Why is fine art photographer supposedly pretensions but wedding or commercial photographer are not? Some painters put house in front of painter so that no one asks them to paint a portrait and if one said they were a fine art photographer you may decide not to ask them to shoot a wedding or a catalogue shoot as they may not have the skills, equipment or desire to do so. To me fine art means some one who takes the image for the sake of creating an image not fulfilling a commercial obligation or to record events or even to document your kids hockey games.
Originally Posted by batwister
You use the term "wanabees:, "art teacher" "professor", "so called" "experts" etc makes me when reading your posts to consider that you have already a great disdain for young artists and art schools that perhaps you are very bias in your comments. Perhaps you are accurate however the constant editorializing does colour my interpretation of your comments. You have dished a whole generation of new photographers, their teachers and schools, art experts, and those whose posts argue strongly against your view. You even dismissed photographers whose work have been judged by other widely accepted photographers as good stating that this was meaningless. What other then your approval or one's passing an exam on history of photography is required for a young photographer to be considered a photographer? This is a serious question as I have tried to understand just what is acceptable in your mind and frankly all I have been able to gleam is nothing that is new cuts it. Thanks