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: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 21:05:52 -0400

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.


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/




Replies: Reply from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] Art vs. photography - who cares?)
In reply to: Message from lrzeitlin at aol.com (lrzeitlin at aol.com) ([Leica] Art vs. photography - who cares?)