When does Photography become Art?

I have been following the In-Camera or Post-Camera thread for some time now
and the main bone of contention seems to be the level of alteration the
original photograph undergoes.

At what point does an image no longer become a photograph?

Ever since the dawn of photography people have dramatically altered their
photographs by applying special effects in the dark-room (even splicing or
overlaying two photographs).

It always strikes me that these adjustments were seen as far more acceptable
to the community than the current techniques using computer software.

Is that because it is too easy these daysand hence too prolific? Is it
because it is too effective and people can often pass off a digitally
manipulated work as an original?

At what point does an image no longer become a photograph?

What do you all think?

Thanks for your time,

John

(P.S. I can't crosspost to alt.photography or.slr-systems so if someone
else wants to do so for me on their reply that would be fine as it might get
a better debate going.)

"John Ortt" wrote in message
...
I have been following the In-Camera or Post-Camera thread for some time now
and the main bone of contention seems to be the level of alteration the
original photograph undergoes.

At what point does an image no longer become a photograph?

Ever since the dawn of photography people have dramatically altered their
photographs by applying special effects in the dark-room (even splicing or
overlaying two photographs).

It always strikes me that these adjustments were seen as far more
acceptable to the community than the current techniques using computer
software.

Is that because it is too easy these daysand hence too prolific? Is it
because it is too effective and people can often pass off a digitally
manipulated work as an original?

At what point does an image no longer become a photograph?

What do you all think?

Thanks for your time,

John

(P.S. I can't crosspost to alt.photography or.slr-systems so if someone
else wants to do so for me on their reply that would be fine as it might
get a better debate going.)




http://library.thinkquest.org/C0117285/

when its a book

John wrote on Fri, 8 Jun 2007 11:34:47 +0100:

JO At what point does an image no longer become a photograph?

JO Ever since the dawn of photography people have dramatically
JO altered their photographs by applying special effects in
JO the dark-room (even splicing or overlaying two
JO photographs).

JO It always strikes me that these adjustments were seen as
JO far more acceptable to the community than the current
JO techniques using computer software.

JO Is that because it is too easy these daysand hence too
JO prolific? Is it because it is too effective and people can
JO often pass off a digitally manipulated work as an original?

JO At what point does an image no longer become a photograph?

JO What do you all think?

JO Thanks for your time,

I used to to enjoy the level of artistic selection and printing
in exhibitions by professional photographers and I still do but
often a spectacular color picture causes the thought
"Photoshop!" I'm not sure that I consider a much modified or
combined picture to be *photographic* art and, if I said
"Photoshop" aloud at a show I'd probably get thrown out!

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Strictly speaking, photography doesn't "become art" at all.

Photography is a means of recording an image. Recording something by
pressing a button is not art, no matter how appealing the image may be. Many
people confuse beauty with art, but one does not necessarily have anything
to do with the other. For example a sunset may be gorgeous but it isn't art,
and recording it isn't art either.

If the image is altered in some way by human intervention it may then be
art, but the art is in the alteration and not in the photographic process
itself. Simply making choices about viewpoint, focal length, exposure,
filtration etc. may all have to do with one's expertise as a photographer
but they do not make the photograph "art" either.

At what point does alteration of an image become "art"? It's impossible to
draw a line that everyone will agree with. I remember seeing the efforts of
a photographer who took ordinary, rather blah photographs, made deep
scratches in the emulsion of the negatives and then printed them. An
enthusiastic critic wrote admiringly about that photographer's "work" as
though it conveyed some serious and important message. As far as I'm
concerned it was sheer nonsense, but to a large degree "art" is in the eye
of the beholder.

Neil

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
. ..

Strictly speaking, photography doesn't "become art" at all.

Photography is a means of recording an image. Recording something by
pressing a button is not art, no matter how appealing the image may be.
Many people confuse beauty with art, but one does not necessarily have
anything to do with the other. For example a sunset may be gorgeous but it
isn't art, and recording it isn't art either.


You seem intent on not recognizing the art of composition (viewpoint????).
Yes, expertise with photography is an art. So is manipulation of a photo to
create an even more unique work. Have you looked at some of the links
provided by photographers in this newsgroup?? The "manipulation", if any,
doesn't create the art--the photographs stand alone--all the manipulation in
the world won't turn a blah photo to a work of art--the magic is in the
composition and the knowledge of lighting, exposure, etc. As I said, look at
many of the offerings in this newsgroup.


but to a large degree "art" is in the eye of the beholder.

Art 'interpretation' is shared by the eye of the photographer.......

Mark





Neil

In article ,
John Ortt wrote:
At what point does an image no longer become a photograph?

What do you all think?

My thoughts a why do you care?

When a photograph is used to illustrate a piece of journalism or when it is
used as evidence, it is important to know to what extent the photo has
been altered, or what the photographer left out of the image.

When it comes to art, it is IMHO important what the artist is trying to say
and how he manages to affect the viewer.

Of course it nice to be able to label works, but to its value as a work of
art it should be irrelevant.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

And lo, John Ortt emerged from
the ether and spake thus:
I have been following the In-Camera or Post-Camera thread for some time now
and the main bone of contention seems to be the level of alteration the
original photograph undergoes.

At what point does an image no longer become a photograph?

Ever since the dawn of photography people have dramatically altered their
photographs by applying special effects in the dark-room (even splicing or
overlaying two photographs).

It always strikes me that these adjustments were seen as far more acceptable
to the community than the current techniques using computer software.

Is that because it is too easy these daysand hence too prolific? Is it
because it is too effective and people can often pass off a digitally
manipulated work as an original?

At what point does an image no longer become a photograph?

What do you all think?

Thanks for your time,

John

(P.S. I can't crosspost to alt.photography or.slr-systems so if someone
else wants to do so for me on their reply that would be fine as it might get
a better debate going.)

I am writing a very in-depth article about this right now, so I won't
ruin the surprise, but I have some theories I will share.

First of all, my belief is that the first question is purely semantic
and serves no ultimate purpose but to keep a lot of people mad at one
another. What is the precise goal of debating the meaning of the word
"photograph?"

That said, I also believe that photography can be fundamentally
artistic, and anyone who says otherwise probably doesn't belong in
this newsgroup. Photographs taken with editorial or documentary intent
may not qualify, but the field of art dictates that art is conceived
purely through intent. If you believe that something you have created
is art, then that is so. Others may debate its *merit* on those
grounds, but intent is all that is required to get the ball rolling.

So the question then is whether some amount of modification to an
image suddenly changes it from "photographic art" into something else,
some other type of art, some free-form art, perhaps purely digital
art. Philosophically, I am most curious about why this is happening
now and didn't happen 20 years ago.

What is it about dodging and burning, sandwiching slides together,
using exotic chemicals, and so forth, that qualifies them as
nondestructive to the integrity of a photograph? Why is it that
Photoshop can strip away that integrity?

It's these questions I will explore in my upcoming article, which I'll
post on my singleservingphoto.com site and probably link from here
because I think everyone in this group has something to offer to the
discussion.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

"Neil Harrington" wrote:
Strictly speaking, photography doesn't "become art" at all.

It can't become art. It is art by definition, the
instant it is created. (It isn't necessarily *good* art!)

Photography is a means of recording an image. Recording something by
pressing a button is not art, no matter how appealing the image may be. Many
people confuse beauty with art, but one does not necessarily have anything
to do with the other. For example a sunset may be gorgeous but it isn't art,

All true.

and recording it isn't art either.

There are in excess of 1 billion ways to record any
given sunset, all different than the in excess of 1
billion ways to record the next sunset. Choosing which
way to record any given sunset necessarily makes the
result an art, simply because the results are not
predefined. Each "record" is different. The difficulty
of doing exactly the same twice in a row demonstrates
the fact.

art n.
1. The employment of means to accomplish some desired end;
the adaptation of things in the natural world to the uses
of life; the application of knowledge or power to
practical purposes.

2. A system of rules serving to facilitate the performance of
certain actions; a system of principles and rules for
attaining a desired end; method of doing well some special
work; -- often contradistinguished from science or
speculative principles; as, the art of building or
engraving; the art of war; the art of navigation.

3. The systematic application of knowledge or skill in
effecting a desired result. Also, an occupation or
business requiring such knowledge or skill.

4. The application of skill to the production of the
beautiful by imitation or design, or an occupation in
which skill is so employed, as in painting and sculpture;
one of the fine arts; as, he prefers art to literature.

Take your pick, they all apply! Obviously 4 is the most
suitable to this discussion.

If the image is altered in some way by human intervention it may then be
art, but the art is in the alteration and not in the photographic process

Except that the "image" is *necessarily* altered by
human intervention by the very nature of how it is
produced. That camera may be a black box to you or to
others, but some human sat down and made decisions that
were *not* arbitrary (and not science either) in
deciding *exactly* how the camera would process image
data. Indeed, which sensor is used was not an arbitrary
decision either! Those decisions are all based on how
the final product is expected to look, and what appeal
it will have to others. That is art.

There has been considerable artistic knowledge and skill
applied to everything that happens when a photographer
releases the shutter, even when the photographer is the
least skilled/artistic.

itself. Simply making choices about viewpoint, focal length, exposure,
filtration etc. may all have to do with one's expertise as a photographer
but they do not make the photograph "art" either.

Those are indeed the basics of the art in a photograph.
Any one of them can make or break the artistic appeal
produced by the final result.

Not one of them is an automatic decision, a guaranteed
known, or in any way invariant between different
photographers.

At what point does alteration of an image become "art"? It's impossible to
draw a line that everyone will agree with. I remember seeing the efforts of
a photographer who took ordinary, rather blah photographs, made deep
scratches in the emulsion of the negatives and then printed them. An
enthusiastic critic wrote admiringly about that photographer's "work" as
though it conveyed some serious and important message. As far as I'm
concerned it was sheer nonsense, but to a large degree "art" is in the eye
of the beholder.

Your last sentence is exactly correct!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Ï "Aaron" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
And lo, John Ortt emerged
from
the ether and spake thus:
I have been following the In-Camera or Post-Camera thread for some time
now
and the main bone of contention seems to be the level of alteration the
original photograph undergoes.

At what point does an image no longer become a photograph?

Ever since the dawn of photography people have dramatically altered
their
photographs by applying special effects in the dark-room (even splicing
or
overlaying two photographs).

It always strikes me that these adjustments were seen as far more
acceptable
to the community than the current techniques using computer software.

Is that because it is too easy these daysand hence too prolific? Is it
because it is too effective and people can often pass off a digitally
manipulated work as an original?

At what point does an image no longer become a photograph?

What do you all think?

Thanks for your time,

John

(P.S. I can't crosspost to alt.photography or.slr-systems so if someone
else wants to do so for me on their reply that would be fine as it might
get
a better debate going.)

I am writing a very in-depth article about this right now, so I won't
ruin the surprise, but I have some theories I will share.

First of all, my belief is that the first question is purely semantic
and serves no ultimate purpose but to keep a lot of people mad at one
another. What is the precise goal of debating the meaning of the word
"photograph?"

Photograph comes from the greek words "Phos"(light)and grapho(sketch,write,
paint).So photograph means Painting with light or maybe just record with
light.Yes, it's an art, because I have chosen one of hundreds of possible
cameras,thousands of possible scenes, millions of possible points of view,
billions of different perspectives and maybe took my camera with me the very
day, and it happened we went to the country where some very pretty orchideas
were blooming and a handsome chestnut horse was there, too.
www.esnips.com/web/dimtzortzsPhotos


That said, I also believe that photography can be fundamentally
artistic, and anyone who says otherwise probably doesn't belong in
this newsgroup. Photographs taken with editorial or documentary intent
may not qualify, but the field of art dictates that art is conceived
purely through intent. If you believe that something you have created
is art, then that is so. Others may debate its *merit* on those
grounds, but intent is all that is required to get the ball rolling.

So the question then is whether some amount of modification to an
image suddenly changes it from "photographic art" into something else,
some other type of art, some free-form art, perhaps purely digital
art. Philosophically, I am most curious about why this is happening
now and didn't happen 20 years ago.

What is it about dodging and burning, sandwiching slides together,
using exotic chemicals, and so forth, that qualifies them as
nondestructive to the integrity of a photograph? Why is it that
Photoshop can strip away that integrity?

It's these questions I will explore in my upcoming article, which I'll
post on my singleservingphoto.com site and probably link from here
because I think everyone in this group has something to offer to the
discussion.

--

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr

Aaron wrote:
First of all, my belief is that the first question is purely semantic
and serves no ultimate purpose but to keep a lot of people mad at one
another. What is the precise goal of debating the meaning of the word
"photograph?"

It's just jockeying for position. Same with "debating"
the definition of "art". (And worse yet, most of those
trying to gain position are not actually "debating",
they are trying to *redefine* those terms!)

That said, I also believe that photography can be fundamentally
artistic, and anyone who says otherwise probably doesn't belong in

I don't think "can be" is correct. It *necessarily* must be.

this newsgroup. Photographs taken with editorial or documentary intent
may not qualify, but the field of art dictates that art is conceived

Editorial/documentary photography is not art???

Boooooo. ;-)

purely through intent. If you believe that something you have created
is art, then that is so. Others may debate its *merit* on those
grounds, but intent is all that is required to get the ball rolling.

So the question then is whether some amount of modification to an
image suddenly changes it from "photographic art" into something else,
some other type of art, some free-form art, perhaps purely digital
art. Philosophically, I am most curious about why this is happening
now and didn't happen 20 years ago.

It *was* happening 20 years (and 40 years) ago! The
only change is in what is easily available to everyone,
which is what current discussion obviously will center
on. It is really hard to get a heated debate going
about a technique that only a few are able to use.
Hence in 1987 there wasn't much discussion of the art of
digital image processing, and there is now.

But auto focus lenses were being discussed.

And when I first bought a 35mm SLR *that* was in itself
a topic of discussion, given that larger formats had
traditionally been what "all" photography was done with.

"Photography" with 35mm film just wasn't really "art"...
some said, and wasn't even photography to others.

(Look how things have changed! Now every camera's
lenses have to be equated to the focal length of a 35mm
format, or nobody can relate to what it is!)

What is it about dodging and burning, sandwiching slides together,
using exotic chemicals, and so forth, that qualifies them as
nondestructive to the integrity of a photograph? Why is it that
Photoshop can strip away that integrity?

How many people ever actually did their own darkroom
work in a wet darkroom? Percentage wise it was very
very small. Hence no discussion.

Everybody and their freaking little brother can use
Photoshop! Hence heated discussion.

It isn't any change in philosophy or a different value
system, and should not be mistaken for such.

As to if manipulation is acceptable, and whether
documentation is art... let me tell a story.

I once handed a lawyer half a dozen 8x10 glossies; he
became, well, ecstatic!

In court, one expert witness (a police officer) and one
prosecutor reacted with wild bewilderment. Their jaws
hit the floor, and they literally stammered!

The images were *pure art*! And manipulation was
*exactly* the point. Nobody questioned that fact.

I was asked by the judge if the pair of images
introduced as evidence were a true and accurate
_representation_, and my answer was "Yes." Nobody
suggested they were the only reality, or that they
actually *were* reality. It was just one perspective of
many available...

I had used perspective and the angle of view to very
deliberately manipulate the appearance of a sidewalk and
intersection to make it look different than the
description provided by the police officer. To take the
pictures I used a wide angle lense and walked across the
road from where the officer had been located (and
eventually would testify to). The angle of view I chose
as *my* way to manipulate perspective demonstrated that
*her* very true and accurate description of what she had
seen was *not* *sufficient* to define what the prosecutor
was claiming it did.

The case was dismissed. But the police officer was not
accused of lying, and neither was I. Yet we clearly
described something diametrically opposite. She just
happened to come across her observation, while I very
deliberately set about to manipulate mine. That didn't
make her's any more a correct representation of reality
than mine. We each looked at the same location and
saw a *different* reality.

My record of reality was a wonderfully useful bit of art!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)