tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9868138.post2694974971680736041..comments2023-11-05T03:08:27.317-08:00Comments on a photo a day - photos by Donald Kinney: at Point Reyes Station -- getting a bit "arty"AphotoAdayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08581940419934089601noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9868138.post-67277235319741924012014-08-10T15:06:10.045-07:002014-08-10T15:06:10.045-07:00Hmmm… Well ZOOMIE, if someone took a snap just to...Hmmm… Well ZOOMIE, if someone took a snap just to document what was there, I don't think that would qualify them as a photographer--any more than someone who smeared brush-loads paint would qualify them to assume the title of artist. The term artist is SO broad. It can apply to music, song, dance, lovemaking, etc.; but nobody will ever call a writer or a poet an "artist"--or at least I won't. Yet, in all these endeavors, creative expression is involved. Honestly, photographers can be just as pretentious as other types of artists. It is all art--of course. The difference is that it is perfectly valid for any painter or sculptor to call themselves and be regarded as artists (good or bad), but when it comes to photography--when I hear someone refer to themselves as an "artist", I cringe and am instantly maddened. Nothing special about being an "artist" because the term is so exceedingly broad. Once in a while I might snag an artistic looking photo, but I might have to make 10,000 attempts (no kidding) before I achieve anything that comes close, or could be vaguely assumed to be "art". Usually they are just lucky happenstances, and BEING there has a whole lot to do with it. A nice camera, lens, and a whole lot of patience and free time also plays into the equation. Anyway, for me, it all boils down to Edward Weston--he didn't want to be referred to as an "artist", and I will never achieve his level of creative genius, so it would be sacrilegious of me to elevate my title higher than his. Same goes for that Ansel Adams fellow--who NEVER referred to himself as an artist. Perhaps a "photographic artist", but never just plain simple "artist". AphotoAdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08581940419934089601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9868138.post-23396229837761215952014-08-10T07:05:51.834-07:002014-08-10T07:05:51.834-07:00Interesting distinction, but wouldn't you be a...Interesting distinction, but wouldn't you be a photographer if you simply document what is there, and an artist if you manipulate your photographs to change what was there? If you crop, or even select the framing, never mind using filters or manipulating in the darkroom or on the computer, you are making artistic choices, choices that change what is there. I might say that makes your work "art" without being pretentious, no?Zoomiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16474153316588551039noreply@blogger.com