I would add and third one, painter. Probably in this case he would be the best fit.
Wedding "photography" has another way. It is commercial photography not art photography. It has ONLY ONE goal: monney, how to transfer some money from bride's account to photg's account, period. People, like in any other business, do any tricks to get monney, and in this "photography" is nothing different: use photoshoping as need. Give them images, not photographs, they expect, take money and go to the beerstore. Hick.
Last edited by Daniel_OB; 09-29-2006 at 11:05 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I'm currently rereading Sontag's "On Photography", which is essential reading for anyone interested in the question of the veracity of photography. Although I may differ with her on some ideas, what I fundamentally agree with is the idea of photography giving the initial impression of visual fact, while simultaneously revealling little or nothing about the underlying truth.
She speaks of photographic vision as essentially surrealistic - a surface impression tending toward visual fact (i.e. these objects/subjects appear to be "real") but the context being absolutely disconnected from where the camera was at the time of exposure. Which is why photography can be/is powerfully used as a marketting/propaganda tool.
To misquote Winogrand, photography only truly reveals what something looks like when photographed.
I'm also interested in another aspect of your question, which is how photography fits into the larger field of printmaking and 2-dimensional visual art in general. For example, it may be factual to state that some of Da Vinci's sketches may be more "truthful" than many photographs. In the sense that, rather than being merely optical representations, they are an interpretation, based on some inner subjective insight, which may reveal more than a photographic image can.