When I do shows I frequently get people looking at my works and then asking if I’m the photographer. My answer is, “Yes, I am.” But this past weekend I got asked a different question – “Are you the artist?” I think that’s the only time I’ve been asked that in over two years of doing shows. I was deeply grateful and expressed my thanks for the implication behind her question.
I think there’s a tenuous relationship in many peoples’ minds between photography and art. Why else would they ask, “Did you manipulate that photograph?” My answer to this one is always, “Well yes, of course.” How can a photographer also be an artist and NOT manipulate the photographs?
To me, art is two things – communication and interpretation.
Most artists have a need to express themselves, to say something through their art. That’s very clear with the literary arts but it also applies to visual arts, music, dance, and so on. And as an artist matures she or he develops a personal style, a voice. Some artists develop a very strong, highly recognizable personal style. And this tempers what is communicated through their art.
The other aspect of art is interpretation. Creativity is the act of creating something totally new or treating something familiar in a new, enlightening and surprising way. That is how the artist presents subjects in ways that provide new insights. So the creative act is an act of interpretation. Showing a subject in a new and refreshing light is an act of interpretation. Helping the viewer to see things that might be missed is an act of interpretation.
So the artist photographer almost always will need to do something to a captured image to express a unique personal style and provide an interpretation that is interesting and new. Call it adjustments, enhancements, post processing or manipulation, the result is a unique work of art, not mere documentation.
(187)
