Marilyn wrote:
Just a thought - do you, as photographers, refer to yourselves as artists? Think about yourselves as artists? Do not feel you are artists?
Dear Colleagues,
In my day-to-day life as a software engineer (isn't that a wanky title?) I consider myself an artist. Well, I don't actually think of myself as an artist, but I do (seriously) think of parts of my work as art. Highly functional, and rarely seen by anyone, but (to me at least) art. And this is a driving force and an inspiration in my work.
I mention this, because I can't imagine that many of you would consider this to be related at all to art. Indeed the things which make it art to me bear little or no resemblance (superficially) to what you might think of as art -- but more of this later.
As a photographer (and yes I have sold work) I think of myself as a technician more than an artist. My technical skills are probably far better than my artistic skills :-) Having said that, I’ve seen (photographic) work from people who are gifted as artists, but just can't figure out how to use a camera or to print -- or in some cases when to stop in photoshop.
I see photography as an interesting place where art and technical skills combine. Digital cameras, automation, "easier" printing options, etc are all lowering the barriers to entry from a technical point of view (although I'll agree that they add other barriers).
But perhaps I'm being a little blinkered. If I look at a large number of other forms of art, I note that each of them require a set of skills above those we might decide are present in "artists". If we assume (and I may be very wrong here) that artists generally have some sort of vision, creativity, an "eye" for *something*, then they always require more to actually create their art.
It may be skills with a brush -- with these alone you're just a painter.
It may be skills in handling wood -- with these alone you're just a carpenter.
It may be skills in photography -- with these alone you're just a photographer.
And I'm being a little provocative here, because I am essentially saying that a photographer is a person who can produce a technically good photograph, and nothing else.
But for those of us who have had formal photographic training, did it involve study of art? Mine certainly did. And in some respects it is the study of art -- or perhaps the appreciation of art -- which started me down the path of wanting to produce images that people wanted to look at, rather than images that simply document something.
But back to my assertion that I produce art while writing software…
To most people, software is good if it does the job, doesn't crash, and makes life less hard. OK, to most people it’s only good if you don’t actually have to think about it – a whole lot like a sewage system.
To someone in my position, that's the absolute minimum. There are things beyond that. And I don't even focus on the user interface design, the "picture" the user sees and interacts with. To me there are a whole lot of other things that make it art.
The first is readability. Surprise! Software is written for *people* to read -- not computers. Code that is laid out well, has routines placed where you expect them to be, has unobtrusive but helpful (and even humourous) comments make the task of understanding and working with it a pleasure. In photographic terms, I guess it's a bit like exposure. Sure you can work with under or overexposed negs, but correct exposure makes your work *so* much easier.
The second is design. At least as much work goes into design of software as does the "cutting of the code". Evidence of good design is a whole lot like composition. Does the meaning flow from the image? Do the data structures allow the code to flow smoothly? Do I understand the meaning without having to refer to notes or an artist’s statement?
The third is error handling. Is the nature of the program such that errors are trapped and handled? Does the program degrade gracefully? Is there a freedom from distracting elements in the image?
The fourth is elegance. Is the code simple, clean, and logical? Does it do exactly what it has to do without algorithmic gymnastics? Is it focused? Is it minimalist? Does it concentrate on the essential elements without distraction? Do I look at it and think – that’s so simple, why didn’t I think of that?
I've been writing code now for almost 30 years. I don't think I've worked a day in my life. But can I convince you that what I do is art?
I firmly believe that art is not only in the eye of the beholder it is in the heart of the creator. If you are convinced that what you do is art, then who am I to disagree with you? I see plenty of art that fails to excite me, that I don't understand, or frankly, that I don't like for me to claim to be able to identify anything as being art to anyone other than myself.
However I think that as artists (please let me call myself one for a moment) we work to express ourselves and (probably) to please ourselves using the materials and the skills that we have.
In the end, it's up to the viewer to get something from the created work. If there is a viewer who can do that, then there is art.
Can photographers do that? Yes Can painters do that? Yes Can a humble computer programmer do that?
Or am I just pulling your leg?
Best (completely) UnBob
