Photographers on Dirty

[MikeyC]

Originally Posted by crank

My definition of pro photographer and who i am means i derive more than half my income from photography.

is that what you are referring to?

c.rank

c.rank,
dont know if you were directing the question at me, but ill open my mouth since im in a hyper chatty mood. i think its partially about making money that would give you the title of a "professional photographer," but even more so i think it is the initial intent or motivation. more of a "who are you shooting for?" a client or yourself. i have read many articles from incredibly famous photographers who consider themselves to be amateur photographers. i think both classes are equally important, you just have to ask different questions when looking at the work from the two. then of course you have to ask when does one even begin to consider themselves a "photographer." a good portion of the population on earth are taking pictures, so who gets the title. its fun to watch the "professionals" squirm when they see something that some 11 year old kid shot. the technologies so advanced these days that it has become almost too easy to get incredibly good, clean, sharp, properly exposed shots. but i will stop because im moving into nerd mode. i just love to see work from anyone who picks up a camera, professional or amateur, "photographer" or not. its always inspiring.

p.s. sorry about the multiple posts. just been picking through the posts. feeling somewhat bad since i started the thread and then only got around to just looking at it in any real depth now.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

i like those shots of the wine bottles. i actually thought they were the sides of buildings shot at night until i read beneath. my safari kept crashing when i was checking out your site. had to get to with ie. dont know if youre a mac user but was wondering if anyone else had that problem?

That's strange. I'm on a Mac at work, PC at home, and neither have given me any trouble. Sorry 'bout that. And as far as the pictures go, all of the ones on that Nevada Desert page were shot with my cel phone. I love the way some pictures come out on that little thing.

[MikeyC]

sean,
are the photos from the plane photomerges or simply crops?

[kid cue]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

then of course you have to ask when does one even begin to consider themselves a "photographer." a good portion of the population on earth are taking pictures, so who gets the title.

i think you have to really care about the photographic medium, understand deeply what it can do, have a very personal relationship to it. i don't know if i can call myself a "photographer" on those terms. the photographers i know shoot every day, are willing to take thousands of pictures (on film!) in certain circumstances, which isn't so unusual, but they all seem to be working things out specifically through that medium. they still have something particular they want to get across in photographs; they aren't just using photographs because they happen to have a camera, and they can't draw, or whatever. and on some level, i think you have to love the photograph in and of itself, as opposed to just using it as a jumping-off point for some other project.

[MikeyC]

Originally Posted by kid cue

i think you have to really care about the photographic medium, understand deeply what it can do, have a very personal relationship to it. i don't know if i can call myself a "photographer" on those terms. the photographers i know shoot every day, are willing to take thousands of pictures (on film!) in certain circumstances, which isn't so unusual, but they all seem to be working things out specifically through that medium. they still have something particular they want to get across in photographs; they aren't just using photographs because they happen to have a camera, and they can't draw, or whatever. and on some level, i think you have to love the photograph in and of itself, as opposed to just using it as a jumping-off point for some other project.

i agree somewhat to having to have the care and understanding and relationship with photographs. but that still doesn't do it. if you had all that and dont pick up the camera then you are more of a critic than a photographer. but what you said is certainly part of it i think. though it may sound silly and sentimental, photography cant be viewed as much less than a lover for many people. you have all the same problems with it. and it can very quickly become all encompassing and even destructive (i believe photography is darker and more depressing than any other medium due to inherent nature of pictures themselves.)

and i am going to contradict myself in this paragraph but it is a problem that i try to figure out almost every day. perhaps i never will. i think technically a photographer is a person who just picks up a camera and shoots. you dont even have to ever have your film developed, ever look at it, never work photographs in a dark room or the computer(which technically is moving into print-making.) however, ive known people who put down their camera for months and even years, even working other jobs during the period, and yet i can not consider them as anything but a photographer.

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.

nobuyoshi araki had an interesting idea on the subject. i think i read it in this book. (which is amazing. i highly recommend araki to anyone who is a photographer and hasnt checked into him. even if you hate his actual work his ideas will always stir some thought). but basically he was working out what sets someone apart as a photographer since almost everyone in the world is taking pictures it seems. basically he came to the conclusion that he would play and dress the part of the ultimate photographer. think david bailey on lots of steroids. so its that idea of dress the part and eventually youll become the part.

i dont mean any of this as a "no youre wrong." its something i know i dont know the answer to. but i like throwing the idea around. the points you made certainly fit into the equation, but its how they fit together that is difficult.

[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.

[myrrh]

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.

I think that when you get to a certain level of professionalism, then the questions about brushes and paints are legit in the artfield. I went to art school since I was 5, first privately, then for college. Then I worked for 6 years as a personal studio assistant to a fairly recognized artist. (I don't mean to sound like I am boasting or anything)

I can tell you that once you hit the level where your 'art' is selling and you are really living off that, and not like starving artist, but living a good nice life, the topics of conversation move towards things like what kind of tools do you use to make your art.

I think this comes from a persons level of knowledge and understanding of the artform itself, this includes all the tools that go into producing that artform.

For example, if you take a picture that I think is great, and I happen to have twenty years of shooting experience under my belt, then after talking about the picture itself, I ask you about the camera and lens etc that you used. Then you tell me that you used X camera, with X lens etc. Then I, who has in depth knowledge of that camera and those lens, can gain an even greater appriciation of your work because I know the limitations of the equipment that you used to produce it.

It is the same thing with paints. Paints from different companies have different properties. Different painters exploit these different qualities in their paintings. This is a very big deal in the art world. If you follow things, then you may be aware that some pieces that were label as Jackson Pollack experiments were found. Recently they tested pigment samples off them to see if the paint was the paint that he used. Here it was found that the paint on the paintings wasn't patented until shortly after Pollacks death, but he knew the maker of the paints and it is believed that he could have been painting with the test batches.

And the same with music. Why do we care what gear Underworld uses? But for those of us who know the gear, can see and understand how they use it creatively. etc

I hope that makes some sense.

[MikeyC]

Originally Posted by kid cue

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.

where did you go to school? the school i attended and many ive seen around here while shopping for a grad program are all pushing conceptual art. so if youre dedicated to a specific medium youre looked at as a bit foolish. especially so as a photographer.

Originally Posted by kid cue

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.

if you like his thoughts on things, check out "arakimentari." its a dvd with him giving his views on photography and life. theyre all over ebay, though prices on it seem to be continually rising (got it for ten dollars about 2 months ago. now they seem to be at about 30.)

postwar japanese photography is just incredible. although a lot of was born out of american work, they took it and ran with it. much of it is years ahead of the work being done in other places. its funny to see some of the foremost critics give some "new" philosophy on photographs, and some japanese photographer had said the same thing 15 years earlier in some little magazine. but the world of japanese photography was not that familiar to many outside of japan for some time so it's understandable.

japan just is apparently a culture that is a perfect environment for photography. it seems so bipolar. you have the traditional japanese customs and values and how they work next to the westernization that has been creeping in. the major cities in such close proximity to the small little towns that seem to have not changed for such a long time. the level of dedication to work and the absolutely insane ways of partying and stress release. and of course as with any culture you have class struggles.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

sean,
are the photos from the plane photomerges or simply crops?

Crops. You can click on the image to see the full picture.

[kid cue]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

where did you go to school? the school i attended and many ive seen around here while shopping for a grad program are all pushing conceptual art. so if youre dedicated to a specific medium youre looked at as a bit foolish. especially so as a photographer.

i wasn't enrolled there, but i did some classes at Yale--it's an ultra traditional program, especially wrt photography (Friedlander, diCorcia, and Crewdson are regular critics there), so it made sense that they'd be hardcore with the photo kids. i've heard what you're saying about conceptual programs, in California mainly, where people look down on you if you actually want to make paintings as opposed to locative art, or whatever. it's dumb

if you like his thoughts on things, check out "arakimentari." its a dvd with him giving his views on photography and life.

yeah, it's been on my Netflix queue for time now! thanks for reminding me, i'll bump it up.

postwar japanese photography is just incredible. although a lot of was born out of american work, they took it and ran with it. much of it is years ahead of the work being done in other places.

who do you like besides Araki? i'm really into Daido Moriyama and (more recently) Rinko Kawauchi and that guy who photographs the Tokyo underground tunnels.

japan just is apparently a culture that is a perfect environment for photography. it seems so bipolar. you have the traditional japanese customs and values and how they work next to the westernization that has been creeping in. the major cities in such close proximity to the small little towns that seem to have not changed for such a long time. the level of dedication to work and the absolutely insane ways of partying and stress release. and of course as with any culture you have class struggles.

how do you see this as being good for photography? i'd love to live there ....