How pretentious are you?

[adina]

And I mean that in the nicest way possible

Given the recent discussions, how far is too far, and the, umm....fine art nudity that was linked to, it got me to thinking. Do you feel you're an artist? Do you think you make "fine art"? Are you a plain old photographer, no labels at all? And, if you're of the mind that photography is art, what elevates it to "fine art"? Is there a difference between fine art and regular art? Where do you feel your work lies? Somewhere in the middle? Fine art? Snapshots?

I'm not talking photography as a whole. I'm curious as to how you feel about your work.


Late night sugar buzz ramblings.....

[swmdrayfan]

Sometimes I feel like a nut--sometimes I don't;)

All kidding aside, there's no way I could be 'pretentious'. I'm just a hack.
That said, thanks to all the great things I've been picking up here, I've become more aware of what it takes to produce good photos. I'm starting to think about what I want to shoot, and how to shoot it.

[opus]

Do you feel you're an artist?

Yes, I do feel I'm an artist, in more media than just photography. Actually, I'm not even really an artist in photography ... yet. Why do I feel I'm an artist? Well, because 1) I've been told I'm an artist all my life, and 2) I really feel I have a creative eye and some talent to go along with it.

Do you think you make "fine art"?

I can make fine art, but I haven't lately. I've been too lazy.

Are you a plain old photographer, no labels at all?

No. I have labels. I think my labels are: Travel photographer, digital artist, and somewhat photojournalist.

And, if you're of the mind that photography is art, what elevates it to "fine art"?

Use of color (or lack of it, but it needs to be purposeful and meaningful), very careful attention to detail, perfect lighting, and the ability to stir a deep emotion or a stirring thought process.

Is there a difference between fine art and regular art?

Yes & No. Mostly no, because I think pretty much anything that passes the fire test of being "art" deserves to be in the fine art category. But Yes, because the skill level of the artist really does differentiate between whether his/her "art" would be accepted by many people as "fine art", or whether most people would feel it was a valient attempt that just didn't quite make it.

Where do you feel your work lies? Somewhere in the middle? Fine art? Snapshots?

I could put effort into more of my work and make it fine art, I believe. I've got a lot of gigabytes of material that I could work with. But most of it would require extensive alteration of some sort. Creatively, that's the direction I'm leaning in right now. I have a lot of material with potential, and it would be fun to go in there and see what I could come up with. I'd almost consider it "found art" because it would come from material I originally rejected. Of course, I'm referring to digital artistry and graphic manipulation to create "art" that would fall more along the lines of abstraction.

I could put more effort into getting "the perfect shot", and while it would decrease the amount of material I end up with, I do believe I have the eye to come up with some winners over time. But right now I don't feel I have the patience to live this sort of life, waking up before dawn to sit for hours at a location I previously scoped out, hoping a woman in a red raincoat happens to pass in front of the perfectly framed white stucco building. You get the gist.

But with the effort I'm currently putting forth, a lot of my work probably lies in the realm of snapshots. I've got a lot of failed attempts and a whole bunch of "I give up just snap the picture already and analyze it later" material.

[darkman]

And I mean that in the nicest way possible

Given the recent discussions, how far is too far, and the, umm....fine art nudity that was linked to, it got me to thinking. Do you feel you're an artist? Do you think you make "fine art"? Are you a plain old photographer, no labels at all? And, if you're of the mind that photography is art, what elevates it to "fine art"? Is there a difference between fine art and regular art? Where do you feel your work lies? Somewhere in the middle? Fine art? Snapshots?

I'm not talking photography as a whole. I'm curious as to how you feel about your work.


Late night sugar buzz ramblings.....

I feel I am an artist. But for me, art is a very broad spectrum. You always make a creative, thus artistic, decision every time you click.

Personally, I feel I'm a "plain old photographer!" Or maybe an all a rounder? I don't know. I'm honest enough (not so pretentious) that I can admit my strengths and weeknesses.

I haven't figured out what fine art is and how it gets labeled that way. So I don't know where to put what I consider my artier, more creative, work. As an example, I see someone who takes pictures of stuff he finds at the junk yard and it's classified fine art. Converseley, I think this work pales in every way against work I've seen done by a commercial photographers I know. His work isn't considered fine art, some consider it commercial art and others don't consider it art at all. Yet, his compositions, setups, lighting, attention to detail, etc etc is first rate while the former's work is just a BW picture of a discarded object.

Similarly, a recent magazine I get featured some mid west portrait photographer from the 1940's. The said it's _now_ fine art and his work is very valuable. Again, all I saw were farmers standing against an ugly backdrop lit by an open window. Why's this considered fine art now? It's art but I can mostly only see historical value in it.

I'm confused on why some people think fine art photography has to be BW and often dark? To me this is like saying (most) paintings aren't fine art because they're not monotone! People like Munch must hold high regard in photography world with his dark pictures.

I've also been confused with the deep emotion idea that somethink fine art has to have? Does some painting need to draw a deep emotion in me before it's fine art? If this were true we could clear out most museums and fine-art galleries.

I also tend to like -somewhat- preconceived photo's over serendipitious ones. Again, my opinion. Others seem to get some emotional charge over these "catches," especially in BW, that they can't get from the preconceived images. However, I see these serendipitous captures in the same light as sports photography. I do believe some people that have a special stand out talent for this kind of serendipitous work and some can be fine art (whatever that means!)

Ultimately I don't know the answers to your questions. Maybe someone here will have an explanation, or definition, that makes sense and fits the whole spectum of art and not just their opinion. I'm clueless, not pretentious

[dmm96452]

I don't believe I am or ever will be an artist. I simply have no eye for it most of the time. In time I will become a technically proficient photographer. But not an artist. I've been to the Louvre, seen the Mona Lisa and all I saw was a funny looking woman with no eye brows. I don't even remember any of the rest of it.

[Asylum Steve]

Great topic, Adina. The world is full of work that can very moving, emotional, or otherwise intellectually stimulating to many while at the same time be considered totally pretentious by others. I think a lot of it depends on your point of view...

Thanks Kelly, for laying most of the ground work with your response (whew!). I agree with pretty much everything you say.

Your individual creativity and how you present it, as well your place in the Art World in general is a very personal matter. Folks can give you guidelines and rules, but it's really up to you to decide which of those you're going to follow, and how you're going to do it.

As for the distinction between art and fine art, I think one is more general (art) and one is much more specific (fine art). Not only is there a tremendous amount of overlap between the two, but I think many times the label depends on the context of the work being viewed.

Take Weegee, for example. The guy was very much a street photographer, shooting mostly repulsive documentary-style crime scene shots. At the time I doubt he was considered to be much of an artist. But fast forward forty years, view his body of work as a whole in a gallery setting, and it becomes transformed into an amazingly macabre and disturbing genre of fine art.

Ok, I realize I haven't answered Adina's original questions. Personally I feel I straddle the worlds of commercial and fine art. And where once I was absolutely torn between one or the other, I now have reached a very good place where those two sides of me feed off and compliment each other.

Not only do I have many projects that are seperated clearly between the two, but I also get a sense that my artistic sensibilites now spill over into my commercial work. And that's fine with me (no pun intended).

I think an artist is only pretentious when he or she places way too much importance on their work, or thinks they are somehow better than the rest of us for having the ability to create it...

[Asylum Steve]

Mike, you make some good points. I think one factor that leads to much confusion is the continual battle in the art world between Commercial Fine Art (a great oxymoron if ever I heard one), Institutional Fine Art, and Acedemic Fine Art.

The three of these generally fall under the same umbrella, and yet their motivation, both financially (as well as emotionally and historically) can be quite different.

What I'm talking about are commercial galleries, museums, and college and university art departments all touting what they feel is significant work, and clamoring for a place in the art world as well as art history.

So, depending on the source, you make get a different perception on why a body of work or a show is "important"...

A private gallery is more apt to be trendy, where the person creating the art is equally important (or more so) than the work. A museum may play up the historical significance of a series of otherwise unimaginative pieces. And a university may emphasize the pure ideas behind some more conceptual showings, isolated from the world of art having to sell.

Again, I think these are all things we have to sort out for ourselves, and only then decide what excites or inspires us...

[Sebastian]

What if you're labeled an artist? I call myself an artist (grudgingly) because I make 100% of my income off of things that others consider "art." I would never call myself an artist, I don't connect with that at all.

[Asylum Steve]

What if you're labeled an artist? I call myself an artist (grudgingly) because I make 100% of my income off of things that others consider "art." I would never call myself an artist, I don't connect with that at all.

Well, that's the other side of the coin. There's sort of this need to label and catagorize people and what they do. I mean, you can control people's perceptions to a certain degree, but if you spend too much time worrying about or trying to affect what they think, you'll go crazy.

For quite a while now I've had a slightly different problem. It's when people ask what I do. I have to admit, I've flip-flopped between telling them I'm an artist or I'm a photographer. Or sometimes I just combine the two and say photo-artist.

Yeah, I know this is not a big deal, and I suppose it has more to deal with how I perceive myself than how I want others to perceive me...

On the other hand, why do you have a problem with that label? I see it as nothing but positive...

[AntLockyer]

I'm an artist and I use a camera to create my art. I have a strict manifesto that I stick too and I take every shot as seriously as I possibly can.

If that fits 'your' definition of pretentious then yes I am ;)

[Sebastian]

I have a strict manifesto that I stick too and I take every shot as seriously as I possibly can.

Congratulations, you are our first militant photographer. Do you wear a veil over your face when you're "shooting?"

Relax, I won't tell Homeland Security...

;)

[opus]

I've also been confused with the deep emotion idea that somethink fine art has to have? Does some painting need to draw a deep emotion in me before it's fine art? If this were true we could clear out most museums and fine-art galleries.

I stand by my belief that true art must inspire some form of emotion. But the list of emotions is long and may not be exactly what you're thinking. The emotion could range from "Wow! I totally get what this means!" through "Ugh! Who would waste their time working with/looking at this subject?!" and including "Wow, can you imagine the skill it must take to use their materials in such a perfect way?" Or even, "How did they achieve such COLOR??"

Some artists try to inspire anger through their materials or choice of subjects. I guess that's considered "art" too.
This doesn't mean that if I take a picture of some injustice or another, that I've automatically created "art". There's more involved.
Art is a marriage of Content PLUS Presentation.

But it's where the work (the whole package) inspires nothing but apathy is when it doesn't pass the test of being "art", IMO.

( A=C+P .... can you tell I'm taking math and physics classes this semester? ;) )

What if you're labeled an artist? I call myself an artist (grudgingly) because I make 100% of my income off of things that others consider "art." I would never call myself an artist, I don't connect with that at all.

Sebastian, I think this falls under the "Be -- Do -- Have" principle. It traditionally goes like this: "If you want to BE an artist, you will DO what an artist does, and then you will HAVE what an artist has."

But in your case, it's almost backwards. You DO what an artist does, therefore you "BE" an artist.

[AntLockyer]

Not a veil, Nice thick focussing cloth

[adina]

It took me a while to be able to say I'm a photographer. I always thought all the other real photographers would laugh at me. But now I can comfortably say that.

Do I think I'm an artist. No. If I said that, the real artists would laugh at me. A while back, I had posted about how I don't see portraits as art, but had finally found a book that made me see them that way. Do I see mine as art? Not really.

I don't know the difference between fine art and regular art. I know what I like, and what I don't. I do know that I have a hard time with people who do portraits similar to Sears calling themselves a fine art photographer.

And when people ask me what I think as an artist, sometimes I feel like I'm playing dress up in my mom's heels and makeup.

[darkman]

Well, that's the other side of the coin. There's sort of this need to label and catagorize people and what they do. I mean, you can control people's perceptions to a certain degree, but if you spend too much time worrying about or trying to affect what they think, you'll go crazy.

For quite a while now I've had a slightly different problem. It's when people ask what I do. I have to admit, I've flip-flopped between telling them I'm an artist or I'm a photographer. Or sometimes I just combine the two and say photo-artist.

Yeah, I know this is not a big deal, and I suppose it has more to deal with how I perceive myself than how I want others to perceive me...

On the other hand, why do you have a problem with that label? I see it as nothing but positive...

This is a strange and far ranging dilema. By day I'm an engineer. Honestly, I haven't felt like I've done any engineering in years. The flip side is when I explain my job to non-technical people, what I do goes over their head. Therefore, I must be an engineer. The dilema is I need the technical background to do what I do, but I'm not engineering.

This is similar to when I tried to explain why I didn't find sports photography as art (per say). You need to know what you're doing with the camera and how to get good compositions, but I don't find I'm creating art! Just like Adina's portrait dilema. But I find portraits and studio work more artisitic because you usually start out with a creative idea and go from there. Then you decide the angle, dof, lighitng, etc. If the result is bad it's your fault.

I also believe the artistry at many portrait shops is pre fabbed. By this I mean they hire an art director to build sets people would like, then they come up with a few standard poses that work well for most, then someone adds the light (maybe not 100% in this order). What you end up with is a portrait studio in which I can hire someone and train them to take a picture. The end result is a shot (unfortunately?) most people like and expect.

Mike

[darkman]

I stand by my belief that true art must inspire some form of emotion. But the list of emotions is long and may not be exactly what you're thinking. The emotion could range from "Wow! I totally get what this means!" through "Ugh! Who would waste their time working with/looking at this subject?!" and including "Wow, can you imagine the skill it must take to use their materials in such a perfect way?" Or even, "How did they achieve such COLOR??"

Some artists try to inspire anger through their materials or choice of subjects. I guess that's considered "art" too.
This doesn't mean that if I take a picture of some injustice or another, that I've automatically created "art". There's more involved.
Art is a marriage of Content PLUS Presentation.

But it's where the work (the whole package) inspires nothing but apathy is when it doesn't pass the test of being "art", IMO.

( A=C+P .... can you tell I'm taking math and physics classes this semester? ;) )




Sebastian, I think this falls under the "Be -- Do -- Have" principle. It traditionally goes like this: "If you want to BE an artist, you will DO what an artist does, and then you will HAVE what an artist has."

But in your case, it's almost backwards. You DO what an artist does, therefore you "BE" an artist.

Hi Kelly,

I honesly didn't read your responce before I replied. But I gave thought to what we both wrote afterwards (hind site's 20/20). And agree some parts were overstated. I saw Starry Nights for the first time at the MOMA when I was a kid. I loved it and still do, but I can't precisely say why except I like the color, brush strokes, dream like appearance. Does this constitute drawing emotion. Surely it does, but not the deep meaningful emotion which some people claim art has to be. Somone taking advantage of a mentaly challenged person draws deep emotion out of me. Seeing pictures of things like this do to. Yet I don't necessarily consider it art.

I'm probably not making any sense and digging a deeper hole...

Mike

[ken1953]

I am an artist!!! Oh wait...that does sound "pretentious"!!! haha...Actually tho', I do feel that I am an artist in many areas. I have composed music...none of it great, but most of it o.k...even enough to get some respect from others. I have also created some nice photographs, again...none of them great but most o.k...so...why am I an artist? Because I "work" at creating something for others to enjoy. Now comes the difference...What is "fine" art. I have to agree with DMM...to me...the Mona Lisa is nothing spectacular...but I have seen many others that were totally awesome. 2 of my favorites are the Gainesbourough's Blueboy and (can't remember the artist) but The Pink Lady. I saw both of these at the Huntington Mansion in Pasadena, California when I was a teen and they have stuck with me all this time.
I can't say I know what is great, what is fine, what is mediocre or what is "crap"!!! But I know that we are all artists and only time and the right audiences will determine if we are "fine" artists or "masters" etc.
There is "art" in everything. It just takes someone to "create" it. An "artisan"!!! Hence...we are all artisans if we "attempt" to create something and our work "IS" art!!
I haven't studied enough photography to know who is great or even what is great. I know that I have my favorites. One of which is Barry Goldwater, but you don't hear much of him outside of Arizona and the southwest.
Anyway...I think we are all artists. Our works have to be seen and judged by others to determine if it is fine art or not,
Ken

[megan]

Do you feel you're an artist? Do you think you make "fine art"? Are you a plain old photographer, no labels at all? And, if you're of the mind that photography is art, what elevates it to "fine art"? Is there a difference between fine art and regular art? Where do you feel your work lies? Somewhere in the middle? Fine art? Snapshots?.

*whines* Why is pretentiousness assumed when someone claims to be an artist? Is it that the artist by nature is petentious, or is the non-artist intimidated by something they might not understand and is afraid to be challenged by/try to understand? Just a question. IT's one of my continuing frustrations with the perception of artists. We're not *all* black-wearing, clove-smoking (oh wait, that's goth...) Okay - we're not all black-wearing, world-weary snobs. (Though I'm in eminent danger of fitting both of these descriptions LOL)

Yes, I say, absolutely, I am an artist. I don't say it to imply anyone isn't, it's the simple fact, that I use photography as my medium, I am pursuing a career as an artist, I "practice" my art continually, if you will.... And I honestly don't know what else would convince anyone who has a derisive opinion of artists that I AM an artist. There was a similar thread several years back where I glibly replied that if all of the above don't convince you, well, I've got a degree from art school saying that I AM an artist. Now, we all know that the degree does not make the artist, it's just a piece of paper.... but hey, it ya'll wanna get literal, there you go. Photography isn't a hobby to me, like scrapbooking is to some... and yes, there are some scrapbooks that could be considered fine art.

My photography is art. It has hung, and currently hangs, in galleries. Not ALL of my photography is art - I do freelance upon occasion, and candids at a "RENT" party sure are not art. the snapshot I took with the disposable waterproof camera in CocoCay of my feet in the Caribbean - decidedly not art. But there are some series of my work that I pursue with the mindset of an artist, with intention to create an artistic expression, and yes, I believe in my heart of hearts that it is art and I'm an artist.

[megan]

No. If I said that, the real artists would laugh at me..

Any real artist worth his or her salt would actually NOT laugh at you. If you take yourself seriously as an artist (and I don't mean it in the militant "I'm a serious artist, RESPECT ME!!!" kind of way, I mean - you seriously and continually pursue your art, you respect yourself and your art...) other artists will take you seriously. Okay, granted, not all - artists are humans, not gods, and there are many among us who are insecure enough to look down their noses at people. But most thoughtful, secure artists would not laugh.

[darkman]

*
Photography isn't a hobby to me, like scrapbooking is to some... and yes, there are some scrapbooks that could be considered fine art.

But there are some series of my work that I pursue with the mindset of an artist, with intention to create an artistic expression, and yes, I believe in my heart of hearts that it is art and I'm an artist.

Hi Megan,

I was wondering if you were around anymore. I always enjoy your comments.

I hope you're not implying because someone does photography as a "hobby" instead of a "career" that they are not an artist? Many artists, like me (I'm being pretentious now ), have day jobs not doing art.

There is work I "pursue with the mindset of an artist..." I truelly believe that's the best statement in the thread! Now, whether I'm producing "fine art," has to be decided by the viewer. Some will say yes, others will say no.

I think the most pretentious people in photography are the people trying to sell their work by boasting about their equipment. I've had people imply directly to me that they are a better photographer than I am because the camera I'm using is out of production. Then there are the people who always list their equipment at the bottom of their posts. Quoting something Asylum Steve said to me, "is this a badge of honor?"

Mike

[megan]

I hope you're not implying because someone does photography as a "hobby" instead of a "career" that they are not an artist? Many artists, like me ...have day jobs not doing art.

Not at all. Maybe I should narrow it down a bit more to... "dabblers"
People who do something as a diversion, fun, try it out, then put it away and try something else next year, but nothing serious. Not that there is anything wrong with trying things and having diversions - but it's much more than a diversion to me. (And believe me, my day job, while defined as graphic designer, is hardly artistic either. Mmmm more barcharts, soooo creative.... *sigh*)

But yes, still around - I've got a little more free time these days. Last year I was busy working on a huge series that culminated in a solo show this past September - then a surprise second show at a local restaurant in December - so I've been scrambling to both do the work and work the overtime to *afford* the work!

Good to see you too, and good to be back and seeing this wonderful, lively conversation in this forum!

Megan

[AntLockyer]

I've thought some more. I dislike photography but still do it so I must be an artist