At 20:55 8/27/02, Dave Dougherty wrote:
This will probably start or re-start quite a discussion.
Undoubtedly!
[snip (Long)]
So what do you all think.
It depends on how you represent it and how you use it. If you call it art
and represent it as art then I believe you are free and clear to do as you
wish to achieve your vision for your artwork. I have two issues with heavy
manipulation of photographs, digital or otherwise:
(a) Use for photojournalism or editorial work in which the photography
implies a truthful photographic representation of reality. Heavy darkroom
manipulation has gotten several famous photojournalists into trouble or at
the least has damaged their reputations in the past. Untrue accusations of
it has hounded several others, even after their deaths. Some cropping,
dodging and burning has long been acceptable as long as it is not performed
deceptively and does not obliterate or substantively change something
important to what is being portrayed. Much more than that lands on the
slippery slope to deception and loss of journalistic credibility.
(b) Entry of heavily manipulated photographs into juried photography shows
does bother me. Entry into a juried art shows is fine, especially ones for
mixed media, and there's no shortage of them. At some point, as one other
list member mentioned, the photograph is no longer a photograph but becomes
a graphic work of art for which the digital image is but a foundation on
which the rest of the image is built. I have seen photographs with acrylic
paint and other materials applied that cover a major percentage of the
photographic image. IMO they are no longer photographs, but paintings
which started with a photograph for its base versus traditional canvas (or
other blank material). The photograph is part of the art, but it is not
*the* art, which is now a composite of that and other materials.
I saw several digital images that had been extremely manipulated at a
juried photo show sponsered by an art association early this year. There
were a large number of complaints about them being accepted for
submission. One in particular bore zero resemblance to a photographic
image, but looked instead like a drawing generated on a computer and
printed using a dye sublimation printer. In reverse engineering it
closely, I concluded (an educated guess) it was a drawing based on a
photograph which contained *nothing* from the original photographic
image. There were some strong clues having to do with subject
perspective. The problem, already raised, is where the line is to be drawn
that separates photographs from mixed media artwork based on a
photograph(s). For a juried photography show, the evaluation is
twofold: photographic technical skill and artistic composition skill,
including presenting a powerful message with clarity, but *not* graphic
arts skill (e.g. drawing, painting, etc.). To me, certain types of heavy
manipulation crosses a line onto a slippery slope that can result in use of
graphic art drawing skills to compensate for lack of photographic
skill. PhotoShop and other graphics packages can be used from scratch to
create just about anything. Is it still a photograph if one starts with
the digital scan of totally exposed transparency (e.g. the film leader
which is nearly perfectly clear) or a totally unexposed one (nearly
perfectly black) and then manipulates that to create an image? Can I
define where the line ought to be drawn (pun intended)? Unfortunately not,
it's much like trying to write a general definition of a chair that can
withstand an extreme intellectual defense. Nearly impossible but I know
one when I see one.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|