Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/04/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Art vs. photography - who cares?
From: steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 18:27:39 -0700
References: <D148A5B0.36FEF%mark@rabinergroup.com>

> On Apr 6, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote:
> 
> Nobodies obsessing over art vs. photography except for you Larry who 
> started
> this embarrassingly provincial thread intended only to be querulous  and
> contentious as you sit back smugly and think people are getting all excited
> about it. They're not. Photographers have shows in galleries have no 
> problem
> considering themselves to be artists this may have been slightly
> controversial 50 years ago when all they could get from a print was a 
> couple
> of bucks..  I visit those galleries almost every week there are scores of
> openings. There people pay taxes and have parking voucher . Yes it may come
> down to money as prints from living photographers go for tens of thousands
> of dollars in the art world.
> The idea of photography being one of the arts in the art world not exactly 
> a
> hot topic now to put it mildly kind of like am I going to sale my ship off
> the edge of the world.  Not ones worried about it. Even here its just taken
> wide tangents having nothing to do with art in general.

when some one calls it art, then it?s art?


s



> 
> 
> On 4/6/15 10:52 AM, "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> wrote:
> 
>> Art vs. Photography. Photographers should not obsess over whether they are
>> artists or craftsmen. With few exceptions people do it for love, not for
>> income. If a photographer wants to inflate his/her ego by claiming to be 
>> an
>> artist so be it. Your garbageman probably makes more money practicing his
>> profession.
>> 
>> 
>> There are more than twice as many professional photographers in the 
>> country as
>> there are professional artists but economically speaking it is much 
>> better to
>> be an artist than a photographer. Still, both groups would qualify for 
>> food
>> stamps. The AVERAGE income for professional photographers is a shade over 
>> $13
>> per hour. That's less than the recently raised salary for workers at
>> McDonalds. Even wannabe actors do better. An economist would tell a
>> professional photographer to scrap his cameras and serve burgers instead.
>> 
>> 
>> Here are the relevant passages on the described occupations fro the
>> Occupational Outlook Handbook from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/photographers.htm
>> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/arts-and-design/craft-and-fine-artists.htm
>> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/entertainment-and-sports/actors.htm
>> 
>> 
>> Now we can get back to really important things like posting pictures of 
>> cats,
>> babies, flowers, street scenes, and discussing the merits and demerits of
>> Leica lenses.
>> 
>> 
>> Larry Z
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mark William Rabiner
> Photographer
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Art vs. photography - who cares?)