The Difference Between a Photographer and an Artist

A photographer is someone who takes photographs. These days, anybody can be a photographer, and the reciprocal is also true—a photographer can be anybody. From the hottest haute-kultur gallery orchid on the planet down to somebody selling something on eBay or a real estate agent snapping pictures of an empty house with a cellphone.

We also use the term “photographer” as shorthand for “good photographer,” “good” meaning skilled, practiced, experienced, interested, dedicated, or ambitious, or just hopeful. That’s why some people will show you their snapshots and say self-deprecatingly, “I’m no photographer,” and a guy with a big camera collection can indicate his interest by saying, “I’m a photographer.” Even though the first guy sort of is and the second guy sort of isn’t. The guy at the DMV who takes all the driver’s license photos said to me, “I guess I’m a photographer, but I’m not a photographer.” He used the same word in both senses.

It’s too bad the term “artist” is so loaded, because it’s a term we need. Some good photographers reject the word—David Vestal has always said that it’s good enough to be called a photographer. I’ve always provisionally used the term “art photographer,” even though I know it shares some of the drawbacks of “artist”—it’s a term of disputation over status, prestige, claims to attention, claims to money, pretensions, and so forth. Too bad about all that. But it’s the best term we’ve got.

Here’s what I think: I think an art photographer is a photographer with an opinion.

(Part of an interesting article by Mike Johnston. Read the rest at The Online Photographer.)