Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
"Image" can be artspeak, but to be fair to my academic colleagues, many scholarly articles discussing the work of photographers are about the "image" as a representation and not really the photograph as an object. One may disagree with the premise that the object is separable from the representation (I do), but sometimes (not always) the academic usage is for the sake of precision and not just pretense.
I agree the object as a whole should be considered. I had a sculpture teacher who thought that using a media to imitate another (acrylic for oils or hydra stone or plaster for marble) was dishonest. He went so far as to say a sculpture should weigh as heavy as it looks like it weighs. A subset of the art object could be the image it projects or implies.

Image as a generic term is usable without pretense -- of course. There is implied meaning though, when used to describe a picture. That pretense is not always bad. Cheryl's usage has pretense --it is more than common -- and I don't see that as being bad. I think that usage of the word to cover a genre (as in the [digital] image) is wrongfully pretentious.

I think that Michael is sensitive to this latter instance. It may be that he wishes his photographs to be taken as whole without pretense.

Or maybe I'm all wet...