I’m finding that some folks want to categorize what I’m doing as “not quite there” or “cheater” artwork. As if I’m tapping into some vast database of images and just assembling pictures. It makes me remember that once an individual said to me, regarding the electric organ in our church, that it wasn’t really music they were creating since there were no pipes and no air running through those pipes.
Hmm. So, then should we say that photographers are not artists either, since they aren’t painstakingly creating photographic replications of their subjects with pen/ink or some other hand medium?
The art first exists in the idea.
I don’t put myself out there as someone who sees the world in a vastly different light and am then compelled to create art to help the un-seeing see it all through my lens. I just like pictures. I like to make pictures. I’m fairly pedestrian. I’m not abstract and my work is not esoteric. OK, I’m a kiddie book artist.
Then, the idea has to get onto paper (or a screen, or a canvas…)
Once I have an idea, I then figure out how to make it tangible and hope others will like to look at it too. Yes. I consider others. I don’t treat my work as something just for me. I hope even, that I can sell it! I think that getting it out of your head and onto a visual surface is what every art maker must learn to do (this is skill and craft)—even photographers; even digital artists.
Thanks for reading.
THE ENEMY: DETROIT 1954 - CALKINS CREEK BOOKS, a Highlights CompanyThe Enemy by Sara Holbrook makes me downright jealous! For starters, check out that cover. Gorgeous, it is. So s...
2 months ago