Good essay, highlighting the cultural influences in the meaning of words!
Some well-known photographers who considered themselves more like photographers than artists:
Walker Evans: "Good photography is unpretentious."
HC-B: For me, the camera is a sketchbook, an instrument of intuition and spontaneity."
Stephen Shore: "I wanted to make pictures that felt natural, that felt like seeing, that did not feel like taking something in the world and making a piece of art out of it."
André Kertész: "I am an ordinary photographer working for his own pleasure."
Alfred Stieglitz: "Photography is my passion, the search for truth, my obsession."
Personally, I do not pay too much attention to labels but see a spectrum that ranges from documentary photographers all the way to artists who use photography to document and share their art. 🍷
Perhaps labels are applied by others and go along with their insistence for the 'artist' to explain or justify themselves.
I remember as a young and hopeful 'musician' in a hopeful band being asked by a journalist we had all but begged to see, "What sort of music do you play?" or was it, "What sort of band are you?". My memory fails as rock 'n' roll didn't come by itself in those days 😉
Anyway, I was mortified that the guy insisted on categorising us somehow, as if he wasn't willing or able to describe what he had (presumably) listened to.
It was as if he was trying to decide which bin to use in the record shop: punk, new wave, experimental, pomp, and so on. I felt insulted that our craft was not being appreciated for what it was, along with the passion and creativity we put into making it. As a drummer (sorry, did I say musician earlier?), that also involved blisters, blood, sweat and tears.
As it happened, the only bin our music ended up in, was the ... err .. bin!
Rather than artists or musicians, we were just a bunch of kids having a laugh and being the centre of attention for a while.
In later years, there is the desire to be regarded merely as someone who hides behind a camera twiddling dials and pressing buttons, rather than a tog, pro, commercial, wedding, artist or, damn the word, hobbyist!
It's a good story, and yes, labels are a shortcut to avoid using one's judgment. I also assume the journalist wanted an easy way to communicate to his readers and may not have had the confidence to categorize the band by himself. As a serious hobbyist photographer, I see the label "artist" used in two ways. One is when the person labeling believes "artist" is a better compliment than "photographer" and thinks the photographer will appreciate the compliment. The other is when the person labeling does not understand the difference between making a snapshot and a good photograph, thus having low esteem for the medium and being hesitant to use the label "photographer." Dina refers to that. In both cases, it is done in good faith. Thanks for the story!
My issue with wedding photography is how stressful it seems to be. I think you have to be the right kind of person to deal with bridezillas, the difficulty of wrangling groups of subjects, the concerns of staying out of the way while getting the shots that you have to get. I am not that person. It stresses me out just thinking about doing that work. I think a lot of photographers feel the same way, but choose to be assholes and look down at the people who can pull it off.
Wedding photography is hard! It’s not just the part involving getting the pictures, but like you said it takes a certain set of people skills and an ability to work under pressure while helping keep everyone happy and calm despite all the stress and chaos.
I’m not that person. But I shot a bunch of weddings and have the utmost respect for those who do it well.
It was interesting to read this, having just posted about a wedding I photographed earlier this year. I don’t have the time for them like I did in college, but I’ve always enjoyed photographing weddings, and I wasn’t aware of the negative stigma 🤷🏻♀️
Is this an American thing? I think in the UK and New Zealand (cultures I’m familiar with) I’ve only ever heard people refer to themselves as photographers ‘artist’ would seem very pretentious. I think you might hear ‘professional photographer’ to make it clear they’re not a hobbyist.
Loved it the first time. Laughed out loud again at the end. I do only call myself a photographer, though sometimes I might be heard to say to someone (who is actually interested in photography) that it's "my" art.
I have Al Davidson, owner of Davidson Studio, who in 1968 took a risk with me who only shot one 127mm roll of film in an old Zeis Icon, by letting me be his assistant on weddings he would shoot every weekend for 48 years. Later that year he sent me out on my first solo wedding armed with a 1937 Rollei and 8 rolls (96 negs only) and a Honeywell flash. I did 14 weddings for Al. Never blew a shot. Got everything on one shutter trip.., from garter to bouquet to first dance. He set me out to sea with that work and taught me how to handle the pressure coming from The Mother or The Bride of Frankenstein, right up to the photo editors at Time and Newsweek. Al was a great guy in the trenches of wedding work and as his apprentice I grew to be a journeyman photojournalist. Now, long retired, I’m a photo-artist and don’t really care whether people like the moniker or not. People, places, things, and situations of the lived experience of human beings is my palette and my score for this image performance. Thanks Al!
My Dad did yearbook photography, and also sat on top of the press box to take the team movies for HS football! That was paying some dues! He was a good photographer , the art just sneaked in.
But I make art. Why shouldn't I call myself an artist? Or is calling my work art, also pretentious? There are hundreds of millions of photographs taken every day. There are so many different kinds of photography, and many of them are not artistic. I don't see the problem with labeling it as art, or the creators as artists. It is interesting that a couple of you come from cultural (national) backgrounds that find the term pretentious.
By the way, I should introduce you to my dad. He paints barns.
Art can have two meanings. One meaning is describing the intent. When an individual does anything creative, no matter how good or bad, it is “art” by default and is used as an objective descriptor. In this case, all photographs are art.
Another is to use it as a qualifier and only call an object “art” when it is good enough to reach a certain level. With this meaning, only a minority of photographs can be “art.”
You separated your work from hundreds of millions of photographs that are “not art,” telling me that you are using it as latter. However, to be a qualifier, this label can only work when it is given by outside observers. Otherwise, each individual would describe their work as “art,” and the word would lose its meaning as the qualifier it aims to be.
I think that any and every kind of photography can be “artistic” if done right.
Same for me, photographer is just fine, just like "photo" or "video" is better than "content". Let's be precise!
I get what you’re saying. And you’re an artist anyway.
:)
Good essay, highlighting the cultural influences in the meaning of words!
Some well-known photographers who considered themselves more like photographers than artists:
Walker Evans: "Good photography is unpretentious."
HC-B: For me, the camera is a sketchbook, an instrument of intuition and spontaneity."
Stephen Shore: "I wanted to make pictures that felt natural, that felt like seeing, that did not feel like taking something in the world and making a piece of art out of it."
André Kertész: "I am an ordinary photographer working for his own pleasure."
Alfred Stieglitz: "Photography is my passion, the search for truth, my obsession."
Personally, I do not pay too much attention to labels but see a spectrum that ranges from documentary photographers all the way to artists who use photography to document and share their art. 🍷
Perhaps labels are applied by others and go along with their insistence for the 'artist' to explain or justify themselves.
I remember as a young and hopeful 'musician' in a hopeful band being asked by a journalist we had all but begged to see, "What sort of music do you play?" or was it, "What sort of band are you?". My memory fails as rock 'n' roll didn't come by itself in those days 😉
Anyway, I was mortified that the guy insisted on categorising us somehow, as if he wasn't willing or able to describe what he had (presumably) listened to.
It was as if he was trying to decide which bin to use in the record shop: punk, new wave, experimental, pomp, and so on. I felt insulted that our craft was not being appreciated for what it was, along with the passion and creativity we put into making it. As a drummer (sorry, did I say musician earlier?), that also involved blisters, blood, sweat and tears.
As it happened, the only bin our music ended up in, was the ... err .. bin!
Rather than artists or musicians, we were just a bunch of kids having a laugh and being the centre of attention for a while.
In later years, there is the desire to be regarded merely as someone who hides behind a camera twiddling dials and pressing buttons, rather than a tog, pro, commercial, wedding, artist or, damn the word, hobbyist!
It's a good story, and yes, labels are a shortcut to avoid using one's judgment. I also assume the journalist wanted an easy way to communicate to his readers and may not have had the confidence to categorize the band by himself. As a serious hobbyist photographer, I see the label "artist" used in two ways. One is when the person labeling believes "artist" is a better compliment than "photographer" and thinks the photographer will appreciate the compliment. The other is when the person labeling does not understand the difference between making a snapshot and a good photograph, thus having low esteem for the medium and being hesitant to use the label "photographer." Dina refers to that. In both cases, it is done in good faith. Thanks for the story!
What’s worse is the washing machine phrase “I’m a creative.” Yeah, I think of the pretension of “artist” and think of my MFA debt.
MFA debt still triggers me
My issue with wedding photography is how stressful it seems to be. I think you have to be the right kind of person to deal with bridezillas, the difficulty of wrangling groups of subjects, the concerns of staying out of the way while getting the shots that you have to get. I am not that person. It stresses me out just thinking about doing that work. I think a lot of photographers feel the same way, but choose to be assholes and look down at the people who can pull it off.
Wedding photography is hard! It’s not just the part involving getting the pictures, but like you said it takes a certain set of people skills and an ability to work under pressure while helping keep everyone happy and calm despite all the stress and chaos.
I’m not that person. But I shot a bunch of weddings and have the utmost respect for those who do it well.
What a fantastic piece! Glad I found you. :)
It was interesting to read this, having just posted about a wedding I photographed earlier this year. I don’t have the time for them like I did in college, but I’ve always enjoyed photographing weddings, and I wasn’t aware of the negative stigma 🤷🏻♀️
I wasn't either until art school.
This is the best thing I’ve read in a long time!
Thank you!
Good. Be proud of what you do, we all should. Those critics that Teddy Roosevelt talked about… can go about their meaningless business.
Is this an American thing? I think in the UK and New Zealand (cultures I’m familiar with) I’ve only ever heard people refer to themselves as photographers ‘artist’ would seem very pretentious. I think you might hear ‘professional photographer’ to make it clear they’re not a hobbyist.
I do think it's an American thing.
Yeah it’s not a German thing either.
I’d quite like to say I’m an artist, but at best I’m a craftsman! I very often describe myself as ‘a snapper’, which really seems to wind people up…
Loved it the first time. Laughed out loud again at the end. I do only call myself a photographer, though sometimes I might be heard to say to someone (who is actually interested in photography) that it's "my" art.
I have Al Davidson, owner of Davidson Studio, who in 1968 took a risk with me who only shot one 127mm roll of film in an old Zeis Icon, by letting me be his assistant on weddings he would shoot every weekend for 48 years. Later that year he sent me out on my first solo wedding armed with a 1937 Rollei and 8 rolls (96 negs only) and a Honeywell flash. I did 14 weddings for Al. Never blew a shot. Got everything on one shutter trip.., from garter to bouquet to first dance. He set me out to sea with that work and taught me how to handle the pressure coming from The Mother or The Bride of Frankenstein, right up to the photo editors at Time and Newsweek. Al was a great guy in the trenches of wedding work and as his apprentice I grew to be a journeyman photojournalist. Now, long retired, I’m a photo-artist and don’t really care whether people like the moniker or not. People, places, things, and situations of the lived experience of human beings is my palette and my score for this image performance. Thanks Al!
My Dad did yearbook photography, and also sat on top of the press box to take the team movies for HS football! That was paying some dues! He was a good photographer , the art just sneaked in.
p.s., I'm also a photographer and I still don't shoot weddings!
But I make art. Why shouldn't I call myself an artist? Or is calling my work art, also pretentious? There are hundreds of millions of photographs taken every day. There are so many different kinds of photography, and many of them are not artistic. I don't see the problem with labeling it as art, or the creators as artists. It is interesting that a couple of you come from cultural (national) backgrounds that find the term pretentious.
By the way, I should introduce you to my dad. He paints barns.
Art can have two meanings. One meaning is describing the intent. When an individual does anything creative, no matter how good or bad, it is “art” by default and is used as an objective descriptor. In this case, all photographs are art.
Another is to use it as a qualifier and only call an object “art” when it is good enough to reach a certain level. With this meaning, only a minority of photographs can be “art.”
You separated your work from hundreds of millions of photographs that are “not art,” telling me that you are using it as latter. However, to be a qualifier, this label can only work when it is given by outside observers. Otherwise, each individual would describe their work as “art,” and the word would lose its meaning as the qualifier it aims to be.
I think that any and every kind of photography can be “artistic” if done right.