It’s an age-old dilemma which although spans across all “fine art” mediums seems to be particularly prominent regarding those who practice photography. Since it’s invention in the early 1800’s photography was never considered a fine art within the art world and even in the ever growing and societally popular photography world. But there were schisms brewing which first erupted in 1892 when a few members of the Photographic Society of Great Britan broke away to form a new group, “The Brotherhood of the Linked Ring”, ( aka: The Linked Ring), with the purpose of bringing “the highest form of Art of which Photography is capable.”
Interestingly, that same year across the pond a young American named Alfred Stieglitz would buy his first camera and begin a lifelong passion. He very soon was unanimously elected as one of the first two American members of the British Linked Ring. In 1896 the American branch of the Linked Ring joined together with another photography organization to form The Camera Club of New York with Stieglitz as the Vice President. So here now we have this organization of prominence at the time with two factions within. Most were photographic traditionalists with a few spearheaded by a very vocal and active member who was VP Alfred Stieglitz pushing photography as a fine art. This schism and the pressures of his tireless work in the club leads Stieglitz to resign in 1901 and in 1902 with encouragement from friends and followers forms The Photo Secession. History speaks for itself and without blathering much further suffice to say Alfred Steiglitz comes to be regarded, even today, as the father of photography as a fine art.

Now, even with this growing public acceptance of photography as an artform and all that evolves within the medium in passing years and with acceptance into the museum world such as major exhibitions at MOMA there still remained another schism and an even deeper one. That being between the medium of photography and the other traditional art mediums.

Where am I going with all of this? From my personal perspective and life experience with photography going back to the early 1970’s this question still existed. Is photography really art? Are photographers artists? And for me this leads to personal conflict as well in being comfortable with calling myself an artist. I went to a University Art School in the early 1980’s. I worked hard and earned a BFA Summa Cum Laude in Fine Art. Yet I can say that the photography department seemed to be in it’s own world from the other mediums departments. Like a sidekick in the art school. As a part of an actual Fine Art school curriculum, one has experience learning in other mediums outside of their preferred practice. I remember first day Level 2 drawing class. The instructor goes around asking names and what your major is. I tell them photography which is met with a giant eye roll and an under breath pffft. It was a semester of disregard and borderline open hostility and try as I did, my worst grade ever.

Now, you could go on to say that was the 80’s, 40 years ago, things are better now, that’s all been resolved, photography is absolutely regarded as a fine art and photographers today are artists! Is it really so? Are they really? Where are we in all of this today?

I am very comfortable within my heart and soul thinking of myself as an artist. What about my public persona? Yes, for me that has been a bit of a conflict. In past discussions people have said, if that’s what you truly are and how you regard yourself then call yourself an artist and I have done so for many years. But I still go back and forth somewhat. Why? Because I tire of the verbal exchanges. “Nice to meet you what do you do?” “I’m an artist.” “What kind of artist? What kind of art do you do?” “Photography.” “Oh….” Then on the other hand if I switch it up… “Nice to meet you what do you do?” “I’m a Photographer.” “Oh! Do you do weddings….”

I finally settled on a signifier for myself. A public persona that I am very comfortable with. One with that when asked, “What do you do?” my reply of “I’m a Photographic Artist.” seems to pique further interest and deeper questions about what I do, (Although trying to come up with those answers is another entire issue.) and it allays their potential preconceived societal clichés surrounding Photographer vs Artist.

I was recently interviewed for inclusion in the next issue of a new photo magazine here in New Orleans (https://densitypress.substack.com/) and, when asked to define what I am, I said, without thinking, I’m a printmaker. Everything else – subject, light, camera, negative – is in service to what I hope the print will look like. Photographer or artist is how I respond when most people ask what I do because those terms are more readily accepted and easily digested.

Hi Ray, Oddly a couple friends and I have discussed this topic lately too. I do like your term “Craftsman” as it implies a level of expertise that shows in the work/print. I’ve always had a hard time calling myself an “Artist” even though that’s also what I do, just wish there was a better word. The comment from John Baswell and his term “Artisan” sounds better to me, I like that. The term photographer, while accurate, may have many meanings. There is a huge difference between a view camera and darkroom to an iphone and computer. It is an interesting topic with plenty of room for discussion, something else I like!

I, and I suspect many of us who work with film and make prints in our darkrooms, consider ourselves craftspeople rather than artists. Developing and especially printing are very tactile, and with manual burning and dodging no two prints will be identical. That is craft. Art has to do with the content of the image, and to be a bit cruel, most of our photographic images are rather mundane. All that said, I am curious whether digital photographers would come down more on the side of artist.

Ray, I’ve been thinking a great deal about language myself lately. Most about the limitations of language and the difference between the “thing in itself”and the name of the thing. How much can we “know” about the “thing” (and here I would include the beauty of the phenomenon) apart from the description of it. The intrinsic “knowledge-appreciation” of beauty is so often beyond our ability to describe it in words. I appreciate your term “craftsman” and I would include the term “artisan”. We know more than we can say.