Bob, Bob, "Art" runs on a continuum of competence and conventions as do artists and I see no useful way to measure it objectively. You are correct "silly notions" is a loaded expression . Anyone with special knowledge of any subject has to speak up when they know someone has a mis-understanding about it. I can give an example: I frequently look at submissions to an art gallery from people doing a variety of media. When I run into something that may look terrific to me but I don't feel I'm an expert in the medium - clay, for instance, I make sure to ask someone who really knows clay. BTW just being a good crafter in any medium doesn't get you past the judgment that - yea, it's competent, but so are a ton of other artists. This is particularly true of photography. I can look at a portfolio of Holga pictures and know the person will make an exciting exhibit. Whereas I can look at some AA clone's stuff that might look fine to a lot of other folks and confidently reject it. I was a juror once at a large photo competition with two other people. One was a PJ, the other was an advertising art director and I lean toward the "Fine Art", snicker, snicker, crowd. None of us were comfortable with the other's choices. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: can there be art photography ... > From: "Bob Talbot" <BobTalbot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, April 01, 2004 11:12 pm > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > it's no picnic getting people past the silly notions like I'm > seeing expressed here. > > > Most everyone I know is an artist (I guess I need to get around > more!) and I have never > > Alan > > Your use of the phrase "silly notions" is in itself elitist - > appearing to claim superiority (sit in judgement on) lesser beings on > the outside. > > Somebody who produces sculpture, or oil paintings for a living - or > even just prolifically in their spare time - they are artists in the > traditional sense. That does not mean you like their work, or even > consider it "artistic" - in the wider sense - but it's clearly what > they do. > > But what of photography: inherently anything using a recording medium > to record light and, now expanded, any electromagnetic radiation and > now, further expanded, to include pictures that are complete fiction. > If you look through the "viewfinder" and press the shutter you are > making aesthetic judgements per se. > So when in a reply to David you use the phrase (innocently) > "Snap-shooters" is that not elitist ? What is the pecking order? > Snapper, Hack, Photographer, Technician, Artist ... > > > Owning an camera IMO is no more a definition of an artist than owning > a paint brush. > > At what point does a photographer rise from being a snapper to an > artist anyway? > When they start to call themselves an artist or when others do? > > > All IMO and all "silly notions" I'm afraid ... > > > > Bob
