To be an artist

I want to be an artist. I am not entirely sure why I say this, but at least now I have. In a sense I have come clean. No more hiding it, or disguising it with other words or desires. Truth be told, I have never been comfortable with the term artist, and have always found the need to qualify it when applying it to what I do (art photographer, photographic artist, etc.). In each of these appended uses, the term “art” has always felt forced. I believe that part of this feeling of uncomfortable-ness stems from the idea that photographers are inherently not considered artists, as they cannot be in relation to the other art mediums. As Susan Sontag points out in Regarding the Pain of Others, having professional training and years of experience with photography does not bring with it the automatic ability to create a better picture than the amateur or spontaneous photographer. This is absolutely true, and so is the idea that chance carries such a weight in the photographic world (the picture only came about because I was at ‘the right place at the right time’). I personally don’t have an issue with this, and in fact, completely agree. So then why do I desire the label of artist, and why do so many other photographers have that same desire? Maybe it is all a simple fact of attending art school and being surrounded by others who easily refer to themselves as artists without hesitation. There is no second thinking when you are surrounded by artists to call yourself the same, it is only once you are separated that you can see things from another viewpoint and not feel comfortable. I am not comfortable, but at least now I think I know why. Here is the difference for photographers, and here may be the reasoning for the awkwardness of the art photographer label (again pointed out by Sontage), “A painting or drawing is judged a fake when it turns out not to be by the artist to whom it had been attributed. A photograph…is judged a fake when it turns out to be deceiving the viewer about the scene it purports to depict.” How true is that? I mean seriously, for over 100 years, ever since P.H. Emerson wrote his Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art in 1889 we as photographers have struggled to become accepted in the wide world of art. How can we possibly feel accepted when the basic tendency of paintings and drawings being particular to an artist is not afforded to a photographer? Was he not the one to take the image and craft the print, and is it not his art? Sometimes it wasn’t and so sometimes it isn’t. Again, I agree with Sontag, and it only makes me feel even more pushed towards forming some sort of similar connection between photograph and creator. I guess this is just another push towards wanting to be regarding as an artist. The strengths of the photographic medium have pushed us this far, but as the focus remains on only what the picture is of, then a “photo by:” credit does nothing. As long as we remain separated from fellow creators of art by this poignant truth, photography will always be looked at as but a recording device.