Artist ???

tonylong wrote in post #15498952
Heh! Another "Interesting POTN Discussion"!

I agree that the OP doesn't need to waste energy on an individual who calls him/herself an "artist", and then to waste our energy by ranting about it!

That being said, we've had some very interesting discussions here with some pretty accomplished and insightul photogs about what consitutes a photograph as "art", what criteria?

One or two people will actually go as far to say that most photography is not art. It may be documenting an interesting scene, event, people, but it's more about the craft and vision of that documentation process, but falls short of what at least these folks consider "art".

For my "work", I dunno. I've spent a lot of time shooting what gets called "fine art" photography, although for me it first requires that NATURE be the "artist" for much of my shooting, whether it be a cool landscape scene, a beautiful flower, a macro of a very cool bug...or, maybe I'm looking to catch "scenes" and "character" in my street photography or event photography, waiting for something that meets my criteria as "interesting" or whatever...

It should be said that we've seen some serious disagreements in these discussions, so you might consider them "futile", but I have had my thought processes stirred up numerous times.

I do not at this point consider myself an "artist", maybe never will, but I do seek to open myself up to "creative vision" and I do look for good "subject matter"!

I think my whole issue with the "is it art" debate is that whatever side I end up on, I can't really say that it matters.

It's like, if I question if something is art and then I come to the conclusion that it is art, so what? Being "art" doesn't mean it's good, right? Being "art" doesn't mean that there's any kind of value to it, does it?

Alternatively, I could question if something is art and then decide that no, it is not art. Again...so what? Not being "art" doesn't really mean that it's not cool as hell. Not being "art" doesn't mean that it doesn't have value or serve some kind of useful purpose.

So, to the question of "is this art?" Yes/no/maybe, is that even a meaningful question? Does it even matter whether or not it's art? I'm sort of leaning towards NO. I think the far better question is if it's any GOOD, what purpose it serves, what value it has.

Gene, yeah, I get your points, valid ones.

The effect of those discussions on me is less about a defined answer to "is it art?" and more of just a bit of sef-analyzing, looking at my process and vision, and stuff like the "Composition" subject and how it relates to me.

Of course we all see work that we love, and we see work that, well, not-so-much. But unless a photo by someone else inspires me or at least gets me thinking, well, I move on!

Clean Gene wrote in post #15499021
I think my whole issue with the "is it art" debate is that whatever side I end up on, I can't really say that it matters.

It's like, if I question if something is art and then I come to the conclusion that it is art, so what? Being "art" doesn't mean it's good, right? Being "art" doesn't mean that there's any kind of value to it, does it?

Alternatively, I could question if something is art and then decide that no, it is not art. Again...so what? Not being "art" doesn't really mean that it's not cool as hell. Not being "art" doesn't mean that it doesn't have value or serve some kind of useful purpose.

So, to the question of "is this art?" Yes/no/maybe, is that even a meaningful question? Does it even matter whether or not it's art? I'm sort of leaning towards NO. I think the far better question is if it's any GOOD, what purpose it serves, what value it has.

Gene, everything you say here is "spot on". What you say generally mirrors my thoughts on this issue, I am just unable to articulate it so well. Thanks!

If he has a great camera that takes nice pictures, then he's an artist.

The problem with the 'subjectivity' of art is that its ambiguity becomes a crutch for some people. Well, they might say to themselves, art is so fluidly subjective and, consequently, lacks any real meaning that I don't have to aspire to such realm. Besides, look at the criminal amount of pretentiousness and politics involved in the 'art world.'

And these sentiments are not altogether wrong. Art is subjective, and it has historically been entwined with political favoritism, marketing, and pretentious assumptions.

Now, just to clarify, not all, perhaps not most, photography aspires to be 'art.' And as such, I recognize this issue doesn't apply to all photographers by any means.

However, I have my own sense of art, one that establishes a certain level of quality and expectation. Whether I myself am producing 'art' is not the concern, but instead, whether I'm attaining the aesthetic level that I seek with my photography. And in this, there are certain artistic elements that are relevant, and the existence of the arts certainly helps reveal these elements. They are not cemented rules and nor is this just a matter of blind emulation. Instead, through the art of others, I hope to develop a better instinct beneficial to my photography.

If I am to wholly dismiss the notion of art, then I should be one to wholly dismiss the aesthetic, which would be detrimental to my goals.

This is just my take, of course.

HiepBuiPhotography wrote in post #15496880
One of the worst rants I've read on PotN. Let him call whatever he wants to label himself.

In this day and age, I can poo on a piece of paper and consider that art and myself an artist. I've seen art exhibits of just a urinal, a painting that's completely blue, something that looks like a color palette from home depot, etc. (all from the Philadelphia Art Museum). You name it, they have it. Art is subjective, so anything can be considered art. That being said, if he wants to label his photographs art, then so be it. It shouldn't bother you at all. If I want to label myself the best wedding photographer in the universe, so be it. Whether it's true or not, he himself knows. Period.

Agreed. My wife is an artist. She went to art school, has a degree in art, teaches art full time.

Me? I am a fartist.....

......"but, is it art"?....

I am an artist...sometimes...w​ith no degree of regularity.
You might compare me to the proverbial blind squirrel with my "art" being the acorn.

Kronie wrote in post #15500574
Me? I am a fartist.....

......"but, is it art"?....

It can be, do you do it with flair and artistically?

Todd Lambert wrote in post #15497044
I'm a fartist.

Man, I just noticed you beat me to this!

I guess I could be.......a shartist?

One thing that is true in almost all art is the artist. That means you see some of the artist in his/her work. Judging art is not as subjective as many think. My advice is work honestly. That means don't do it for money or praise but do it for the right reasons. Rarely is anything created for commercial reasons and I say that in the context of anything created for money art. Create and don't worry whether what you are doing is art. Wasn't it Steichen that said art for arts sake is dead if it ever lived. Don't worry about whether to call your work art or not just create but you can pretty much bet if its obvious or only a factual document or a noun its probably not art. Now if you can show what the object or idea is/means to you, the photographer and also if we can see some of the photographer in the work then just maybe you might be getting close but leave that to history and the ones that judge those kinds of things.

sjones wrote in post #15500487
The problem with the 'subjectivity' of art is that its ambiguity becomes a crutch for some people. Well, they might say to themselves, art is so fluidly subjective and, consequently, lacks any real meaning that I don't have to aspire to such realm. Besides, look at the criminal amount of pretentiousness and politics involved in the 'art world.'

And these sentiments are not altogether wrong. Art is subjective, and it has historically been entwined with political favoritism, marketing, and pretentious assumptions.

Now, just to clarify, not all, perhaps not most, photography aspires to be 'art.' And as such, I recognize this issue doesn't apply to all photographers by any means.

However, I have my own sense of art, one that establishes a certain level of quality and expectation. Whether I myself am producing 'art' is not the concern, but instead, whether I'm attaining the aesthetic level that I seek with my photography. And in this, there are certain artistic elements that are relevant, and the existence of the arts certainly helps reveal these elements. They are not cemented rules and nor is this just a matter of blind emulation. Instead, through the art of others, I hope to develop a better instinct beneficial to my photography.

If I am to wholly dismiss the notion of art, then I should be one to wholly dismiss the aesthetic, which would be detrimental to my goals.

This is just my take, of course.

I think all the above is spot on - especially the second half.

It also uses 'marketing' for (I think) the first time in this thread. It sounds to me as if the person the OP describes is using the term 'artist' as part of his marketing approach. And we all know that marketing involves some exaggeration, is not necessarily to be taken too seriously. In the end members of his audience/market will decide for themselves - and who is to say they are wrong?

An interesting discussion anyway

NWPhil wrote in post #15496864
Other people care, and believe in it because he call himself such ..and they don't know better.

Randy says it well, that you have to earn the title - just like the appalachian trail thru hikers - they are given a nickname; they don't choose one

Yes, he can call himself one, just like anyone else can. I seen him in action - he is not in pursue of intelectual recognizition, therefore my useless rant about this.

Just FYI, half the thru hikers I met while doing the trail, chose their own name.

BenjaminJ wrote in post #15504374
Just FYI, half the thru hikers I met while doing the trail, chose their own name.

Well that's cause a significant portion of the hikers are hiking alone so who would give them their nicknames?

gjl711 wrote in post #15504385
Well that's cause a significant portion of the hikers are hiking alone so who would give them their nicknames?

People you meet on the trail. You meet a ton of people on you way through. I solo hiked the georgia section, and while you might be alone during the day while hiking, your almost never alone at night at the camp sites.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15502315
One thing that is true in almost all art is the artist. That means you see some of the artist in his/her work. Judging art is not as subjective as many think. My advice is work honestly. That means don't do it for money or praise but do it for the right reasons. Rarely is anything created for commercial reasons and I say that in the context of anything created for money art. Create and don't worry whether what you are doing is art. Wasn't it Steichen that said art for arts sake is dead if it ever lived. Don't worry about whether to call your work art or not just create but you can pretty much bet if its obvious or only a factual document or a noun its probably not art. Now if you can show what the object or idea is/means to you, the photographer and also if we can see some of the photographer in the work then just maybe you might be getting close but leave that to history and the ones that judge those kinds of things.

Well said, Allen.