038/365
December 13, 2015
Tenants Harbor, ME, USA
Rebecca and I talked a lot about art and what defines art and being an artist lately. We discussed it from various different angles and it's a really interesting topic because our opinions aren't completely matching and there's also not just one view on it that I can relate to or think is right.
I had a very hard time calling myself a photographer when I first started out taking pictures and I have an even harder time calling myself an artist. I can't stand the arrogance this seems to impose if it's used the wrong way and I often think people use the term artist either too casual or too serious.
In photography it's relatively hard to find people who are truly artists I think. A lot of people shoot as a pastime, for reviews or for commercial aspects. I do not think that a working photographer is automatically an artist. I think in its true sense, art shouldn't have a purpose but itself and if someone pays you to take a certain picture for them, it cannot be art. Your client then determines what you shoot and it's not your own creative self-expression.
Of course I include my own work in that too. If I shoot something for a magazine and the publication influences the story, the pictures don't come from the inside. If I document a memory with my family I don't think this would qualify either. Of course almost all photographers work creatively and artistic, but I don't think I would always call the result art when the direction comes from the outside. On the other hand, I wouldn't generally say commissioned work cannot be art since social relevance and the context of a photograph are also an important factor.
Obviously this isn't a straightforward topic. But it was something I had on my mind a lot lately and I found it really inspiring to think about. It would be fun to discuss this with a couple of friends.