picture window # 11 ~ arrogance and self-confidence are not synonymous
Monday, June 2, 2008 at 10:48AM 
Inside and out • click to embigenPaul Maxim has stated, "... Consider some budding photographer who has just taken an image of some mountain, perfectly reflected in a small lake at sunrise ... they feel they've produced something 'special' ... then they read your blog and discover that their picture is merely "Decorative Art" - not to be confused with "Fine Art" that real artists produce (like the Birch Tree Lodge image?).
With this statement, it seems that Paul is suggesting that I believe Birch Tree Lodge, or, for that matter, any of the pictures that I post, is/are Fine Art and that, therefore, I am a "real artist". To which, all I can say is- Man, I wish I had that kind of self-assurance / confidence about what I am and what my pictures are, photography / Art- wise.
The fact is that I do believe that my pictures resemble that of Fine Art, photography division, more than they do that of Decorative Art, photography division. However, the other salient (and, by far more important) fact (reality) is that, in the world of Art, it really doesn't matter what the hell I think they are. Nope, not at all. Not even a little bit.
Being considered an Artist and having your pictures considered Art are not "honors" one can bestow upon oneself. Like it or not, only the Art world at large (or in part) and time can render such judgement. Howl and scream as much as you like regarding the prejudices and strictures of that club (like I do re: the academic lunatic fringe), but the reality is there is no getting around or denying them.
It doesn't matter at all that I/you consider what I/you are creating is "special". In the Art world, what matters most is that others think what I/you are creating is "special". It's as simple as that. Deal with it.
Are part of my desire and effort expended in being "accepted" into part of that world? Yeah, sure. But, am I naive (or stupid) enough to think that achieving this goal is a given? No.
Now, it should be noted that Paul believes that I possess a fair amount of hutzpa - artistic arrogance, in his parlance - but I would have to be possessed by a megamaniacal amount of self-delusional hubris to think that all of my picturing utterances even approach the level of Fine Art, much less, achieve it.
Reader Comments (2)
And that is what most of all I appreciate so much. The fact that you show so openly in words and images your struggle for the Picture, that really represent your vision of Art. Very inspiring and recognizable. Thanks (hope my english is ok)
First, it's nice to know that I can still get an animated response out of you (actually two, I guess). I'm still trying to figure out what either one had to do with my last comment, but that's another story. I do feel a little insulted, though, that you think I don't know the difference between self-confidence and arrogance.
Second, it's way too late to play the modesty card. Shame on you for that!
Third, and most importantly, we actually do agree on a great many things. I simply love to tweak your nose on what I consider to be an outrageous idea - the assertion that there is this dichotomy within the photographic world between images that are merely "Decorative" (second class citizens no matter how good they are) and those that approach or "resemble" something else that you call "Fine Art". All you've really done is create two very arbitrary buckets, neither of which is very well defined. Yes, yes, I've read all your posts on the difference between the two and I still wind up scratching my head afterwards.
The fact that you can't define them very well isn't surprising - that you try to, is. You correctly pointed out that no one gets to place the mantel of ART on their own work. That "honor" is left to others and to time. The corollary to that, I think, is that no one gets to define ART, either, much less compartmentalize it.