[kid cue]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

there is certainly an acknowledged difference between a "photographer" and an "artist" who happens to use photography. if you go to an art school or even a normal university in an art program, you can often notice that "photographer" is almost a dirty word. if you have crits with students across several mediums you will have discussions about concept and philosophy. when it comes time to looking at photographs the pointless questions begin. "what camera was it shot on?" "what sort of lens?" "how did you print it?" it becomes all about technical issues. i like to ask the painters what size brushes they use when that happens. but it is often looked down upon by a large percentage of the art world. though some certainly do praise the "photographer." its a different world.

this wasn't my experience in the art school where i took classes -- there, the photography students were the stars of the program, got most of the attention, and benefited/suffered from the most in-depth critiques. i feel like photography (along with video) is the trendiest medium in the art world now, at least in America.

the technical talk annoys me too--a lot of it just seems like a way to make up for a lack of ideas or talent, especially when it's so easy to make a self-contained picture that works somehow.

nobuyoshi araki had an interesting idea on the subject. i think i read it in this book.

i skimmed through that enormous book maybe last year ... i really like him in writing, and a lot of his work. i like a lot of japanese photographers though, i think because there, photography seems totally distinct from the other arts, especially in book form. there doesn't seem to be as huge a difference between "art" and "amateur" photography there.