Is it art? Or just photography

You know, I battle the artist vs photographer issue myself. I consider myself a photographer. But a lot of times I don't consider myself an artist. I know photography is an art, but I just really don't categorize myself as an "art-iste". Well that's for another day.

Spencer Tunick is at it again with his so-called "installation art". He photographed a bunch of nude people on a Swiss glacier, all for the political statement of global warming.

Come on.

That really doesn't entice me to go on out there and save the planet. I really don't even see the corollation (damn I can't spell that word) between the two. OTher than, man is the one destroying the earth. But usually he is doing it clothed.

Now I know a lot of art is all about the concept. And I hate to say it, but I'm not big into the concept issue. I understand the need for it. I understand the statements sometimes that need to be made using photography as a vehicle for them. And I realize most artists are trying to make a statement. Mine is very simple though. I'm not into all this complex political or socio-economical statements. I am angst ridden, but I don't feel the need to put it into my artwork.

I know there are a lot of ways to create art. And I question some people's ideas of what art is. But I also wonder how some photographers become famous. For instance Tunick. I do not really know a whole lot about him. The only thing I know, and was first introduced to his work, is about the nudity he uses. I guess it doesn't matter WHAT you are famous for, just as long as you are well-known? Well not me. I have absolutely nothing against nudity. But I just don't see the point of hundreds and thousands of sweaty, nasty, naked people all lying about or standing about in an open public space. (And in my opinion, "installation art" means artwork that is INSTALLED somewhere! But it seems like everyone is making their own definitions of words, not just art-related ones)

He does have an art degree, but in what fine art I do not know. Perhaps photography. I think he was a guest lecturer at our school a quarter or two ago. I didn't go. His 'art' doesn't interest me.

I just wonder if some of these artists are just perverts using "nudity" as an excuse to supplement their perversions. Now granted I don't think nudity is perverse, but how it is....well I can't think of the words. WHY people find the need to photograph or otherwise create other artwork around nudity. Yea yea the body is a temple, nudity is freeing, the body is beautiful yadda yadda. I have done nudes as well in my work. I just don't see it as the main subject of my work. I don't find that we have to run around naked for the rest of our lives (although I know a LOT of men who would like that, and I guess women to). But come on. The novelty wears off (yea yea, I know I'm going to hear that it doesn't.)

Maybe I'm too conservative to break out of the norm and accept all this stuff. I don't mind the artwork, it just doesn't do a damn thing for me. Does the shrinkage of a person's body laying on a cold glacier supposed to symbolize the shrinkage of the glaciers? Whatever.

Maybe I'm just not smart enough to get it.

Here, if you want to participate in one of his projects, sign up. You'll get a print.