"but calling one self an artist does set onself apart from
mere mortals does it not?"
I would reply: yes Mark, it does as does calling oneself by any name
that describes what one really does. I have a degree in Nuclear Physics
so I sometimes call myself a Nuclear Physicist. I don't think that
implys that I consider myself better than others. Its just what I do
sometimes. If a person does art, I think they can call themself an
artist. Titles do set us apart from others, but I don't see why we should
feel that we have to apologize for it. Today anyone with the funds can
buy a do-everything-for-you camera and take the film to the nearest
drugstore for processing. Thats fine but it leads to folks thinking that
photography is too easy to be considered art (and perhaps that a photograph
isn't really a print). Of course, most folks have no clue as to the abount
of effort, skill, talent,etc. necessary to create a fine art photograph.
I know enough about other "printing" methods to know that fine art
photographic prints (and certainly alternate process prints) require
at least as much artistic ability as other, more "standard", methods.
I have to say it again. Its time to stop calling ourselves photographers
and conjuring up the "Olin Mills" image and start refering to ourselves
as artists (proudly, and without shame) who work with photographic
process as an artistic medium.
Sorry to run on, but I guess my cage was rattled. Also I apologize
to the list since this discussion probably belongs on the PhotoArt
list.
Bob Schramm