about what [implied - all ] photographers want to be called

 

[Petraio Prime]

Why do photographers want to be called artists, unless they think they are inferior to artists otherwise, unless they can get into the act, and join the club, and be called 'artists'?

Why would you want to be called 'artist' unless you thought that conferred some additional status upon you?

I don't know about any status or thinking anyone is better than anyone.
My goal is to become a photographer with an artistic flair. In other words I want to be good enough to be considered a photographer by other photographers and I want to use that medium to develop my artistic / creative side.

I believe many "photographers" feel the same way, and this would make your sweeping generalization about what [implied - all ] photographers want to be called

Where did I say 'all'? Why do you think I mean 'all'? I'm talking about the many who do. Those who don't obviously are of no concern.

But there are thousands upon thousands who do want to be called 'artists', who mistakenly believe they are, who mistakenly believe that great photographs are works of art, who have web sites that proclaim they are 'fine-art photographers.

I am not saying they are not good photographers. This is about language.

I think it is interesting that we don't have language for 'high-class' photography and do borrow terms such as 'creative' and 'artistic' from the arts. Photography has such an unwieldy name that it never spawned its own vocabulary. We say 'artistic' (as you did above) instead of using a word such as 'photographistic'. It's part of the problem.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Your problem is with a societal interpretation of what constitutes art. The often heralded "It's good enough to be art." People that don't know any better say such things and that is what you are arguing against. No one here is making that argument.

It seems your narrow mindedness is affecting your ability to look at anything objectively. You see an photographer comparing their camera to to a paint brush and immediately reach the conclusion that they really want to be a painter and are trying to improve their self esteem by telling themselves a lie. It couldn't be that they are comparing for the sake of example, to help explain to a non photographer how they go about creating their art. A painter is an easy reference because most everyone at some point in their lives, even if it was during childhood in art class, has painted. Photographers often copy the "rules of painting composition", not because they want to be painters, but because their art is similar in display. It's generally two dimensional, often framed hung on a wall so most of these tips for composition apply to both. It has nothing to do with wanting to be a painter. Your failure to see any other explanation is again, just evidence of your lack of an open mind. Art is generally a celebration of the open mind and how on earth someone with such a narrow view could think they are capable of defining it is beyond me.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I don't know about any status or thinking anyone is better than anyone.
My goal is to become a photographer with an artistic flair. In other words I want to be good enough to be considered a photographer by other photographers and I want to use that medium to develop my artistic / creative side.

I believe many "photographers" feel the same way, and this would make your sweeping generalization about what [implied - all ] photographers want to be called

This is off point, but I think it's important to keep in mind. You shouldn't worry about making photos that impress other photographers. I made that mistake with music. The more I learned, the more I wanted to impress other musicians. You know what I ended up with? Music only musicians like. Don't worry about pleasing anyone but yourself. Unless you are doing it for a client. Then worry about pleasing your client to your own standards.

 

[fwellers]

Where did I say 'all'? Why do you think I mean 'all'?

You continue to say "photographers want to be artists", photographers this, photographers that.

It's common when you don't wish to make a sweeping generalization to say things like "many photographers", "some photographers", "most photographers" etc.. When you just say "photographers" in the context you use the implication is that you are speaking of all of them.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Your problem is with a societal interpretation of what constitutes art. The often heralded "It's good enough to be art." People that don't know any better say such things and that is what you are arguing against. No one here is making that argument.

It seems your narrow mindedness is affecting your ability to look at anything objectively. You see an photographer comparing their camera to to a paint brush and immediately reach the conclusion that they really want to be a painter and are trying to improve their self esteem by telling themselves a lie. It couldn't be that they are comparing for the sake of example, to help explain to a non photographer how they go about creating their art. A painter is an easy reference because most everyone at some point in their lives, even if it was during childhood in art class, has painted. Photographers often copy the "rules of painting composition", not because they want to be painters, but because their art is similar in display. It's generally two dimensional, often framed hung on a wall so most of these tips for composition apply to both. It has nothing to do with wanting to be a painter. Your failure to see any other explanation is again, just evidence of your lack of an open mind. Art is generally a celebration of the open mind and how on earth someone with such a narrow view could think they are capable of defining it is beyond me.

Well, what your saying might be true (though I doubt it very much), but my experience when talking to photographers directly, face to face, is that they go apoplectic when I say there is no such thing as 'fine-art photography' and that their photographs are not works of art. That experience has been repeated several times, and it seems to be true universally. Those who claim to be 'artists' do so because they think they would be inferior to artists if they did not merit that name.

The all-too-common understanding of the term 'art' is that it is a term of praise or merit, not a technical term such as 'carpenter', 'mason', or 'riveter'. But that's exactly what the word 'artist' is. An artist is one who makes 'art', by hand, and is a job title, just like a mason, carpenter, or riveter. Photography cannot be art, so photographers (as such) cannot be (properly called) 'artists'. If a photographer wants to paint or sculpt, fine! Then he becomes an artist!

The men who made Tut's coffin mask were artists because what they made was art.

The men who photographed it so marvelously here, are not (as such) artists:

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/...tian-museum/resized/king-tut-mask-wp-gfdl.jpg

Why? Because what photographers make is not art!

 

[fwellers]

I don't know about any status or thinking anyone is better than anyone.
My goal is to become a photographer with an artistic flair. In other words I want to be good enough to be considered a photographer by other photographers and I want to use that medium to develop my artistic / creative side.

I believe many "photographers" feel the same way, and this would make your sweeping generalization about what [implied - all ] photographers want to be called

This is off point, but I think it's important to keep in mind. You shouldn't worry about making photos that impress other photographers. I made that mistake with music. The more I learned, the more I wanted to impress other musicians. You know what I ended up with? Music only musicians like. Don't worry about pleasing anyone but yourself. Unless you are doing it for a client. Then worry about pleasing your client to your own standards.

Well that is a good point. I think though that I already realize that artistically or creatively I will please myself with my photography. But I would like to be respected by peers for the work as far as it's technical side. If they don't agree with my choices but can see that they were choices I made out of my proficiency and ability, then that is good enough for me.

 

[bentcountershaft]

The all-too-common understanding of the term 'art' is that it is a term of praise or merit, not a technical term such as 'carpenter', 'mason', or 'riveter'. But that's exactly what the word 'artist' is.

I'm with you 100% on this point. I can certainly concede that there are some people would feel insulted if you said their photographs weren't aren't because of this reason. Using, "that's a work of art" as praise is not doing anyone any favors and it perpetuates the misinformation.

An artist is one who makes 'art', by hand, and is a job title, just like a mason, carpenter, or riveter. Photography cannot be art, so photographers (as such) cannot be (properly called) 'artists'. If a photographer wants to paint or sculpt, fine! Then he becomes an artist!

The men who made Tut's coffin mask were artists because what they made was art.

The men who photographed it so marvelously here, are not (as such) artists:

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/...tian-museum/resized/king-tut-mask-wp-gfdl.jpg

This, as you know, is where we disagree.