Are You a Photographer or Artist?
What do you feel comfortable calling yourself?
I recently came across an article suggesting that photographers shouldn’t call themselves “artists”. The article suggested that photography has been living in the shadows of painting and other traditional art forms for too long, and that some photographers use the term “artist” to decline less glamorous jobs that would otherwise, provide amazing opportunities.
Fair enough. Yet while I applaud the author’s intent and respect the perspective, a few hours later, I felt a deep rumbling. It got me thinking for several days about the differences between being a “photographer” or an “artist”. It made me explore why the two terms can’t be used interchangeably. Why shouldn’t we as photographers call ourselves artists?
What Exactly Is Art?
Before we can look more critically at “photographer” versus “artist,” we need to agree on what art actually is—and that has been a debate, hasn’t it? I’d like to suggest we turn to Merriam-Webster. The definition in the dictionary for art is “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects.” The Cambridge Dictionary offers even broader definitions. Two key words: Skill and Imagination.
Artistic Photographic Skills
A common critique is that photography merely captures reality rather than creating a subjective experience, which is often viewed as the hallmark of “true art.” This suggests that photographers, by merely documenting moments, lack artistic merit. But this is short changing the story. There is much more skill involved than “merely documenting” and by this reasoning, street photography, for instance, might be dismissed as non-artistic.
How Should We Define Photographic Art?
The word “photography” comes from the Greek, photo meaning light and graph, meaning to draw. Photography literally means then, “drawing with light”. Because it has been used in so many aspects of modern life, it has been difficult to distinguish what creates photographic art. From communication and documentation to the internet, archives, forensics, and medicine, to name a few, photos are everywhere and used across so many disciplines. Yet only a small minority of photographs are considered to be art. This has led some to argue that photography's role is to capture reality, rather than create a new one and that makes it less artistic.
To complicate matters, the nature of photography to be so ubiquitous raises questions about whether iconic images lose their value due to overexposure—think of countless pictures of the Eiffel Tower. If many photographers take similar shots, do those images become non-art?
Of course, not every photograph qualifies as art, and some debates around this have long existed. For example, is a photo of a child sliding into home plate considered art? Or what about an ordinary snapshot taken with an iPhone? What seems to be the qualifying factor aside from skill? Enter in the second word in our original definition: Creative imagination.
Why Some of Us Should Call Ourselves Artists
Admittedly, on paper I’m a terrible example of a photographic artist. I work full-time in technology and I burn the candle at both ends just trying to cultivate ideas and get my photos out there. Yet, I’m like most photographers in my circle and most of you. We approach our craft with artistic intention and desire. We have a clear vision and a need to convey specific moments, themes or ideas we observe.
Photographic art doesn’t require a diploma, but it does involve planning and consideration, which can either begin with longer deliberation or just start in a nano second before clicking the shutter.
Like artists, as photographers we try to keep developing skills in areas such as composition, lighting, and color theory. We also make deliberate choices about dynamic range, and contrast. In the studio, we play with layout and symbolism. We edit with purpose, making choices about contrast and color that contribute to the final piece. We transform RAW images or digital negatives using editing software like Lightroom or in a physical darkroom. We can also print our photos into zines, books or large prints for shows, involving painstaking, creative decisions that contribute to an overall final image that evokes emotions and tells a story.
During this process, these decisions involve skill and creative imagination and deliberate choices around color or style. Sounds like art to me!
Lastly, on the far end of the photography spectrum, this list of conceptual photographers is a top example that comes to mind of artists who pushed the envelope in order to expand boundaries to tell their stories. Their work in galleries and books share these narratives with the public, fostering appreciation, conversation and conservation in the world of photographic art.
My work always begins with an idea, with something that I need to talk about. I make my photographs in order to provoke a conversation around things that I am invested in. The challenge is how to give those concerns a resonant and coherent form so that the viewer becomes interested and invested. I want the things that matter to me to matter to the viewer.
Dawoud Bey
The Real Question
My point to this much longer post (thank you if you have made it this far) is this: The real question should focus on the true definition of a photographic artist and how we fit or aspire to that definition, rather than deciding which label fits us better; “artist” or “photographer.”
I’ve reflected on a short list of commonalities of both photographers and artists that I believe to be true:
1. They intentionally set out to express a concept, idea or story based on their own perception of reality.
2. They consciously observe, plan, and integrate elements like light, color and composition into their final images.
3. They often say that their craft allows them to connect with reality in ways that no other form of self-expression can.
These are only top of mind, but the last point is critical. Photography then becomes a conduit for expressing reality and in turn, receive a reaction or response from the viewer. Back to the definition of art in the dictionary which aligns perfectly: “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects.”
Notice that the viewer so far has had a limited role in my attempts for defining what art is and how photography and art align. That’s of course due to subjectivity. It creates questions in our minds though, similar to that old expression, “if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?” If no one reacts to our creation, does that invalidate it as art?
Why Does Any Of This Matter?
There are still so many questions around the lines that can be drawn between photography and art, but even more so today with technology and progress. Why does any of this matter?
Claim your space. I resist the binary when it comes to art; the black and white definitions around labels of where we are in our growth. I believe that as photographers, we can show a progression from casual clicker to intentional artist, beginning with vision, skill, and a commitment to creative storytelling through the lens. And we can still claim the title of photographic artist through the process. If it helps you to identify that way for a while or even permanently, it’s ok. I don’t see the semantics police coming to arrest me yet.
It’s good for the genre. To me, photography has matured as a respected art form in a relatively short time and I believe that many photographers can and should justifiably call themselves “photographic artists” if we want to lend validity to the genre of photography as an art and toe the line for future photographers. Blending the terms creatives power and longevity. NOTE: I do agree however, it’s up to each generation to continue to uphold the credibility it deserves by first responsibly evaluating if we can call ourselves artists.
While I recognize this topic can spark debate, I feel confident in my thoughts and embrace the title of photographic artist for myself. If you’re leaning that way, I would encourage you to think about embracing it too. I find it puzzling that more of us seem reluctant to do so.
How about you? Do you see yourself as an artist, a photographer, or both? Is it merely a matter of semantics? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Here are some other questions to think about:
We sometimes struggle with this phrase, “everyone is a photographer.” Here are some questions still on the back burner:
iPhones are ubiquitous. Artificial intelligence is on the rise. How do these impact the definition of photographic art?
Can we differentiate an Instagram influencer’s photos from those of a seasoned photographer? Might we then conclude that a photographic artist can rightfully claim that title?
Conversely, does this mean every IG influencer’s photo isn’t a valid art form?
The boundaries can feel blurred.
When I hand somebody my business card they see "Ludwig Keck - artist, photographer ...". I consider all my photography to be art, although not all of my art is photography. Clicking a shutter, on a studio camera, on a phone, or on a kid's toy camera, creates an image that in my view is art. In your thoughtful essay you use the words "vision, skill, and a commitment". I fondly recall walking with a friend in a park and when I raised my camera he asked, "what do you see?" We both had the place in front of us, yet the question clearly illustrates that we see the world differently. Vision is that first part to the art of photography. Seeing something that captivates and leads to an image is the first step. Developing the skills to capture and interpret a scene so the photographer's feelings and message can be passed to others is the passion of photographers. And it takes dedication and commitment to achieve the level where one can say honestly, "I am an artist, a photographer".
Great article Juliette - as an occasional but enthusiastic photographer this is helpful and inspirational. There is an everlasting debate about the point at which craft becomes art - I think the artistic element is present when the creator was intentional about conveying some kind of meaning in the image beyond the merely functional. It can help to step back from your specific question about photography to ask the same questions of other mediums - not all drawings are art for example and what about architecture - is that art? And is bad art still art or is there a (subjective) point at which something is not achieving that which defines art?
May the debate continue. For now I’m off to take some pictures..