# Poll: artistry



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2013)

*art·ist*(är
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





t
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




st)

1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
2. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
3. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

I have noticed several times that people here often reject the term of 'artist' for themselves. Certainly in any skill based craft, being referred to as an 'artist' as what one does seems to be a compliment, implying that one's skills have risen above the general journeyman's level.

In the artistic crafts, most people seem willingly to be 'artists', to try to create something meaningful, to get beyond just the skillful reproduction of an idea.
To me there is no shame in trying to be an artist, to try to create something - and, also to me, that seems to be a willingness to step away from the generally accepted standard of sharpness, contrast, color, etc and to sublimate them to the issues of artistry.

I am not implying that I think of myself as a 'good' artist but only that I am trying.

How do you see yourself?


----------



## amolitor (Nov 5, 2013)

Almost all the time when I press the shutter button, I am simply recording something of personal value to me.

A small percentage of the time, I am attempting to make art, whatever that is. So, I'm an artist, some of the time. Neither successful nor particularly good, but still an artist.


----------



## runnah (Nov 5, 2013)

I like to think of myself as creative rather than artistic.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Almost all the time when I press the shutter button, I am simply recording something of personal value to me.
> 
> A small percentage of the time, I am attempting to make art, whatever that is. So, I'm an artist, some of the time. Neither successful nor particularly good, but still an artist.



No disclaimers necessary, the audience will decide what they think, but please check the poll.




runnah said:


> I like to think of myself as creative rather than artistic.



Most people like to think of themselves as creative, even if they only repeat jokes they hear other places, but do you aspire to create?
Please check an option in the poll.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 5, 2013)

The poll was not yet visible the first time through  Voted now!


----------



## runnah (Nov 5, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Most people like to think of themselves as creative, even if they only repeat jokes they hear other places, but do you aspire to create?
> Please check an option in the poll.



I pride myself on my ability to deliver results in almost any given situation. This involves lots of creative decision making and creative choices about how to do things. I don't know if that makes me an artist when the end result is marketing materials.


----------



## sashbar (Nov 5, 2013)

I would like to improve both technical and creative ( I prefer this word as well) sides of my photography. Both are important. But also it is very important to me to ensure that the creative side, or creative development is the leading one, because that is what good photography is about to me personally. Technical skill is as important as a properly functioning camera and a clean lense. The ability of a modern equipment compensate your lack of skill more and more efficiently. So to me the technical skill is not a golden coin, this is a gradually diminishing currency. Lack of creativity, on the other side can not be compensated by a better autofocus, noise reduction or blur correction. One can argue that technical prowess and knowledge open new doors for creativity. And this is true to a degree. It will will not make you more creative. It will give you just an opportunity to be creative. 
So to me the creative side is the leading one - when you know what you are doing you can utilise a particular equipment and a particular technical skill so to speak. Trying the other way to me is a worrying sign of a photographic cul-de-sac. You can buy the "best" camera, you can polish your skill, but if you do not understand what to apply your skill and equipment to, that's it - this is a photographic cul-de-sac. T

This is the theory. The reality is always in between. Most of us are semi-creative and technically imperfect.

PS. Hell, my English sucks. I hope you can decipher it.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 5, 2013)

I don't like using that word, and I would never call myself an artist no matter how good I was. It is just not something I ever thought I was or will be. It wasn't in my life plan.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2013)

runnah said:


> The reason I ask is because when I think of an artist I think of people in berets drinking wine and acting snooty. I love art, but hate prototypical artists.
> 
> I do consider myself a photographer and a graphic designer. Just not an _artist_.



The thread, from which that quote was drawn, was also a poll on this issue. 
It seems that people have real trouble approaching the subject with honesty but often deflect into humor or sarcastic jibes at others to avoid actually disclosing themselves.
Even the poll-maker really encouraged this hiding by giving humorous options.
That's comfortable but not truthful.
I think that really discloses a fear of being judged and failing, being judged by the Internet world is embarrassing, while being seen as humorous is OK.

There were two consecutive posts that were unusually honest and to the point.



PixelRabbit said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > Feels very bold to actually claim that, though. I have no actual education as an artist.
> ...


 
This last is, imo, the most trenchant and important point.


----------



## runnah (Nov 5, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > The reason I ask is because when I think of an artist I think of people in berets drinking wine and acting snooty. I love art, but hate prototypical artists.
> ...



What is your end game here Lew?

I was honest and forthright here and in the older post which you brought up for no particular reason.


----------



## Juga (Nov 5, 2013)

I think his end point is that you should think of yourself as an artist and not just someone being creative. On the other side of that are you someone that just likes things technically and need to cultivate the artist inside in order to equal things out. I believe photography is definitely a form of art. A brush and paint is just the medium for a painter to convey their artistic view just like a camera is our medium to convey our photographic eye. 

Would you tell Picasso that he was just being creative with paint?


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2013)

I chose the last option. I've always wanted to be _artistic_ in my endeavors. I found technical proficiency alone to be cold and uninteresting. I wanted to be able to create something that could only come from me. Technical proficiency is necessary to a point so that one has the ability to create the vision in one's head. This is where I fail at traditional arts. I can't draw. I might be better at something like sculpting, but that is not the medium that excited me. If I did want to try it, though, I couldn't just pick up a lump of clay and expect that I would be able to create whatever I wanted. I would have to learn certain technical skills before I could manipulate and _use_ those skills to create something artistic.

In this context of a photo forum, I am certainly referencing my photography, but this all holds true for my first love of writing as well. A writer may be grammatically correct and competent enough in telling a story but those are the books that will never hold my interest. I need to sink my teeth into writing and chew on it for a while. When I am writing, I try for something beyond simple technical proficiency. Otherwise, I don't see the purpose in grammar for its own sake (or in photography, technical perfection for its own sake.) It's a tool and mastery of that tool means I can be creative with it, and yes, maybe even artistic.

So yes, I aspire to artistry but I don't know that I actually achieve it yet.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 5, 2013)

I can't think of a reason why a person couldn't be both an artist as well as be someone who strives for technical perfection, but that's not one of the choices.

There are times I shoot to be creative or "artistic", but there are times when I'm shooting for a paycheck. In those instances, what I find "artistic" is of little importance...


----------



## wyogirl (Nov 5, 2013)

I think of myself as an artist... in many mediums, not just photography....
But I don't know that I am a particularly good one.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2013)

To say you are an artist means only that you really are trying to create something, to use your skills and your insight to produce something that is more than just a documentary reproduction of what you see.

To be an artist doesn't mean that you are claiming to be good or to be special only that your primary concern is to create art.
There seems to be a resistance to saying that one is an artist, that one is trying to be creative as if, by doing so, you are claiming to be something special.
Many times here, being an 'artist' has been derided.  

@ Runnah,

Is it so surprising that since you have embraced the persona of someone is thinks humor is everything and that most things you say are an attempt at humor, that it is impossible for me to tell when you are being honest and trying to be funny?


----------



## runnah (Nov 5, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> @ Runnah,
> 
> Is it so surprising that since you have embraced the persona of someone is thinks humor is everything and that most things you say are an attempt at humor, that it is impossible for me to tell when you are being honest and trying to be funny?



Is that a question or a statement?

Anyways I try to be honest with a bit of humor. If you cannot tell the difference than it's no big loss to either party.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 5, 2013)

What, this is an invalid poll. Everyone knows that to be an official poll on TPF you have to include Bacon.

Oh, but to answer the given question, I don't think I am far enough to be able to decide.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 5, 2013)

I chose option #2, although I dislike its use of the word "perfection".  I would have preferred the term "technical accuracy".
I realize that the common phrase is "striving for perfection", and I do understand its meaning for the context of this poll,  but what would one do if they actually achieved  perfection? Is that even possible? (in a technical sense, NOT artistic, since they were separate options) {( is artistic perfection possible, given that art is subjective?)}
so...i do not consider myself an artist. 
maybe I CAN be "creative" when I photograph. maybe there is some artistic choices made in every photograph taken.  But I think that in order for ME to consider myself an "artist", I should be looking at the end product to be an artistic creation, aaaaand I dont. I am mostly thinking about the technical aspects when I photograph. 
the lighting I want, the angle i want, the pose i want, and while those things CAN be used in the creative/artistic process, I THINK about them in the technical sense. numbers, angels, flash output, diffusers, ISO, aperture....I dont think of photography as "creating an image", I think it as "capturing an accurate image"
since that is how the process works in my mind, I would consider myself a "technician" rather than an "artist".

Lordy....I hope that makes SOME bit of sense Lew...
I was having a bit of trouble articulating my thought processes as it relates to your question.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 5, 2013)

I am an artist because my wife says I am, and who am I to argue?

Joking aside, anybody who does creative expression for the love of it can be called an artist.  You don't have to be good at it, but you do have to have a feeling about whatever it is you do.  All of us were artists when we were little, but over time, we forget the magic of pure creation, and focus on goals and processes and scores.  We no longer do stuff for the love of it, but because it gets us somewhere, earns us something (and it doesn't have to be monetary),  and often is done to impress others.  Personally, I try to remember the artist of my youth, and encourage that creative little imp.  Sometimes I skip, run through leaf piles, bark at the moon and make up silly poems.  Sometimes I take pictures, just because.  And sometimes, my wife and I lie in the grass and imagine the figures in the clouds passing by.  My daughters, when teen-agers, would be mortified.  Now, they occasionally join me in the little games.  Because life is short, and there are not enough people willing to be artists in the world.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2013)

ronlane said:


> What, this is an invalid poll. Everyone knows that to be an official poll on TPF you have to include Bacon.



Exactly right, in an odd way.
Here we are, xxx number of people who spend inordinate amounts of time and money, working very, very hard at an avocation or a profession that is, at its root, an art. 
We perseverate in thinking and dreaming about our equipment, our lenses, our work - and yet most of us can't even admit to the desire, the wish to create something really, really great, to actually be an artist.
We have to take the curse off of it with humor.

Macho crap.


----------



## rlemert (Nov 5, 2013)

I selected option 2. While I do want my pictures to be as "beautiful" as I can make them, that can be accomplished completely within the realm of "technical expertise" (considering 'composition' to be a technical skill). I consider someone to be 'an artist' when they are attempting to manipulate reality for an emotional (or even intellectual) purpose, while I am more concerned with recording reality.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2013)

thanks for the honest articulation of how you see yourself and your work.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 5, 2013)

I'll admit to the desire to create something really, really great for myself and others to enjoy (and make me a boat load of money  ) but at about a year and a half into this journey, I just don't know enough. (or so I feel). It would mean a lot to be considered an artist. At photography, at music (guitar and/or mandolin) or any other of the things that I do that would be considered art. But as I critique myself, I just think "jack of all trades......".


----------



## hopdaddy (Nov 5, 2013)

I chose Option One .......My Hand held Xerox machine ,Is where my ART begins .Once in my digital dark room ,The Art is enhanced . I use every method I can come up with to create a photograph , with the power to move your eye where I want it to go .


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 5, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Exactly right, in an odd way.
> Here we are, xxx number of people who spend inordinate amounts of time and money, working very, very hard at an avocation or a profession that is, at its root, an art.
> We perseverate in thinking and dreaming about our equipment, our lenses, our work - and yet most of us can't even admit to the desire, the wish to create something really, really great, to actually be an artist.
> We have to take the curse off of it with humor.
> ...



Well, the poll is lacking. It doesn't allow for a person to be both.

Frankly, I think everyone who picks up a camera would like to consider themselves, at some point, an "artist". Your poll speaks to a need to choose between the two, and I don't believe it's an either/or proposition.

Not even close...


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2013)

If someone could pick one ability: 1) the ability to be an artist who can create interesting, wonderful, amazing, insightful pictures or 2) to be a superb technician with the skills to create pictures that were technically perfect, what choice would most people make?


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 5, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> If someone could pick one ability: 1) the ability to be an artist who can create interesting, wonderful, amazing, insightful pictures or 2) to be a superb technician with the skills to create pictures that were technically perfect, what choice would most people make?



I would pick #1.  However, in the majority of pictures I take I seem to strive for #2.

Sadly, #1 is just not in me :no smile:


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2013)

JacaRanda said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > If someone could pick one ability: 1) the ability to be an artist who can create interesting, wonderful, amazing, insightful pictures or 2) to be a superb technician with the skills to create pictures that were technically perfect, what choice would most people make?
> ...



Technical perfection is a reasonable goal and a skill that anyone can reasonably aspire to and, once a level is achieved, can be repeated without inordinate effort.
OTOH, artistic achievement, while easier for the lucky few, is never guaranteed and every artist starts from scratch with each creation.

Look at Ansel Adams, most or all of his pictures are as technically perfect as any mortal could hope to get, very few of his images achieve close to the same level of artistic glory.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 5, 2013)

JacaRanda said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > If someone could pick one ability: 1) the ability to be an artist who can create interesting, wonderful, amazing, insightful pictures or 2) to be a superb technician with the skills to create pictures that were technically perfect, what choice would most people make?
> ...



Jacaranda, my friend, it is in you.  It has always been in you.  But it is closer to the surface when we are little, and we forget so very much as we get older.  The artist comes out when we play, when we have fun, when we dream, and when we don't care who's watching.  So go play, and let your inner child comes out.  Play because it's fun.  Take your camera and jump around.  Put on a slow shutter and spin in a circle.  Put it on burst mode and chase the dog down the path.  Shoot out-of-focus lights because they are pretty.  Go play - and allow the artist in you to peek out.


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> If someone could pick one ability: 1) the ability to be an artist who can create interesting, wonderful, amazing, insightful pictures or 2) to be a superb technician with the skills to create pictures that were technically perfect, what choice would most people make?



First one, all day long.



pgriz said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



Wish there were a "Love" button for this :heart:


----------



## PixelRabbit (Nov 5, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> The thread, from which that quote was drawn, was also a poll on this issue.
> It seems that people have real trouble approaching the subject with honesty but often deflect into humor or sarcastic jibes at others to avoid actually disclosing themselves.
> Even the poll-maker really encouraged this hiding by giving humorous options.
> That's comfortable but not truthful.
> ...



I stand by my words and its less hard to say it now that more time has passed.
I'm Judi, I'm an artist


----------



## SCraig (Nov 5, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Frankly, I think everyone who picks up a camera would like to consider themselves, at some point, an "artist"....


You would be wrong.  There is at least one person who does NOT want to be considered an "Artist".  Since most of the junk that passes for "Art" today, be it painted, drawn, photographed, or played on an instrument, leaves me cold I have absolutely no interest in being included in that group.  Technically competent is all I aspire to.


----------



## snowbear (Nov 5, 2013)

I consider myself an artist (multiple media), even though I have to work at it.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Nov 5, 2013)

Dont care if called an artist or whatever.

I just like to click the button to hear the shutter sound.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, I think everyone who picks up a camera would like to consider themselves, at some point, an "artist"....
> ...



You don't like their art, so you keep yourself from trying to be creative?
This seems sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.


----------



## Stevepwns (Nov 5, 2013)

I have been practicing and learning different forms of art since I was a child.  Photography being the latest.  I'm haven't been successful at all of them. I am a professional hobbyist so photography will be added to the list of hobby's I am always trying to find to do and get better at.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 5, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> You don't like their art, so you keep yourself from trying to be creative?
> This seems sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.



If that's how you choose to view it then by all means do so.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 5, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> If someone could pick one ability: 1) the ability to be an artist who can create interesting, wonderful, amazing, insightful pictures or 2) to be a superb technician with the skills to create pictures that were technically perfect, what choice would most people make?



Whichever one people are willing to pay for.

Personally, I would opt for #1, seeing as #2 could get boring real quick. But if #2 is paying the bills, my desire for #1 takes a back seat...


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 5, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, I think everyone who picks up a camera would like to consider themselves, at some point, an "artist"....
> ...



So there's never been in a moment, however fleeting, in your photographic life that you've wanted to be, or considered yourself to be, an artist?


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 5, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> I can't think of a reason why a person couldn't be both an artist as well as be someone who strives for technical perfection, but that's not one of the choices.
> 
> There are times I shoot to be creative or "artistic", but there are times when I'm shooting for a paycheck. In those instances, what I find "artistic" is of little importance...



Well there is something to be said for eating - and avoiding the mind numbing funk that requires you to lop of an ear.  Honestly to me the question is a moot one.  I take pictures for my benefit, not for anyone else.  I shoot what I see that interests me for my own enjoyment.  If others like what they see and enjoy my photo's great, if they want to call it art more power to them.  In the final analysis it doesn't alter what I do or why, it's just another label that frankly holds no value for me.  

I am not nor will I ever be the "Artist formerly known as" and I'm not so narcissistic that I find it necessary to change my name to an unpronounceable symbol and then get testy when others don't get it.  So maybe my whole problem with calling myself an "artist" is that most of the "artists" I can think of, well their just weird.  Lol..


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 5, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > The thread, from which that quote was drawn, was also a poll on this issue.
> ...



Hi Judi!

Hmm.. starting to feel a bit like an AA meeting.  Lol


----------



## SCraig (Nov 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> So there's never been in a moment, however fleeting, in your photographic life that you've wanted to be, or considered yourself to be, an artist?


There probably was.  I've been playing with cameras since the mid 60's though and that's a long time to try and remember.  I even took art appreciation in college decades ago.

All I know for certain is what I see now.  I see photographs that are overexposed and tinted yellow that people rave about.  I see out-of-focus junk that people rave about.  I see shots with no discernible subject that people rave about.  I see overcooked, cartoonish HDR that people rave about.  I see as much of this as what I consider to be competent technical photography, and if that is what people consider to be "Art" or "Artistic Photography" these days then I do not consider myself to be one of that group nor do I wish to be part of that group.

I'm not asking anyone to change their appreciation of what they consider to be art, all I ask is that I not be included in that group.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Nov 6, 2013)

Ha, Robbin, Artists Ahoy!


Scott, ok now I'm curious, is there any art that you enjoy? What is on your walls? Or what would you put on your walls? Or heck on your stereo, on your tv, in your workshop?


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 6, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > So there's never been in a moment, however fleeting, in your photographic life that you've wanted to be, or considered yourself to be, an artist?
> ...



Ok, so if I can come up with a cartoonish overcooked yellow tinted overexposed out of focus HDR shot with no discernable subject then I am an ARTEEST!

Lol.. nope, just not my style either.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 6, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> Ha, Robbin, Artists Ahoy!
> 
> 
> Scott, ok now I'm curious, is there any art that you enjoy? What is on your walls? Or what would you put on your walls? Or heck on your stereo, on your tv, in your workshop?



What can I say Judi, long time listener, first time caller.  Love the show by the way.. lol


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 6, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Ok, so if I can come up with a cartoonish overcooked yellow tinted overexposed out of focus HDR shot with no discernable subject then I am an ARTEEST!



So, what I get from your characterizations is that all artists produce work that is " cartoonish overcooked yellow tinted overexposed out of focus HDR shot with no discernable subject." 

And so you don't want to be associated with them.

Following that generalization, how do you rationalize the fact that many people who  post work here, a place that you chose to frequent, classify themselves as 'artists'?
Is all of the work you see here, or at least a major percentage of it, ' cartoonish overcooked yellow tinted overexposed out of focus HDR shot with no discernable subject'?


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 6, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > So there's never been in a moment, however fleeting, in your photographic life that you've wanted to be, or considered yourself to be, an artist?
> ...



And that would be why I made the statement _I think everyone who picks up a camera would like to consider themselves, *at some point*, an "artist"._

Essentially, though, you're allowing what other do to dictate what you do. You no longer allow yourself to consider yourself an artist because of what others are doing...


----------



## PixelRabbit (Nov 6, 2013)

Instead of just goofing around in the thread I'll give an answer a shot 

I agree with Steve, there should be an option for both technical proficiency plus artistry, like my sig says learn the rules so you can break them.  It was through learning the rules and pushing the limits that I have found a lot of inspiration.

Some images ask for technical perfection while some ask to bend the rules but they are all made from decisions I've made to result in the final image. The more I know about the technical aspects of my tools the more control I have over my art.  I think the key is balance between the two.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Granted, I have not been into photography as long as some of you, but I have never considered myself an "artist". I have never thought of the photography I do as "making art".  I have never considered my processing any sort of "artistic style". maybe that is because i do not WANT to be an artist. Just no desire for it. 
I do not consider myself an artist, nor do i consider my photography art. that's just how I feel.  I cant give you any rational thought process for those feelings, no logical reasoning behind it. I cant point to some particular fact and say "THATS why". Its simply how I feel about it. 

I *suppose *you could just completely disregard my feelings and opinions and say that by your definition (or someone elses definition)  I am an "artist" whether I like it or not simply because I take pictures. I guess I could not really argue that point, except for the simple fact that I personally feel it is wrong. 

I have a friend that painted for a living. houses, fences, barns...whatever
she never considered herself an "artist" either, even though she could produce different looks and textures depending on what brushes/sponges she used, and what brushstrokes she used.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 6, 2013)

I find it fascinating that some photographers (apparently) think that technical skill is somehow opposed to, or at any rate orthogonal to, artistry.

This is not how other artists see things. At ALL.


----------



## runnah (Nov 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I find it fascinating that some photographers (apparently) think that technical skill is somehow opposed to, or at any rate orthogonal to, artistry.



Ignorant really. All art forms are incredibly technical. I've "played" with lots of different mediums, painting, pottery, jewelry and metal sculpture and can say that all have daunting technical aspects that go hand in hand with making great art using that medium.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 6, 2013)

I thought this thread was about whether or not you consider yourself an artist, not a debate on artistic vs technical merits.


----------



## runnah (Nov 6, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> I thought this thread was about whether or not you consider yourself an artist, not a debate on artistic vs technical merits.



I thought it was a place for Lew to preach from upon high.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 6, 2013)

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I thought this thread was about whether or not you consider yourself an artist, not a debate on artistic vs technical merits.
> ...



Pfft, that's the whole forum!


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 6, 2013)

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I thought this thread was about whether or not you consider yourself an artist, not a debate on artistic vs technical merits.
> ...



I don't see Lew as preachy at all. 
I THOUGHT that this thread was a pretty straightforward question.  Do YOU consider YOURSELF an artist, or are you just looking for technical accuracy? 

How is there even a wrong answer to this? How can you debate or dispute how someone feels about themselves? 

So no... Im not seeing Lew being preachy at all.


----------



## runnah (Nov 6, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> How is there even a wrong answer to this? How can you debate or dispute how someone feels about themselves?



I gave an honest answer and got flak from it.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 6, 2013)

I also do not see Lew as preaching in this thread.  The words we associate with this activity carry with them some assumptions, attitudes and world-views that colour the practice of photography, interpretation of the results, and critique.  If one chooses to exclude "artistry" when discussing photography, then that choice eliminates a great many aspects that would be relevant if "artistry" was present.  It's not a binary answer of "right/wrong", but more a question of which perspective one takes in understanding the usage and effect of the medium.  By way of analogy, the cook that sees food solely as a delivery mechanism for essential ingredients for the body, will have a very different take on it than someone who sees it primarily as a way of engaging the senses.  There is overlap between the two, but the emphasis taken changes dramatically how one can discuss a meal to be prepared.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 6, 2013)

I think Lew's got a point. Photographers tend to shy away from the "artist" label, and use the word "ARTEEEST" and similar. Why is that? I think it's somewhat tied up with the completely false technical excellence/artistry dichotomy.

Somewhere along the way the community has decided to worship sharpness, full tonal range, the usual gamut of St. Ansel qualities, and to denigrate Art as such, and to perceive Art as somehow opposed to technical excellence. We see something similar at the beginning of the 20th century with f/64 versus the pictorialists, but I'm pretty sure they had not entirely lost their heads at that point. Both sides saw themselves as Artists, but disagreed on the proper approach to Art.

Now that we are liberated from such silly ideas as there even being a "proper approach" to Art, we've distilled that debate to "are you an artist, or are you technically proficient" which is really unfortunate.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I find it fascinating that some photographers (apparently) think that technical skill is somehow opposed to, or at any rate orthogonal to, artistry.
> This is not how other artists see things. At ALL.





runnah said:


> Ignorant really.





runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I thought this thread was about whether or not you consider yourself an artist, not a debate on artistic vs technical merits.
> ...





amolitor said:


> Pfft, that's the whole forum!



My point in the poll was to see where peoples' main emphasis lay. No one, at least none of the posts I read, implied that technical execution was irrelevant or unimportant but only that technical issues were subordinate to artistic goals.

_If anyone thinks I am preachy, either here or 'the whole forum!', then the best way to avoid what I write is to block me.  That is very effective and not nearly as rude as making negative comments about me in a thread that I have started. 
If you feel you want to continue to read - and want to criticize me,  then have the courtesy to address me directly.

_


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 6, 2013)

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > How is there even a wrong answer to this? How can you debate or dispute how someone feels about themselves?
> ...



we don't call it "flak" anymore. 
it is now called "artistic recrimination"


----------



## amolitor (Nov 6, 2013)

Lew, I meant only to gently tease, not to offend. I apologize.


----------



## sashbar (Nov 6, 2013)

Guys, stop arguing and watch the BBC Documentary (p.1 and p.2) that I have posted a couple of days ago in the "Articles of Interest".  You will learn something interesting about a relation between an artist and a photographer. You will learn, amongst other tings, why the greatest Reneissanse artists like Vermeer, Caravagio etc (who were apparently the greatest painters that ever lived and semi-gods according to many) were in fact the first photographers on our Planet Earth.

(The thread "Well Worth Watching")


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 6, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> No one, at least none of the posts I read, implied that technical execution was irrelevant or unimportant but only that technical issues were subordinate to artistic goals.



You presented the poll, though, as an either/or affair. Why not include a choice which encompasses both?


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 6, 2013)

limr said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > If someone could pick one ability: 1) the ability to be an artist who can create interesting, wonderful, amazing, insightful pictures or 2) to be a superb technician with the skills to create pictures that were technically perfect, what choice would most people make?
> ...



I totally agree.  As I read it, I was wishing for a double like button.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 6, 2013)

pgriz said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These words will be copied and pasted in at least a few places.  On an ART piece I create seems appropriate.  I promise to share once complete.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 6, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Which I'm guessing is far less likely to bring down an incoming bomber.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 6, 2013)

sashbar said:


> Guys, stop arguing and watch the BBC Documentary (p.1 and p.2) that I have posted a couple of days ago in the "Articles of Interest". You will learn something interesting about a relation between an artist and a photographer. You will learn, amongst other tings, why the greatest Reneissanse artists like Vermeer, Caravagio etc (who were apparently the greatest painters that ever lived and semi-gods according to many) were in fact the first photographers on our Planet Earth.
> 
> (The thread "Well Worth Watching")



Ok, so if we do can we then start arguing about the BBC documentary?

Also, wondering exactly what camera settings I need to use to reach "semi-god" status.  Is it somewhere in the menu system?  Natural, Vivid, Semi-God?

One other thing, what if we already had relations with an artist and she took out a restraining order? Will the documentary still prove useful?


----------



## minicoop1985 (Nov 10, 2013)

I would call a pretty large amount of you guys artists. Some of the things I see here are spectacular, and I only hope that I can someday achieve things on that level. I chose the option that says I'm not at a point where I can choose, because, well, duh.


----------



## baturn (Nov 10, 2013)

Well, I selected the 3rd option, and then I read the entire thread and am now so conflicted after hearing everyones opinions and definitions of "artist" that I'm not sure I shouldn't have selected #1 and then apologized for being a crummy one. None of this is going to deter me from coming here in hopes of having a good time and perhaps learning something in the process.


----------



## mmaria (Nov 11, 2013)

After thinking, thinking and thinking about it more I selected the last option "I want to be an artist but not ready yet"

Artist, for me, is a very strong word and calling my self as an artist indicates that I'm creating something of a great value, objective value, and I can't do that. It also means that I as an artist must know everything that is to know about particular rules, norms, technicalities and so on... I just can't declare myself as an artist even if it is just in my monologue, I'm simply not up to what I consider an artist should be.
I aspire to be an artist and who knows, maybe in decades from now I still wont call myself an artist because of my personal standards and opinion about art.

I like reality and truth, and I'm trying to capture the moment/situation/person/subject as real as it possibly can be but applying some norms of art... 

Have I just contradicted myself? Oh boy...


----------



## slackercruster (Nov 12, 2013)

Didn't vote. 70% photo 30% artist.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 13, 2013)

I'm not an artist because I don't create things to be displayed as art. All of my photos have a primary purpose beyond being shown and sold in a gallery.


----------

