Alan Browne wrote:
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.

The point of inlcuding Uelsmans's work is that the idea of 'free standing'
is not all that important to photography. With the growth of digital
photography and printing, it's even less clear, since distinctions can't be
made solely on the basis of what's in an image.

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

Then, it's a good thing your opinion doesn't matter much.

--
best,

Neil



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---