Should we ring in the new year with a controversial topic? I think so. Based on the title you may think I’m going to pose the question, Is photography art? That's not the topic. It would be a good topic, especially if we dove into the history of photography instead of the pseudo-history of photography being pushed by people using AI image generators in relationship to trying to prove their activity is art. But, I digress and that topic is divisive for sure. “Is photography art?” isn’t the question or topic.
I know what you are saying, and I have a lot of sympathy with it, but ... but I don’t define calling yourself a “professional” photographer (or any other group - I am a biologist and a pathologist and probably a couple of other -ists) as only meaning you make a living from it. To define yourself in this way is to say that you have acquired knowledge and skills that go above and beyond those of most exponents of the subject and can answer questions/teach with confidence. That’s all - professions are hard won, don’t be embarrassed by what you know and do.
The definition of professional is literally working in that profession as one's main occupation instead of as a pastime. Take lawyers as an example. There can be bad lawyers and worse lawyers. But both types work in that profession and both can be labeled that way. Skill past a certain extent isn't required.
In activities that are hobbies and professions, there highly skill people who do it as a pastime. Especially in the arts, people like to label their skills as professional if they are good. In the lawyer example, think of Isaac Wright Jr who in jail learned law and eventually proved he was wrongfully convicted and he got out. I don't think you'd call him a "lawyer" at that point. He eventually went on to practice law, etc... but at the time he was in jail, he wasn't a "professional" lawyer because he wasn't working in the field.
Regardless, these are labels that call out individual accomplishments that separate oneself apart from others, instead using labels to represent us as belonging to broadly inclusive communities. Because language helps create our perceived reality, the more language is used to divide us into subsets of a population, the less it reinforces us as a community. That was my point.
A way to approach this with language in the lawyer example is this, "I practice law professionally."
Good points, and I like "I practice law professionally", but you can be a professional without practicing in the sense of making a living from. One definition professional is "Conforming to the standards of a profession" and while it may be a bit old-fashioned these days there was a time when you could not call yourself a professional other than in areas that have defined and enforceable standards ... so lawyers, medics, accountants etc but not photographers or electricians. You can still be struck off from practicing as a medic but not as a photographer. Interesting conversation.
I didn't know that ... but really, by calling yourself a medic or a photographer or whatever are you really setting yourself "apart" any more than a plumber or a school teacher etc. It just marks that you have certain knowledge and skills that not everyone has ... which applies to all of us in a community. Be proud of your knowledge.
I don't accept the framing of your question. People who teach school kids who calls themselves a "teacher" are setting themselves apart just as much as people who calls themselves a "photographer." There is no difference. Both are creating exclusionary groups that set themselves apart from the community as a whole. These terms define how we are individually separate from a community versus how we are part of a community.
I am very community minded, it's important. But on the other hand a functioning community is composed of many people with different skills and knowledge that together make the community work. I don't see how it's exclusionary to say I am this or I am that?
I'd say because that kind of language divides people into various subcategories based on what they do. That's not something that I'm interested in doing anymore. People are people. They do stuff. Some do it for a job and some do it for fun. Some are really good and some aren't. I'm more interested in describing myself by community instead of by what I do recreationally (canoeing, kayaking, cycling, watercolor sketching, ect.) or professionally (landscape photography and teaching photo workshop, guiding).
I entirely understand, but when people need an electrician or want a photographer for en event they need to know who to turn to. That's really all it it. That and when matters are being discussed in the pub it helps to know that on a particular topic Joe is a pro and his information can be trusted whereas Fred is just winging it. All the best.
Excellent point. I’m retired. I previously served as a Financial Planner, Corporate Tax Accountant, Budgeting Manager, Real Estate Broker - and the list goes on. I worked hard to acquire the education and skills to serve in those capacities. By your definition, yes, I’m a Professional Photographer. Thank you for your insights!
Thought provoking topic. Just last week I was asked (online) if I’m a professional photographer. I didn’t know what to say! I take photos. I capture moments in nature one photo at a time. I’ve sold photos and calendars. I’ve photographed a couple weddings (never again!).But does that make me a professional? I don’t think so. What money I receive goes back into the hobby - a new lens, for instance. Maybe I’ll respond to the aforementioned that I take photos. I capture moments in nature.
It's never crazy to think about the way the words that we choose - weaken - or strengthen - the ways in which we connect. This is very thoughtful, and I greatly enjoyed your photography while contemplating your points :) Thanks for sharing!
So you are identifying the potential to create a mental segmentation based upon the er
“I make photographs”
“I am a maker of photographs”
“I am a photographer”
I question whether the question is maybe bigger, that maybe you are wrestling with age old challenge of non-duality, in essence you desire to not separate yourself from others. As a non-dualist myself there is no other just as there is no self. So to me the argument only exists in a dualist world view, of self and other. If you accept a dualist view then surely you are inherently assuming that there is a difference between (your)self and other(s), and the “er” merely describes what exists, a difference that is named. If instead we are all one, then are we all photographers and the term is redundant. I am a passionate husband, father, kayaker, vegan, writer, photographer, but I am not separate from you, I share passions with you and am connected to you through these passions and other ways.
Or maybe I am reading too much into your words? Great article, thanks for writing it.
That's a really interesting read, and I can see how you got there.
I was trying to get at the difference in language and how individuals in individualistic cultures describe themselves versus how people in collectivist cultures describe themselves. People from collective cultures wouldn't necessarily define themselves by what they do but instead by how they belong. In North America, the majority culture is individualistic and is becoming increasingly more divided and individualistic. I think that defining ourselves by what we do, particularly when it comes to jobs and recreation and hobbies, divides us further and will lead to nothing good. So, it's a way for me to try and reorientate my worldview to a more collective view and use my language to influence others in the same way.
Labels of any sort are inherently categorical. In essence you are Bryan, anything else is an identifier that could result in separation. Even Husband or Father separates you from those that aren’t, or can’t. How then do we learn about each other without creating the opportunity for separation (isolation to rear its ugly head?)
Conversation amongst new acquaintances drifts into the societal norms of “what do you do?” Rather than being a thing (I am a photographer) or making a thing (I make photographs) does what you get from the act help? “I find pleasure in making photographs” or the professional might say “I make money from teaching others to make photographs”, I struggle though to apply this to the labels husband and father.
i feel nowdays with all the fancy photoshop,tools,etc, i truely believe the word photographer has to be redefined, i'm old school, what you see and initially take a picture of is the real true beauty, yes so can add, delete, edit but then is it truely natural and organic? What we see we the natural eye to me is the photo,yes there will be alot of clicks and throwaways but isn't that the real being of a photographer?searching, exploring, angle,light but you and not a app or a computer click?
It was nice to see the very artistic images included in your post. As a member of a camera club that holds monthly photo competitions, I wish more photo judges would focus on art. Professional critiques routinely dwell on the technical aspects of photography and casually, if at all, discuss the artistic effort or effect involved in the submitted images. Imagine an art critic discussing what brushes or brands of materials a painter might have used while omitting comment on the impact of the finished painting! I believe this is a major reason photographers are routinely discussed as technicians rather than as artists.
If your club still does Zoom meetings, I'd love to give a presentation on composition or some other creative topic. Maybe you could mention that to the person that schedules presentations. I've also done the critiques at clubs when I've presented. If I can get to a meeting while I'm traveling, I'd love to present in person.
At Professional Photographers of America we are judged on 12 areas of excellence in a competition image. Impact, Technical skills and Composition are two areas taken into account. I earned my Masters Degree in Photography with PPA by completing over 27 credit hours and having 13 images exceed judging guidelines. It has taken me 5 years to reach this goal. Other degrees include Certified Professional Photographer which includes testing and image preparation. Master Artist which includes manipulation of photos including composites and artist painting in Photoshop, Masters of Wedding Photography, and Photographic Craftsman which includes service as a speaker, author or mentor. This is my community.
Very thought provoking! I've defined myself as photographer, artist, and now writer because it seemed to include me in a group with a defined and determined goal. However, I can see how as one becomes accomplished in these endeavors this want or need is transcended. Like Musashi says - if you know the way broadly, you see it in all things.
Don't know that you need to rewrite anything. I got the point of your article I just took a different direction in my comment as I really didn't have anything of substance to add to what you wrote. I simply don't believe that we can substantively change the way people view us. That is, see us as we see ourselves. I believe we each form a set of lenses through which we see the world and those around us in it. These lenses are formed by our life experiences. I believe these lenses remain unaltered barring some major emotional event in our lives. Simply learning new things doesn't do it as we shape the lesson learned based on what we see through these lenses.
I get your point and it's a valid one. I have my own views of photos as art. I have one of your photos hanging on my wall amongst other photos, watercolor paintings, and retro posters. I consider all to be art and enjoy looking at them and the memories they recall. The key elements of representational paintings and photos are essentially the same in my opinion. Composition I believe is the key to greatness in either.
I think I'm going to rewrite the opening to this because it wasn't meant to be a commentary on whether or not photos are art. It was meant to be a meditation on collectivism and individualism and how we define ourselves and whether or not to define ourselves by the communities we belong to or the activities we do.
I love this question. And I love how you want to redefine it and yourself, becoming more inclusive. I am an Animator. Many people would argue with me, saying “but you haven’t animated in 40 years!” True. But not a day has gone by without my imagining animating something, thinking about the profound experiences creating animation can provide, looking for ways to communicate what it means to be an animator. It’s my lens I’ve been granted to see the world and to report in some way, to someone, what I see. I’m also a pie baker. Thinking about the profound experiences in making pies is loads of fun. But ultimately you’ve got to cut the pie and serve it - it’s very physical. Both these activities have taught me how to be Mary Beams. Thanks for asking your question!
I like this article. And love trees. I will post some pictures of trees I have taken recently, from viewing as you did, I just shot the photo while looking up and it is an Amazing View. And shadows, love shadows.
Bryan, I have been a working news photographer for over 50 years. My work has a tendency to head to the fine art side when I photograph landscapes. My instructor at Moorhead Stare came from the F64 school. For years up until the present. Certain art institutions not considered photography art. This has been going on since Strand. Weston, Wynn Bullock. It is just part of the profession Beaumont Newhall talked about Ansel’s work. I can go on
I totally agree with what you are saying. My husband does woodworking. He does nit really buy into the fact that he is a wood artist at all. So by your definition he could be a woodworker Iremes a wood artist. The artist part is easy to see in both scenarios. He takes a pattern and he chooses the piece of wood to cut it from. Thus his vision of what the piece of wood brings to the pattern and the finished piece has everything to do with the "artist"part. You do the same thing when you decide how you will set up a photo and from which light, or prospective the finished photo will be taken from. That takes talent and an "art". Anyone can take a photo. Some people, like yourself, are gifted in what they do. Keep up the great work!
Years ago, at UW Madison, I was in a workshop on racism and one of the main lessons was to move from the verb “to be”, (you are a racist) which is binary and immediately creates a defensive position, to the verb “to do”, (that action was racist) which has degrees and can start a conversation. The deeper lesson was that “to be” really has limited applicability- which your post has reminded me of. I think there are active efforts to never use the verb at all!
I know what you are saying, and I have a lot of sympathy with it, but ... but I don’t define calling yourself a “professional” photographer (or any other group - I am a biologist and a pathologist and probably a couple of other -ists) as only meaning you make a living from it. To define yourself in this way is to say that you have acquired knowledge and skills that go above and beyond those of most exponents of the subject and can answer questions/teach with confidence. That’s all - professions are hard won, don’t be embarrassed by what you know and do.
The definition of professional is literally working in that profession as one's main occupation instead of as a pastime. Take lawyers as an example. There can be bad lawyers and worse lawyers. But both types work in that profession and both can be labeled that way. Skill past a certain extent isn't required.
In activities that are hobbies and professions, there highly skill people who do it as a pastime. Especially in the arts, people like to label their skills as professional if they are good. In the lawyer example, think of Isaac Wright Jr who in jail learned law and eventually proved he was wrongfully convicted and he got out. I don't think you'd call him a "lawyer" at that point. He eventually went on to practice law, etc... but at the time he was in jail, he wasn't a "professional" lawyer because he wasn't working in the field.
Regardless, these are labels that call out individual accomplishments that separate oneself apart from others, instead using labels to represent us as belonging to broadly inclusive communities. Because language helps create our perceived reality, the more language is used to divide us into subsets of a population, the less it reinforces us as a community. That was my point.
A way to approach this with language in the lawyer example is this, "I practice law professionally."
Good points, and I like "I practice law professionally", but you can be a professional without practicing in the sense of making a living from. One definition professional is "Conforming to the standards of a profession" and while it may be a bit old-fashioned these days there was a time when you could not call yourself a professional other than in areas that have defined and enforceable standards ... so lawyers, medics, accountants etc but not photographers or electricians. You can still be struck off from practicing as a medic but not as a photographer. Interesting conversation.
Photography was a licensed profession in some places. It may still be.
Even so by calling yourself a "er" or "ist" or "al" you are still setting yourself apart from the broader community.
I didn't know that ... but really, by calling yourself a medic or a photographer or whatever are you really setting yourself "apart" any more than a plumber or a school teacher etc. It just marks that you have certain knowledge and skills that not everyone has ... which applies to all of us in a community. Be proud of your knowledge.
I don't accept the framing of your question. People who teach school kids who calls themselves a "teacher" are setting themselves apart just as much as people who calls themselves a "photographer." There is no difference. Both are creating exclusionary groups that set themselves apart from the community as a whole. These terms define how we are individually separate from a community versus how we are part of a community.
I am very community minded, it's important. But on the other hand a functioning community is composed of many people with different skills and knowledge that together make the community work. I don't see how it's exclusionary to say I am this or I am that?
I'd say because that kind of language divides people into various subcategories based on what they do. That's not something that I'm interested in doing anymore. People are people. They do stuff. Some do it for a job and some do it for fun. Some are really good and some aren't. I'm more interested in describing myself by community instead of by what I do recreationally (canoeing, kayaking, cycling, watercolor sketching, ect.) or professionally (landscape photography and teaching photo workshop, guiding).
I entirely understand, but when people need an electrician or want a photographer for en event they need to know who to turn to. That's really all it it. That and when matters are being discussed in the pub it helps to know that on a particular topic Joe is a pro and his information can be trusted whereas Fred is just winging it. All the best.
Excellent point. I’m retired. I previously served as a Financial Planner, Corporate Tax Accountant, Budgeting Manager, Real Estate Broker - and the list goes on. I worked hard to acquire the education and skills to serve in those capacities. By your definition, yes, I’m a Professional Photographer. Thank you for your insights!
Thought provoking topic. Just last week I was asked (online) if I’m a professional photographer. I didn’t know what to say! I take photos. I capture moments in nature one photo at a time. I’ve sold photos and calendars. I’ve photographed a couple weddings (never again!).But does that make me a professional? I don’t think so. What money I receive goes back into the hobby - a new lens, for instance. Maybe I’ll respond to the aforementioned that I take photos. I capture moments in nature.
It's never crazy to think about the way the words that we choose - weaken - or strengthen - the ways in which we connect. This is very thoughtful, and I greatly enjoyed your photography while contemplating your points :) Thanks for sharing!
So you are identifying the potential to create a mental segmentation based upon the er
“I make photographs”
“I am a maker of photographs”
“I am a photographer”
I question whether the question is maybe bigger, that maybe you are wrestling with age old challenge of non-duality, in essence you desire to not separate yourself from others. As a non-dualist myself there is no other just as there is no self. So to me the argument only exists in a dualist world view, of self and other. If you accept a dualist view then surely you are inherently assuming that there is a difference between (your)self and other(s), and the “er” merely describes what exists, a difference that is named. If instead we are all one, then are we all photographers and the term is redundant. I am a passionate husband, father, kayaker, vegan, writer, photographer, but I am not separate from you, I share passions with you and am connected to you through these passions and other ways.
Or maybe I am reading too much into your words? Great article, thanks for writing it.
That's a really interesting read, and I can see how you got there.
I was trying to get at the difference in language and how individuals in individualistic cultures describe themselves versus how people in collectivist cultures describe themselves. People from collective cultures wouldn't necessarily define themselves by what they do but instead by how they belong. In North America, the majority culture is individualistic and is becoming increasingly more divided and individualistic. I think that defining ourselves by what we do, particularly when it comes to jobs and recreation and hobbies, divides us further and will lead to nothing good. So, it's a way for me to try and reorientate my worldview to a more collective view and use my language to influence others in the same way.
That makes sense.
Labels of any sort are inherently categorical. In essence you are Bryan, anything else is an identifier that could result in separation. Even Husband or Father separates you from those that aren’t, or can’t. How then do we learn about each other without creating the opportunity for separation (isolation to rear its ugly head?)
Conversation amongst new acquaintances drifts into the societal norms of “what do you do?” Rather than being a thing (I am a photographer) or making a thing (I make photographs) does what you get from the act help? “I find pleasure in making photographs” or the professional might say “I make money from teaching others to make photographs”, I struggle though to apply this to the labels husband and father.
i feel nowdays with all the fancy photoshop,tools,etc, i truely believe the word photographer has to be redefined, i'm old school, what you see and initially take a picture of is the real true beauty, yes so can add, delete, edit but then is it truely natural and organic? What we see we the natural eye to me is the photo,yes there will be alot of clicks and throwaways but isn't that the real being of a photographer?searching, exploring, angle,light but you and not a app or a computer click?
It was nice to see the very artistic images included in your post. As a member of a camera club that holds monthly photo competitions, I wish more photo judges would focus on art. Professional critiques routinely dwell on the technical aspects of photography and casually, if at all, discuss the artistic effort or effect involved in the submitted images. Imagine an art critic discussing what brushes or brands of materials a painter might have used while omitting comment on the impact of the finished painting! I believe this is a major reason photographers are routinely discussed as technicians rather than as artists.
If your club still does Zoom meetings, I'd love to give a presentation on composition or some other creative topic. Maybe you could mention that to the person that schedules presentations. I've also done the critiques at clubs when I've presented. If I can get to a meeting while I'm traveling, I'd love to present in person.
At Professional Photographers of America we are judged on 12 areas of excellence in a competition image. Impact, Technical skills and Composition are two areas taken into account. I earned my Masters Degree in Photography with PPA by completing over 27 credit hours and having 13 images exceed judging guidelines. It has taken me 5 years to reach this goal. Other degrees include Certified Professional Photographer which includes testing and image preparation. Master Artist which includes manipulation of photos including composites and artist painting in Photoshop, Masters of Wedding Photography, and Photographic Craftsman which includes service as a speaker, author or mentor. This is my community.
Jill, are you available to judge photo club salons?
Very thought provoking! I've defined myself as photographer, artist, and now writer because it seemed to include me in a group with a defined and determined goal. However, I can see how as one becomes accomplished in these endeavors this want or need is transcended. Like Musashi says - if you know the way broadly, you see it in all things.
Don't know that you need to rewrite anything. I got the point of your article I just took a different direction in my comment as I really didn't have anything of substance to add to what you wrote. I simply don't believe that we can substantively change the way people view us. That is, see us as we see ourselves. I believe we each form a set of lenses through which we see the world and those around us in it. These lenses are formed by our life experiences. I believe these lenses remain unaltered barring some major emotional event in our lives. Simply learning new things doesn't do it as we shape the lesson learned based on what we see through these lenses.
I get your point and it's a valid one. I have my own views of photos as art. I have one of your photos hanging on my wall amongst other photos, watercolor paintings, and retro posters. I consider all to be art and enjoy looking at them and the memories they recall. The key elements of representational paintings and photos are essentially the same in my opinion. Composition I believe is the key to greatness in either.
I think I'm going to rewrite the opening to this because it wasn't meant to be a commentary on whether or not photos are art. It was meant to be a meditation on collectivism and individualism and how we define ourselves and whether or not to define ourselves by the communities we belong to or the activities we do.
I don't know if you took the photos in your post. If you did, I'd say you are an ‘Artist’.
I think all good photographers are artists.
I take all the photos in my newsletter. I take landscape photos and teach photography for a living.
I love this question. And I love how you want to redefine it and yourself, becoming more inclusive. I am an Animator. Many people would argue with me, saying “but you haven’t animated in 40 years!” True. But not a day has gone by without my imagining animating something, thinking about the profound experiences creating animation can provide, looking for ways to communicate what it means to be an animator. It’s my lens I’ve been granted to see the world and to report in some way, to someone, what I see. I’m also a pie baker. Thinking about the profound experiences in making pies is loads of fun. But ultimately you’ve got to cut the pie and serve it - it’s very physical. Both these activities have taught me how to be Mary Beams. Thanks for asking your question!
I like this article. And love trees. I will post some pictures of trees I have taken recently, from viewing as you did, I just shot the photo while looking up and it is an Amazing View. And shadows, love shadows.
Bryan, I have been a working news photographer for over 50 years. My work has a tendency to head to the fine art side when I photograph landscapes. My instructor at Moorhead Stare came from the F64 school. For years up until the present. Certain art institutions not considered photography art. This has been going on since Strand. Weston, Wynn Bullock. It is just part of the profession Beaumont Newhall talked about Ansel’s work. I can go on
That's not what I wrote about but okay.
I totally agree with what you are saying. My husband does woodworking. He does nit really buy into the fact that he is a wood artist at all. So by your definition he could be a woodworker Iremes a wood artist. The artist part is easy to see in both scenarios. He takes a pattern and he chooses the piece of wood to cut it from. Thus his vision of what the piece of wood brings to the pattern and the finished piece has everything to do with the "artist"part. You do the same thing when you decide how you will set up a photo and from which light, or prospective the finished photo will be taken from. That takes talent and an "art". Anyone can take a photo. Some people, like yourself, are gifted in what they do. Keep up the great work!
Years ago, at UW Madison, I was in a workshop on racism and one of the main lessons was to move from the verb “to be”, (you are a racist) which is binary and immediately creates a defensive position, to the verb “to do”, (that action was racist) which has degrees and can start a conversation. The deeper lesson was that “to be” really has limited applicability- which your post has reminded me of. I think there are active efforts to never use the verb at all!
Thoughtfuk and appreciated