On 10-04-08 9:44 , Neil Gould wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-06 17:40 , Neil Gould wrote:
Why not "photography", if that is the medium that captures the
images used in the collage? And, given the venue, it's not only
"photography", but it's "art".

This, too, is "photography", and I find Jerry's work to be quite
artistic.

http://www.uelsmann.net/

Weingarten is using elements that might not even be his creation (as
far as I can tell) in the collage. These collages can be entirely
done in PS w/o taking a single photo just by using stock. So the
relationship to photography (recording with light) seems way off to
me.

I didn't claim that all elements in Weingarten's collage were "..his
creation...", nor do I think it is a determinant of whether the end product
qualifies as "photography". However, his images were collected and displayed
by those who had to determine whether they were, in fact, "photography", so
I can accept that determination over any presentation on the web.

Additionally, even if all of the content of a collage was obtained from
stock, but that stock was created via "recording with light", it would still
be "photography", so your attempt to draw a distinction escapes me.

To me it is collage. That is where his creative impetus appears to lie.
On the page that stephe linked to there are no 'free standing'
photographs of his.

I don't really care how you or others see it. I'll see it as "not
photography".

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.