What Validates You as an Artist

OhLook wrote in post #18829857
It sounds like it now, thanks.

Creative seeing, I suspect, is something like a meditative state. Mental activity at those times seems different from what works for ordinary tasks.

It's definitely therapeutic. Nothing clears the head like grabbing a camera and heading out with the goal to photograph something and turning that mind's eye on. It forces you to try to find the beauty in the everyday things. We definitely need more of that in the world....negativity bias is a powerful thing.

mystik610 wrote in post #18830277
It's definitely therapeutic. Nothing clears the head like grabbing a camera and heading out with the goal to photograph something and turning that mind's eye on. It forces you to try to find the beauty in the everyday things. We definitely need more of that in the world....negativity bias is a powerful thing.

It got me through a really ugly divorce 20+ years ago and saved me a ton on therapy ha ha. Seriously.

Reaction and emotion.

Does what I do illicit emotion? What message does it send?

I work almost exclusively in time-based media, so the satisfaction of building a compelling narrative/story is validating. Anyone can grab a camera and record something, but storytelling is a craft in of itself that requires a fair amount of experience. There's a certain pride and good feeling when you're able to create a very simple shot while the sound does the heavy lifting of the story. Let the viewer experience the raw moment, or let them live in the on-screen world when doing something fictional. I'm a firm believer in the "story is king" principle. Everything is there to support it, from talent to lighting, sound, and lastly (and sometimes not present at all) camera, is all there to support the story.

If someone comes up to me, and tells me they've experienced a certain emotion, or learned something new, then I feel that I've done my job.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18829471
The problem with the five things that you mention here are that they all look to other people for validation.

The way I see it is that if photographers or any other artists look to others for validation, then the world of art is in a sad state.

I think you have a good point, and the OP question is possibly impossible to answer.

One person can validate themselves. Let's say a 5th grader looks at a pottery for sale and thinks to themselves "hey, I've made something that good - even better" - then decides to sell or display their own piece, they've just validated themselves. Especially if they are right, according to what many others may think later on.

In a way, I can equate the OP question to tree discovery. In the USA, American Forests maintains a big tree registry, and various big tree hunters nominate their finds. Then American Forests has it measured, and if it's big enough, they validate it as a new champion.

In our case, we got tired of loose lips leaking our tree discoveries, and we also know how to measure accurately. There are at least 4 species of trees we discovered that we chose not to nominate, be we confidently validate them with our own stamp of approval. Coast redwood being one. This means that American Forest's listing for coast redwood is the fake champion now, and ours is the real champion, but off any public record. If we nominated, there's no question it would make their list. But we shut the valve and chose not to seek their stamp of approval anymore.

I see the parallel that you're making.

Another parallel in my world would be the measuring and scoring of a deer's antlers or a Bighorn Sheep's horns. The Boone and Crockett Association is recognized by many to be the "authority" on the quality of a Buck's antlers. Scoring is a completely objective process of taking measurements of the antlers at prescribed points on the rack.

Some wildlife photographers will shun a buck because "he wouldn't score very well". Or, "I wouldn't waste much time shooting that buck - he looks bigger than he is. Those short G-4s will really hurt his score."

Really?! People are going to let some so-called authority's scoring system dictate whether they enjoy and appreciate a particular deer? It's like some people have a weird need for someone else to tell them what they should do and what is worthwhile and what isn't worthwhile. They want, or need, others to establish a set of standards for them. If the authority doesn't rate something very highly, then they won't think highly of it, either.

I'm glad that you don't enter your trees in the tree registry thing. You know that your trees are the largest known specimens of their kind. You don't need anybody else to acknowledge it. Your own knowledge of the truth is all you need. It validates you, and you have no need for validation to come from any source. That's how everybody should be.

If people aren't sure how to feel about something until they check to see how others feel - well, that is a special kind of pathetic.

It's different for some also. As a dad I get validation when I captured that moment I saw at that instant. I prefer more of a documentary style imagery only because I struggle with posed photography. I dabble with astro/cityscape stuff when I have the time.

My editing skills aren't really up to snuff and prefer SOOC mostly. I desire to get it right in camera more than anything so when I look at the camera and see something I find worthy then I am self validating.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18830556
I see the parallel that you're making.

Another parallel in my world would be the measuring and scoring of a deer's antlers or a Bighorn Sheep's horns. The Boone and Crockett Association is recognized by many to be the "authority" on the quality of a Buck's antlers. Scoring is a completely objective process of taking measurements of the antlers at prescribed points on the rack.

Some wildlife photographers will shun a buck because "he wouldn't score very well". Or, "I wouldn't waste much time shooting that buck - he looks bigger than he is. Those short G-4s will really hurt his score."

Really?! People are going to let some so-called authority's scoring system dictate whether they enjoy and appreciate a particular deer? It's like some people have a weird need for someone else to tell them what they should do and what is worthwhile and what isn't worthwhile. They want, or need, others to establish a set of standards for them. If the authority doesn't rate something very highly, then they won't think highly of it, either.

I'm glad that you don't enter your trees in the tree registry thing. You know that your trees are the largest known specimens of their kind. You don't need anybody else to acknowledge it. Your own knowledge of the truth is all you need. It validates you, and you have no need for validation to come from any source. That's how everybody should be.

If people aren't sure how to feel about something until they check to see how others feel - well, that is a special kind of pathetic.

But using your logic about the deer antlers, why does a tree have to be among the largest known specimens in order to appreciate it? It's still a "mine's bigger than yours" mentality.

moose10101 wrote in post #18830674
But using your logic about the deer antlers, why does a tree have to be among the largest known specimens in order to appreciate it? It's still a "mine's bigger than yours" mentality.

It doesn't. I never said or implied that it did have to be huge to be appreciated.

moose10101 wrote in post #18830674
But using your logic about the deer antlers, why does a tree have to be among the largest known specimens in order to appreciate it? It's still a "mine's bigger than yours" mentality.

It doesn't. The second-largest and thousandth-largest trees are appreciated, too, by nature photographers and others. I don't know why American Forests tracks the size of trees. Maybe the effort serves preservationist concerns about the age and health of forests, who knows? But the size of natural objects does enter into emotional responses to them. Something attractive and very large brings forth awe. A smaller Grand Canyon would be less grand. (Tiny things can also be fascinating in a different way, as the Macro forum shows.)

Generally, though, this culture emphasizes being Number 1, winning first prize, reaching the top of the heap, besting all competitors. I'd like to see that change, not that the culture cares what I'd like.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18830778
It doesn't. I never said or implied that it did have to be huge to be appreciated.

"You know that your trees are the largest known specimens of their kind. You don't need anybody else to acknowledge it. Your own knowledge of the truth is all you need. It validates you"

Why would/should knowing that "validate" anyone?

moose10101 wrote in post #18830825
"You know that your trees are the largest known specimens of their kind. You don't need anybody else to acknowledge it. Your own knowledge of the truth is all you need. It validates you"

Why would/should knowing that "validate" anyone?

Please help me understand this post.

Is this your response to the OP's question?

Or is this an example of your word art in which you find your validation as a word artist?

AZGeorge wrote in post #18830919

moose10101 wrote in post #18830825
"You know that your trees are the largest known specimens of their kind. You don't need anybody else to acknowledge it. Your own knowledge of the truth is all you need. It validates you"

Why would/should knowing that "validate" anyone?

Please help me understand this post.

Is this your response to the OP's question?

Or is this an example of your word art in which you find your validation as a word artist?

I was pointing out the specific section of Tom's post that I was having trouble understanding.

moose10101 wrote in post #18830825
"You know that your trees are the largest known specimens of their kind. You don't need anybody else to acknowledge it. Your own knowledge of the truth is all you need. It validates you"

Why would/should knowing that "validate" anyone?

Based on what he said, having found the largest known tree of it's kind is important to him. I was saying that I agree with him in that his own knowledge of the tree's status is enough to satisfy him, and that he doesn't need anyone else's recognition of said fact to feel validated.
As far as why one would feel satisfaction (or validation) over having found the largest known specimen, I don't know that. I'm not the one who feels validated over finding trees, so asking me about it is kind of pointless. Ask the guy who is all about big trees.

Perhaps it's when you look at your own photo and you smile

I think if you don't ever want to share your work and only look at it yourself then all you need is you. But I find exhibiting my work to be very satisfing. I never get tired of it. I have been lucky becasue in the last 3 exhibit I have sold work but that isn't where the satisfaction comes from though it does help to pay for the mat board, frames and other logisitcs. I would say it costs well over a grand to put the work together for an exhibit. It can even be a lot more depending on the size of the prints and the amount of images you are showing. Thats cutting the mats, printing and framing yourself. It's even more if you have someone else do it. I had big exhibit at a gallery here in Chicago last June and I have this in May in Hamburg Germany. The show in Germany has been completely underwritten, Even my travel and hotel. To see your work being displayed the way it was intened to be seen is priceless.