Quote:
|
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.