THE CHALLENGE OF ART (PART 2)

I am a photographer.

I am a good photographer. I am probably not a bashful photographer, but like the previous, this does not alter any fact.

Whenever there is an occasion in the family, within my circle of friends, or even at work - out of the ordinary - I am always designated as the official photographer out to capture the moments at their most intrinsic, essential, quality.

I am blessed with a good, albeit vintage, SLR and accessories, aside from a keen, albeit vintage, eye. Consider: In one company Christmas party, inside a dimly lit banquet hall, I asked three women (not very well known to each other) to stand side by side, compressed, and when the picture came out they realized the trick of my t(i)rade: they were wearing similarly-colored blouses and belts and skirts and thus looked like 3 women draped in some uknown flag. And then there was this guy I positioned at a spot where, on the ceiling above him, was a flickering light from a circular bulb. I asked him to stand still, head a little tilted upwards, eyes off camera, palms clasped together and close to his chest. On picture that had a completely black background, he appears very serene while in prayer, with a halo hovering above his head. The guy's name, by the way, was Angel.

Im certainly good at what I do with the camera, with sufficient knowledge of and about composition and light, that in at least 3 separate occasions (2 weddings and a horse show, which, to set the record straight, are not one and the same thing) I was asked to cover the events, "name your price". And because I am an idiot (a good photographer is not necessarily an unidiotic photographer), I declined.

Despite my ability to capture a great moment among people, especially children and the elderly, the pictures I enjoy most taking are those without them - landscapes, seascapes, and three subjects I like very much: sailboats, barns, and lighthouses.

I also love looking at great photographers' pictures, like Ansel Adams', and this one guy's (I forgot his name; I don't have a photographic memory, npi) who in his 20 or so years of professional photography took pictures of nothing but dews. Dews! Dews on spider webs, or at the tips of leaves - which signify the many little lives evolving within this big thing called Life.

And last December, who else but the great Annie Leibowitz with her exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art gagged my attention. She had this picture of Johnny Depp (clothed) and Kate Moss (naked), in bed, in such magnificent serenity that I was reminded of a painting by Guido Reni called Deianeira and the Centaur Nessus.

Still and all, my problem is this. When people look at my pictures, they say "You are a good photographer", and when they look at Adams' and Leibowitz' pictures they say, "They are such great photographers".

What I wanted to hear was "You are an artist", or "They are such great artists", but I won't because people consider photos not as Art but as Evidence of Art (as in Nature's Art).

At least in the case of Adams and Leibowitz, please, do beg to disagree.