So, is Albert Watson a Fine Art photographer? He has shot major advertising campaigns for Prada, The Gap, Levi's, Revlon and Chanel. He has shot for magazines like Mademoiselle, GQ, Harper's Bazaar and Vogue.
He has produced several books that include Cyclops (1994), Morocco (1998), Strip Search (2010) and UFO: Unified Fashion Objectives (2010). He has had individual shows in Milan, Vienna, Edinburgh, Antwerp, Dusseldorf, Stockholm and London. He has also shown his work with other artists in New York, Moscow and Hamburg. He has photographs included in the permanent collection in the National Portrait Gallery and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
He has produced several books that include Cyclops (1994), Morocco (1998), Strip Search (2010) and UFO: Unified Fashion Objectives (2010). He has had individual shows in Milan, Vienna, Edinburgh, Antwerp, Dusseldorf, Stockholm and London. He has also shown his work with other artists in New York, Moscow and Hamburg. He has photographs included in the permanent collection in the National Portrait Gallery and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Does shooting photography for another person invalidate your label as a Fine Art photographer? Does selling photography (you have produced) to another constitute commercial photography? Is Albert Watson both a commercial and Fine Art photographer?
Or neither? Does it even matter? Apparently, there is a need to be labeled, to be placed in a certain category of photography. How about just being a GREAT photographer. Doesn't being a GREAT photographer trump all classifications?
From my position, it does.
So many questions. . .my head hurts. . .
ReplyDeleteBut seriously- If I think it's art , then it is for me. If you think it's art, then it is for you. To a great extent, if someone like Brett Abbott says it is, then it REALLY is.
ReplyDelete