Are Photographers Considered Artists? Why? Why Not?

Hold on, I'll find one of the many threads this has been discussed at length on...

A photographer becomes an artist when he/she matures to the point that the concept of photography being art or not no longer matters.

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2224988
Here's one!

Thank you heather.

Edward, so photography and physics are similar? Just concepts?

It depends on the reason behind it. Photographing plants for a seed catalogue is a job. "Making a photograph," as Ansel Adams did, is art.

Patricia, good point. how about artists who sell giclees of their own paintings? is this art or a job?

Thank you

I think it depends on what the photographer does with the camera and photograph that differentiates between an artist and a craftsman (or soccer mom with a camera)

Melany, one can be a professional photographer but not an artist and vice versa. Soccer moms are people who use cameras, just like when you use a brush to create a for sale sign.

Thank you

Back to the original question: when do you consider a photographer/photo as an artist/art?

Ten years ago I scanned 35mm slides I took in Europe when I was in the army, printed them out on 13x19 paper and took them to a gallery.

"Nice photography... nice calendar pictures," said the owner, but not art. "You have to make them different, make them stand out in some way."

So I went home and ran them through a process using a medical program that sees fractures that x-rays miss and showed him my work.

This time, when he mentioned calendar, it was to book my one-man exhibit.

My feeling is that there are a lot of fine photographers and they take some really great photos, but they are photographers. Not necessarily artists.

Chuck Staley Concept Art

Chuck,

Great point, loved your art too!

And yet religious discussion is banned here...

HW Kateley .. the art of trolling :)

I disagree Louie! I can think of at least 1 professional artist who's media is photography. Look up Lori Nix. She creates art for her photographs. I'm sure she's not here on FAA. I think lorinix.com is her site.
I'm a huge fan of hers.

Melany, I didn't mean to sound biased in my reply, but I personally believe photography is an art :) not everyone who takes photos is an artists was what I tried to say.
I checked Lori's work .. Stunning!

we would need to discuss what is art...and considered by whom...

To me real photography is an art. I find the different perspectives everyone has very artistic, but there are people who simply take pictures that anyone can do. I don't even think they are considered photographers, so yes to me photography is art.

Tom

That would be an awesome idea. However, does it really matter considered by whom? or what is art? Let's use the definition of art we "think" we know and move on. Great critical thinking though.

AR Annahita

in other words, some people imagine their scene, and use their cameras/digital programs to make their photos. I just cant tell the difference between "photograph" and "picture" in your reply.

Thank you

Yes. Because you still have to have a good eye for art to make good photographs.

--Roz Abellera

is a photographer an artist if he or she is creative with the camera or creative within a program or does that matter ...

Roz,

Thank you!

Not for me to decide. I just do what I do, if someone considers it art, so be it. If not, oh well. I will still do it. :-)

Tom it matters,

Here is an example http://fineartamerica.com/featured/turnover-tom-druin.html
I see this is as a piece of art because this is not how I see apples on daily basis. Right?

Loree,

You such a humble artist buddy!

@Louie, that actually was meant as humor. The question you've posed has been debated since the invention of photography, and it's been debated here many times. In my observation, the feelings about it, to some, are at the level of religion.

Personally, I have my definition of art and it's a simple one (to me). Art conveys. It conveys a message, a feeling, an emotion. It may convey even thoughts that are not fully expressible verbally or in written language (also a potential art). So, the question for photography and any other medium is, does it convey something? Note that for a given piece, this answer will tend to vary from person to person. (eye of the beholder to be cliche')

HW Kateley

I got your joke, and I tried to be get back at you but seems I didnt as good as you did :)

I agree with you, just like how a mother sees her children the most beautiful kids in the world!

Louie,

I think you mean people who do digital art out of their photographs and that is a whole different story to me. I keep photography as original as possible and don't manipulate it and that is what I'm talking about in photography. The manipulated pictures are beautiful too, but it is digital art to me.

anyone who creates anything new is an artist. simple as that.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

^ agreed

photography

"noun pho·tog·ra·phy fə-ˈtä-grə-fē

: the art, process, or job of taking pictures with a camera

"the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or an optical sensor)"

(www.merriam-webster.com)

I do not have the energy for this topic of conversation anymore. lol

Personally.....I don't care what I am. I just like doing what I do, people can label it whatever they want.

anyone can be an artist, whether it can be consider art in the end, is a subject to a different debate.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

@Ricardo, thank you for your input. I was hoping to know your personal opinion though.

@Valerie, I am glad you had that tiny bit of energy left to read the topic and comment. Was nice to see your smile :)

@ All, I appreciate your input, opinions, and thoughts!

If you apply concepts such as composition, color palette, etc. to shooting and/or processing your photo in a way that is comparable to a painting or other art, then your photograph is art and you are an artist. That's how I see it.

@Chris, I believe I agree with you.

An Artist is a painter, dancer, musician, filmmaker, photographer, anything he or wants to do to express themselves.

@ Dallas, well said buddy.

Yes, I like Dallas' answer, too!

Whenever this subject comes up I immediately think uh oh, someone doesn't know how to use their new camera and has filled an sd card with blurry shaky grainy pictures - and now they're trying to justify their mess

Or is that just me??

That's a question that is to hard to answer. I think maybe a start would be when is a person who snaps pics called a photographer, then what happens after that.
Do they become an artist?
Kinda like getting a black belt.

I would like to know the answer to this. Painters are called artists no matter how new, good, or bad they are?
Was this something talked about a lot before photography came along?

Interesting topic, no real answer. I have noticed on the various threads that most of the photo ones are more technical and less about theories or concepts of art. Sometimes I just shake my head and wonder. Example might be, the horizon line is not straight. Good! Make that sucker as convoluted as possible, might add interest to what otherwise is a nice ordinary picture.

I think of it this way: photographic artist, graphic artist, digital artist, painter artist, craftsman artist, etc... All artistic, none the same.

I am not going to answer that, but consider this:

It is far from unusual on this site (and in life) for someone to comment on a famous artist, or an abstract work from one of our own painters. It generally goes like this: "my 5 year old could have painted that, and probably better."

Turn that around to photography and make it: "any little kid with a digital camera could have taken that shot, with a good camera anyone could."

Just a little something to ponder, when one is debating what we all should be called.

@Mark Blauhoefer thank you buddy. I am sure it is not only you. Not every question asked is based on failure (though I believe people has the right to be beginners and gain more experience). Also, blurring a photo is an art in some others' eyes. We learn from each other and grow our knowledge by asking questions. My grandfather always told me there is no stupid question, there is a stupid answer :)

@Kevin OConnell this is not a question that has a clear answer. Painters are artists if they feel they are, same to photographers. Knowing about light and shadows is a talent as well.

@Ronald Walker haha true that, now let me ask you, should the horizon line be in the middle of the frame or on one of the thirds?

@Neva Cruddas thank you for your input Neva

@Kevin Callahan this is not a debate, I wanted to pick some brains. This is how I see it and and I could be wrong, people using a brush to paint on a canvas are painters and people with cameras and a lit space are photographers. Now the product of the bush and the camera decides whether it is art or no.

So much enjoying your posts .. Thank you all.

I like photography especially playing with images. I don't feel the question "are photographers artist?" To be much of a debate. Here is the thing, just like in printmaking , ceramics bronze casting and so on there are people who's jobs are to be technically awesome at the production of stuff. Often "artist" have hired these people to help out due to their expertise. The person who creates the concept is the artist, the other a highly skilled technition. These lines are often much more blurry than an amateur photographer!

Considered by whom? The only time photography should be considered an art is when it is done by an artist. Completely subjective.

JUST VISITING THIS THREAD to photograph some sharks, since by now there should be lots of blood in the water...

}:-D

" Photography is a major force in explaining man to man" -- Edward Steichen.


I am a photographer .... you decide if what I create is art or if I am an artists.


I have been a photojournalist, commercial photographer, stock photographer, wedding photographer, portrait photographer, etc .... and some how now all of my imagery from these is overlapping into art photographer. So .... I am a photographer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Steichen

If an artist or not: You have to look behind this question. Who doubts and why?
Mostly that are artists of an other genre who are jealous of an photographer needing too less time to do their art compared with themselves.


In the end there are artists in any genre and there are some in any genre who only think so. The only advantage of i.e. an painter is that most dare to speak out loud that one of them isn't an artist.

I skipped all the opinions, in other words the thread as a whole.

I have a simple answer to the question.

All photography is art. Art is replicating an image.

There is good photography and bad photography.

And some photography only your mother could love.

Whether photographers want to admit or not it is hard to get as
creative as with a set of paints or as with Photoshop tools where
images are very much altered.

Altering things with paints or Photoshop still leaves us with the question
was the creativity good or bad?

So good photography can be recognized as equal to good art. Neither
is the same and neither would be better than the other, except that
the development of the arts is more clearly seen through art history. This lends
an extra gravitas to some INDIVIDUAL works of art done over the centuries, but not
to all paintings.

Dave

"Mostly that are artists of an other genre who are jealous of an photographer needing too less time to do their art compared with themselves."

Speaking for myself, from start to finish i.e. time taken in the field capturing a scene through post to a completed framed print, the assumption that photography is some kind of art shortcut is an absolute fallacy.

Only you can be the judge.

David B,


You are a more serious artist. So am I, but there are plenty of folks who would like to just
pick up a crayon and go.

Dave

"@Ricardo, thank you for your input. I was hoping to know your personal opinion though."


I agree with the dictionaries. :)

When it comes to mediums, in terms of offering a finished product, photography is the path of least resistance.

Photography is like all mediums, there are those who are able to push it and truly make something special, and many more who simply create the same old thing. Art or non art, artist or non artist not really an issue, but like in all media there is a wide range in how good the artist is. If the camera truly did the work for you then there would be no gap in the quality and vision of the photographic work.

Anyone who believes themselves to be an artist is one. There can be really good ones and really bad ones but they are all artists and it doesn't matter what they use to create their art.

There are no bad artists. Just bad reviewers.

Good point, there are no bad basketball players either.

Interesting question. I've always heard that photography isn't considered art as paintings/sculpture are. Got that reinforced recently when I visited a gallery/coffee house in my city and noticed that there were no photographs for sale. I approached the owner about displaying some of my photos and she turned me down without even seeing any of my work. She said they have displayed photos, but simply don't sell enough photography to warrant expanding their offerings (not that I saw any). So there!

Quite a few galleries are afraid of taking in photographs because of poor past experience. Like as not that's more to do with a lack of understanding about the medium and what's likely to sell. Of course photography is art. If throwing cans of paint in the air onto a canvas behind a jet engine or an unmade bed can be considered art, then anything goes.

As Ansel Adams said, "85% of my work is created After the shutter is pressed." Ansel created his own chemical formulas to develop his film and finished prints. He shared them with the world, and his ZONE system for photography. When using a wet darkroom for decades, used them, and was fortunate to attend several seminars of his. Today believe he would be using Lightroom and Photoshop.... As an innovator himself, who always tried new things and experimented with them to find new and better ways of applying technology, we would have books explaining how to get more out of these programs than we do....

Many photographers say they wont change anything in a photograph, they are not what Id call an artist.....

Then sometimes I may spend 5-7 hours in Lightroom and Photoshop, with one photograph, before it is considered finished..... For years painted with acrylics, now create paintings on a blank cancas in Photoshop. It gets rid of all the smell, toxic chemicals and the necessity of a large easel, so we can live in an RV and travel around the country. It actually takes me almost twice as long to do a 16x20 painting in Photoshop, than it took to do an 18x24 with acrylic... Perhaps if we had a computer screen that large it would cut some time. Bot with a 17" screen, am not able to see the full canvas as you can painting on an easel.

In Sedona, which has a large ART Community, several galleries we visited have LARGE Canvas with photos on them... Prices running $1200 and up... Many photos Ive checked sizes on FAA are not half as large. There are many cameras today that produce larger RAW images, they are more expensive, but could pay for themselves.... if photographers could make a canvas 108X Galleries might carry them. That is one advantage of painting in Photoshop, as the finished piece can be that large. It seems to me though have not tried it, very large images could be made.

Hiya Louie,
When I logged in it said "Artists/Photographers." If the powers here at FAA recognize the fact that there are Artists and Photograpers, why is it necessary to call Photograhers Artists? I am an Artist period. I don't feel the necessity to be called a Photograher because I am happy for who I am.

@ Harold Shull: I don't think it's about FAA failing to recognize anything or otherwise making determinations about it per se. I think it's more likely because they are aware that all the different people logging in might not have identical perspectives on that question.

I agree Harold. I work with a lot of different uses of photography (and other mediums) - photo-based artist or simply artist with a camera.
....

Photography is taught in the leading visual arts schools and is in the collection of major museums. The idea of photography as a legitimate art medium was settled long ago. Is the operator of a machine automatically an artist? No.

Anyone see Groundhog Day? That is what many discussions on FAA (including this one) remind me. I say pull on yer grownup pants and get on with what you do. Do not let others define you. Remember: WGASA (who gives a sh** anyway?)

I look at it a bit differently. There's "taking pictures" and photography. Whether my own photography counts as art or not is up to the viewer. So far, I haven't gotten a single sale here, so I'm starting to wonder, myself...... In my landscape/nature photography, my goal is to capture nature's beauty. Is that art? Or is that just taking pictures? When I shoot a good thunderstorm (I've got a bunch of old lightning photos that aren't high enough resolution to post here, and I don't know where the negatives are---they got lost in three moves and two cancers), the idea is to capture a spectacular display of nature's power. Art? Or just taking pictures? What makes one thing art, and another not? Does "art" require that the artist see some deep, very intense meaning, beyond just beauty, or intriguing, etc.? (I'm actually hoping for answers to that...if there are answers.)

I don't know a lot about photography, but I know Art.