Are we Artists or Technicians?

[samdring]

Just read the thread 'thats a pretty picture' and its funny how over the years, you pick up a picture of the skills of people on this site. By and large, that would include many well versed in Photoshop and the technical aspects of photography.

My minds picture of a 'left bank' artist shows an abhorrence of technology.

As cameras etc become more and more technically capable, will they become more and more the province of the technical artist?

[Pekka]

All artforms are dependent on tools. In music you have instruments, in painting you have brushes, paints, canvases and oils, in dance you have your body, dresses, lights, stage.

When you learn the tool(s) really well it frees your mind to more important issues.

In all artforms you must also have the talent. You can always learn by the books and follow the masters (and have same tools) but unless you have the eye, the ear, the sense (whatever the artform needs) and NEED to get your own vision out it is unlikely that the results can be individual, unique and emotionally effective. Some things just can't be taught.

What overall has disturbed me in digital photography is that quality of photo is often judged only by technical quality. If it is sharp, contrasty, vivid, is composed by thirds (no golden rule any more!) and has natural colors: it is a great photo. Content is often a moot point. The greatest virtue of a lens is sharpness. More resolution is better (it lets you crop more which in turn makes you lazy on location). The reason for this pattern of thought is that digital cameras are considered more like computers and "more" has always been the keyword in that area.

Luckily things seems to be changing slowly. Thanks to technology! Now that every camera can get you sharp and vivid photos that achievement is no longer something special. You'll start looking for something else, something deeper. So content, moments and ideas will get important again. I hope.

[PacAce]

Well said, Pekka. I couldn't agree with you more!

[jimsolt]

When you learn the tool(s) really well it frees your mind to more important issues.


Right on the money! Given we have chosen "modern technology" as our tools, to use them without understanding them is useless. On the other hand, to assume technical expertise will create art is folly. I would be pleased if more of this forum would be devoted to the non-technical.
Jim

[Meerkat17]

Well said, Pekka. I couldn't agree with you more!
Dito

David

[Moppie]

Exactly what Peka said :)

I can't think of a single art form that dosn't require some level of technology.

[CyberDyneSystems]

"Are we Artists or Technicians?"

Yes! :)
...and no. ;)

What a great thread! :)

I agree that good photography is a mix of the two. For myself.. I struggled in my school years.. trying to be an artist.. but was allways hampered by a thouroughly technical and analytical mind. (If only I had discovered photography then....)

At issue with photography is the fact that as an artform.. photography seems to utilize more bells and whistles than others, and has a form of "automation" in the tools that many other artforms lack. This alters the perception of it as an artform.. and frankly the level of "creativity" possible from photography spans a VERY broad range. (in some cases you could argue photos are being taken but no art is being made.. quite convinceingly!) In truth this is the case with other artists tools as well. pens, pencils and paint brushes and chisels are used for mundane tasks like taking notes, painting houses, and splitting bricks daily.

For some reason people have a harder time grasping this fundemantal aspect of the camera as a tool than with other tools.

But really the truth is the difference should be as plain as the difference betweeen a artist with a graphite pencil and someone doing taxes with one.

Again.. the tool does not make the art.

I can think of few artforms off hand though where the level of "tech" and inherent need for understanding of such things is so great. (architecture is a possible example of one that requires even more "tech savvy")

Given this requirement of a blend of technical understanding and creative expression,. the best photographers seem to have the eye of the painter and the precision of a surgeon.

So,.. to me.. a good photographer is an artist and a technician.
But using a camera,.. and taking photos does not make you either.

[primoz]

Just to answer to "Are we artists or technicians" from my point of view (which is only my personal point of view :) )
I shot lot of sport for some magazines, newspapers etc. In about 80% of work (or better to say until I'm sure I have photo) it's just job as any other job, which probably anyone can do. Afterall how hard it is to set right exposure (especially with digital), press button and camera's af do the rest. And for news photos they actually preffer normal photos and not photos, where you choose a bit different angle, because it would look a bit more creative. After I have photo, I can play around and in that time I can think of myself as artist, who put some creativity to his work. But unfortunately most of such photos are for my archive and for my soul.

[bachscuttler]

Having spent many years as a watercolour artist, I've recently taken up Digital Photography as a hobby.

Not quite the smell of the paint and more or less instant results with virtually limitless retakes in no time at all plus the opportunity to edit in Photoshop without making a muddy mess, but none the less an enjoyable artform.

I would probably have enjoyed the dark room and the chemicals if I had started a little earlier.

Yes you need a limited amount of technical savvie.

I can also draw parallels to my musical career as (Pekka still is and will probably understand where I am coming from) I was a bassist for 25 Years and there are people who will judge you on your equipment and people who will judge you on your musical skills (ear etc)

I played on mediocre equipment for many years but was still well respected for my skills. When I could eventually afford pro level equipment I used to get irritated at receiving more positive comments because of my gear than my playing.
I was taught by a Jazz bassist who taught me to get the sound with my fingers and soul, not the equipment and 'less is more'

My rule of thumb has always been learn the skills first and foremost and buy the best equipment you can afford which will hopefully free you up to become more creative.

I'm fond of an old saying when talking about people with top equipment but no natural skill... "You can't polish a turd' !!!

[Steven M. Anthony]

Samdring: I think part of your confusion is based on the stereotype you have for artists--at least photographers. There is no reason to believe artists must abhor technology. One's affinity for technology is completely independent from their creative ability.

Art is expression. People who are technically proficient in the tools they use to express make "good art." WHat many people just don't understand is the simple fact that the photos we take--at least those we choose to take--are expressions of something we want to say. Most people "evaluate" photos on technical aspects because they A) have no idea what the artist was trying to express (which CAN be hard to ascertain) or B) don't realize everything is a symbol for something else (this one requires some deep thought), or both.

[bachscuttler]

Samdring: I think part of your confusion is based on the stereotype you have for artists--at least photographers. There is no reason to believe artists must abhor technology. One's affinity for technology is completely independent from their creative ability.

Art is expression. People who are technically proficient in the tools they use to express make "good art." WHat many people just don't understand is the simple fact that the photos we take--at least those we choose to take--are expressions of something we want to say. Most people "evaluate" photos on technical aspects because they A) have no idea what the artist was trying to express (which CAN be hard to ascertain) or B) don't realize everything is a symbol for something else (this one requires some deep thought), or both.
Well said!

[dewmuw]

I remember sitting in an art lesson when I was about 14 years old trying to draw, from a postcard, a picture of a hill with a small copse on the right skyline. My art teacher stood behind me for a moment and then stabbed his knife (used for sharpening pencils) into the middle of my drawing and said "You'll never be an artist lad, stop trying." I had been trying to get a faithful rendition of the image onto paper, but no matter how hard I tried and no matter how clear I could see the imagine in my mind's eye, I couldn't make the pencil form the right lines and shapes. I don't think I've ever sat down with paper and pencils since that day and tried to draw something.

When I first picked up a camera I noticed that I didn't want to shoot pictures of people at parties, I was always looking at the flowers and the landscape around me. Recently (you may have noticed) many of my posts have been of fungi, I posted one picture on another forum which received two comments - one complimenting me on my 'eye', the other for my composition and sharpness. Perhaps there is a 14 year old artist struggling to come out, but I just haven't developed the right technical skills yet. One day I'll take the shot of the hill with the copse and think "Lad, you've made it."

[sdommin]

My minds picture of a 'left bank' artist shows an abhorrence of technology.

There's no reason that you can't be both an artist and a technician, especially in today's digital world. For example, Ansel Adams had as much or more technical knowledge than any photographer before or since. And his art speaks for itself. The key is to have sufficient quantities of both.

[Belmondo]

I am neither, but with effort, I could possibly become a technician. I am fully satisfied that I will never be an artist.

:rolleyes::o

[Longwatcher]

While I don't consider my self an Artist, I do try to express my artistic side through my photography.

The artistic part is composing the scene and then chosing the crop and enhancements that make the picture say what I want it to. Choosing color or BW is an artistic choice. Choosing when to take a picture is an artistic choice. Deciding which anomalies to edit out and which to leave is an artistic choice.

The technical part is knowing how to get my camera and software to do what I want it to do. Knowing that you need to shoot at 1/125 at f8 to get the right exposure is a technical choice.

Wanting my lights to cast shadows in a certain way is an artistic choice, knowing how to make them cast the light that way is a technical decision.

I know some painter type artists and they can go into minute detail on the oils, ink or pencils they use and why they use those instead of something else. They know more about different canvases then I know about printer paper. And yet they routinely produce wonderful paintings and drawings that I might be able to match once per decade if I tried using their equipment.

So Photography is both art and skill. Both can be taught to a certain extent. Some one can learn all the technical aspects they can remember, but they can only learn what people like by experience which lets them acquire artistic ability in the eyes of others.

Just my opinion and philosophy,

[CDickinson]

I guess I have to agree with you Pekka.
To do artistic work you have to know tools and technique. And more than anything you have to have talent, ie, a combination of vision, knowledge of technique and tools, and creativity to create art.
And art is not just expression...if it was, everyone would be a Carravagio, a Picasso, an Edward Weston because basically everyone attemtping to use their tools of their medium is expressing something. My grandmother playing her piano at the cabin was not Bach but she was expressing her joy when she played.
You can know your tools and techniques and be very good at it. Does that make you an artist ? Nope. Does it make you creative? Nope. You can sell 10 photographs to someone, does that make you a talented art photographer? Not necessarily....you can possess all the passion the universe has in it and all the drive to express yourself but it will not determine your talent level nor will it determine your place in art history...because along with vision, talent, tools and technique we are also dependant on the market and who determines what is great art and we dependant on our communties acceptance of what is great or good or not good.....much like the shamans of indigenous people. We are either embraced or shunned depending on our communities needs....I"m remembering a question I used to ask myself when I was doing a lot of bronze work "who is my community?" and "what good is this work to it?".

C

[Steven M. Anthony]

I guess I have to agree with you Pekka.
To do artistic work you have to know tools and technique. And more than anything you have to have talent, ie, a combination of vision, knowledge of technique and tools, and creativity to create art.
And art is not just expression...if it was, everyone would be a Carravagio, a Picasso, an Edward Weston because basically everyone attemtping to use their tools of their medium is expressing something. My grandmother playing her piano at the cabin was not Bach but she was expressing her joy when she played.
You can know your tools and techniques and be very good at it. Does that make you an artist ? Nope. Does it make you creative? Nope. You can sell 10 photographs to someone, does that make you a talented art photographer? Not necessarily....you can possess all the passion the universe has in it and all the drive to express yourself but it will not determine your talent level nor will it determine your place in art history...because along with vision, talent, tools and technique we are also dependant on the market and who determines what is great art and we dependant on our communties acceptance of what is great or good or not good.....much like the shamans of indigenous people. We are either embraced or shunned depending on our communities needs....I"m remembering a question I used to ask myself when I was doing a lot of bronze work "who is my community?" and "what good is this work to it?".

C

Yes--while art is expression, it is also more than just expression. But at its base, art is an expression. And one need not create at the level of a Picasso or Weston to create art. When my kid paints his feelings it is as much "art" as any masterpiece. One could argue that everyone has a combination of vision, knowledge of technique and tools, and creativity--what you call talent. Like you point out, what distinguishes a "great artist" from the rest of us is, among other subjective things, dictated by circumstance and public opinion. If nobody liked Picasso's work and no one considered his style to be "artistic or creative," if he had been born 400 years earlier--or later--than he was, he wouldn't be considered a great artist.

I consider myself an artist in that I endeavor to express myself through my photography--and work to better this expression from a technical and creative standpoint. For me, the word "artist" isn't magical. Maybe that's because my sister is an artist and she is still just my sister--and my neighbor growing up was an artist and he was just my neighbor. At this point, I don't think of my work in the context of what value the photographic community will find in it. That might come later--for now, I'm just doing it for me. :)

[eosster]

Agree with Pekka, Ansel Adams even worked on his prints with diffenent print technique..

Cheers,

Charles,

[CDickinson]

I think the question "are we artists or technicians" is pretty much the same as asking "is he an artist or is he a craftsman?" Its also as old an issue as "is it art or is it craft"....and there are no definitive answers anymore---maybe that lack of definitiveness came about when Duchamp stuck a urinal in his latest exhibit.
Because there are not answers really, most of us are left to sort it out ourselves or rely on whomever we decide is an authority figure with answers. I can only answer from my base which, for good or bad, comes from being schooled in the arts and then having formed my own ideas about what art is or isn't and what craft is or isn't/what an artist is or isn't and what a craftsman is or isn't.....like all baggage, that sometimes serves me well and sometimes fails me horribly.

So, with that in mind, I'll endeavor to make a few statements about how I look at work/art...in particular when I critique something.

First thing I do, is look at intention, context and content, quality, impact and presentation. And then I start asking myself questions.

Whats the intention of the artist? is it political? emotional? satire? art? etc..
Unfortunately intent isn't the only issue in trying to "see" what someone is doing...the intent of expressing is found in most people but it doesn't mean they do it well with either language or art in any of its meduims. And tho our kids might "feel" like artists when they are making something, it does not mean they are or will be in their futures. By the same token it does not make artist "magical" but the process at times, can be.

How well does the context/content of the art interact, intersect with the intentions of the artist?

Is the work exceptional in its insight?
Is the artist exceptional in his/her insight?
Is the work exceptional in its artistic process?
And, what do these three answers I come up with tell me about where this artist is in her/his own process?

What is the quality of the work ?
Is the work sophisticated in its techniques to achieve the artists purpose?
Has the artist taken little or great care in the execution of it?
Is the work exceptional in its quality?

What impact is the work having on me?
Is it unusual in its insight?
Is the artist pushing envelopes - including his/her own?
Where is it complex in its message and/or art form?
Is it original in its message or art form?
Is it creative in its message or art form?
If its a photograph I'm critiquing I ask myself, can I take this out of its frame and put the words "The Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota" in this photograph's place inside the frame and will everyone walking by it, who knows the boundary waters, have an image inside their heads of some place there? If they do, the envelope hasn't been pushed.

(To diverge a bit here is something I found and unfortunately don't remember where but I wrote it down adn it pretty much sums up my definition of creativity/artistic/talent

"Synonyms and Antonyms
Words that are similar to creative or creativity:


Innovative
New
Novel
Original
Forward-thinking
Pushing the envelope
I intend to avoid "mission creep", or redefining creativity to include other topics. Creativity is not the same as:


Intelligence
Kindness
Goodness
Wisdom
Being a good role model
Being supportive of others
Happiness
Joy
Fulfillment
Success"
I apologize to the author for not having a reference.)


Is this work deep and rich in evidence that the artist has researched his/her ideas, art forms and techniques?

Am I saying "wow" and for what reasons?

What communities would appreciate this work and why?
(ie, we exist in many, many communities not just the photographic community...for example, we lve in a home, on a street or road, in a neighborhood, in a precinct, in township, in a county, in a state, in a country, in a continent, on a planet, in a universe. We live in various cultures and genders and sexual preferences and religions.)


So. Thats what I ask myself when I'm looking at work.
If I'm looking at the work with the "artist"I take a look at how open they are to responses from others.
I look at who they ask for responses or if they ask at all.
I watch to see if they stay open to the response and if they are willing to change, listen and consider the opinions of others.
I listen and watch to see if they are really listening or if they are shut down or if they are talking a mile a minute and over everyone.
All that will tell me something about who they are not only as an artist but as a personality.....are they open? or are they exhibiting behavior that is generally fear based.
I tend to give much more credit and latitude to people who are open to listening to different kinds of people and not just their cronies or whom they consider their cronies or whom they consider an authority...some of the best advice and comments on our work comes from people vastly different from ourselves in vastly different areas.
I also tend to be much more responsive to people who go out and explore the comments.

So. Are we artists or technicians? Depends on who is looking, asking, and forming their opinions. There are plenty of good and great photographers who do wonderful work. Is it commercial work ? Is it decorative work? Is it journalism? Is it art? Is it craft?
For me its art when its something I have never seen before and probably never will see again. And that person, I will call an artist because of the uniqueness of the work. That does not mean I don't appreciate others or devalue them. It means I consider them under another definition.

With that, I'll bid you great shooting weather, an interesting creative process, and many decent photographs and also a I"ll leave you a few photographs of Andy Goldsworthy....whom I would consider an artist because no one, absolutely no one would see this like him---great landscapes and he alters them by putting peat on rock or adding leaves and color where it isnt.

C

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v139/CDickinson/examples/photoandyblack.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v139/CDickinson/examples/photoandyred.jpg

[KennyG]

I regarded myself as an artist when I used oil paints (yes, I have a hidden past), now I do what could be classified as journalistic photography. I don't regard my photographic work as art and would be really concerned if it were judged as such. The whole concept of deciding if a person is a good photographer because in someone's judgement their work is 'art' does not sit at all well with me.

If someone here in the UK decides that an unmade bed is art (true by the way), well there are a few million artists in this country alone.

[Moppie]

don't realize everything is a symbol for something else (this one requires some deep thought), or both.

This requires some very strong justification, and a deep understanding of the work of Plato, or depending on your background some of the more abstract 20th centuary French philosophers who flirted with Platos ideas.

And if justified, the deeper, subconsious intentions do not have to be artisitic, and I think if you dig deep enough you will find that all intentions are orginaly moral ones, not artistic ones.

[Steven M. Anthony]

I guess I see the question of "are we artist or technicians" to be a false dichotomy. We can be artists AND technicians. I also see "artist" as less of an official title--or job description--and more of a spiritual title--a description of how one relates to the world. So I consider myself an artist. Not a particularly good artist, but an artist nonetheless. My kid's paintings of his feelings isn't particularly good art, but it is art nonetheless as it is a purposeful representation of something inside of him. At this point, I would not consider him an artist as doing paintings like this isn't part of his life on a regular basis.

But I can see how you reserve the title for something more formal, having been through art school. I'm sure my simplistic definition doesn't do the art world justice in terms of the intense study trained artists go through!

[Steven M. Anthony]

I regarded myself as an artist when I used oil paints (yes, I have a hidden past), now I do what could be classified as journalistic photography. I don't regard my photographic work as art and would be really concerned if it were judged as such. The whole concept of deciding if a person is a good photographer because in someone's judgement their work is 'art' does not sit at all well with me.

If someone here in the UK decides that an unmade bed is art (true by the way), well there are a few million artists in this country alone.

Good point (about your work). The presence of intent (yours being to capture the essence of what's going on without bias) is not enough to make one an artist. For me, what makes one an artist is the use of photography (painting, etc.) as a means to express something within them. With your photojournalisism work, you are not expressing something within you (assuming you are told where to go and what event (etc.) to shoot), you are trying to capture what is there with the intent of showing others what is there.

As far as the bed goes--I agree with you that there are millions of "artists" out there. To CD's point--not all of us are very good!

[Steven M. Anthony]

This requires some very strong justification, and a deep understanding of the work of Plato, or depending on your background some of the more abstract 20th centuary French philosophers who flirted with Platos ideas.

And if justified, the deeper, subconsious intentions do not have to be artisitic, and I think if you dig deep enough you will find that all intentions are orginaly moral ones, not artistic ones.

I'm approaching this more from a psychoanalytic and a neuroscience stance. Our brains are symbolic processors. Few of us are so concrete as to see a given object as just what it is. A drill isn't just a thing that looks like a gun with a sharp thing that spins at the end. It's a means to achieve something else. A Rolls Royce isn't just a way to get from A to B, we regard it as a symbol for other things as well.

When we see something we want to make an image of, it is because we are relating to the thing symbolically. A sunset is "pretty" because of how it makes us feel and/or the associations we have to similar scenes.

As for subconscious intentions being artistic--no, I don't think it's useful to consider subconscious intentions "artistic," (nor do I think they are intrinsically moral, as morality is a societal convention). I see art as the EXPRESSION of these intentions. Producing a work of art is the process of getting those subconscious intentions out into the world.

[lomond]

I'll probably get flamed for this but still !

I have viewed many photographs that are artistic, but is it art ?

How do we achieve an image:
1. We consider where and when to shoot.
2. We choose the appropriate equipment.
3. We compose the shot.
4. We press a button. ( lay it on me )
5. We process the shot in Photoshop etc.
6. We print the image.

So where does the art come in ? Well perhaps #1 and #3. The rest I would say is more technical, how competent we might be with our graphics package.
We can make artistic images but in my opinion it is not true art. We are copying nature or the human body or whatever, but we are using a tool to copy an image. Would we say Leonardo was an artist if he used tracing paper to copy the Mona Lisa. I know it's a ridiculous statement but you get the idea.
So to sum up, yes art is involved, but to a lesser degree than lets say a painter. In my opinion a painter is an artist with some technical skills, where as a photographer is a technician with some artistic skills.
OK I've had my say. So flay me.

Cameron

[Steven M. Anthony]

I'll probably get flamed for this but still !

I have viewed many photographs that are artistic, but is it art ?

How do we achieve an image:
1. We consider where and when to shoot.
2. We choose the appropriate equipment.
3. We compose the shot.
4. We press a button. ( lay it on me )
5. We process the shot in Photoshop etc.
6. We print the image.

So where does the art come in ? Well perhaps #1 and #3. The rest I would say is more technical, how competent we might be with our graphics package.
We can make artistic images but in my opinion it is not true art. We are copying nature or the human body or whatever, but we are using a tool to copy an image. Would we say Leonardo was an artist if he used tracing paper to copy the Mona Lisa. I know it's a ridiculous statement but you get the idea.
So to sum up, yes art is involved, but to a lesser degree than lets say a painter. In my opinion a painter is an artist with some technical skills, where as a photographer is a technician with some artistic skills.
OK I've had my say. So flay me.

Cameron

You won't get flayed by me!

I think the artistic process comes into play at all stages you described.

And photogs do more than just copy what is already there. What is there exists in 4 dimensions. As photogs, we take 4 dimensions and compress them into 2. We are not COPYING what is there, we are INTERPRETING what is there and making it something else. I get your point if all I did was take photos of paintings. And I get that feeling when I see photos of statuary--but even those can provide a new take on the sculpture that one might not ordinarily have.

The whole point of the "technical" aspects of a particular medium is to better enable the artist to get their message across in their art work. I don't think you can really separate the art from the technique--regardless of the medium. Without the technical aspects of painting, there would be no paintings--no matter what the artistic intentions.

[lomond]

Steven, surely the artist has something in his mind that he wants to project, even if he uses a model. The photographer is stuck with what is infront of him. He may use a filter or something to change the light but essentially it's what's in front of him he records......records!

Cameron

[Steven M. Anthony]

One could view that as a constraint the photog has to overcome that the painter does not! To me, that makes the painter's work easier!! Don't forget that a photog can move and even set up a shot in a stidio...

[lomond]

Steven, the difference in longitude has beaten me. I'm afraid I have to get up early tomorrow to accompany my wife to the sales. Where is the art in that!!
Would be delighted to continue the discussion later, however I have to say goodnight.
Cameron

[bachscuttler]

Steven, surely the artist has something in his mind that he wants to project, even if he uses a model. The photographer is stuck with what is infront of him. He may use a filter or something to change the light but essentially it's what's in front of him he records......records!

CameronThe artist has something in his mind that he wants to project, which is a gift (that can be further developed) but he has the gift and skill to transfer the image in his minds eye to transfer this to canvas or paper which requires dexterity etc.
The resulting work can come completely out of the minds eye with no subject matter in front of the artist.

I beleive the true artistic photographers aren't the purists who insist on no or minimum post editing, but the ones who further their ideas once it is off-camera.
The same applies to photographers, if you overdo it you end up with a muddy mess.

Photographers share some skills with artists, a good eye for subject matter and composition.

Clicking a shutter button is easier than paint by numbers.

[Steven M. Anthony]

The artist has something in his mind that he wants to project, which is a gift (that can be further developed) but he has the gift and skill to transfer the image in his minds eye to transfer this to canvas or paper which requires dexterity etc.
The resulting work can come completely out of the minds eye with no subject matter in front of the artist.

I beleive the true artistic photographers aren't the purists who insist on no or minimum post editing, but the ones who further their ideas once it is off-camera.
The same applies to photographers, if you overdo it you end up with a muddy mess.

Photographers share some skills with artists, a good eye for subject matter and composition.

Clicking a shutter button is easier than paint by numbers.

But every photographer has something in mind that s/he wants to project. I think CD (above) would hold the title of "artist" for those who are skilled at bringing this "something" out of their mind and into the world. I am less concerned with the quality of the art produced and more on the mental process--and the ease or difficulty of the physical creation process is irrelevant. So we are all artists on a continuum from crappy to great (IMO).

[bachscuttler]

But every photographer has something in mind that s/he wants to project. I think CD (above) would hold the title of "artist" for those who are skilled at bringing this "something" out of their mind and into the world. I am less concerned with the quality of the art produced and more on the mental process--and the ease or difficulty of the physical creation process is irrelevant. So we are all artists on a continuum from crappy to great (IMO).Thats a fair point.
A lot of people think that thousands of bucks worth of gear makes them better and are very focused on quality of the end result, thats why they spend so much money and so be it, a good craftsman deserves the best tools he can afford.
I would tend to agree with you, I lean towards the mental process and mentally, a photographer can be just as creative as an artist.

I can't give qualified expert opinions on photography, I'm humbled here in the presence of so many greats, but I was trained as an artist so I think I am in a position to throw my dollars worth in.

I took up photography because it is a way of expressing oneself and is creative, and results in creations that are pleasing to the eye, which surely is what Art is about?

I enjoy both equally.

Saying that clicking a shutter button is like paint by numbers was a stupid thing to say in retrospect so by all means jump on my head and chastise :o

[Steven M. Anthony]

Thats a fair point.
A lot of people think that thousands of bucks worth of gear makes them better and are very focused on quality of the end result, thats why they spend so much money and so be it, a good craftsman deserves the best tools he can afford.
I would tend to agree with you, I lean towards the mental process and mentally, a photographer can be just as creative as an artist.

I can't give qualified expert opinions on photography, I'm humbled here in the presence of so many greats, but I was trained as an artist so I think I am in a position to throw my dollars worth in.

I took up photography because it is a way of expressing oneself and is creative, and results in creations that are pleasing to the eye, which surely is what Art is about?

I enjoy both equally.

Saying that clicking a shutter button is like paint by numbers was a stupid thing to say in retrospect so by all means jump on my head and chastise :o

I sometimes have to remind myself that the gear I have now is great--on par with the film-based system I used before switching full-time to digital. I can get caught up in "the next cool gadget" very easily. I will say that having Photoshop CS has allowed me to reach more of my personal artistic goals than I was able to achieve with PaintShop Pro. So that was $$ well spent, as was going from P&S digital to DSLR. If only the new gear wasn't so cool... :)

As far as the quote goes, it seems you've learned your lesson. All is forgiven. :)

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

Interesting topic, good discussion.

Is there many ways to look at this?

If I see a photo-jounalist type scene, car accident/fire/everyday life, I'm a photographer.

If I'm walking down the riverside and see a scene of iced trees and steaming water, and I set up and take a picture, I'm taking a picture that could be artistic.

If I imagine a vivid colour palate in morning light with fantastic shadows, I set this up and take a picture, I've created art. (Not a bad idea, I'll have to try this:D )

Personal interpretation of the the activity would decide wether it is art or a technical copy of the scene.

Some paint with oils and water colour, some with lead or ink, I try to paint with light and occassionaly get it close.

[CDickinson]

Wow...this thread is getting pretty interesting....I don't have much to add at this point. I think I took up enough time on my first post. I do have to say tho --- I really appreciate reading posts that keep to the "I" when addressing photography, creative process, shooting process, etc.. And I guess I appreciate it because I have a hard time digesting broad, sweeping statements about the photography process.

And Jazz - thanks for your post....I think I work in pretty similiar processes - sometimes its journalism, sometimes its art, sometimes is a crazy snapshot. And your statement "Personal interpretation of the the activity would decide wether it is art or a technical copy of the scene." speaks very loudly to me!
Thanks everyone!

C

[Steven M. Anthony]

Interesting topic, good discussion.

Is there many ways to look at this?

If I see a photo-jounalist type scene, car accident/fire/everyday life, I'm a photographer.

If I'm walking down the riverside and see a scene of iced trees and steaming water, and I set up and take a picture, I'm taking a picture that could be artistic.

If I imagine a vivid colour palate in morning light with fantastic shadows, I set this up and take a picture, I've created art. (Not a bad idea, I'll have to try this:D )

Personal interpretation of the the activity would decide wether it is art or a technical copy of the scene.

Some paint with oils and water colour, some with lead or ink, I try to paint with light and occassionaly get it close.

At the risk of not using the word "I," one needs to consider how we, as human beings, "work," when considering what IS and what IS NOT are.

We can't help but bring our point of view to everything we do. If you take a photo as a journalist, there are still dozens of ways you can shoot it--yet you choose only a few. The few you choose says something about you--whether you want it said or not! ;)

When you take the riverside photo, there is something within you that wants to get out--something your subconscious wants to say. Taking the photo help it get out.

The same holds true for a studio shot.

I like the notion of personal interpretation--to a point. We, as humans, are notoriously bad at correctly identifying our own motivations. Our initial interpretations of what we do are rarely the whole story.

What struck me as I was writing the above (yeah for "I"!), is that while there is a personal point of view in each of the 3 scenarios you brought up, only 2 are likely to be the result of a desire to "let the message out." The photojournalistic work sems to me motivated MORE by other things.

A question for you though. When shooting pj shots, do you really divorce your creative eye? Do you shut down your creative side? I don't pretend to be a photojournalist but sometimes I'll be the "official photog" of some school event (where I hand out photos to several set of parents). Even when I'm shooting when my kid isn't in the scene, I'm always trying to add some creative aspect to the shot--trying to let the photo tell more of the story than what's in front of the lens.

I quess what I'm trying to get at is whether there is a continuum of "artisticness." And whether there is a zero-point on the scale or whether there is always some level of artistic expression in a photo.

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

The concept of "I" in artistic creation and appreciation, to me, is very important. If others like what I would consider art, that's just icing on the cake. What sings to me, may be a screech to others, but it is still sweet to me.

Would I prefer others to agree with my interpretation of art? Hell yeah! That is just ego. Can I appreciate others interpretaion of art? Yes, usually.

Am I an artist? Can I recreate what I see, in reality or in my mind, with clarity and emotion? Is just the attempt to do so that makes me an artist?

My tools are the camera, lens and post-processing. These tools can be highly technical, but no worse than knowing the right brush, stroke, or paint to use.

The tools do not make the artist.

Am I an artist or a technician? Yes.

A PJ will shoot the scene to tell the story, and will use both technical and artistic knowledge to convey the message. Is it their message or a copy of the scene? How much of their input created the scene? Is it art or reporting? Sometimes it is art, usually reporting.

Photographing scenery is usually taking advantage of an existing situation, and using skills and interpretation to convey a message inherent by the photographer. Usually this is art, sometimes reporting.

A studio shot where the photographer creates the scene and knows their desired impact, is giving their own message a voice, is creating art.

Does skill level determine whether it is art or technical copying? No.
Does public acceptance and acknowledgement determine whether it is art or technical copying? No.
Does the intent of the person using the tools determine whether it is art or techncial copying? Yes, and it is the only determination.

Just my opinion.

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

I think a parallel question would be:

Who determines whether it is art, the observer or the creator?

My opinion is pretty clear in my previous post.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Jim:

Some selected quotes and comments...

"If others like what I would consider art, that's just icing on the cake. What sings to me, may be a screech to others, but it is still sweet to me."

I agree--art is what I make. I make it primarily for me--but also to share my statement with outher. I am personally more concerned with people hearing my message than "liking" what I have to say (which might be evident in other threads I've participated in...! :) ).

"Can I appreciate others interpretaion of art? Yes, usually."

I'm with you here, too. I rarely question whether something is "art" or not. I don't always LIKE what others consider art, but to me that is a different issue.

"Am I an artist or a technician? Yes."

Precisely why the question is a false dichotomy. It's not a matter of either or.

"A PJ will shoot the scene to tell the story, ... Is it art or reporting? Sometimes it is art, usually reporting."

It sounds to me like there is always at least a little art involved. I suppose if a PJ is running from an ambush and clicks off shots behind them as they run for cover... those might not involve much in the way of art. But I think once the PJ makes choices, then art comes into play--even if only in a small way.

"Who determines whether it is art, the observer or the creator?"

I think both determine this from their own perspective, for themselves. Certainly, for me, whatever I create as a work of art is art to me. But if someone else looks at it and does NOT consider it art, then to them it is not art. I could try to convince them that by definition what I created is art. But if they don't see it as art, they will likely just discard the definition! This is where the notion of "I" is important.

Thanks for the exchange. It's helped me clarify my thinking on the issue.

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

Steven,

It has been a good exchange, I've enjoyed thinking this one through.

Regards,