I get insulted every day as a fine art photographer!

[ZakemArt]

I get insulted every day that I sell my artwork on the fence of Jackson Square in New Orleans!

It always goes almost exactly the same way.  Someone will ask if my canvas prints are paintings or photography. I respond that its photography. They then reply " well...that would be really good if it was a painting  ."   I have variations of the same conversation almost everyday and usually multiple times a day that I am selling my work. I am thick skinned and realize that I am usually dealing with intoxicated tourists, but it still sometimes gets me down after a long day.  Has anyone else experienced anything similar?

I have never understood the argument about whether photography is art or why a painting of an image is "more" artistic? I have painters ask me all the time if they can licence my images to paint. Why would someone consider an exact painting of an image to be more "artistic?"  I believe that the image is the most important aspect in this equation!

Please let me know your thoughts.

Alan Zakem
ZakemArt.com

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I have a modest suggestion. Why don't you place a few artist's brushes and a couple of paints on a chair near your fence position.
That might cut down slightly on the stupid questions. Just avoid making any explicit claim.

You have my sympathy.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

An original (i.e., painting) is always considered more valuable, due to its uniqness, than something that can be reproduced limitlessly. Hence limited editions in photography.

A lot of people, surprisingly, are still not aware that photographs can be printed on canvas, so some of the questions you get reflect that.

I actually try to embrace the confusion by framing a photo on canvas in a more classic frame, so that it looks even more like a painting.

[ZakemArt]

I get the whole concept of one of a kind and limited editions, but I have never heard painters tell me that they get any similar comments with their prints.  They get a lot of people saying that they will only buy their originals, but not about it not being art. 

I also sometimes get asked, "is that art or is that photography?"

I guess it just goes back to the question of whether most people consider photography to be art.  I am a painter as well and have sold prints of my paintings. I still feel that if you had limited ed. prints of painting vs limited ed. photography prints, that people would consider the painting prints to be more "artistic." I have never understood that concept though because I feel the image is the most important aspect.

[Ivophoto]

I get the whole concept of one of a kind and limited editions, but I have never heard painters tell me that they get any similar comments with their prints.  They get a lot of people saying that they will only buy their originals, but not about it not being art. 

I also sometimes get asked, "is that art or is that photography?"

I guess it just goes back to the question of whether most people consider photography to be art.  I am a painter as well and have sold prints of my paintings. I still feel that if you had limited ed. prints of painting vs limited ed. photography prints, that people would consider the painting prints to be more "artistic." I have never understood that concept though because I feel the image is the most important aspect.

I think you might miss the aspect of the craftsmanship to make a photo vs a painting.

[faberryman]

I think printing on canvas invites the comparison. I don't print on canvas and nobody has ever suggested my photographs would be better if they were paintings.

[Rob C]

I think photos on canvas are a very poor idea because the first thing that they scream is this: please make a mistake and think I'm a painting and not just a photograph!

My stance has nothing to do with marketing: if folks want to buy them, then make them.

I think it sucks. A good photograph stands on its own merits and has no need to hide under another banner. I feel that way about all textured papers, too, and always did; to me, they are to disguise shortfalls in quality, hide unwanted grain and so forth.

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I also sometimes get asked, "is that art or is that photography?"...

We just have to suck it up and understand that we are not very often dealing with a sophisticated crowd.

[petermfiore]

Indeed...the venue that your showing your work is ripe for verbal, unaware on the viewer's part, abuse. Upscale your venue. A gallery setting with knowledgeable sales people will field all those issues for you.


Peter

[petermfiore]

I actually try to embrace the confusion by framing a photo on canvas in a more classic frame, so that it looks even more like a painting.

Solbodan do you really think that approach helps the issue...Because photos don't look like paintings.

Peter

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan do [you] really think that approach helps the issue...Because photos don't look like paintings.

Not all photos, of course, but some do, as in my attached example.

[rabanito]

I wonder always what should the fuss be about this subject.

Art:
"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power"

Do your pictures comply with that?
Why care what others say?
You are the judge

[ZakemArt]

I appreciate the feedback. Guess its probably most has to do with the venue. I mostly do canvas at Jackson Square because I like the look and its pretty durable + easy to transport.  Would like to bring my aluminum out there, but to worried about it getting banged up.

[Ivophoto]

I wonder always what should the fuss be about this subject.

Art:
"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power"

Do your pictures comply with that?
Why care what others say?
You are the judge

Rabanito,
There is the etymologic definition of the word. Even in academic circles this creates confusion. 

The term “art” is related to the Latin word “ars” meaning, art, skill, or craft.
There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?
There are academy’s refusing to lector photography for this reason.

[rabanito]

Rabanito,
There is the etymologic definition of the word. Even in academic circles this creates confusion. 

The term “art” is related to the Latin word “ars” meaning, art, skill, or craft.
There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?
There are academy’s refusing to lector photography for this reason.

Hahahaha
Mine was the Oxford's definition. I had to look it up 
The liberal arts are
Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, Astronomy, Arithmetic, Geometry and Music
Painting and Photography are not included.

I for one find "art" to be a meaningless word. Art is what the "experts" and the "critics" call "art"
We ignoramuses just follow 

I would have done like the janitor who threw away the famous Man Ray's Lamp Shade on the eve of the exhibition
Not out of meanness, don't take me wrong, but different people have different perceptions of what is valuable and what isn't. For the janitor it was just a piece of paper.

Man Ray himself  believed that “the idea was always more important than the actual work.”

As for
"There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?"
we could say that Landscape or Studio Portrait are some kind of art compared with "street"
Ansel Adams would be an artist and HCB not

Just joking of course, Ivo. Making conversation

[Rob C]

Rabanito,
There is the etymologic definition of the word. Even in academic circles this creates confusion. 

The term “art” is related to the Latin word “ars” meaning, art, skill, or craft.
There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?
There are academy’s refusing to lector photography for this reason.

Well put; it is a matter of skill and craft and also vision and dexterity with brush, pencil etc.

Non-photographic pictures depend on the creativity and ability of the artist to make something visible, coherent and understandable all by the magic of his own hand. Photography demands just a fraction of that ability, and outwith the wet darkrom even less. I had pride in my darkroom work; I do not have much in my electronic work which is just a matter of sitting down on my ass and trying this, that and the other until something pleases me enough to stop and call it a finished image. It is a risk-free exercise and costs just the electricity, with little personal price to pay, one way or the other. Even less worthy are those images derived from using a pre-prepared system bought off the shelf or included in the hardware package... pre-packaged "art" product for the incapable.

No wonder photography is often seen as a lesser pursuit!

Blessed the person with the ability to work well in both mediums.

Rob

[Rob C]

Hahahaha
Mine was the Oxford's definition. I had to look it up 
The liberal arts are
Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, Astronomy, Arithmetic, Geometry and Music
Painting and Photography are not included.

I for one find "art" to be a meaningless word. Art is what the "experts" and the "critics" call "art"
We ignoramuses just follow 

I would have done like the janitor who threw away the famous Man Ray's Lamp Shade on the eve of the exhibition
Not out of meanness, don't take me wrong, but different people have different perceptions of what is valuable and what isn't. For the janitor it was just a piece of paper.

Man Ray himself  believed that “the idea was always more important than the actual work.”

As for
"There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?"
we could say that Landscape or Studio Portrait are some kind of art compared with "street"
Ansel Adams would be an artist and HCB not

Just joking of course, Ivo. Making conversation

That's interesting.

Landscape strikes me as the art of patience, and studio portraiture as the art of the set piece set-up, repeated ad nauseam.

Both St Ansel and St Karsh seem to me to be the greatest sinners.

Trouble is, HC-B was an artist in other mediums, too...

;-)

[Ivophoto]

Hahahaha
Mine was the Oxford's definition. I had to look it up 
The liberal arts are
Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, Astronomy, Arithmetic, Geometry and Music
Painting and Photography are not included.

I for one find "art" to be a meaningless word. Art is what the "experts" and the "critics" call "art"
We ignoramuses just follow 

I would have done like the janitor who threw away the famous Man Ray's Lamp Shade on the eve of the exhibition
Not out of meanness, don't take me wrong, but different people have different perceptions of what is valuable and what isn't. For the janitor it was just a piece of paper.

Man Ray himself  believed that “the idea was always more important than the actual work.”

As for
"There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?"
we could say that Landscape or Studio Portrait are some kind of art compared with "street"
Ansel Adams would be an artist and HCB not

Just joking of course, Ivo. Making conversation

I will join the conversation by sharing my thoughts:

Todays photographic art can be found in the same corner as other art where the craft is supposed to be less important than the purely consumption of the visual. Photography is a means not a goal.

Some try to lift ‘the print’ to art status. In analogue era this could be the case. wet plate, Color gum print, palladium print, lithography, etc involves skills and craft.
A digital print is something to master as well, but of other skill than pe a glass plate nicely sealed with lavender Arabic gum.  Or a beautiful color gum print.
....
In photography making the latent image is a technical thing, creating the end product is what requires the skill. No physical print, no art or whatsoever.

[petermfiore]

I will join the conversation by sharing my thoughts:

Todays photographic art can be found in the same corner as other art where the craft is supposed to be less important than the purely consumption of the visual. Photography is a means not a goal.

Some try to lift ‘the print’ to art status. In analogue era this could be the case. wet plate, Color gum print, palladium print, lithography, etc involves skills and craft.
A digital print is something to master as well, but of other skill than pe a glass plate nicely sealed with lavender Arabic gum.  Or a beautiful color gum print.
....
In photography making the latent image is a technical thing, creating the end product is what requires the skill. No physical print, no art or whatsoever.

Art is much more then craft alone. A painting without an idea and meaning is just empty. It may be an example of well crafted art work, but an artist is interested making a work of art. A very different kind of beast. Then same goes for photography, or else it wont be art. An artist will use a brush, hammer and chisel or a camera and make art.

Peter

[Ivophoto]

Art is much more then craft alone. A painting without an idea and meaning is just empty. It may be an example of well crafted art work, but an artist is interested making a work of art. A very different kind of beast. Then same goes for photography, or else it wont be art. An artist will use a brush, hammer and chisel or a camera and make art.

Peter

It goes together.

If a camera is used to register the result of the idea, I agree. Joel Peter Witkin ,Lachapelle, etc. The photo itself is not the art, it’s the set up, the scene. The idea.

Or colorists like Leiter, Gruyaert, Eggleston, etc, I agree. Here the subjectivism of the frame is the result.

If paint skills are only used to replicate a plate with an apple or two, not much art if the technique is not beyond excellent.

But there is more.

Scaling down to purely cerebral art and cutting away all skills doesn’t result in a desirable piece, a piece of art to live with.

Look at Miro’s bird in Barcelona, Picasso’s sculpture in centre Pompidou, Rubens de crucifixion in Antwerp, this is of another kind of art as the nice attempts of a any photographer. It’s comparing a good try with real art.