Are Photographers Artists?

No it's not the same. A painter uses brushes and paint. A sculptor uses stone or metal and a musician uses a musical instrument. Photographers use cameras.

If photography is conceptual yes

Just to capture beautiful landscape no

yes your an artist if your using your camera to produce art. what is are is, is left up to debate. beyond that if your a good artist or a bad one is a different story.

conceptual makes no difference. and there are some very artistic landscapes.


if your goal is to take pictures on vacation, then no. if your goal is to take a documentary shot, then also no. if your goal is to produce something unique for the goal of it being art - then yes. if your taking just anything and calling it art, then no.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

so yeah, what exactly is "art" then? I mean can a chef be an artist, or an interior designer, or a knitter of children's sweaters?

I think everyone is an artist, or certainly has the potential to be. From there it's a matter of degree. Some are horrible artists. Others develop their talent and skill to create exquisite works of art. The medium ultimately doesn't matter.

From your portfolio, Gregory, I would say you are an artist. And a good one, too!


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Dan-nope there is no bad artist, maybe artist is bad for someone but what is point of estimation ?

You are absolutely an artist as a photographer! Yes! Take a college course on photography and film, and you will understand the power of art and photography.

to me an artist is someone who can skillfully create.

Thank you very much Dan! That was very kind of you. I would LOVE to think of myself as an artist, but I wanted to be sure I am not being presumptuous by thinking of myself as one, especially in light of the traditional view of it being painters, and sculptors. Thanks everyone.

Melissa i can skillfuly create smelly socks :)))))))))))))) am i artist ?

When did it become a thing to be a photographer, and then not want to be referred to as one? Photography is awesome, I could never do it because I don't think I would like waiting around for proper lighting and slogging through tick infested grass to get to a close up shot of platypus or something. lol so I admire them going out in the fields to get all those glorious shots. Me, I like my couch, and I make all my art from it in complete safety. Food and water just a few steps away. Also, there are far too many flower pictures. ;)

To answer your question, I suppose they are artists, but there has to be some kind of creative process to the shot and not just an applied filter or texture.

Im showing here some of my works and you say - am I photographer or am I artist?

Mind that all of them basically I took with camera....

Wasn't this question discussed and answered over 100 or more years ago? It seems to go on and on endlessly.

The title, "artist" is abused maligned and worshiped today. The word, "artist" is very loaded. So many want to be perceived as creative and innovative no matter what they are doing. You don't need a degree to be or be called an artist. All of that said there are poor artists,good artists and amazing artists. Maybe the breakdown should be hobbyist, amateur and professional, all different in the goals and experience required. No wrong answer just the degree. The discussion will persist it seems. By my own measure I am a technically a poor photographer. I am much more adept practiced and knowledgeable at painting.

In my opinion, a person can be both a photographer AND an artist. Combining the two is artistic photography, in my opinion. Most of my pieces start off as a photograph and end up as art. Like these:



If someone tells me I'm not an artist, I tell them they're wrong. :) If they tell me I'm not a photographer, they're wrong, too.

I do what I consider "straight photography" as well...like this:



But I feel in most cases, my straight photos are not different enough and unique enough to stand out in the crowd, which is why I choose to combine my art with them and create an entire new piece from the original photo(s).

Mark Getlein proposes six activities, services or functions of contemporary artists:

Create places for some human purpose.
Create extraordinary versions of ordinary objects.
Record and commemorate.
Give tangible form to the unknown.
Give tangible form to feelings.



Refresh our vision and help see the world in new ways.:)

Good Luck everyone!

Cheers,V

"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up." - Pablo Picasso

If you read about photography and how to achieve great photographs, you will find that it includes as important, an understanding of elements and principles How to position objects or the camera for best results, and so on, which are also crucial to the creation of art using brushes, paints, pencils, etc. I think anything which requires studied creative input is art, or at least an art form. I see great use of principles in Frank Wilson's work and I admire his work for that reason, not just for the beautiful results he achieves in his photography. As an amateur photographer and an artist with training, I am able to see the art in photography quite easily and I know it's not just a matter of aiming a camera and taking a shot.

short answer.. Yes. :)

It's all art, and in the first tier it doesn't matter how or what or why.

You can sketch in charcoal, pencil, or crayon; you can sketch in mud or the sand with a stick; you can sketch in the frost on a window, in the dust on a windscreen, or carve into a desk; you can even sketch in the snow with a golden stream.

Similarly you can take a photograph with a pinhole or a refined lens, a plastic lens, a magnifying glass; You can do it on a processed plank of wood; or even explore polaroid, daguerretype, black and white, good quality film or rubbish five years past its use-by date. You can hold a flame to the negative to make it bubble, you can stretch it, warp it, overlay it, scar it in any number of ways. You can use a purpose built digital, a camera phone, or even a cheap spy watch.

Likewise the subject, which may be manipulated to create what they envision or an accidental discovery happily stumbled upon in the process of experimenting.

But what makes it good? Philosophically it's all good - but where's the fun in that?

There's a more complex argument about it merely being different making it good - but instinct and experience tells us otherwise. Though it may sometimes be the case, it doesn't necessarily follow.

It's not about the time it took, the reputation of the artist(s), the method(s), the tricks, nor the level of detail, though a combination of these may assist in analysis.

It doesn't matter if it's an unidentifiable abstract, an opus of high surrealism, a manipulated photosequence, enhanced with filters or multimedia techniques.

BUT - if it's the pursuit of beauty there are some subjects which regardless of how cliched they may have become, shouldn't be overlooked by anyone interested in exploring every facet of the medium for the purpose of expression / discovery / relating a tale however vague.

The overuse of flowers and sunsets which have been criticised extensively recently are a case in point. They tell their own story, and simple it may be, but should it be dismissed due to - ah - overexposure? No. Do it if it interests you. Do it well, do it badly post the product to the far corners of the internet. Be glad if it sparks someone's imagination: let them comment, repost, nick it and be thankful for an audience.

But I need to sell it! I need money to continue! I've heard this pained refrain so often that I'm here to tell you that it is the one subject more boring than anything else in the crazy hazy world of art.

If you really want to become a millionaire from art, forget art - open a restaurant instead. Food is a necessity, art is an entertainment. They're equally important, but one is largely free, and more freely available than the other.

Once you've designated the cuisine, decided on the menu, hired a chef, then line the walls with your pictures and wait for a patron to consume enough wine to really want to purchase that photo he'd been subconsciously eyeing all evening, and has now formed an insurperable emotional attachment to.

This, but also you get to eat tax deductably.

"Sounds great - but wait - wouldn't that compromise my artistic credibility?" Well, the answer is maybe, but not as much as starving to death...

:)

Development,as artist, is started when you are young, like and enjoy the world as is.
After that you trying to click,fix,and change something and you are in love with your skills.
Next level is your creativity landing on commercial ground and people like what you do,
willing pay money upfront. Now you are big artist...

If a photographer composes a shot, and the composition was skillful, that alone is using an "artist's eye". In fact there are many "crossover" skills used in painting and photography.

If a photographer "sets up a shot", that too is another skill used in art.

What about lighting, directing the viewer's eye, telling a story and doing it skillfully... Balancing elements such as color or shades, etc. Bravely risking life and limb for a shot!

In everything there are degrees of difficulty, talent, skill, discipline, passion, dedication, on and on... It may be subjective to say that something is art regardless of the medium. Remember the first few weeks of every season of "America's Got Talent", and they have people who can not sing a lick but think they can. They may be trying to sing, but we know they'll never make it as an artist. They may have passion or even dedication, but that isn't always enough.

When I saw the question posed by this thread I remembered the same subject appearing before and before and before and I remember myself thinking the same thing each time... why is this even a question to be debated? (no offense).

This character has ya'll hook, line and sinker :)))

Why the heck does it matter? I'm a photographer. That's good enough for me.

I am sorry Thomas, if you feel that I am baiting. I actually started thinking about from an article I read from Digital Photographers online. My aim is true. Why so cynical?

Thank you to everyone who is responding, as I am learning a lot from you all. I sincerely wanted to know what people thought, to help me shape how I see myself as a photographer. You are helping me, thank you.

For me it has absolutely nothing to do with technique. I paint in different mediums and with different tools, I carve, I sculpt, I take photographs, some manipulated digitally some not. What is the underlying thread? Creativity. I like to create things that I enjoy. If someone else enjoys them too, wow that is cool, if they don't that is cool too. The most desirable thing I find while creating is that time stands still and my focus is entirely on what is being created. Before I know it, it is 4:00 AM and I am not even tired. I can't figure out where the time went. So this is the purest form of meditation I have ever known. I am never going to be the next great famous artist and I got over that in art school a long time ago. The only person I have to please is me and any form of art seems to do that very well.

Rick I totally identify with time standing still!! When I am outside photographing, my head could be on fire, or my limbs could be falling off due to frostbite and I don't even notice! I get so caught up in the moment/hour/passage of time that all else truly stands still!

You see, I am a new photographer, starting in July of this year, discovering I have a talent for it by accident. I am self taught so far, but am going to look for college classes at my local community college in the spring. I am really inspired by all of the posts on this page, thank you!

I am sorry Thomas, if you feel that I am baiting. I actually started thinking about from an article I read from Digital Photographers online. My aim is true. Why so cynical?

:)) No!! Not you. We have a new character baiting on FAA forums.

Thank you Thomas :)

Their are so many discussions about this, maybe because so many people have cameras now, and they all call themselves photographers, no matter the skill level. This seems to make some painters upset, and grouping all photographers together.

Photography is a type of art and it is more a question of intent. I am an artist because society said I am. My photography is art when I decide it is.

Sorry if some of you didn't know photography is art and none of the definitions so far in this thread addresses why. Almost all my work is documentary including nature documentary and most if not all is art. Being documentary does not make it art or not art.

BTW some of the top selling popular artists essentially paint over photos they didn't take. Whose the real artist in that situation?

I will never be a painter or a good digital manipulator of images but I am a very much appreciated musician on a local level and my music and style are not based on copying anything else. I don't consider one more creative than the other.

Most of what I do is well thought out and pre-visualized. I am not always successful in achieving my pre-visualization but it is art when i decide it is. I have enough accomplishments that I do not need anyone to tell me I am an artist or not. And that includes a one man gallery show by invitation at a bona fide local art gallery as well as being juried into some of the top art shows in the country. I started offering my photography as prints by popular demand and started doing shows for the same reason. I am well past contemplating or worrying about photography being art. Society dealt with that a long time ago.

I have a friend with a cheap camera phone that photographs the sunrise every morning and posts it on Facebook. She is an artist. Maybe not as good as some of you but no question she is a practicing artist.
Here is a very recent photo that I would use to represent my work as an artist.



My energy industry work was groundbreaking as not only did I bring some of the first glimpses of deepwater offshore drilling to the public but I did it with an artistic eye. I was able to convey some of the emotion of being there. A contemporary, Mieko Mahi, who was just a bit ahead of me said

"I don’t see myself as a just a photographer. I see myself as an artist because that’s where my passion lies. I create photographs, not just take them. "

Thomas,

It has been noticed and noted.

Hi Gregory,

A short answer would be yes of coarse.

I find it funny that this is so often a discussion... usually and I would almost put money on it to say... only... amongst artists. Seems non artists don't care or already know the answer. We always seem to disregard Webster and in my humble opinion the definition has always covered it nicely.

To say one is an artist has nothing do with the quality of the art, that is a separate issue. When someone says to me they are an artist my first question is always of what...ballet, watercolor, pen and ink, oil, photography, sculpture, pottery, violin, voice....the list goes on....and IMO all are artists if they have the intent to create and perfect their art.

When my oldest son was still at home he had his drums set up in the living room...he would blast that music and play those drums until he did it perfectly and when he accomplished that his INTENT was to gain even greater control...an artist. When no one was home I would blast the music and beat on those drums...and have a great time...but I had no intent to accomplish a thing other than listen to some good tunes and play along...not an artist.

LOL...wonder if I just made any sense.

yes

JC............... :)))

I see the other thread has been locked up..

Why moderation locked my theard ? i open it first :)

An equally equally intelligent question: Is the Earth really round, or is it actually flat? Of COURSE photographers are artists! This is an insult to half of the artists on this site.

I propose a good old fashioned shunning. Whenever The Digital [Troll] (who obviously just wants attention any way he or she can get it) starts a discussion, ignore it.

Owning a camera and knowing how to push the button doesn't make one an artist. Its using the tools at your disposal to create your individual vision that makes one an artist. Could be brushes, could be a scanner, could be a camera, could be a musical instrument etc.

Edward has it right - however, I would suggest that those who use brushes or sculpt are just too slow at creating, they grow old and die with only a few pieces to explain their frustrated existence. Then, if we like it enough we pay people to paint over it and call it restoration. Digital is the only way to go.

Quote by saint Francis of Assisi

“He who works with his hands is a laborer.
He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman.
He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.”

A rather complicated question that comes up regularly....
There are two groups of people who can have very valid opinions..the photographer and the viewer. They can be diametrically opposed about the same person.
In this world, lots of people can claim to be lots of things without education, degrees, experience, etc to backup their claims.
Artist is one of those categories.
After all is said ( if ever) and done, consdiering yourself to be an artist is all that matters.

Here's another example that might not make people so defensive...the definition of a gallery:
gal·ler·y
noun: gallery; plural noun: galleries
1. a room or building for the display or sale of works of art.
I went to a "futon gallery" last week. Does the owner think his futons are works of art? Does the buying public think they are works of art?
He can call his store anything he wants.....naming something doesn't make it so.
I could spend my life telling the world that it is dark outside, yet the sun is shining.

Photographers are artists.
It's not the same and doesn't have to be.
It's about the process, not the product.
Photography is about waiting for the right light, getting the angle exact, cropping intelligently and using post processing to enhance the image to the degree that is desired. It requires creativity in terms of subject matter not being overdone. It requires artistic sense and capturing something that hasn't been captured before. Since photography is seen as "easier" it actually requires a lot more forethought to be seen as an artist. It's become more challenging to be taken seriously.

I believe Photographers are artists. There’s a line between photography and great photography and this is where the terminology gets mixed up. Great photography is not just a click of a button and you’re done kind of deal. There are several things involved in making great photos. Serious photographers know that it requires someone with passion and artistic vision or creative imagination and a lot of practice to get good in this craft.

I blogged about this here http://www.lenbishop.com/what-makes-a-photo/

Any person can be good at, painting,cooking,sculpting,and yes photography..
But there is a special talent to be an artist at any of these things..behold the eye of beauty and work to express that beauty in what you do, to bring to life that which you are doing, to touch the heart of the person looking at it.

I learned that just to know paintings was not good enough to post my painting on this web site, I also had to learn a lot about photography so that people felt and seen the expressions of the paintings..I still am not an artist at photography I just know enough to get my paintings posted..I do not have that special gift that a photographer has to capture the feeling,and place the mood into the photograph.
Yes photography is an art..in my eye anyway

Absolutely I consider myself as an artist...the camera is but one of many tools available.



~Michel Soucy

Personally I just consider myself a "photographer".
I enjoy utilizing the tools and methods and practices involved to produce a "fine" looking photograph.

The term Fine Art Photographer is one that I would not have given or used to define myself,...the term" Photographer" suffices.

Massive exposure of photography throughout the internet as fine art,......is a relatively new photographic term,...and has taken hold.

In all the years even before I first developed an interest and was learning photography,...... the words Fine Art Photographer,.... were never even used or referred to as such,...that I can remember,..(from 1961 well into around 2008 or there about) ..and even before that you were .....just known as a photographer,....and what's wrong with that?
Photographer classifications were,....portrait, wedding, industrial, adverting,landscape, freelance, architectural, fashion,...and such to designate your area of specialization.

I understand that massive exposure and competitiveness via a seemingly endless number of selling web sites online has elevated the visibility and excellence of of photographers work,.....thus given way to the terms,...Fine Art Photographer or Fine Art Photography.

To me the term has,....how would I say,.....been bestowed upon us,......and as such, taken hold, thought and treated as to always have been that way.

I mean when I first joined FAA,.....I clearly remember thinking I could select my own classification or title,... to describe myself and my work,...and I would have elected only the word "Photographer"

Fine Art Photographer,.....was the term given to me,... I understand and appreciated the relevance as it applied to "Fine Art America" the parent site.

That is not a complaint,...just my personal thought process when referring to myself and my images.

I love FAA and sharing space with all the talented individuals and community here,....many of whom are much more deservingly called artists.

Just one persons take on the subject being discussed.

Be well and have a wonderful holiday season all.

Marty

Are all painters artist?

What's art and what's fake?

Where is the frontier between art or not?

If there's a soul, a mind, a heart, sense, sensibility... and you've got the ability to transfer it to any surface to share your personal feelings you're an artist, the rest doesn't matter, tools in mute souls are nothing :-)

Absolutely! Photography as an Art Form - it's all about expression and creativity.

I am a photographer and I do all kinds of photography but tell me something if we are not artists then what are we? I say we are it takes an eye to see what we see.......just saying

I think it was Francis of Assisi who said "A person who works with his hands is a laborer. A person who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman. A person who works with his hands, his head and his heart is an artist."

“Art is what we call...the thing an artist does.

It's not the medium or the oil or the price or whether it hangs on a wall or you eat it. What matters, what makes it art, is that the person who made it overcame the resistance, ignored the voice of doubt and made something worth making. Something risky. Something human.

Art is not in the ...eye of the beholder. It's in the soul of the artist.”
― Seth Godin

To Grigorios Moraitis- Francis of Assisi quote:

Sorry didn't mean to copy your post. I just hadn't scrolled far enough down to see your post. At least you confirmed I got the quote right. :)

Edward Fielding, that is the best quote on what art is that I have ever seen! That answers my original question conclusively, thank you.

This question will never be answered - only opinions can be given. What is 'art' is purely subjective.

If the end result pleases you..it matters not how you got there..or what you or others call it. If people buy it..bonus! Create with whatever tool fits your imagination!

art is up to you. but you can usually tell by comparison what is art and what is not. and if you can't, then it doesn't matter.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Yes! Absolutely! A photographer IS an artist! It is an art to paint with light and capture that with a camera. A camera is a tool...just as the paintbrush is a tool. It takes skill, talent, and an artistic eye to capture a moment with a press of a shutter button. It takes artistic talent and knowledge to correctly process the photo whether in a darkroom or with digital software. Anyone who says photographers are not artists...are horribly wrong!

People seem to want the tools that a person uses as a definition as to whether they are an artist or not. Personally I feel that an artist is someone that uses the tools they are given to make something visually appealing or dramatic. I don't like the arrogance of people that refuse to accept photographers as "true" artists because of the tools they use. It is not just a matter of snapping a picture. As Ansel Adams said, great photographs are "created". What the camera does is only a small part of the equation. What someone does with the camera is what makes it art. Knowing perspective, color, balance, drama and an artistic eye can create some of the greatest photographs that can fulfil the same emotion that a drawing or painting can. Snapping a picture is one thing, being an artist no matter the tools is another.
I am an artist/photographer. I went to art school and learned what it was about. I see no difference between photography and painting when it come to the creative mind. It's the person using the tools, not the tools themselves that make art.

The answer is no, not on this site, and neither are painters or sculptors, etc. On this site - we are POD salesmen. You are not an artist just because you work at a framing shop and the boss lets you hang a couple of your own prints on the wall to help sell. You are a framer. I am not a musician just because I play a guitar. If I write a song I could be considered an artist. If I sell the song, quit the frame shop and go on tour, I am a musician. If you want to know if you are an artist, take your work to the streets and see if it sells without a frame. I can tell you there are few pieces on this site that would sell on the streets of Paris and I don't think Vincent would care one way or another if he saw his work on a throw pillow, as long as he got a taste.

I think it's time to stop following this link now. I have to find a place to put my feet up 'cause it's getting deep in here.

I'm not an artist....I'm a badass.

Write that down!

LOL - Now that would go good on a pillow

Eeew Wwwe.... has closed his or her account at FAA. She or he must be quite an Artist.

Are artists artists? It depends on the artist!

Seven days of relief and then its back from the grave!

Even if you're just photographing something pretty, there's at least one conceptual judgement going on that it is "pretty", whatever that means. I think any such expression is art.

"John Crothers15 Days Ago
No it's not the same. A painter uses brushes and paint. A sculptor uses stone or metal and a musician uses a musical instrument. Photographers use cameras."

So, a painter learns their craft, and uses tools called brushes, and paint. A sculptor learns their craft, and uses hammers, chisels, cutting torches, and welding tools. A musician learns their craft, and uses a tool called an instrument. But, a photographers simply "use a camera"? That has to be the least thought out argument I have heard ever.

Photographers have the most difficult craft to learn of any artist. We don't have the luxury of making anything at all. We must photograph something that actually exists, and then are constantly asked ridiculous questions like, "how I know it looked like that?", by the viewer. Why is it the Mona Lisa is art, when she never really existed, but an artistic photograph of someone who does exist "is just a photograph"? Don't even get me started with Picasso.

"Don't capture images. Create photographs."
~ Daniel Kmiecik

I believe this particular argument is over a hundred years old. I suspect it will not be solved here to everyone's satisfaction.

My question is, if you care about others definition of this, is why?

I agree with Mr. Kateley and a few others. Being an artist isn't necessarily dependent on what others think of your work; it's what you think of it, and how it makes you feel. If someone takes a picture of a sky, and he or she is moved by it, then yes, it is art work to them, and no one else can change that. My opinion is, if you go by how your heart feels, anything you do can become art.

HW Kately and John Clark,

I agree completely, as you can tell by the closing in my About page at onyonet.com:

"My art comes from my heart, and soul, so you can feel it in yours".

I just get tired of hearing photography have to fight to be considered art by the public at large. I even see photographers, who do beautiful work, struggle to believe their own photo is artwork.

As I write this HW, I realize, I just need to be more flexible. I'll keep creating photographs, rather than capturing images, and keep following my own closing, with your words in my head the whole time. Thanks for that. I really do appreciate it.

Daniel

As a photographer, I have come to appreciate that great images are not just the result of "taking a picture of a nice scene". In the field, the photographer must make countless creative decisions all of which affect the final image. Similarly, after the image has been captured in the camera, there are countless more choices to be made in post processing. But it's not done yet. Then there are choices to be made during the printing process to get the image to come out the way you want it. So is the photographer an artist? I think so! As an aspiring photographer, I have come to appreciate all that goes into the creation of a beautiful image.

HW, exactly.
Seeking answers, looking for validation, needing recognition is a trivial pursuit.
I maintain that if it isn't authentic,it isn't art....and if you get distracted by the above, your true task is to recover what makes you authentic. Without it, all else that follows will be phony.

if it isn't authentic,it isn't art....


if it isn't authentic,it isn't art...?

Well...are you an artist who uses a camera as part of your tool set? Or are you a photographer who sometimes produces an "arty" shot?


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

When concepts such composition, color considerations, etc. are applied to photography in a way comparable to a painting or other form of art, then yes, the photography is art and the photographer an artist.

Not all photographers are artists and not all artists are photographers.

Some artists are photographers in that their paintings look just like the photo they painted it from. So, some photographers are artists--they first photograph their work and then paint it verbatim.