Photographers, artists, and Instagrammers. A common theme unites all: the use of a camera. But there's also a significant mindset and philosophy, in my opinion, that separates the three.
I recently was hiking alone in Idaho's mountains, slowly enjoying an empty trail and stopping here and there to capture moments and scenes that caught my eye. About halfway into the hike, a couple caught up to me, and we ended up becoming friends and spending the rest of the day together. It turned out they were Instagram Influencers, and I recognized them immediately, because I follow them on the social media platform. Together, their follower count totals just under 1.5 million.
We had a fantastic day together enjoying clear skies, alpine lakes and mountains, fresh snow, and an empty trail. The topic of Instagram and photography was spoken of frequently in conversation. I mentioned how it'd be interesting to be famous on Instagram (i.e. an Instagram Influencer), but I also wasn't certain that's how I wanted my photography to look or that I wanted it to dictate the way I create images.
The two graciously gave me tips and advice on how I might be able to go about upping my follower count: curate my feed, pick a color or style theme in my images, create an entirely new account dedicated to Instagramming, etc. But again, I expressed how I didn't want this activity to influence my artistic mindset, or to change the way I view photography and the world.
Photograph by Timothy Behuniak.
I then went on to ask one of the Instagrammers how he viewed himself: a photographer, artist, or influencer? He stated that he views himself not as an artist, perhaps not even a photographer, but mainly just an Instagrammer. Although he had professional gear like the Sony a7R III, he mainly only ever photographs vertically, specifically for Instagram specifications. He mentioned that sometimes, clients or potential clients approach him for photo usage, but he sometimes has to decline because he didn't shoot a scene horizontally, which is what the possible customer is in search of. Additionally, he mostly uses Lightroom for quick, simple edits.
Furthermore, he stated he's rarely ever shot anything other than the popular Instagram lifestyle and adventure-related genres. I asked if he thought this was actually stunting his growth as a creative person, that shooting other genres, even if you aren't fully invested in the topic, can help one see the world differently and influence one's main photography focus. He responded that it didn't bother him, and he enjoyed what he was doing and that was good enough for him.
To help explain my approach to using a camera, I told the Influencers that whenever I look through the viewfinder, I imagine the scene or subject printed large, hanging on the wall of someone's home or in a gallery. I expressed how I rarely think of Instagram or social media when clicking the shutter. I use the raw files as a starting point to help me get to my ultimate goal or end creation, which usually began as a visualization in my head, in which I use Lightroom and Photoshop to make painterly adjustments to the digital negatives.
We spent the rest of the day exploring Idaho's beautiful mountains and further discussing Instagram as well as social media and environmental ethics, such as not tagging exact locations. Whenever we got to a scenic vista, all of our cameras would come out. I'd focus on the landscape and smaller natural scenes while the Instagrammers set up posed lifestyle shots. We all enjoyed the day and all created images we are happy with.
Photograph by Timothy Behuniak.
What I'm trying to say is that I think there is a clear and distinct difference between Instagrammers, artists, and photographers. I don't think that there is anything morally or philosophically wrong with any category, but rather, I'm trying to simply acknowledge the fact that there are differences and they should be acknowledged and recognized or at least kept in mind when scrolling through social media. I think one clear piece of evidence is the Instagram account that highlights how photos on the platform all look the same. I think we are all guilty of creating similar work to others. Truly original images are hard to conceive and come by in this day and age. I think that many of us are guilty of creating copycat images, including myself. New ideas and original work are especially difficult to create in nature, lifestyle, and adventure photography.
In my opinion, Instagrammers are those who shoot specifically for the platform and have little to no regard for the history or process of photography. They are individuals who are trying to capture images that give their followers a reason to keep them on their following list. I think many individuals can be categorized as photographers, but I immediately think of photojournalists and documentary photographers as the prime example. Photojournalists often do little to edit their photographs (hopefully, to keep with the integrity of the genre) and cover events by capturing candid, newsworthy moments in real time. Artists who use photography as their medium of choice often have high regard for the process of photography, as well as its history. They value other forms of artwork and aren't afraid of trying something new. They're open to change and evolution in their medium and personal work and often use any tool they can to get to their final visualized creation.
Photograph by Timothy Behuniak.
Now, I know what you're thinking: I'm totally wrong and these aren't black-and-white classifications. I agree in that there is usually major overlap within all of these. Certainly, an artist doesn't need to use extra tools besides the camera or raw file to be considered an artist. Of course, as content creators, we want our work to be seen by as many people as possible and want to attract a large following of people who will support our goals and ambitions. Of course, Instagrammers, photographers, and artists could all have an appreciation for photography, its history and process. Of course, one person could be considered all three, either at the same time or at different points in their life. And of course, there's overlap in the idea of using certain tools to create a final, visualized idea. But in conclusion, I think there is a definite mindset that separates the three kinds of people who use a camera.
What do you think? Is there a separation in mindset between the three classifications? If so, what do you think that is? Does it even matter? Do you think Instagrammers are ruining or adding to the depreciation of photography and fine art photography? Or do you think blame lies with an audience? Is this even an issue? Leave your comments below.
How am I refusing to allow someone to identify? Grasping much?
Photographer by definition is a person who creates photographs. So yep, everyone who creates a photo is a photographer regardless of their choice of tool. It does not negate their choice to identify as an Influencer or Instagrammer. The very meaning of Instagram as a platform is to share *photos* and videos. So, again, everyone on Instagram regardless of being an influencer or not is a photographer.
As I initially said "But they may not be seen as a traditional photographer to those in this field because of the platform they use", it does not necessarily mean they are a *traditional photographer*. It does not mean they are a working photographer who's income comes solely from photography.
The same can be said for cooks. You cook at home you are a home cook, it does not negate your career choice but you still are a *home* cook. If you're a YTer that does beauty work(aka beauty gurus), but yet you work for a hedge fund by day you can identify as a beauty guru/MUA or whatever the heck you want.
So, again where in everything I've written where am I refusing to allow someone to identify as something else. No where. Why is this even a freaking argument? It seems your sole intent on Fstoppers is to push your *opinion* on others as if it's the right one, and ours are all wrong.
I see your point but think there needs to be a certain amount of intent involved. The woman at the DMV takes pictures but has a very low level of intent. For a lot of professional photographers, accounting is part of their job. Are they Accountants? They have to market their services. Are they Marketers (or whatever the proper title is)? But it would be tricky to establish a universal level of intent.
Post up-vote by Tim, Addendum: You don't think imposing an identity on someone is the same as not allowing them to self-identify? I would NOT like it if people started calling me a "Flattulater" just because sometimes I fart while taking portraits to get my subject to smile! ;-)
I believe I'm a unique case among these commenters: I was on Instagram years before I ever took photography seriously and still mainly take photos for Instagram. I usually think in terms of Instagram's crop ratios and often take photos in sets to match my posting format.
"Egad!" you all are thinking, "burn the witch! Instagram is ruining photography! It's not art!"
But I'm not an influencer. I don't and probably never will make a dime from Instagram. I do it because I love my subject material (cars) and want to share it with other enthusiasts. I got a camera and started to learn photography so I could better convey the emotions the cars instill in me. When I shoot a car I'm self-reflecting on what I love about it then trying to technically best capture those aspects. I'm the quiet majority on Instagram. The photo community loves to grumble about influencers but of the millions of users, how many fit that category? A few thousand? Instagram has millions of people like me and it got me into photography, buying nice cameras and lenses, and onto this very website.
What is the definition of art? I think it's to create with the intention of generating an emotional response. At least in what I see on Instagram, there's a lot of art there. Not every profile and sometimes it's poorly executed but there are loads of people like me. A few hundred followers, amateur skills, and a lot of passion.
"What is the definition of art? I think it's to create with the intention of generating an emotional response."
I would agree with that, and that definition includes many media, including literature, music, painting, and even stand-up comedy and propaganda. I'd go so far as to say a "good" artist can call his shots--deliberately produce a story or a poem or a song or a photograph that will create a specific emotional response.
Yes I've had the same thoughts! Sometimes it feels too simplistic to say that better art is having more control over the emotional response of the viewers/experiencers but I don't really have a better definition and it certainly tracks with the art and artists that I most respect.
Total aside, but it's funny you mention stand-up. More than many other forms of art I think it's entirely reliant on the audience reaction. If you see a landscape photo that's not amazingly composed or lit you might still think "that's a nice mountain" because that's the information it conveys despite the art falling flat. Or if I take a terrible picture of a cool car most people will still like the car. But if you hear a joke that isn't funny you're probably not going to think "well that was a nice little anecdote". I've heard that even professional comedians still need audience feedback for their material. They test out new bits at places like Comedy Cellar in NY before they go national because even the best can't fully predict what will land and what won't.
I agree with both of you - interesting insight. Thanks for the thoughtful responses!
A visual artist I'd think comparable to a stand-up comic in facing immediate audience reaction would be a street caricature artist. He's got to create something that is simultaneously funny and accurate--and do it quickly. Rather the way a good stand-up does.
I just want to say thank you to all the commenters for keeping the conversation respectful and thoughtful. I'm enjoying the many different takes on this idea, and the ideas of "what is art." Very interesting to read other's opinions and views.
I think another reasonable point to make is intent. What is the intention behind each shutter click a person makes? I should've mentioned in the article that I'm coming from the background of being heavily inspired by Ansel Adams, who in my opinion and interpretation used the camera and darkroom as his means of sharing fine art photography. I'm sure others have different inspirations who influence(d) the way he/she see the world and also influence(d) his/her intentions within photography.
So who were the influencers? Assessing their work is a good indication of their artistic abilities
I'd honestly rather leave it unknown as I don't think that specific information is super important to the topic. Nor am I sure they'd want me sharing.
I just wonder how many of these so called “influencers” would be taking pictures if Instagram didn’t exist.
Therein lies the difference for me.
I have to take pictures like a writer has to write words or a painter has to paint. It’s a compulsion almost like breathing and it was always like that.
If one wants to sort everyone with a camera, it seems to me that it comes down to the motivation- do they compose photos because they have to do it in order to, for lack of a better word, live? Or are they chasing attention and sponsorships?
Jimmy Durham--I agree with that.
That was probably one of the most enjoyable articles about photography which I've read for a long time!
Enjoyed every bit of it!
Thanks so much, Matthias! I appreciate it!
I find this super interesting and never underestimate the work it needs to be successful in instagram or other social media. what I've seen from people I know, worked with, that they are stuck in a tight corset it is like doing pop music - you have an "image" or brand and you have to stuck to it - no mater what. you have to be super careful what to show. this is real pain.
this is far from artistic freedom and as I know can hurt
I agree. I think it's unfortunate that this is the case as branching out can help your artistic or creative ability. I think that staying within that corset is only more motivation to not branch out.
I'm gonna say the 3 categories fit in a venn diagram, especially on how people would categorize themselves. I'm sure there are Instagrammers who feel they are also artists and photographers, and all the combinations in between.
I totally agree. That's a great way to put it!
I've been doing a project about night photography. My photos are dark, sometimes moody. Obviously, because of that, the instagram account I use has a very, very low number of followers. It isn't easy not to give up and follow the path other much more succesfull people have followed.
However, for me, instagram is a tool to show my work. It isn't the WORK.
My instagram account is: the_night_camera (to those who want to see non instagram type of photos)
Great point about Instagram being the tool to show work vs. the work itself. Very interesting insight and I'll totally check out your profile! Thanks for commenting!
Cool stuff, especially the moody and minimal shots! Keep up the good work!
Thanks Adriano
Interesting reading. The comments that followed were to be expected. Whenever someone uses the word art, it’s understandable that people will linger on that word even when the author of the article itself didn’t see the use of that word particularly confusing.
But it’s a good question. If we talk about art then we should agree on what art means. And my impression is that people agree every time on the same conclusion: art is in the eye of the beholder. I can’t help but wonder where this common, widespread naive idea of art comes from. I personally find this conclusion rather simplistic though very in line with our times. In fact, it’s a concept that has a strong relationship with the idea of social media as well. It’s a matter of taste, of like or don’t like. It’s like food. What this conclusion evidently overlook is that what we like or don’t like isn’t something simply related to our taste, as if there’s a sort of instinctive preference imprinted in our DNA. All the opposite. Our preferences, (even the culinary ones), are tightly related to our culture, experience, knowledge, skills. Therefore, saying that art is in the eye of the beholder actually means that the level of education, culture, the experience of the viewer is what will make him understand what he’s looking at. Hence, when someone infers that what he’s looking at is art, is not his “taste” that speaks but how much art he actually can read.
We tend to forget that art throughout history, went through an evolution and it wasn’t only a succession of techniques that evolved but the very language that sustains art. That language is something nowadays we seem not to be interested in. Art has its own language, which can be extremely rich and complex and like every language, we need to study it in order to comprehend it. But what people end up doing is judging from a feeling standpoint, which is a classical stereotype of how to read art. If it’s beautiful and makes me feel something, it’s art. Then it becomes a matter of what beautiful is. A nice portrait of a woman, a beautiful landscape, a nice sunset. These are all stereotypes which we can find in a magazine or a postcard. The way art has been used in the past was really as a means to communicate, as a disruption, a denounce or a way to question our conception of things. The understanding of the poetry of it (whether is a denounce, an act of disruption and so on), it’s what gives those works of art an emotional charge. Is not just a perfectly executed portrait, it’s a whole lot more than that. When I see what we call today art and I think for instance to the tumultuous end of ‘800 and beginning of the ‘900 I feel art is truly lost and I can’t help but feel pessimistic as I can’t see how it can come back.
Why did this happen? Two reasons: pop-art and technique. Pop-art gave anyone the idea that anything can be art. And our society, which is based on an idea of technique as opposed to humanism, steered the creation process and our capacity of abstraction toward a principle of technicality. Even politics is driven by the technique, but I digress. Sorry for taking so much space.
Love this insight and think you have some extremely valid points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Hey guys, lot's of good opinions here.
I think the term "photography/photographer", among many other terms in the art world, are being used in a bit of an outdated context. I think any photographer these days should be considered a "visual artist" using digital means and tools to manifest a visual creation. It may be for an artistic, commercial, documentary or any other purposes which doesn't make it any more or less valuable regarding whether that person can call himself photographer or not. Means of communicating your visual art is a totally different thing since there have always been many ways of showing your work (large format print, small format magazines, photoalbums, books, even low quality newspapers). Photography now requires multidisciplinary skills for different purposes which makes this discussion a bit meaningless in such context.
You can create a picture from a video, so are you a photographer or a cameraman? Chill :)
“Visual artist” is a very loose term.
There's nothing outdated. If you study Futurism, Dada, DeStijl, Pop-art, the confusion will disappear and the distinction will become crystal clear.
The thing is, we live in a time where it’s way too easy to overlook attribution. When we go online anything can be ours, whatever we see we loot for better or worse.
What’s outdated is the impression we have nowadays that to be an artist you only need to be creative enough, take some nice pictures, enjoy what you do; freedom. There is nothing more outdated than that. It’s a very cliche’, nostalgic idea of art. Being creative is different from being an artist. But people today don’t like rules, because “art is in the eye of the beholder”, because “I’m free to do whatever pleases me”. Alright, but then it is pretentious to call themselves artist if there’s no knowledge of what there’s been before you. Yes, we can break rules and do things differently, but in order to do so, we first need to know those rules, the history, otherwise is meaningless.
And to answer your question: there's a reason why some video can have also great stills and that's because a cinematographer shot it.
If you don’t respect and defend the word that defines your profession, tomorrow you might not have a job.
Wow, I love this insight. I completely agree with you, Perseus. I think that's a great point to make, that in order to break the rules and "be different," or pronounce yourself as something, you need to understand what you're separating yourself from in the first place. Love that last bit: "If you don't respect and defend the word that defines your profession, tomorrow you might not have a job." I think this is great, thank you for commenting and sharing your thoughts!
I think this is interesting, too, in that now Instagram influencers are being hired to do the same work that formal agencies were doing in the past...does this mean their work is better? Or just that they're willing to do the job on a lower budget, although they may not have the same results. Is our value of a dollar outweighing the value of incredible art? Does it even matter if the job gets done and the impression is the same? Or is the market simply changing in that Influencers and "Instagrammers" are now the new norm, and the industry should adapt? I think it's an interesting discussion.
Very interesting question. And also, very, very pertinent to our times!
There's an expression that to me is strictly related to this question: Heterogony of ends.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Heterogony_of_ends
Basically, when the means becomes quantitatively relevant and above all, it's the necessary condition to reach the goal, the means loses its own quality, ceases to be such, and becomes the main goal itself.
To me, that's what happened with Instagram. Whatever ends up on Instagram loses its own quality and nature and becomes part of something else entirely. Unfortunately, the way I see it, this applies to photographers too. To me, looking at a photographer's gallery on Instagram is an Instagram experience and the photography becomes secondary. Not sure if that does make sense. I tried to express the concept the better I could.
Interesting, I totally get it and it does make sense. I think this is a good and interesting way to sum up the topic. I like that last part: "looking at a photographer's gallery on Instagram is an Instagram experience and the photography becomes secondary." This further cements my idea of shooting for gallery walls vs shooting for Instagram dimensions, and that there is a difference when looking through the viewfinder.
Cinematographers often have a similar eye to a photographer. It's part of what makes great films great.
This is an interesting discussion that should also cite an individual background that relates to pre-social media user history and education in aesthetics. Digital technologies allow new users to ignore the history of art and jump right into making photographs that adopt a new vernacular, or one that comes from the technology itself. In the same way that a point and shoot camera and one hour photo lab changed the way non pros made family photos, so does smartphone technology, most notably, the vertical video. This is not the way we see, but how the smartphone was designed, and the vertical video is a product of the technology in the hands of a non-professional user, when use is not informed by education and aesthetics first. For the practice of making a photograph with a digital sensor is too easy and allows new generations of photographers to skip the importance of education and aesthetics.
I believe there is overlap and that all 3 are valid and enjoyable in their own merits. In the end, I think it boils down to what is the purpose of your work.
Do you curate your photography around Instagram or do you curate your Instagram around your photography?
Exactly, I think that last bit is the ultimate question we need to ask ourselves as creatives.
Instagram Model, Instagram photographer, now Instagram influencer is a thing. Who and what are they influencing exactly? Other users to double click on their images before scrolling on?
Influencers are a very real thing, haha. In general, they are paid by large companies to create ads that look natural on/in their feed. They often have the "#ad" at the end of their captions. Many car, travel, beauty, adventure, and other companies use influencers to get people to buy their products.
Essentially. All those models you see wearing Fashion Nova, or Pretty Little thing are influencers. Those flat tummie teas.
But I will say there are also those who are photographers and/or models and while their work isn't ad based. They do advertise. I.e. Jessica Kobiessi & Peter McKinnon. Those 2 are artists in their own right. However, use their platform to occasionally promote a thing or two.
I agree. There can be and definitely is overlap. But then I wonder, why are they producing their art? Are they letting social media platforms shape the way they view the world and share their work, or are they simply sharing their work and have amassed a large following because of it. (And obviously for other factors, like YouTube tutorials, etc.).
Q: Are they letting social media platforms shape the way they view the world and share their work, or are they simply sharing their work and have amassed a large following because of it.
A: That would have to be a case by case basis. However, I will say some of the biggest and most influential photographers/videographers straddle that fence. Although, they don't have to intrinsically linked. Some create their art, and then after creation say which ones can I display, sort of like being asked to participate in a showcase.
But that quality of their work is what will tend to build their youtube following, which in turn builds their Instagram, which in turn builds their youtube more; and so on and so forth.
So when does one begin to be an influencer? As soon as some company contacts them and asks them to post something about it? What if I post something I’m genuinely happy with, but I’m not getting paid for it? Who am I then?
Honestly I don't know specifically when Influencer status begins - great question.
I've been mulling over this question, but from a slightly different perspective, for a while now. As you point out, this isn't a value judgement thing, but I take a little issue with the whole "we are all photographers" thing now that everyone has a decent camera in their smartphone. The matter really comes down to intent.
I agree, intention is huge. And yes, I think that phrase is tossed around a lot nowadays, and can devalue what it means to truly have the knowledge and sight it takes to be a professional and skilled photographer.
I think that if you are genuinely enjoying yourself and respect the environment that you are in than the platform shouldn't matter. You're sharing your experiences with people interested, why does it matter how you do it? Great read Tim.
I was thinking of putting my work up on Instagram until I found out it was run by Facebook. I don't trust them, their censoring, their spying, their stealing and selling of your information. Now that they would have access to your images, what makes people think they won't steal and use them without your permission?