http://www.flickr.com/photos/grj2000/

gil

the concepts behind “guildsman,” “artisan,” “tradesman,” “craftsman,” “guild,” “craft,” “professional/profession,” and “amateur” have become hopelessly muddled over the past 200 years – and clarity is not likely to return to this area in the foreseeable milennia.

nomenclature aside, however, one can make photographs as a money-making profession, as a way to memorialize the antics of their family members, or to create art (or all 3) – but it is in the latter sense that I define myself as a photographer.

of course, technical accomplishment is the sine qua non of competent photography. and while i am continuing to develop my skills, i do not believe one can create an artistic photograph without coupling technical ability to vision … artistic vision.

so when asked whether i am a photographer, I say yes. when asked whether i am a professional photographer, i say that i am an artist. if asked whether i get paid for it, i respond that while i may sometimes accept money for my art, i do not do it for the money.

this then allows me to turn the conversation away from the commercial aspects of photography and toward the artistic aspects of what i/we do and what we love about photography.

and that, for me, is a core truth – that i am trying to make a photograph that is “artistic” and not strictly “commercial” – not that the latter is a bad thing, just that it is not my thing. it is not that to which i aspire.

i have had numerous true professions in my life, and have been successful at all of them … and still didn’t get rich. that’s okay with me, it was never my motivation. and btw, being a “professional” is not all it is knocked up to be.

i would much rather be/am happier being, an artist who tries to capture some small measure of the beauty that really does exist in this world. my motivation in this is that my professions have usually revolved around the unpleasant things in life.

but, point 2 … while some might feel the epithet “amateur” thrust upon them with a scarlet letter “A,” the term also is used … no embraced … by those who seek to hide behind it and use it to excuse their lack of technical mastery or fulfillment of vision.

the point being that whatever we call ourselves, let us not apologize for not being adams or steiglitz, et al.

i have posted a link to a small flicker page. if you go there, you will see plainly that i am not ansel or alfred.

i am not ashamed of that. they were not me, either.

but yes, i am still a photographer.

and receiving no pay at all from it, i can say that like some of the most famous photographers, i, too, am underpaid.

gil