Subscribe by email
Subscribe by RSS feed
Beyond Craft
September 5th, 2010
Several months ago I wrote a post about whether photography was or was not Art. The absurd difficulty of defining “Art” aside, I came down on the side of “photography is a craft, excel at it, love it, and let others decide if it is or isn’t Art.”
I’ve changed my mind. Rather, my thinking has become a little clearer, and in part I’ve got Seth Godin to thank. It was while reading his book Linchpin, that I began to put the pieces of things together, and I bet you’ll be shocked when I tell you it comes back to Vision. Intent.
First, a couple thoughts from others. Anne Lamott says “Art, to be Art, must point at something.” My friend Jeffrey Chapman says Art needs to have something of the artist in it, otherwise it’s just craft.
Is photography an art? Maybe. Can photographs be Art? Also maybe.
It depends not on how skilled a technician you are, nor on which gear you use – though to one degree or another both of those affect how you create you art. It depends on two things. The first is a desire to make it a gift, the second is the vision of the artist himself. I’m not going to explore the first too deeply this morning, my coffee’s barely kicked in and I’m still processing this part. I do know that propaganda posters are not made as a gift in any sense of the word, but they do have intent and I would argue that alone doesn’t make them Art. I could be wrong. I do suggest you read Lewis Hyde’s book The Gift if you’re interested in the discussion. Seth Godin references the book in Linchpin but doesn’t do it justice.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that it’s the second aspect of this I’m most interested in. Maybe I’m just seeing what I want to see, but it finally clicked in Maui – it’s the combination of Craft and Vision (no promotional plug intended, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence…) that makes Art. Godin argues that craft isn’t relevant – and perhaps he’s right. Perhaps we’ve elevated Art to a pinnacle it doesn’t deserve – perhaps there’s something higher to aim for, not merely Art but beautiful art, true art, art that expresses the author’s intent or vision as elegantly, uniquely, powerfully as possible. If that’s the case then a poet who masters the language has a better crack at that goal than one barely out of grade school. But it’s no substitute. I’ll take the grade schooler with something to say anyday, even roughly, over the eloquent poet without an original thought or honest emotion to share.
This is why Vision matters. Without it, we’re pointing at nothing. Without it we’re creating perfect images without passion, risk, failure, or humanity. It’s also the reason Craft matters. A man can say, “my heart is broken, my God has forsaken me,” but without Craft it’s neither a poem nor a song, it’s just a lament.The way he says it determines whether his words are merely heard or if they in turn cause hearts to quiver and break, to feel something.
This is also why the some of the old school get very twitchy about all this. There are forums aplenty full of grumpy old men talking trash about this emphasis on vision as though it were a complete dismissal of craft. They argue that the recent accessibility of digital gear that was once out of reach of the beginner has “made everyone a photographer.” They argue that learning the craft used to take time, it used to matter, it used to take dedication, dammit! Oh please. Talk about golden calves. So what? So the craft is a little easier now, so what? These codgers are just making my point for me more elegantly than I could. If the gear is getting better and cheaper (and it is getting cheaper in the long run – look at what we get now for $2000 compared to the price of early digital monsters, ) and if the gear is getting easier to use then, yes, you still need to master it. But if the ground around gear has been leveled, what’s the only ground left on which to differentiate (they use words like “compete”) ourselves? Vision. And yes, as cliche as it’s become – Passion too. Don’t settle for eloquence (Craft); say something that matters to you (Vision) and say it as loudly and courageously and powerfully as you can (Art)
I know the old school is scared, nervous, wondering how they’ll switch gears. But if their craft is as good as they say it is, then its time to stop bitching and start looking inside themselves to find that spark that was there when they first discovered the magic of the camera. This didn’t begin as a rant about professional concerns, but if there are people that seem dismissive of the need to develop and express our vision, this is where it is most profoundly pragmatic. Anyone can now hire someone whose sole qualification is competence with a camera. If the client wants more, they need someone with vision and a voice, and that’s where the money is. Want to compete solely on your technical competence? Get in line behind the 16 year old with the ad on Craigslist and get ready for the fastest race to the bottom you’ve ever experienced.
Wow, that went off the rails fast. All I really wanted to do was encourage you to keep at it – both in learning your craft and in the harder work of discovering and expressing your vision. They work together, don’t neglect them.
So is it Art? The last time I discussed this I concluded that that was up to the person looking at your work. To some degree that’s true. But it has much, much more to do with us. To be sure, we’re craftsmen. But Artists? That’s up to us to decide – are we willing to do the hard work of moving past mere competence and into the scarier realm of expression, at pointing at something we see in a way others do not? At the risk of quoting myself, I think it’s motivating to remember that merely perfect photographs don’t move the heart, only art does that. We can do better than perfect histograms and compositions that take no risks.
Not to be too confrontational
but craft is the refuge of those who lack vision – a potentially useful refuge once, hopefully, vision arrives but a refuge all the same.
Oh Jeffrey, ever the prophet.
And all the people said, “Amen!”
In the Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis describes a painter approaching heaven. As the artist discovers that ‘all is perfect’ in heaven, he begins to ask if there will be any point painting there.
The response: “When you’ve grown into a Person there’ll be some things which you’ll see better than anyone else. One of the things you’ll want to do will be to tell us about them.”
That’s it. Vision. Seeing something in a way that most others don’t and telling others about it through the medium chosen.
Others might or might not call it art. Those definitions are always shifting and changing, what is ‘good’ shifts and changes with the times, as well as with the one viewing the piece.
I feel for those who compete on price alone or on “the way things used to be.” They’re missing out on the most glorious part. That also happens to be the very part of the work I find myself seeking more and more.
Or, to put it much more succinctly…..”what Dana said”
That’s an excellent discussion on the difference of craftsmanship and artists David. I agree with you that we must be superb craftsmen in order to create our art, knowing our tools is what allows us to express what’s in our hearts.
The complaints of many that photography is too accessible to the masses now however is a unique argument to our chosen medium. I can easily go to the art supply store up the street and buy canvas and paints and brushes for far less than an entry level DSLR but in no way can I claim to be a painter or have the skills to translate what’s in my mind onto the canvas. On that same coin there are many painters who can reproduce any masters paintings, yet they have no ideas of their own to paint.
I think you are right though, we can be amazing craftsmen but you choose to be an artist, and that only comes when you want to express what’s in your heart and mind through your chosen medium.
Cheers
Very well said. I’m one of those “newcomers” you talk about. I’ve always had a passion for photography, but just recently started selling my work. I have people who come by all the time who think my work is beautiful, but they have a brother, or cousin or husband who “does photography” and anyone can take a picture, so they never purchase mine.
A big fan here. Thanks so much. Just reading Visionmongers now.
All the best David.
that was a lot to take in so early on a Sunday morning but you say it much more eloquently than I ever could. If you feel something in your heart, you do not worry about “competing” or what others think or whether it’s art. You do it because it’s in you and must come out. I think that comes first and working on your craft is an offshoot of that – you want to improve so that the things that you need to say can be said the way you feel them in your heart. At least, that’s how it works for me.
As a relatively new photographer, I very much appreciate your experience and willingness to share. I think you recognize the essence of photography regardless of equipment, tools, etc. While I’m still learning proper exposure, composition and the like; I aspire to express the art of photography in what is to become my vision. Cheers!
[...] http://www.pixelatedimage.com/blog/2010/09/beyond-craft/ This entry was posted in Websites. Bookmark the permalink. ← Linchpin and Lake Arrowhead [...]
Photography is just a medium. I have a much simpler view of whether a particular photograph is art:
http://www.alexsuarez.com/art
I think much of what you’re touching on here is whether the art is great or not–a critically important point to consider. Just because an uninspiring photographic technician produced an image that doesn’t move anyone, doesn’t mean it’s not art. It just means that his art sucks.
This just reminded me of another post on my blog about not confusing image quality for great photography:
http://www.alexsuarez.com/imagequality
Thanks for making me think about this again this morning.
I read Linchpin as well. I LOVE the way that Seth Godin defines art and his perspective on it. Linchpin is a must read for…well…everyone, in my opinion. (disclaimer – Seth Godin junkie).
I chuckled when you mentioned the “old school.” In the last few weeks, nothing but “old school” have been helping me and providing insight while young hot shots who spend all day counting followers and are out trying to convince everyone that they are humble and are quicker to insult the work of others than help. So I guess I have the reverse experience. The old school I encountered are confident and some even prolific. They aren’t worried about anyone half their age. It’s the half their age ones (or in essence my age) that caused me some drama but like Jay-Z said, “on to the next one.” I am very “BYE” oriented with folks with that attitude.
I definitely like your sentence “So is it art? The last time I discussed this I concluded that that was up to the person looking at your work. To some degree that’s true. But it has much, much more to do with us.” <—cosign.
I do reject the notion that only the viewer can determine if something is art. The artist themselves (if their true intent is beyond being a skilled craftsman as you stated) has a voice in that. I don't like the idea that only viewers have any power or relevance in this matter. Sure they have the power in purchasing said art, but they are not the only ones with power in determining if something is art. The artist's view matters as well.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post.
I have learned so much from you. To be more specific I’ve learned so much about myself by reading your words in books and articles. Because of this I’ve come to believe that those we look at as being great “artists” probably never think of themselves this way. Instead they worry about expressing their vision in their own chosen way. I have chosen this path as well thanks to you.
Have another coffee. I wish you luck in your quest to define art. As for me, I think I’ll just settle in to practicing making images that move me.
I’m going to have to agree with Trudy’s last paragraph…..Vincent van Gogh ring a bell?
Your tweet popped inn a little while ago, and I figured I’d finish what I was doing and then have a look and now my jaw dropped at all the instant replies (ouch-dont hit!) !!
I think it is easier to learn the craft first. And one should be reminded that vision or talent can be LEARNED. It is not that some people have it and some don’t.
Although we all know that you have “the gift of the gab”, David
Among other talents!
Neither the creator nor the viewer gets to determine what is art. Art is art in the same way that sport is sport. Art is the expressive realization of the artist’s vision. Craft is a tool to accomplish that – if one wishes to it to be deemed successful, which is not at all necessary.
One of the problems is that some idiot somewhere along the way seems to have convinced people that something is art only if it is successful. This has confused people into thinking of art as successful craft. Art is not glorified craft; nor is it the antithesis of rubbish. Art can be many things, but it is always personal to the artist.
I was in a Philip Johnson building the other day. He is an architect and an artist. He doesn’t build his visions with his own hands. He leaves that to expert craftsmen. See the difference?
A photo is not art because we press the button. It’s art if we’re pressing that button with vision, with an expressive nature of ourselves. Others get to decide whether or not they appreciate it, but they don’t get to decide what gave birth to it.
Anybody can build a glass house – now that Philip Johnson did!
Supposedly, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing everyone he doesn’t exist. Personally, I think the greatest trick he ever pulled is convincing us that nothing we do is worth anything unless we can sell it.
And by “the devil,” I mean the same idiot that Jeffrey is talking about.
Learn the craft in service to your vision. You don’t even have to show your art to anyone else if you don’t want to, though I’d argue that the world needs to see your art as much as they need to see your Facebook page.
Well said from an artist who continues to move thousands through his photographs.
Is it art because everyone agrees that it is art? Or is it art because you can “see” me in my work?
Trudy – You couldn’t be righter.
I hope I didn’t come off as slamming the older photographers, I was really referencing people of a particular mindset, not all of whom are older. Fact is, there are many incredible, generous, humble photographers that have been around the block that have always known that our intent is what it’s all about. And yes, there are turkeys in the younger ranks, for sure. It’s about mindset and I don’t think there are age or gender barriers. Anyways, you said it and it needed to be said – thank you.
Jeffrey – Ya know, yer smarter than you let on sometimes
Stu – Don’t encourage Jeffrey, please. I have to travel with him and he’ll be insufferable if he starts thinking about this stuff. I’m trying to keep him distracted with lenses and filters and tripods and stuff.
Well, I have to say I agree with making art for the sake of making art. Art isn’t dependent on success.
But I’d also have to say I give props to anyone bold enough to make art as well as…you know….talking about it.
What Godin says about art and being an artist in Linchpin, especially pp. 83ff, is right on. Anyone can become an artist, which is integral to being a linchpin. Grodin also says, however, that being a linchpin is a skill, that it can be learned. That seems to me awfully close to craft. I cannot imagine anyone, chef, mechanic, garbage collector, painter, musician, landscape designer, florist, etc., etc., being a true artist without significant skill. Skill does not create art, but without it, you end up with mediocre —–(you name it).
Whoops! misspelled Godin the second time.
When hired for a portrait, are we hired for our “vision” of the subject or how we capture the subject’s characteristics? Are we hired for our observations or for our expressions.
Chris – I think it’s one in the same – I think a great portraitist (think Karsh) sees and captures the subject’s character different than others might – it’s the ability to perceive and express (vision and voice operating through the craft of the medium) that character for which one gets hired. Unless one works at Sears in which case I’m guessing they’re just cranking them out. Or maybe not. But as to WHY we’re hired – you’d have to ask the client. I know they pay top dollar for vision AND craft, not craft alone. If they want craft alone they have plenty of options.
Photography is art! The photographer uses his skills, creativity, makes selections & expresses himself in all images he creates. There is a question as to whether each image is good art or not and that is determined by both the individual viewer, the community, the critics, and the artist. Each can have a view. Opinion is formed from the originator, who he is, what he has done etc. Also good art is determined by the context of the image, why it was done what it reflects & possibly the social/political environment/climate at the time. Finally, the appreciation of the art is a factor of the viewer, their taste, what they know of the photographer, the emotions that the image creates in them.
Is it Art? Of course, but whether it is appreciated, good or bad art, will change with the artist/photographer, the viewer, the context & of course over time.
Well said. I’ve been doing this for a mere six or so years. As a techie, the craft has been relatively easy so get a handle on. The vision thing is much harder as 50,000 images and a couple of hundred gigs of data will attest.
Occasionally, there are happy accidents and I have the flickerings of intent sometimes but it’s still elusive.
Sorry, Steve, I’m still sticking to my guns. Photography CAN be art, most definitely. But is it? Not always. I think the distinction between art and craft, even if it’s a subjective one that feels hard to find at times, is important. The moment you pick up a camera and decide to become a photographer, you begin walking the path of craft. The moment you make a photograph with intent to express something, you begin walking the path of the artist. Your assertion that “Photography is Art” without allowing that some of it might not be makes Art itself a non-category, and irrelevant.
I don’t believe there is any place we can draw a line and say “this side of the line is art but that side is not”. People like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo didn’t consider themselves artists. They were painters and sculptors. The term art at that time meant “skill as a result of learning or practice”(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=art), in other words what we now call craft. The notion of artist as visionary came into use with impressionism. Even modern dictionaries define it as “Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/art). What we are trying to define most of the time is ‘fine art’ but even that has been muddied by urinals, orange drapery, pickled sharks, etc. I have a degree in fine art therefore I call myself an artist and what I produce (some of it at least) I define as art. Others are free to disagree but most of the time the designation that sticks is determined after the “artist” is dead. I’d rather spend my time producing than debating.
Leonardo and Michelango also didn’t call themselves Italians, but we do. Let’s not confuse words for ideas.
After reading the Ten ebook this morning, I went to the botanic garden and got myself distracted by roses and butterflies, as usual, but as I was leaving I saw some good late afternoon light and went over to see what was in it. The possibility of looking for good and/or interesting light and then seeing what I can make out of what’s illuminated there suddenly dawned on me (courtesy of #7). Aha, an alternative to looking for something to shoot and hoping the light is good; shooting the light and what’s in it (to be repetitive). Thank you, David!!!
LOL – That’s the best line I’ve read all day!
Let’s remember this isn’t about defining what Art is, or finding that thin red line. The point of my post was to explore the connection between craft and Art and the role that vision/intent plays.
James, I’m with you in the sense that producing is more important than debating, but exploring the value of vision is still important.
I appreciate the thoughts on art and photography from, you David, and the commenters, who have also put obvious thought into the subject.
I am not a pro and honestly don’t want to be. I’m not sure I aspire to art either. I do aspire to becoming more technically competent as a photographer, so I suppose I do aspire to craft. However, the simple truth is that I love the process of photography. I enjoy the intersection of technical challenge and creative composition. Yet, I really don’t have much to say. I want simply to make nice photos.
The closest I have to a vision is to document my home area. I don’t think that quite qualifies. Perhaps the difference between an amateur like myself and an artist is the same as that between an tinkerer and an inventor. The first is compelled by participating in process. The second aspires to create something new.
Without the need to pay my mortgage with my camera there is no external push to distinguish myself as unique or special. Instead there is the true reward that an amateur gains from simply playing the game. Sure it’s important to do it as well as possible. There’s even the desire for style points. In the end, though, it just boils down the to taking photos because I enjoy taking photos.
Okay, I’ll wade in again. Skill (craft if you will) is important as the vehicle or syntax of your imagery. You can’t be an author if you are illiterate. Like Michael I enjoy the process but process includes more than just the physical things I do to record something I point the camera at. It also involves how I see and relate to the world. That is reflected in both what I choose to photograph and how I choose to photograph it. I don’t photograph anything that doesn’t excite me on some level but some of my images are simply reportage. I started my photo-life as a photojournalist and I often shoot in that mode. Other times my photographs are attempts to relate to a subject in a very deliberate way. I tend to think of the more deliberate images as being more artful but I have made some very artful images working in photojournalist mode and made some very un-artful images in spite of working very passionately and mindfully. I see the same in the work of others. To me an image is successful (perhaps a more appropriate term than art) when skill, vision & an element of luck combine in an image that communicates. But as Louis Pasteur observed “luck favors the prepared mind.”
David, great post. When I was in college, and doing lots of things to expand my horizons, I came across a guy named Jack Kerouac, and his writing spoke to me in a way that hasn’t happened since. Until now. You are a talented writer and I think that is in part bc it comes from the heart. Don’t get a big head or anything, I’m not saying you’re the second coming of Jack, but your writing does speak to me, in a very powerful way. I agree with what you’re saying, but more importantly, I’m feelin it. Thank You and keep it coming.
David
Good post, David. I like your point about intent. From the heart does mean with passion, with caring, and with compassion. Grumpy old men lack compassion. When we photography “from the heart” we care about the children who need water, the land that needs trees, and the subject in our photographs.
Elyse
When I photograph the light, I am photographing the light inside. Searching with my digital camera for grasshoppers in the field, I come full around to the light within the heart. Making a portrait, I try to respect the light within the person. If this is art, if it is not art, doesn’t matter so much as the heart-mind sense of total connection to, and with, what we photograph.
James Bullard
By the way, what Pasteur said was “Chance favors ONLY the prepared mind.” That is the mind with vision, that has already seen many other images close to the one that came with luck.
More David
Yes Indeed Intent! The only true thing I can express is my own heart-mind in my images. I cannot express nature, or the person I’m making a portrait of. We can only see what we are “prepared” to see. That is why chance favors only the prepared mind (the Pasteur Principle).
When I see “novel” subject in my photography, this means I am growing, seeing with “new” eyes, fresh seascapes, larger inner landscapes.
It’s all semantics…give it a rest. The “image” speaks for itself. Doug
David, wow you are preachy and with such passion. I agree that craft and vision go together. There always must be balance between skill and art. But you speak with such a loud voice that it makes me wonder why? What are you defending so adamantly and for whom? “Old school”? There have always been those who favor craft over art. This is not new to the digital age. This is age-old discussion. And, I’m not even that old to know this. David, I admire you but I am not sure what you are protesting? I don’t think the craft is easier at all; in fact it much, much harder … so much software, hardware, digital menus, and so forth. You seem to holding a banner for the oppressed amateur photographers. I really don’t get it. We all know that art ultimately matters (but can’t be done without craft). Seems like you are trying to make it okay that folks aren’t published. Fine. I’m all for a pep talk, but not rants.
Whew…..the definition of art is clearly a touchy subject for some. Truly a debate to be taken very serious by others. This has gone on for millennia.
For me, it is less complicated. I believe art is something conceived purposefully, expressing the artist’s interpretation of a subject. The artistic medium chosen is secondary.
For a “clear” delineation on the philosophy of the definition of art, see this site @ Stanford:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/
cheers – jeff
david: how do you do this? pickpocketing my heart and writing that stuff down?
the commotion around the gear guys is pure fear. they build up all their skills around their tools and when those tools get cheaper and easier to use by everyone – whats left for them? they have their “fancy clothes” (gear using skills) and now they get stripped down leaving them naked in the open for everyone to see that there is nothing left. i would be frightend to! they have raised walls to seperate themselfs from the others and no the walls are breaking down and they are one the same level as when they started out. so there is no ohter way then to be more fanatic with the gear … poor fellows! i honestly feel sorry for them.
my own definition on art is that its “vision with a target succsessfull reaching the heart and minds of others by a craft”. so its pretty close to what you’ve written.
You’re all much wiser than me…my own definition of ‘art’ is anything (music, words, images, sculpture) that moves me, that creates an emotional response. Craft and vision are essential, but I think an extra ingredient is needed too…passion, whether that passion is in the creator, the viewer or, ideally, in both. That’s when the magic happens.
Jeffrey, I love that ‘clear’ definition of art. LOL.
Torsten, I’m one of those grumpy old men who’s probably been doing this longer than many here have been alive (53 years and counting) but be assured that discussion of vision does not frighten me. I’ve made my own attempts to explain vision and art. In the end I concluded that vision isn’t something I can put into words and “art” is a moving target. For me photography is the way I most comfortably relate to the world. It is both an introduction and an invitation to share an experience.
When I teach, which I don’t do often any more, I do focus on process but as I explained earlier, process is more than f/stops & shutter speeds. Much of my teaching involves bridging the space between how we see vs how the camera sees so that the result is more nearly what the photographer intends. In the end all I can teach are techniques. I can encourage others to follow their passion but everyone has to find that for themselves. If there is any fear behind my not teaching vision it is that I might steer someone to imitate work they admire rather than pursue that which really moves them.
David, you said in comment yesterday afternoon, “The point of my post was to explore the connection between craft and Art and the role that vision/intent plays.”
In your original post you pulled Passion into the picture and nearly as quickly brushed it back out again. Shouldn’t certain questions be answered about yourself by each of the images that you create? Everything about Craft and Vision is focused on the photographer. In what manner do you connect the image to that story that you’re trying to tell? With Passion, no?
Consider this, if Craft answers How and image is created, and Vision describes more What you will create, then Passion will show Where to create it. You and your colleagues all do very well at casting your vision as humanitarian photographers. You do a marvelous job with all of the equipment that you use in creating the actual image. But, if your Passion for revealing the broken, hurt, underprivileged, etc. did not show through in the image, would it be an image that you moved from Lightroom to the public? Would you keep the image or be more willing to scrap it?
Craft and Vision are essential, but revealing your Passion through the Craft and Vision completes the connection…and potentially reveals your work as art.
james, you’re not one of those “grumpy old men” – maybe you’re “old” BUT you don’t sound grumpy and what you’re saying is telling me – you have at least some vision. i was refering to (and i gues david was to) to those people who have no or little vision and hide behind their gear-skills to obscure that they have nothing else going on then their gear. and you can make nice pictures with just gear skills – but thats not tuching anyone as deeply, as if you have a vision or message to your pictures. and all those pure gear skills can (probably) taken over by some sort of computing … and in the long term it probably will get to that point someday. and because technology is taking their hard earned skills, they complain as if photography is dieing. [you don't seem to complain about that] i think photography is coming alive – because now you have to concentrate on more vision and less gear to stand out from the crowd. and all those technical stuff guys have to invent new things to fake their lack of vision away with another software filter or hdr or whatever.
james, i respect your approch to teaching. and thats the stuff most people have to learn to keep on photographing. i also belive their are ways to help others find their own vision without pushing them to copy others. it’s helping people find themselfs and who they are and giving them the “tools” to figure out what they are for here in this world. and vision comes along that path. [i guess]
so, i wasn’t talking about “old people” but made a point about “visionfree people”
greetings
torsten
Thanks, Jim. I’ll keep what you said in mind.
This discussion reminds me a bit of the 20+ years I’ve been a jewelry designer and the tension between craft jewelers who make their own designs on the bench and designers like me who draw and have others make the models and finished pieces. Although I have a lifetime of experience making crafts in other media, I chose to go the vision route in fine jewelry. My bench jeweler is a good craftsman with pedestrian vision and my modelmaker is wildly creative and an excellent bench jeweler in most areas. The tension has been aided by craft show juries, so that now, the jewelers who go from vision to finished piece do not want to consider those who draw to be real jewelers or designers or something. I’m happy to consider them jewelry artists and I’ll be the designer.
I’m currently happier in photography precisely because I can get to the finished image (on the computer) without depending on someone else to understand what I want. I just have to improve my own understanding of what I’m looking to communicate. Am I being clear? As mud?
David, your words “merely perfect photographs don’t move the heart, only art does that” is one of the best quotes on the subject that I have ever read. You were able to verbalize what I have long believed. Kudos!
Elyse, Someone else brought up the example of an architect who doesn’t actually build the building. That doesn’t mean the architect has no skill. The skill of the architect is in designing something that others can build, which will still express the architect’s intent and in knowing what can be done structurally. In doing so the architect (or designer of jewelry) may end up pushing the skills of the actual builder of the object, but that does not demean the skill of either. The only photographic equivalent I can think of would be the art director in an advertising agency who comes up with a very specific image concept and then directs the commercial photographer who uses a different set of skills to realize the art director’s vision. Most photographs however are the product the vision of the photographer.
If I am grumpy (although I think impatient would be a more accurate word) over debates like this it is because I’ve spent too much time chasing my own tail already in life. What is more important, skill or vision? Neither. What makes a great image (whether you call it art or not), an image that smacks its audience between the eyes (figuratively of course) is a magic mix of what the subject offers with everything the photographer brings to the moment. Like great cooking it is done on the fly. You can’t do it from a recipe. The recipe is only your starting point. Photojournalists used to have a saying “f/11 and be there”. Maybe they still do say that, I haven’t been in that milieu recently. The important part of that saying is the “be there”, really be there. Not just physically but with all your being. That’s not something you can teach someone who doesn’t feel it but it is possible to learn it by doing it. An athlete learns technique from the coach and does it over and over until… magic! Everything comes together. You can’t say this part is more important than that part. You can only say whether or not the image works.
Todd Senge – A brief reply. I do preach loudly. In part that’s just an element of my own process. I began this blog as a place to clarify my thoughts, not necessarily to present them in polished form. Were that not the case I wouldn’t have presented this particular sermon in two parts, months apart, and each going in different directions. And the other part is, as you said, to hold a banner. Not so beginners feel OK about mediocrity and stick there, but so they move forward. They are the future of this art and if I have a voice in it I would like to see them move forward with vision – they have as much to teach us as we do them and the best gift we can give them is a legacy of risk, permission to fail, and the freedom to pursue their vision without getting sidelined by people more intent on forwarding the agenda of gear manufacturers more than creating photographs that move the hearts and minds of others.
I also do it to stir discussion because I believe the questions are often more important than the answers, and the more voices the better, even if they’re dissenting ones.
Do I see a pattern here? After reading Within The Frame, Visionmongers, half-way through Vision & Voice and now this thread, it seems to me the essence of the message is that photography can be a medium for creating art. But not all the results make the grade.
What David has so eloquently described in his books, ebooks and blog posts is a way to separate the variables in the process. This enables us to better understand how to use photography to create art; to create visual stories, writing with light.
By focusing on Vision (Ansel called it visualization, Edward Weston called it pre-visualization) and then on how you express it (Voice in the form of an expressive print), with a healthy dose of attention to the Craft/skills required to express that Vision with a clear and powerful Voice, David has pointed us down a path that makes creating ‘art’ with photography possible.
An expressive photographic print can become art if the photographer/artist consciously visualizes the feeling, message, story that the image attempts to convey; applying craft during the capture phase as well as the development phase (digital or chemical) and speaks with a clear Voice that is ‘heard’ by the viewer.
David has clarified the essence of the process. Now the challenge is to apply it deliberately; the end result being a work of art rather than an accidental ‘wow’ image that is nothing more than a lucky snapshot.
Thanks for stirring up the pot and providing permission to fail, David; many well-stated comments here. Good food for thought.
Lovely. Go to any contemporary art museum or gallery and you’ll see exactly what you’re talking about – that there needs to be a merging of craft and vision. Often there are well crafted pieces that say nothing, aren’t interesting. And often there are conceptual pieces that may just as well be writing (the visual aspect does not tell the story, is not done well). There are the (relatively) rare pieces where it all comes together. I believe that you’ve said it extremely well.
I have to take kind exception to something Alex Suarez said above. If someone’s art doesn’t move me that doesn’t mean “their art sucks”. It just means it doesn’t move me. It may very well move someone else who has a common frame of reference or a shared emotion or experience. I think this is also related to Kathy Weigman’s comment about people not buying her work. I am not sure it’s because they have a friend or husband or whatever who also takes photographs. I think it may be (and I say may because I have no idea what she shoots) because there’s no common emotion in the subject matter. I have had plenty of people talk about how much they loved my work, but it wasn’t until I began shooting in Paris and promoting those images to my Facebook friends and acquaintances who either lived there when I did or who had visited there that I actually began to sell my work. I believe the reason is that the images rekindle an emotion they had when they were there and they relate to it. We have all heard that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I think what people see as good art and what they are willing to pay money for is as well and it comes from someplace deep within. If you aren’t selling I think it just means you haven’t found the audience that shares the same level of emotion and passion for what you visualize and produce.
Richard Cooke wrote “I have to take kind exception to something Alex Suarez said above. If someone’s art doesn’t move me that doesn’t mean “their art sucks”. It just means it doesn’t move me. It may very well move someone else who has a common frame of reference or a shared emotion or experience…”
Richard, You make a true and valid point. There are a great many works of art that don’t move me and that doesn’t mean in any way that they suck. Please note that I made a careful word selection in that sentence that you left out of the quote. That word is “anyone.” If an image doesn’t move anyone, even its creator, then I would say that art sucks. (I did use strong language, didn’t I?) I’ve produced my share of those sucky images in my lifetime. Those are the failures. The mistakes from which, hopefully, I learn and grow.
The link I supplied to my blog post (http://alexsuarez.com/art) was about how I defined “art.” Simply, if the creator intended it to be art, then it was art. I separate the classification of something as art from the value judgements that we make about the art. The way I am defining art, whether a work is good or not does not make it any more or less art.
This discussion touches on some great ideas and concepts that have a long, established tradition, with thoughts and writings that are much more interesting, well thought out, useful, and have a bit more expertise than those put forward by a popular marketing guru.
You are clearly very interested in these ideas, and I think you will find much more substance and more reward for your time if you look into classes in art history, theory and criticism at your local university.
Or at least read those authors who have stood the test of time such as Susan Sontag, Walter Benjamin, or maybe some of these:
http://astore.amazon.com/johnpaulcapon-20?_encoding=UTF8&node=96
I never set out to create art. I set out to take the best photograph I can, both technically and emotionally. Is it art? I personally don’t care, so I imagine it is up to the viewer to decide. I just can’t get too hung up on one little word like that.
All I can say is “WOW”! So much to take in as I am endeavoring to further my knowledge and explore the wonderful world of photography. It has been a passion of mine for many years and I am taking it more seriously and growing in my vision. David…thanks so much for giving so much of yourself. I am getting a lot out of your writings and enjoyed the Creative Live experience last month. Vision and Art to me go hand-in-hand. One cannot create art w/o first having vision. Thank you for helping me strive to discover mine.
I don’t care if its art or not – I like you image in the top!
My images are decorations, wallpapers or art depending on the viewer — I don’t care really I do it as good as I can!
Martin
Art is just a word we use to describe an artificial concept we have created which imbues some special meaning on an object. We turn pieces into Art in our own mind.
I have a VERY broad sense of what art is. Along with photography, painting, music and literature I consider sunsets, flowers, a well made bamboo fly rod all to be works of Art. I don’t consider anything created by Andy Warhol to be art, but the Joan Miro hanging next to it is. These are my conceptions of Art.
Whether something you have created is art is really up to you. You are the one that creates the piece in order to project something internal from yourself onto a physical object. If you feel it’s Art, then it is. Others be damned…
Now stop futzing around with gear or blogs or books and go let the Art out of it’s cage.
I have to agree with Doug and the other Doug above:
a. With Godin it’s all semantics. He, you, and some commenters above may define “art” how they wish, but by making words mean whatever they want them to mean doesn’t mean that art has suddenly, actually been redefined. Marcel Duchamp redefined art. Seth Godin…? Not so much.
b. For the love of Roland Barthes, please don’t mislead yourself and your readers into thinking Godin has something new, profound, and important to say regarding art. Get off the Seth Godin tricycle and read some big-boy books about art and art theory. Work your way through those texts, chew on those thoughts, and then open those real and challenging ideas – not easy, agreeable Godinisms – up for discussion.
Art,like beauty, is not simply in the eye of the beholder. It is in the soul and passion of the artist. Craft is the means not the message.
Geoff:
“Now stop futzing around with gear or blogs or books and go let the Art out of it’s cage.”
Best wisdom yet, I think.
Well……..
This guy said:
“Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art.” – Ansel Adams
as far as art, I stick with Joyce, for the most part:
there are two types of art, pornographic art and proper art.
pornographic art moves a person with desire or fear, like an ad or a photo that makes you think, oh I would like to visit that place, this war must stop etc. Be it political, commerce, religious etc
proper art holds the person. You are moved beyond fear or desire, and the experience is akin to the sublime. You are opened. A wow may be in there somewhere.
oh, and photography (some photographers) can certainly do that
I found this definition a while ago and like it. it’s not a definition i’m willing to die over but i think it is one that i can work with
Art hides.
I like it because for something to be art someone has to look at what you made(captured…) and find the deeper meaning, something must hold you there and that’s were vision is integral. if you don’t have a vision, something that you want to express within the photo, you get a decoration not art. my 2cents.
David, keep it up, i’ve just been taking photographs seriously for about a year now and your work has had a huge influence on what I do as a photographer, and your ethos of what you do has challenged me as a person as well. thanks
I don’t know that I can define Art, but I do know this, after spending half of my 50-something years as a photographer: If our enjoyment of our photography is dependent on approval– through attaboys or sales or whatever– from other people, then it will ultimately be empty. It is only when we use what skills we have to make photographs for ourselves, and thus refine and express our individual vision, that we will really be successful.
Then, if someone else enjoys what we create, and buys something or hires us or pats us on the back or just keeps the prints around long after we’re gone, well, that’s icing on the cake, isn’t it?
That’s my take on it, at any rate. And hey, a handful of my facebook friends have said I’m a real artist, so I got that going for me.
This picture gives my a sense of calm right before the storm. And the of art, well that is up to the viewer, I think it is a very interesting picture.
absolutely stunning, David. Visually, my favorite e-book yet! i have iceland jealousy!
oops. wrong post!
[...] Is photography an art? You tell me in: Beyond Craft – this is a great insightful exploration within the photographers mind. • Better start to [...]
Lets separate two things, firstly the act of photography is ‘craft’, this is in the context of a verb. What is the object that is created, is a second question? Let me once again contend that it is ‘Art’. Why is this? For most photography I would suggest the intention is to create something with an aesthetic, hence a form of art. For those images created such as an automated surveillance camera shot, a forensic science image of bacteria, an astrological image for the purpose of recording the star location etc, what of these? These are the shots that could be considered ‘record’ shots of one form or another, so I assume this is part of what people would contend as not art. In addition may be it could be contended that an every day photographer taking a snap with no artistic intention is not art. I would be interested in your view of the scope of non-art objects that have come from a camera.
I would contend that art can be defined by the photographer, or the viewer. So even if the image was taken with no artistic intention, it may be art to any given viewer. This is really important, let me give you a few examples, Banksie’s graffiti may have been intended to be an anti establishment message, but it is taken as art, an astrological image is beautiful & highly artistic to many viewers, a police record of a murder displayed in a gallery could have been taken by Weegee. The Tate Modern Gallery along the Thames in London is running a special exhibition called: Exposed: Voyeurism, Surveillance and the Camera, it is a wonderful curation of images including some that were never meant to be art!
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/exposure/default.shtm
Great conversation, lets all enjoy making & viewing images, art or not
Steve
It’s art (or is that Art), if you say it is. It doesn’t matter how you make it. Whether or not it’s *good* art is another question… and the answer then is, it’s good art if everyone else says it is
“But if the ground around gear has been leveled, what’s the only ground left on which to differentiate (they use words like “compete”) ourselves? Vision.”
I LOVE this quote. So true. Vision is the part I struggle with most.
David, just discovered your book ‘visionmongers’ and your blog – thank you for publishing great stuff.
The last sentence of your post gets to the heart of the matter: making art requires taking a risk.