Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
anything you want to call Art is art, its just a word.
i've seen food that i would call art its just an opinion ...
Not so much an opinion but an assertion, perhaps. Since the days of Marcel Duchamp it seems that anything can be made art by simply declaring it so. This does not preclude the likelihood that it is thoroughly bad art worth ignoring.
and im with eddie..
photography has NOTHING to do with reality
The contrary can be put convincingly. Photography is the only picture making process that is absolutely and physically bound to its subject matter. All other pictures are built by mark-making devices controlled by information in the form of coded instructions. A photograph is an existence proof of subject matter. A digigraph, or painting, or drawing is not.
maris .. every other post here on apug you argue that digital image making has nothing to do with photography
Photography is making pictures out of light sensitive materials. Digital picture-making, painting, and drawing don't work that way. It's always possible, absolutely and unambiguously, to distinguish a photograph from a digigraph by following the work-flow that produces it. There is no imperative in the simple-minded notion that if a camera is at the front end of the work-flow all resultant pictures are photographs and the credited picture-maker is a photographer.
and then you go into a rant that photographic prints are not photographs but something else, because the negative is in essence the ONLY photograph a "photographer" makes ...
Always and consistently I insist quite the opposite. "Photographic prints" is misconstrued weasel expression for "Photographs". It's almost as if some people are ashamed of the word "photograph" and need to apologise for its plainness and directness by adding "print". Photographs on paper are not made like prints. Rather, they are produced in exactly the same way as photographs on film. The only difference is that the subject matter for photographs on paper is often (but not always) another photograph. Again there is no imperative in the notion that if a photograph on paper looks like a print it is a print. I say "photograph" and I say it without diffidence.
now you suggest HCB wasn't a photogtapher, but an exposure maker??!
is that because he didn't process hos own film? pr some other reason?
i find this point of view to be laughable seeing probably99% of every commercial photographer
or portrait photographer has someone else process and print their exposures ..
do you mean that karsh and others who didn't do everything themselves are jusr exposure makers??
Like it or lump it, that's how H.C-B and Karsh and Leibovitz and Stern and Nadar... the list is very long... operated. The tradition that acclaims them as photographers is, I reckon, a lousy one and not worth worshipping. I don't see the denigration in admiring them as exposure-makers supported by a team of picture-making employees. It's just another path to great art. But it isn't the art of the photograph maker. The argument would be moot if it were not for the existence of acclaimed photographers who don't just stop at exposures. I'm thinking of people like Julia Cameron, Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams...the list is very long...and many people at APUG who actually make the photographs they sign. The two groups are different, the makers and non-makers, and I know which lot I admire.