There is an extent to which I will agree with it in that obviously there IS a lot more to being a photographer than just owning the equipment, after all owning a car does not make you a driver and even with knowledge of how to drive it, does not make you a good one.
Your opinion may be slightly different depending on whether you want to take the definition of it being a job or a creative/artistic skill. Personally I view it as art, if you have a keen interest in photography and are developing your skills why may you not call yourself a photographer? Albeit you may not be very good at the time but this is the point that I think the original statement from the facebook group should come under criticism, as it is in effect turning round and telling someone their work is crap and they don't deserve the 'title'
I can't help but wonder at which point the people making this statement are being hypocritical. As at what stage in their own photographic lives did they start calling themselves photographers?
Personally when I first started out it was a progression from using the phrase 'interest in photography' to confidently saying 'you know what? Yeah I am a photographer' and I defined myself by that. I took a lot of photos, I saw it as creating art/imagery and I was CONSTANTLY trying to improve.
I worry that it's people who are in a similar situation to where I was, in that early stage, that are the people being targeted by these sorts of statements. It's probably the worst time to make harsh and unnecessary comments because it can totally crush someones self esteem and motivation at this point as you know you're not the greatest, you may even think you're not especially good at all and to the rest of the world your photos obviously aren't at a high standard. However at no point did I, or do I see anyone else just starting out, call themselves PROFESSIONAL photographers and I think this is where the issue lies.
People who own an SLR and take snapshots of their friends, family, pets whatever, without any artistic intention or real interest in the subject and then call themselves photographers I think the statement is fair. As that IS just owning a camera.
However when it is directed towards beginners or individuals who just aren't very good or creative I really do believe it's just narcissistic commentary that needn't be said.
The world of professional photography has nothing to worry about, these people don't claim to be pro's and even if they did their work would speak otherwise.
In the end, I think it's the fear that the title "photographer" is in some way going to become a joke and by default so are all those labeled with it.
2 comments:
I apologise in advance if this comment is going to be long and rambling, but I'm pretty much just laying out my thoughts.
I was wondering the other day about what makes something art. I was having a conversation with my friend after having viewed some "modern art" and personally I was shocked that some of it could be deemed art. For example, there is one such artist who literally paints monochromatic squares and is acclaimed. I found it pretentious and ridiculous, but it got me to wonder: then what is art?
Is art being original? No, many things -- books included -- aren't original at all, but are spectacular artworks. Hmm... then what is art? Art definitely needs a sincerity to it. The artist needs to be sincerely expressive in some way, shape, or form. That's a key point in what constitutes artworks: sincerity of expression.
So that's one thing: 1) Sincerity of Expression. But just having that alone does not make you an artist or your work art. Some things may be indeed so very sincere, but still be horrid (take fanfiction, for example). I would argue further that, for it to be art, it must be outstanding in some way. It must be so as other people can't easily imitate the work. I.e. not everyone can do it (so, most definitely not monochromatic cubes).
Then, if these two are the criteria for something to be art: 1) sincerity of expression and 2) outstanding-ness ... Then, let's apply it to photography.
Is photography really art? When I say "photography" I merely mean the 'taking photos' aspect of it. Taking photos is by no means outstanding. Everybody can do this. Yes, it takes the eye to see impressive angles, but this is not difficult. It's as easy as saying to somebody "think about the angle at which you take the photo" and their photos will be immensely improved. What's more, contrary to the facebook group's sentiment, having a better camera, an SLR for example, does help. A photographer with a better camera will more likely than not produce better photos than one with a lesser camera. Which makes me question again: is this an art form, or is this a mere matter of having the greatest equipment?
Criterion 1: It must be sincerely expressive. Are photos in themselves expressive? I suppose very loosely... Because it's merely capturing what you have seen in its beauty or horror or whatever. But are you expressing any of your own thoughts or sentiments by taking a photo? It isn't like a painting which you create yourself, thus being able to put elements of yourself into it... Remember, I did say I meant photography strictly in the 'taking photos' sense.
Editing is a different issue. That may indeed be art. It defines a picture and allows you to express yourself by changing the appearance of it to match what you are trying to articulate... and it also isn't the easiest thing to do.
But the taking of photos (even if it be creative, even if they do come out prettily) -- is that art? I'm inclined to doubt it.
I'm inclined to say that, yes, being a teenager with a Nikon does make you a photographer. Unless you know how to effectively edit, however, it doesn't necessarily make you an artist.
Sorry for that long comment, aha. Just giving my two cents, as someone "interested in" photography and who hopes to be considered an artist [not necessarily in photography] one day.
P.S. Please don't take this comment to mean I think photography is a joke, because I certainly don't xD I love it very much and find it so important! I just think taking very fancy pictures with a very fancy camera, on its own, isn't art. Not until you do something with the pictures does it become art.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! :)
I take your point in that simply taking a photo, is clearly not art.
I think perhaps using a different term instead of art would be better to describe a lot of photography. Perhaps something more like a creative based medium.. or something along those lines would have been better used in this post.
I think you can definitely express your own thoughts and sentiments through photography and in photos. Infact I believe merely the decision as to WHICH moments you photograph is in itself saying something about the photographer.
I also tink it's very dependent on what type of photographer you may class yourself as. Fashion shoots and conceptual imagery take a lot of thought into every aspect of the photo and it's created from pure imagination rather than documenting a moment. But again I see your emphasis on purely the "taking a photo part" and realise you aren't applying your thoughts to all aspects of photography as a whole.
I do think photography is/can and should be classed as art but that doesn't mean to say being trigger happy and taking photos of anything and everything infront of you with little to no thought would make you an artist. Even then, I wouldn't class every photographer an artist either.
Post a Comment