Where you state, " I will say this.... in this article that you posted the guy does come off as being a bit pretentious when he insinuates that photographers that do not have a formal education in art are not on the same playing field as he is (and other photographers with art degrees). To that I call total & utter BS!! ... and, btw, by him saying that he comes across as being very insecure in his own work." I didn't interpret it that way at all.
What he did say was, "So many are quick to self-impose such lofty titles as “artist,” or “fine-art photographer” without the slightest education in, or understanding of, art." I understand that to say many are assuming the mantle with little self understanding of what goes into the work. Nothing was mentioned about formal education in art being the only route, although self education is absolutely needed if one is to make progress or you just churn out the same stuff over and over again.
It's about the passion and thought that one puts into it. Too many photographers get wrapped up in specsmanship and gear issues, forgetting what the intent is. It's the end image thaat counts, not whether is was processed in wet chemicals or in the latest Photo Shop variation, whether it was a zoom lens or a prime lens.
Personally I find the article a good one, and didn't read the elitism into it. To me the article says to stop shooting yourself in the foot by assuming either too much arrogance or too much self deprecation, as either extreme is going to hurt you as an artist.
I was doing photography for many years, and was self educated through extensive reading and experimentation on my own. In education terms, I was an autodidact. I had already started doing art fairs and selling my work in the late 80's, and had done commercial work starting in the mid 70's. I did go to art school as a non-traditional student. Some courses were useful to me as an artist, some were useless as hell. What proved to be the most useful were the art history courses, both traditional and photography. Why not the studio classes? I was already doing and knew what to do. The history courses gave the background and explained the "why" of what was in the work. It wouldn't be necessary to go to art school to get that as some judicious reading would let you dig that out.
Now having said all this, I wouldn't buy hardly any of the artwork being done by the students I went to school with ;-) Most of their photowork was lame as hell or some strange blend of photojournalism, fine art, and political/documentarian. Nothing I would hang on my walls. I did buy a lot of clay work and small sculpture from classmates as I liked that work. Keep in mind I was about 20-30 years older than the usual students.
What counts in the end is what someone puts in the work, and I don't care how hard or easy it was to do, nor do I care what the route they took to learn how to do it. Does it move me, and are they still growing as an artist? That's the issue.
Yep, passion not technical stuff. I learned that last weekend watching the jeweler next to me do her bit. She mentioned her passion for antiques to anyone who would listen. We photogs tend to be very process-oriented, and many in the public couldn't give a hoot. It's important to convey some background on an image, but it's the why that inspires folks to buy.
I found the article very thought provoking and I really haven't put all my thoughts together on it. I was especially intrigued by the section on "We don't care if you hiked 10 miles" section. On one hand I agree wholeheartedly. I get very aggravated with photographers who go on and on about how difficult it was to take a particular photograph and the image isn't anything spectacular. On the other hand I find myself doing that very thing when I talk to potential customers. Yes, I hike, get up at 4:00 AM for sunrise, and get in close proximity to gators and I tell those stories. I'm realizing that the first thing my mind comes up with when I hear a photographer talk about hanging by their toes over a 1000' chasm and the image is really special, is "darn, if I weren't afraid of heights I could have taken that picture". And the last thing I want a potential buyer to think is "if xxxx, I could have taken that". So one thing I took away from this article is that when talking to people about my art I need to concentrate more on "why" instead of "how".
Every artist carries angst about his worth. It goes with using the right brain. Guy Tal writes of the profound dicocomy between photographer and artist. It was an article well worth the time it took to wade through.
Comments
To Christina;
Where you state, " I will say this.... in this article that you posted the guy does come off as being a bit pretentious when he insinuates that photographers that do not have a formal education in art are not on the same playing field as he is (and other photographers with art degrees). To that I call total & utter BS!! ... and, btw, by him saying that he comes across as being very insecure in his own work." I didn't interpret it that way at all.
What he did say was, "So many are quick to self-impose such lofty titles as “artist,” or “fine-art photographer” without the slightest education in, or understanding of, art." I understand that to say many are assuming the mantle with little self understanding of what goes into the work. Nothing was mentioned about formal education in art being the only route, although self education is absolutely needed if one is to make progress or you just churn out the same stuff over and over again.
It's about the passion and thought that one puts into it. Too many photographers get wrapped up in specsmanship and gear issues, forgetting what the intent is. It's the end image thaat counts, not whether is was processed in wet chemicals or in the latest Photo Shop variation, whether it was a zoom lens or a prime lens.
Personally I find the article a good one, and didn't read the elitism into it. To me the article says to stop shooting yourself in the foot by assuming either too much arrogance or too much self deprecation, as either extreme is going to hurt you as an artist.
I was doing photography for many years, and was self educated through extensive reading and experimentation on my own. In education terms, I was an autodidact. I had already started doing art fairs and selling my work in the late 80's, and had done commercial work starting in the mid 70's. I did go to art school as a non-traditional student. Some courses were useful to me as an artist, some were useless as hell. What proved to be the most useful were the art history courses, both traditional and photography. Why not the studio classes? I was already doing and knew what to do. The history courses gave the background and explained the "why" of what was in the work. It wouldn't be necessary to go to art school to get that as some judicious reading would let you dig that out.
Now having said all this, I wouldn't buy hardly any of the artwork being done by the students I went to school with ;-) Most of their photowork was lame as hell or some strange blend of photojournalism, fine art, and political/documentarian. Nothing I would hang on my walls. I did buy a lot of clay work and small sculpture from classmates as I liked that work. Keep in mind I was about 20-30 years older than the usual students.
What counts in the end is what someone puts in the work, and I don't care how hard or easy it was to do, nor do I care what the route they took to learn how to do it. Does it move me, and are they still growing as an artist? That's the issue.