Photographer or an artist ?

[John B.]

Originally Posted by StephenBatey

So anyone who used/uses colour slides could not - by definition - be an artist?

Who said that? I said something about " it can be argued that getting the photo right in the camera, is an art." You do want to get a slide right in the camera, don't you? I never implied that film and slides cannot be art. I also mentioned Ansel Adams being an artist. He used film.

I also said: "... the person who takes a snapshot without giving it any thought, and leaves it at that, is a photographer and not an artist." I stand by that, whether it's film, slide or digital.

[Markyboy1]

I think taking a photograph is art whether its a happy snappy, masterfully composed or edited we all create a piece of art whenever we use our camera. Some might not appreciate/like what we create but then more often than not we produce what makes us happy. If you look at some of the garbage displayed in galleries across the world some of those painting I wouldnt use the canvas to blow my nose on but the man next to me might love it

Were all artists we just use photography to display our art

Mark

[John B.]

Originally Posted by Markyboy1

I think taking a photograph is art whether its a happy snappy, masterfully composed or edited we all create a piece of art whenever we use our camera. Some might not appreciate/like what we create but then more often than not we produce what makes us happy. If you look at some of the garbage displayed in galleries across the world some of those painting I wouldnt use the canvas to blow my nose on but the man next to me might love it

Were all artists we just use photography to display our art

As it is said: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

And I agree with you, Mark, that some art hanging in galleries is rubbish. I could never see anything artistic in Picasso's work, yet some people place a high value on it. Likewise, putting a crucifix in a jar of urine, insulting God, and calling it "art" is insane. Yet that piece of junk was displayed in a gallery, here, and paid for with our tax money.

[StephenBatey]

Originally Posted by John B.

Who said that? I said something about " it can be argued that getting the photo right in the camera, is an art." You do want to get a slide right in the camera, don't you? I never implied that film and slides cannot be art. I also mentioned Ansel Adams being an artist. He used film.

I also said: "... the person who takes a snapshot without giving it any thought, and leaves it at that, is a photographer and not an artist." I stand by that, whether it's film, slide or digital.

The comment that you made that I was responding to was

A photographer is one who takes the photo. The artist post-processes it to improve it. Ansel Adams took photos but he processed them in his darkroom afterward. I think he earned the right to be recognized as an artist as well as a photographer.

That seemed to me to state as clearly as it could be that if all you do is press the button, you can't be an artist. After work (post processing) was essential to make the transition to artist. I simply thought that this was nonsense.

[StephenBatey]

Originally Posted by John B.

As it is said: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

And I agree with you, Mark, that some art hanging in galleries is rubbish. I could never see anything artistic in Picasso's work, yet some people place a high value on it. Likewise, putting a crucifix in a jar of urine, insulting God, and calling it "art" is insane. Yet that piece of junk was displayed in a gallery, here, and paid for with our tax money.

I think that there are two different fallacies in this one. But I'm also certain that we will never agree over what constitutes art. I bow out, disappointed.

[John B.]

Originally Posted by StephenBatey

The comment that you made that I was responding to was

A photographer is one who takes the photo. The artist post-processes it to improve it. Ansel Adams took photos but he processed them in his darkroom afterward. I think he earned the right to be recognized as an artist as well as a photographer.

That seemed to me to state as clearly as it could be that if all you do is press the button, you can't be an artist. After work (post processing) was essential to make the transition to artist. I simply thought that this was nonsense.

Elsewhere, I said taking a photo "without any thought..." That makes my position clear, but perhaps you missed that. Casual snapping of photos with no thought often results in heads being chopped off, etc. That is not art!

[John B.]

Originally Posted by StephenBatey

I think that there are two different fallacies in this one. But I'm also certain that we will never agree over what constitutes art. I bow out, disappointed.

So be disappointed because obviously there is going to be a lot upon which we disagree, and this is not the only time you have turned something into an argument. I'd prefer to not waste my time arguing anything with you because you read things into my words that I don't say. Go take your absolutely essential tripod and be an artist in all that you do.

[shumicpi]

I like to call myself as photographer.

[Akira]

I can call myself anything I want, but personally I think it's for others to judge whether that description is true or not.
I tend to view all photographers as photographers rather than artists, but then the photos I take, whether they're good or bad, are taken in the name of "art" rather than anything else. In short I take a photo to try and produce an image that pleases me aesthetically rather than, for instance, to record a moment in time. I guess I'm trying to make art, but imo that doesn't make me an artist.