Originally Posted by Mr Man
i really didn't did try that hard. i was a 20-something year old kid and it was the early 1990s ...
the galleries ( even famous ones ) didn't know what to make of what i was doing, so they sent me to other galleries
that might be working with similar "looking" prints ... if i really wanted to convince them
i would have had them in my darkroom or have a friend shoot a vcr tape of me making the images
so they could see what and they were and how they were made, but i didn't and ended up
part owning a gallery with a bunch of other friends / artists / writers &c because it was the art that was important
not the other BS that revolves around it ...
so, nope, it doesn't matter and yes i do believe that anything from a photogram to a image printed entirely digitally and everything
inbetween can be classed as photography. photography is a broad and general term ... using cheap construction paper
leaving it in the sun with something on it which will fade and photogram and image can be considered photography,
or taping acetate with words on it to your back or arm and getting a tan print can be considered photography ..
it might not be what YOU consider to be photography, but it is exactly that ...
good luck with your labels !
btw people talk about hybrid photography and hybrid prints today and it is a mix of digital and analog media
i was using the term in 1988 to mean something totally different ... i don't refer to my single edition prints made with
non camera negatives as that sort of thing anymore, i just call them photographs ... labels just confuse people