Becoming an 'artist'

[minicoop1985]

I'M ARGUING WITH YOUR ARGUMENT

 

[pgriz]

I know (I think) Lew wrote the piece tongue-in-cheek, but from my perspective, a self-proclaimed artist is a fraud (or at least an optimist), but a person proclaimed by others to be an artist deserves the title. "You're good" carries much more weight than "I'm good".

 

[bribrius]

I know (I think) Lew wrote the piece tongue-in-cheek, but from my perspective, a self-proclaimed artist is a fraud (or at least an optimist), but a person proclaimed by others to be an artist deserves the title. "You're good" carries much more weight than "I'm good".

ummmm.... I have been called a artist. Have you seen my work? Does it look like art to you? I sure don't think of it that way, or me that way. I almost spit out my coffee the last time i heard it.

 

[limr]

I admit im biased. I just don't find 95+% of photography to be all that "artistic", and i mean that in the sense of when I think of "art" I think of something more "hand made" than a picture. I think of sculptors, or painters.

I'm asking this because I'm genuinely curious and I want to make clear that though it's my work, I am in no way emotionally invested in the way you answer.

What do you think this is? I'm not asking if you think it's good or bad. It started life as 5 instant film pictures (Land Camera 100, Fuji peel-apart instant film). I lifted the emulsion and used gel medium to create the collage on a canvas. So it's hand-made, but it's also photography.

Again, I'm not invested in whether or not you think it fits into your definition of art. I'm just fascinated by where some people draw the line between what is or isn't 'art.'

 

[minicoop1985]

That's far more artistic than anything I've come up with. It took way more work than I'm ever willing to put in

 

[pixmedic]

I admit im biased. I just don't find 95+% of photography to be all that "artistic", and i mean that in the sense of when I think of "art" I think of something more "hand made" than a picture. I think of sculptors, or painters.

I'm asking this because I'm genuinely curious and I want to make clear that though it's my work, I am in no way emotionally invested in the way you answer.

What do you think this is? I'm not asking if you think it's good or bad. It started life as 5 instant film pictures (Land Camera 100, Fuji peel-apart instant film). I lifted the emulsion and used gel medium to create the collage on a canvas. So it's hand-made, but it's also photography.

Again, I'm not invested in whether or not you think it fits into your definition of art. I'm just fascinated by where some people draw the line between what is or isn't 'art.'
View attachment 97298

Well....
I'm not going to go into a whole thing on "what is art", because honestly, it's mostly semantics. What i will say tho, is that I think the term "artist" is way overused. Everyone is an artist now.
When you think if a landscape artist, what comes to mind? Oil paints and canvas? That's what I think of. Different from when I think of a landscape photographer. How about this...if you setup a shot.... the pose, backgrounds, settings, framing....everything...and someone else walks up and actually takes the shot with the camera? who's picture is it? Legally I think it's theirs right? Who's "art" is it?
if I set up a painting, I choose the subject, material, paints, brush, everything....and someone else comes over and paints the picture, who gets credit for that? Pretty obvious, I think.

Maybe it's just because I find the term "artist" in the photographic community so overused that I have just become numb to it. I'm not saying there isn't artistry in photography, but i tend to think of photography as more of a craftsman skill than an artistic one. We learn equipment and how to use it.

there's a bit of artistic vision in everything, but when a woman knits a scarf from a roll of wool she has crammed up her who-ha and calls it art...i mean...come on. My wife knits. And quilts. She's made some beautiful pieces, but has never once called it her "art".

So to summarize, I'm not drawing any lines as to what qualifies as art because frankly, there is no line. Much in the same way there is no true defining factor for someone to call themselves a "photographer" except in the sense that they take pictures. Anything past that is simply in the eye of the beholder. why does it seem to upset people? I'm not offended or insulted In the least for people to say I'm not an artist, but some people really seem to nitpick over that title. They can keep it, I've no use for such trivial things.

I have been told that paramedic is only a job, not a profession. That a true "professional" has an occupation that requires a college degree. Now, how many people subscribe to that theory, I have no idea, but I've heard it many times.
I guess I won't get to be a professional until I finish nursing school.
This is why I don't care much for meaningless titles. Everyone draws their line somewhere different. Even the definition of those titles is different from person to person. Everything is art as much as nothing is art. I think we all create art by someone's definition, so we are all artists. Just don't call me one to my face.

 

[Torus34]

The OP's a delightful put-down of photography snobs. You know the type well: "You bought that camera? You should have asked me first."

That said, the photographer trying for something beyond a snapshot would do well to examine the rules he/she thinks are absolutes. Chances are, they aren't.

Cases in point:

While striving for good technique [and it's worth the effort,] remember that impact overrides it. Your technique need only be good enough so that it doesn't get in the way.

The 'right' equipment for a particular photograph is what you have on hand at the time. There's a limit to what you can lug around.

 

[runnah]

These days art is defined by art critics, art buyers and artists (in that order). So it's a parasitic/symbiotic relationship that perpetuates it's self for that sake of it's own survival.

 

[pgriz]

I admit im biased. I just don't find 95+% of photography to be all that "artistic", and i mean that in the sense of when I think of "art" I think of something more "hand made" than a picture. I think of sculptors, or painters.

I'm asking this because I'm genuinely curious and I want to make clear that though it's my work, I am in no way emotionally invested in the way you answer.

What do you think this is? I'm not asking if you think it's good or bad. It started life as 5 instant film pictures (Land Camera 100, Fuji peel-apart instant film). I lifted the emulsion and used gel medium to create the collage on a canvas. So it's hand-made, but it's also photography.

Again, I'm not invested in whether or not you think it fits into your definition of art. I'm just fascinated by where some people draw the line between what is or isn't 'art.'
View attachment 97298

I'll wade in where smart people don't venture. As far as I'm concerned, your piece is "art". It's creative, shows a subject in a (to me) novel way, is presented in an attractive way, and contrasts the impermanence of the subject (the tree with its broken branches) to the apparent fragility of the medium. It works on several levels, conceptual, perceptual, physical. We have something of the same nature on our walls - a collage of overlapping images by one of our local artists.

I think the problem with "artists" as painted by Lew, is that many people mistake the process of "being" an artist (various accouterments that should signal one is an artist) for the actual artistic creativity where imagination coupled with technique gives us something out of the ordinary and touches our emotions and/or our minds. It's like a person putting a toolbelt on, wearing work boots and a hard-hat and thinking that because they look like a carpenter, that they become one. In some ways, arguing about who is an "artist" is a bit silly, as the term, as used colloquially, is so broad as to be essentially meaningless.

 

[Fred Berg]

It is very difficult to clearly define what visual art is, and it is often very subjective. It should probably contain a cognitive element and not be merely ornamental or decorative: something to think about as well as to look at. For me, it isn't enough that I like the look of something and find it visually appealing; if it doesn't provide me with food for thought, it isn't art.

N.B.
Being art doesn't make something good, not being art doesn't make something bad.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

People go on and on about how art is undefinable or how it is so hard to classify but there is a reason its so hard to define art.. it's because of what people think of when they see art compared to what art's actual use and purpose for existing is. Everyone gets stuck in these loops like "Art is this because its got a craftmanship to it" or "This isn't art because it was too easy to make or had no thought to it" but really that's not the point at all.. Art has a simple explanation. Art is expression of emotions, thoughts, and any other thing someone may want to express. Art is expression.

It may be hard for artists to admit to this simplicity of art because.. if that's all art is.. then everyone is an artist. Suddenly that makes those who have spent a long time training and working to create their art feel less significant. It destroys their egos. Suddenly the smile on a person's face or the swing of an angry fist are just as much works of art as a painting that took 12 years for an expert to create.

The people that can't except that art is such a simple thing either have too much invested in the idea that they are "special" as an artist or are somehow above the masses, or they think too much of art as a craft rather than a form of expression.. and you can understand why if you take a good hard look at how society treats artists and art in general...


Craftsmanship and art are two entirely different things that tend to get blurred together in the world of art. Art is simple and crafts are not. Crafts require skill and practice, art just requires ideas and feelings. Everyone is an artist, but not everyone can be an expert craftsman.

 

[qleak]

I know (I think) Lew wrote the piece tongue-in-cheek, but from my perspective, a self-proclaimed artist is a fraud (or at least an optimist), but a person proclaimed by others to be an artist deserves the title. "You're good" carries much more weight than "I'm good".

Especially given this:

Dunning Kruger effect - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[W.Y.Photo]

People go on and on about how art is undefinable or how it is so hard to classify but there is a reason its so hard to define art.. it's because of what people think of when they see art compared to what art's actual use and purpose for existing is. Everyone gets stuck in these loops like "Art is this because its got a craftmanship to it" or "This isn't art because it was too easy to make or had no thought to it" but really that's not the point at all.. Art has a simple explanation. Art is expression of emotions, thoughts, and any other thing someone may want to express. Art is expression.

It may be hard for artists to admit to this simplicity of art because.. if that's all art is.. then everyone is an artist. Suddenly that makes those who have spent a long time training and working to create their art feel less significant. It destroys their egos. Suddenly the smile on a person's face or the swing of an angry fist are just as much works of art as a painting that took 12 years for an expert to create.

The people that can't except that art is such a simple thing either have too much invested in the idea that they are "special" as an artist or are somehow above the masses, or they think too much of art as a craft rather than a form of expression.. and you can understand why if you take a good hard look at how society treats artists and art in general...


Craftsmanship and art are two entirely different things that tend to get blurred together in the world of art. Art is simple and crafts are not. Crafts require skill and practice, art just requires ideas and feelings. Everyone is an artist, but not everyone can be an expert craftsman.

Also, this: Fountain Duchamp - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[KenC]

These days art is defined by art critics, art buyers and artists (in that order). So it's a parasitic/symbiotic relationship that perpetuates it's self for that sake of it's own survival.

If by "these days" you mean the history of art at least back to the Renaissance I agree completely. Perhaps at that time the buyers were first instead of the critics. It's interesting that sometimes when an artist, whether a musician, painter, or anything else does some work for a corporation some consider them to have "sold out." Most of the art we see in museums or on buildings was created because a wealthy family funded it. I'm not saying that's a great system, but that's the way it was.

As for the terms, I personally don't see how it helps me to define "art" or "artist" because whatever definition I came up with would not change what I do or my opinions of what I see.

 

[The_Traveler]

Regardless of external definitions, attempting to be an artist is difficult - and easily painful.
Trying not to copy, trying to be original, to create something with whatever media you choose and have that be 'good' (whatever that is) is difficult and sometimes painful.

It is painful because one has to confront one's own limitations and see them in real terms compared to others.
I don't have much patience with people who adopt the outside trappings of being an artist without actually going through the effort.

I also don't have much patience with those who adopt the other stance, say all art is crap and fake, thus by implication, all artists are poseurs.
Doing things over and over by rote, conquering small problems with lighting or subjects may be small triumphs but it is essentially copying what other people do and have done.
It may be comforting in that one can achieve the same desired level of craftsmanship but for some people, like me, that isn't satisfying.

Trying to create is difficult, it is infinitely harder to create than it is to just do.
And, even more, it is really putting yourself out there, taking a chance.
And because one is trying to create, the failures are that much more painful because there isn't technique to fall back on.

A mediocre artist who knows that he or she is mediocre is a sad person because they are trying with every part of their being to do and be something - and failing.
And when someone who has never tried, never put themselves on the line, denigrates even the effort at creativity out of ignorance, jealousy or fear, I lose interest in anything that person has to say.