Photography vs Art

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Jeremy, you have strange priorities when it comes to respect and disrespect. </p>

<p>Call it photography and call other things digital art as you will. When you do that, it will say more about you than either the people or the work that your trying to segregate.</p>

[photomark]

<p>Jeremy, I had a little trouble with your last post. I understand you are an authority in psychology, so help me clear this up.</p>

 

<p>Let's start here:<br>

<i> Definitions allow us to communicate. Without them, what we say means nothing.</i></p>

 

<p>I was communicating long before I ever read a definition. Most people were. If all the definitions disappeared, the very <i>idea</i> of

definitions disappeared, we could still speak to one another, couldn't we? History suggests we were communicating long before dictionaries

and definitions 'allowed' us to. So what do you mean by this?</p>

 

<p><i> But Wittgenstein showed that the meaning of a word is not discoverable. One can not look for and discover a definition.

Definitions are laid down, made-up, not discovered. This was precisely Aristotle's problem.</i></p>

 

<p>This is problematic. It's true that definitions are laid down, but you seems to be implying that the <i>meaning</i> of

words is laid down by lexicographers when in reality the meaning of the word is laid down by the community of speakers and

dictionaries describe current and past use. Dictionaries don't make rules, the describe use. That's why dictionaries need to be

revised. Definitions certainly don't create meaning—I thought Derrida skewered that idea a long time ago.</p>

 

<p>Prototype theory is <i>really</i> helpful with this problem. We all think we know what a photograph is, right? Ansel Adams,

Edward Steichen, those guys used camera, they made photographs. What about <a

href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogram">photograms</a>. Are they photographs? Maybe. They're not prototypical, but a

lot of people looking at the prints would call them photographs even though no camera was used. What about scans of objects?

Same problem. These kinds of boundary cases will always challenge a definition. People will use the word photography to

describe them even if they don't fit the current definition. Those people aren't wrong—it's just that definitions are unable to describe all the necessary and sufficient conditions for the category. Even one that seems as cut and dried as photography. This is no

different than trying to define what is and isn't furniture (Rosch's example) or to use Wittgenstein's example, what is and isn't a game.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>What are the criteria?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where is it's big brother-question "<em>And who defines these criteria</em>?"... matters just as much, I'd say.<br>

And much agree with Mark above. The value attributed to definitions is much too big. Definitions do not define what something is, because the thing was there already before it got a definition.</p>

<p>So, maybe I am very slow to understand, but what is the added value of having some very pure and narrow definition of photography? What does it bring any of us? Does it change what I do when peeking down the viewfinder? When getting the file to my PC to edit the white balance a little (or would that already make it digital art project?). A wide angle lens is also not exactly the same as the human view, nor are long telelenses. So, can we still count those as photography, or is it <em>'extrahuman vision angled photon-projection art</em>'?</p>

<p>The definition won't change a thing. Most here try to be creative, and emply various tools for that job. And whatever you want to call the result, essentially, it does not matter, because it won't change the result, the impact it can have on viewers, whether some regard it art and others trash, and so on.</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>OK all, I used the idea of definitions to convey the point about rules. As I said in my previous post, definitions do not give the entire meaning of a word. Wittgenstein did war against this idea and he did use the analogy of a game to make his point. What does give the entire meaning of a word is word use. The dictionary definition is part of the use of a word..as is the teaching of the meaning of a word to language users. So, many of you are right that the definition does not necessarily come first. Typically, in the development of a concept, symptoms and criteria fluctuate. Mark, you seem to understand Wittgenstein better than I thought...I'm sorry for the wrong guess. But I did not mean to imply that lexicographers lay down definitions. You are right that dictionaries do describe not dictate word use....I'm impressed. But Mark, prototype theory was decimated by Wittgenstein. Even psychologists that used to support it now see the problems. There is no need to get in to it here, but Wittgenstein showed definitively that meaning does not come from prototypes and that the concept of a prototype in establishing meaning is flawed. Wittgenstein developed the idea of family resemblance to, in part, show what is wrong with prototype theory.</p>

<p>Now Mark, at some point you were taught the language. How did the people that taught you the language teach you what a chair is? Did they make-up their own meanings, theorize about it, ask you to imagine a prototype of a chair, etc? Actually, they did none of these things. They taught you the rules for the use of the word chair. They explained how the word is correctly used.<br />In part, the rules for correct use are codified in a dictionary. Dictionaries play a very important role in explanations of word use. When a disagreement arises, they are a significant and important tool that is used to settle such disagreements. Let me claim that a luddite is a technologically sophisticated person. Is this OK? How about my claim that a chair is a furry creature with 4 legs and a tail? Am I right? Without authoritative sources, it is not possible to settle such debates. It is also not possible to determine if I am using the language in a coherent manner. To make the point perhaps more clearly, imagine the prototype of a blorkit. Go ahead...do it now. It is, of course only possible to do this if the meaning of blorkit is already given. That's basically what is wrong with prototype theory.</p>

<p>Fred, I hope that using language clearly and correctly...that is according to the rules...will show me to be respectful of word meaning, coherent in my use of language and not someone to engage in base rhetorical maneuvers to get people to think what I want them to think. It is the art community that wants to debase (disrespect) word meaning so that they can call things anything they want to call them. Base rhetoric is a powerful force. It is a marketers most dangerous tool. Do you have any idea how much money drug companies have made by calling depression an illness? I would recommend Thomas Szasz to anyone that doubts the power of breaking linguistic rules on the ability to make money.</p>

<p>The value of having a clear definition of photography is that we can speak clearly, correctly and coherently about it. We can stop others advancing practices than are not photography as photography. In this way, we can stop people that are only artists (and not photographers) passing themselves off as photographers. For those of us that care about the technique, skill and practice of photography, that matters.</p>

<p>What we call something matters a great deal. Some things have more economic value than others. Imagine that X is worth 3 times more than Y. If I can call my thing an X when it is actually a Y, I can make 3 times more money that I would have, had I called it what is actually is. Some things are much harder to do than other things. Imagine that X is 3 times harder to do than Y....you get the point.</p>

<p>The criteria are established as part of word use. No individual defines them - in the case of commoner garden concepts. In science, individuals often do lay down criteria. If that individual is the discoverer or developer of the phenomenon, they will be he definer. Now I have to go.....Best, JJ</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Artists don't necessarily want or need to speak "clearly, correctly and coherently" about things. They can be expressionistic, impressionistic, suggestive. Artists rarely have need for boxed-in categorical ways of thinking. The great artists decimate old categories and definitions. Something Wittgenstein certainly recognized is the fluidity and adaptability of language. What was once a photograph has changed and will continue to change. Wittgenstein believed that words were not some sort of doctrinal body but rather they were founded on the way the world and the users in it work. In other words, words don't dictate, the world does and we do. The world now practices photography differently than it used to. The word "photography" doesn't create or limit what photography is, it follows it.</p>

[photomark]

<p><i>But Mark, prototype theory was decimated by Wittgenstein</i><br>

Jeremy, I think our wires are crossed and we are talking about two different things. I'm referring to prototype theory

developed by Eleanor Rosch in the 70s—a good twenty years after Wittgenstein's death. [<a

href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory">From wikipedia</a>].</p><p>Rosch developed Wittgenstein's ideas–prototype theory emerges from Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance. She

was not advocating for some sort of a priori Aristotelean natural class. She was looking empirically at how we use words

that represent categories and how we decide what is and isn't a member. (If you are into color and perception, prototype

theory gets really interesting in the work of Brent Berlin and Paul Kay where they investigate cross-cultural color

categories.)</p><p><i>They taught you the rules for the use of the word chair. They explained how the word is correctly used.</i><br>

That's a nice idea, but the problem is that it never happened. My parents never sat me down and explained the definition

of chair. I learned it in some other way. A typical five year old has a vocabulary of more than 1500 words. I think I would

remember 1500 of these little lessons. I may have learned the meaning of words from my parents, but not because they

explained them to me and not because I looked them up.</p><p>Of course a dictionary is useful. I own twenty volumes of OED and it would probably be the first thing I grabbed in a fire.

But we should be clear about it's authority—it is a secondary source, the primary source being standard usage. If you say 'a

luddite is a technologically sophisticated person' I will say no it's not, you can use it that way if you want to, but most people

don't understand it to mean this. <i>As evidence,</i> we can look in the dictionary.</p><p>But the dictionary isn't always helpful. Consider the word 'awful.' If the dictionary is our authority, we have a problem.

OED has "3. Solemnly impressive, sublimely majestic." and "4. Frightful, very ugly…" The next time I describe my wife's

hair and makeup as "awful!" the dictionary is not going to save me. I'm going to be sleeping on the couch because we have

a shared understanding of typical use that trumps the dictionary.</p><p>We should be honest in our motivations when we try to shackle something with a tight definition because we are often

trying to control common use rather than describe it. Often people are motivated to define by a desire to resist change they

don't like. Consider the current gay marriage kerfuffle or people who don't like rap and invent a definition of music to exclude

it or try to define the word 'obscene' to include things that offend them. It's a fool's errand. We will be able to talk about photography just fine

without ratcheting down the definitions to suit our desire to preserve the status quo.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>As Fred implies, and similar to what I stated yesterday, the only thing of importance in defining photography or art is contained in the mind of the artist and the directions and choices he or she adopts in perceiving and creating an image. It really doesn't require additional elaboration beyond that. Indeed, I think that one should suspect qualitative and quantitative analyses which are arbitrarily imposed by one school of thought or another. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Never mind.</p>

<p>Edited my post while Jeff posted, but I think it's easy to put back:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>We can stop others advancing practices than are not photography as photography. In this way, we can stop people that are only artists (and not photographers) passing themselves off as photographers. For those of us that care about the technique, skill and practice of photography, that matters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And thanks for the implication that those who do not agree with you, do not care for the technique, skill and practise.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I would add to Wouter's response: Speak for yourself, dude. Some of us have much more expansive views of photography and want to see it grow, not locked inside a little box for the elite.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p>On the definition of photography, one must consider the origin of the word, which is literally in Greek "light drawing". </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>But it isn't a Greek word actually as the ancient Greeks did not invent photogrpahy. it is a made up word form the middle of the 19th century. It's sort of the equivalent of the term "glicee'' that Mac Holbert and Graham Nash coined in the late 1980s or early 1990s to set their high end IRIS based printing process apart from the baser connotations of <br />"ink jet printing" ( Glicee' was also always a bit of an intentional insider's joke on Graham and Mac's part as it also is a French slang meaning for the spurt of semen as a man orgasms! ) </p>

<p>European intellectuals of all sorts were really good at dressing up modern ideas in ancient Greek togas. Another is Aesthetics. Which is the subject of this discussion. Speaking of aesthetics, looking up aesthetics in Wikipedia I found this really good quote from sculptor Barnett Newman: "<em>Aesthetics is for the artist as <a title="Ornithology" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithology">Ornithology</a> is for the birds."</em><br>

Junior Wells more concisely squared the issue when he wrote: "Call it what you want / I call it messin' with the kid." </p>

<p> </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I don't see this thread getting anywhere near discussing its stated purpose of discussing photography vs art and the role digital manipulation plays in this. Instead of throwing around examples and names, wouldn't it be more constructive if one would list the manipulations that one would consider to essential preserve the photograph and those that would transform them into something that no longer can be considered a photograph? This won't get at the core of when photography is or isn't art but at least get to the point when photography isn't photography anymore.<br>

I believe that no one would consider photorealism and its painting to be photography - though it certainly starts out with a camera and a photograph but ends up being a painting. Based on this, any photograph that gets transformed on the computer to a digital painting or graphic, can no longer claim to be a photograph. Don't think I have to mention computer graphics here as I don't believe anyone will call those photographs.<br>

As to oversaturation etc - that doesn't change the status of a photograph in my mind. There is hardly a difference between doing it in photoshop or choosing Velvia to photograph landscapes (OK, I can go even more overboard in photoshop). <br>

Now, cloning. Certainly easier to do than retouching negatives or prints, but essentially the same. Why can't I use my artistic freedom to clone out a twig or a post or whatever? Or add something? Nobody forces a painter to include every aspect of the scene in front of him into his painting or to not add something he finds appropriate - so why can't I apply the same standard to a photograph? The notion that a photograph has to represent as closely as possible the scene it captures is nonsense in my opinion - with the exception of documentary or journalistic reportage photography.<br>

HDR - believe what most people object is the look achieved by overzealous tone-mapping, which can give the "photograph" the appearance of an illustration. Correctly applied, it is an alternative to using filters or to blending several exposures - the result of which to me is still a photograph. Thus an HDR photo can be considered borderline, depending on how far the tone mapping was carried. But if someone objects to tone or color conversion or even inversion, then that someone would certainly object to cross-processing film to result in a photograph as well? How about B&W photos then - can the still be considered photographs? That's certainly a major manipulation - in most cases, the scene in front of the camera was not only various shades of gray?<br>

I'm sure others can come up with more examples.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Ellis, who said anything about ancient Greeks, modern Greeks also speak Greek. Many things in the sciences borrow from the Greek or Latin for naming. Beyond that, what is your point and what was it suppose to add to the conversation?</p>

<p>(Oh, and by the way, Graham and Mac came up with the word "digigraph" while it was Jack Duganne that came up with the word "giclee"--like it even matters as that has largely been abandoned for more specific terms anyway)</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>OK Mark, I should have been more clear. Wittgenstein showed that the logic of Rosch's prototype theory is flawed. The notion of family resemblance has nothing to do with the notion of a prototype. The logical problem with prototype theory is this....it is not possible to identify a prototype if one does not already know the meaning of the concept that defines the thing itself (that's the point of my example....give me an example of a blorkfit...it can't be done because you don't know the meaning of the word blorkfit). Wittgenstein was clear and correct. Meaning is not discoverable, it is given by word use. But Rosch and many others have misunderstood what Wittgenstein meant by word use. It does not mean consensus or what people say when asked in a survey. Word use includes ways in which the meanings of words are taught and learned, how a word is used in authoritative sources, the identification of correct and incorrect uses, etc. It does not matter what a scientist shows in a research study about prototypes. This does not establish word meaning. As I said, Baker and Hacker (1982), Language and Communication. Peter Hacker is a world-renowned expert on Wittgenstein and is one of the few scholars to have correctly explained Wittgenstein's often highly obtuse remarks. If you are interested in language and meaning this is a very good source.</p>

<p>Arthur, you are talking about a private language. Definitions are not private things. I'm sorry but that idea has been shown to be wrong a long time ago.</p>

<p>Yes Fred, words don't dictate...they couldn't, that would not mean anything. As I said before, we lay down word meaning. We are in control of what words mean. We can decide to make them mean anything we want them to. We can make photography mean anything we want it to. BUT, once the meaning of the word is given, then we must use the word in accordance with this meaning otherwise we are breaking linguistic rules and speaking nonsense. Now, as you said, word meaning does change. We are free to lay down new rules for the use of a word if we so desire. Scientists do this all the time. For instance the word planet does not mean the same thing today as it meant 10 years ago. The community of astronomers decided to change the technical meaning of the word. The new rules for the use of the word planet are now public, codified in authoritative sources, taught to (technical) language users, etc. If I say Pluto is a planet now, I am wrong, not artistic, creative, thinking outside the box or any other such thing. </p>

<p>The problem in photography today is that a NEW PRACTICE has been invented and linguistic rules have not been changed to accommodate it. We have the old concept of photography and a new set of practices that many people argue (and reasonably so) are not encompassed clearly by the old concept. This is a problem physical scientists encounter all the time. By suggesting a revisiting of the concept of photography in this new context, I am only doing what physical scientists do on a regular basis. There is no need for fatuous comments about this. It's not controversial, silly, uneducated or logically flawed. In fact, it is a perfectly reasonable, logically coherent response to such situations.</p>

<p>What I have suggested is that the concept of "processing" an image is now unclear given all the new image processing capabilities we now have. If we want to speak clearly about what is and is not photography, we need to clear-up this ambiguity. By the way, this is exactly what Einstein's great discovery amounted to. He showed us that our concept of time (or simultaneity as some prefer) did not have clear meaning in the new contexts physics was beginning to discover.</p>

<p>In artistic, philosophical and social science communities (but not in math, statistics, chemistry, physics, astronomy and engineering communities) there is often strong objection to this idea. Most want to shove it under the rug, some make fun of the idea without really trying to understand it and some try to belittle or diminish the messenger. We have seen all three of these responses here. But....Wouter, point taken...my mistake. </p>

<p>So how about this. Those, like Dieter, who want to get on with a serious discussion about what the criteria for the use of the concept of photography should be....let's talk. The others can just do what artists and philosophers do so well. Talk with no hope of any resolution because, as Wittgenstein so aptly put it..."problem and method pass one another by". But, please don't tell us that there is such a thing as good and bad photography on the one hand and that photography is only a word on the other. If you can't say clearly what photography is, you can't say what good photography is either. Again, as Wittgenstein so beautifully put it "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent". </p>

<p>So, what should we consider to be photography? Should the photography community say to the world that photographers are artists and so are averse to being placed in metaphorical boxes (so in other words..photography is whatever one wants it to be). Or should photographers help the world understand that the meaning of the concept of photography should or should not be changed to accommodate new practices. How much image manipulation is allowable? What kinds of manipulation are allowable? Must a camera be involved? </p>

<p>So far, we have two positions:</p>

<p>1) Photography is doing anything conceivable to record light waves and modify those light waves in any way conceivable.<br>

2) Photography is the process of using a camera to make one or more images and processing those images by combining them and/or manipulating the amount and frequency of light in those images.</p>

<p>Position 2 would be mine. Most people seem to prefer position 1. If one adopts position 1, then all sorts of practices that involve no photographic skill whatsoever would have to be called photography. If one adopts position 2, then photography still significantly involves the skill of making in-camera images. Are there any other (serious) positions? Thanks Dieter for getting us back on track. Best, JJ</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>The problem in photography today is that a NEW PRACTICE has been invented and linguistic rules have not been changed to accommodate it. We have the old concept of photography and a new set of practices that many people argue (and reasonably so) are not encompassed clearly by the old concept.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It isn't so much a new practice that causes this problem as the change in recording medium from film to light sensitive sensors. <br>

<strong>Digital photography</strong> uses an array of light sensitive sensors to capture the image focused by the lens, as opposed to an exposure on light sensitive film. The captured image is then stored as a digital file ready for digital processing (colour correction, sizing, cropping, etc.), viewing or printing.<br>

In the old concept of photography, photographs were made by exposing light sensitive photographic film and using chemical photographic processing to develop and stabilize the image. By contrast, digital photographs can be displayed, printed, stored, manipulated, transmitted, and archived using digital and computer techniques, without chemical processing.<br>

The fact that the photograph is now available in digital form (either recorded by a camera or scanned from film or print) vastly increases the ease and extent of manipulations possible. At the core of what is and isn't photography thus stands which digital manipulations alter the image to an extent that it can no longer be considered a photograph. The two positions listed by Jeremy above don't seem to cover this - the question isn't whether or not a camera is involved (I personally see no reason to start a debate whether a photogram or a tomographic image is a photograph - the fact that a different word is already in use is sufficient for me). UV and IR and full spectrum photography are certainly photographic techniques but suffer from the fact that it is difficult to preconceive an image on the account that our eye can't see UV or IR.<br>

It seems to me that the two positions are represented by those who would like to see photography restricted to the same processing techniques as previously available with film and those who would like it to embrace all the options available to alter the appearance of the digital image. There certainly is an intermediate position as well - those who would like to see the "allowed" options somewhat extended from the traditional but restricted from the full set of possibilities. It should be clear from what I have written above, that I consider myself in that fraction.<br>

Even in the old concept of photography there was a difference in the extent of manipulation possible - depending on the skill and craftsmanship of the person involved. Certainly, someone who processed the image from acquisition to print himself could better and to a greater extent influence the outcome than someone who left the processing and printing to a lab.<br>

I believe that "traditionalists" object most to the use of techniques that have no equivalent in the traditional process or one of far lesser utility than now possible. Cloning comes to mind which is now far easier and with vastly more possibilities than retouching ever provided. Then there are the techniques that are entirely new and only possible because of the digital nature of the image - HDR being one of them.<br>

I believe HDR will have a great future in photography - especially once techniques are available to display the HDR image and eliminate the current need for tone-mapping to render the image for display using current display technology. It is the tone-mapping - or more precisely, its overzealous use that most seem to object to. Applied in modesty, a tone-mapped image looks no different than a normal photograph that may or may not had tonal relationships altered by dodging and burning or blending of several exposures.<br>

The two positions Jeremy summarized above also seem to include - and I am not sure if it is intentional or not - the straight-out-of-camera "purists" that won't allow any image manipulation once the image has been recorded. Because strictly speaking, light waves or light can only be manipulated BEFORE it hits the light sensitive surface. After that, it's the image itself that will be altered.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Jeremy, I don't know why you continue to essentially insult anyone who disagrees with you. Further, I don't see any attempt on your part to understand but rather a complete focus on "being the messenger" of your own fixated need to clarify something others have no issue with. Personally, I think you are spitting in the wind as those arrogant bastards in the photographic art and photography world at large, those who are the experts in the field, have pretty much spoken. In fact, your whole tack in this regard is maybe more arrogant than anyone you have accused, especially when you are not an expert in the field.</p>

<p>I am certainly not suggesting that there is not a place where a photograph is no longer a photograph, Dieter suggests one above in his comparison with photorealistic painting--although I don't think I would call push button conversions of a photo a painting whereas photorealism is painting. In fact, I believe Dieter hit the essence of the whole issue when he referred to photograms having their own word. Photograms are photographs but we have a term to describe them within the medium.</p>

<p>We have the word "Digital" that was introduced into the photographic lexicon and the word that follows defines the nature of the process within photography. In fact, we have other descriptors as well that cover processes within the photographic world, even HDR is a rather clearly used one. Montage has always been a part of photography, and other medium as well. Solarization/posterization have been photographic process since before digital. Look at a dictionary 10 years ago and you probably still wont find digital in the description of photography--15 for sure--but today most include it and most sources that discuss darkroom processes also include digital darkroom with no limiting remarks (I don't care that much, but you like definitions)</p>

<p>I think that there is a level of general awareness that certain processes take an image "over the top", but in most cases they don't destroy the photographic nature of the image. These things don't render an image a non-photograph but certainly might be seen as bad or an affront to one's own sensibilities, but it doesn't change the fact that the image is still photographic. I have seen plenty of darkroom photographs over the years that affronted my sensibilities as well.</p>

<p>Bottom line is that all of these things ferret themselves out, there are a lot of very smart (arrogant?) people in the field of photography and over time all is worked out and always has been. Society isn't going to crumble in the meantime.</p>

<p>But more to the point Jeremy, instead of whining and complaining as to whether an image in the POW is a photograph in your eyes or not, why don't you try to learn how to deal with it as just a visual and then, at the end of the day, you will have the satisfaction of having learned something instead of another headache from banging your head against the wall............</p>

<p>Sorry Jeremy, but I am a bit tired of the insults you throw at anyone who holds a different view and I really don't see any interest on your part to discuss anything. Most everyone here has given rationale and civilized remarks, with respect, however that has not been your own approach.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John A and I posted simultaneously. He said it better than me.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>I've been following this thread and resisting the urge to point out what John just wrote, so thanks John.</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>John, I have read through these posts again and I can see that I have crossed the line on a few occasions. I apologize for this. When speaking about Wittgenstein, I'm trying to talk about what he actually said. I believe what I say about his work is factual and it does have enormous relevance to discussions about what things are. But, as I seem to have done more upsetting than anything else, I think you are right John that I should shut up and let the artists talk. Best, JJ</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Just as a side note - John, when I was thinking of digital painting, I wasn't thinking of the one-button push to convert a photo to a watercolor or something equivalent but rather using software and probably a tablet and pen to paint over your photo. This digital painting certainly wasn't the result of a one button push:

<p>Earlier, it was brought up that competitions sometimes require to submit the RAW image (what if I shoot JPEG?) to check whether non-allowed modifications have been made. There's nothing wrong with that or there is everything wrong with it - I find the restrictions rather limiting and quite arbitrary and indicative of a refusal to adjust with the times. Everything is allowed as long as it was done at the moment of exposure - after that it is only (limited) cropping, curves and color adjustment. Why is there a difference between using a ND grad filter in front of the lens vs combining two different exposures in post processing? The end result is the same (or even better since I have more options with masking in post processing that even a soft-edge ND grad can provide). There are better tools now than carrying a bunch of glass filters out into the field - more versatile and cheaper too. Their use gives the photographer more options and more freedom to express himself and create the image he envisions.<br /> Why is craftsmanship behind the camera elevated over craftsmanship in post processing? There are only a few things one needs to get right at the moment of exposure - composition, focus and DOF, and to a certain extent, exposure. And the timing, of course. The only filter whose effect is impossible to reproduce in post processing is the polarizer. Certainly, Ansel Adams was a craftsman behind the camera and in the darkroom - he controlled the entire process from pre-visualization, to exposure to final print to get the results he wanted. Why is it that the camera is not considered simply a tool, just like a paintbrush, chisel, or whathaveyou other artists use to create their artwork? The camera isn't what makes the picture, it merely takes (records) it.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Dieter, I will read the rest of your post later, but I didn't mean to suggest that you were referring to the push button approach, I just wanted to clarify the idea a bit further (my son is an illustrator and uses both the canvas and the tablet, so I understand exactly where you were coming from).</p>

[photomark]

<p>Jeremy, I'll check out the B&H book. Until then…</p>

 

<p>The definitions you put forward are interesting but in an attempt to cordon off a word from stray meanings they become

problematic.</p>

 

<p>Consider the one you say would be yours:</p>

 

<p><i> 2) Photography is the process of using a camera to make one or more images and processing those images by combining

them and/or manipulating the amount and frequency of light in those images.</i></p>

 

<p>We'll ignore the obvious problems like the fact that images don't contain light, or that we don't really manipulate light frequency,

but rather color (they're not the same thing, but that's a discussion for a different day) and look at the structure.</p>

 

<p><b>Example 1. Don't try this at home:</b></p>

<ol>

<li>Take a camera, a Leica if available, remove the lens and fill the body with paint. </li>

<li>Throw the camera as hard as you can at a blank canvas.</li>

<li>Repeat as desired.</li>

<li>Process the resulting paint spatters using your hands to manipulate the color.</li>

<li>Call what you've done, by definition, photography.</li>

</ol>

 

<p>You might say, "don't be obtuse, that's not what I meant and you know it." You'd be right. But <i>how</i> did I know that? Not from your definition, which I followed exactly. Clearly we already had an

understanding about the definition of photography before you defined it. The current definition doesn't provide all the necessary

conditions for meeting that understanding. The process I describe fits your definition but clearly isn't photography by any normal

standard. Most definitions suffer from this problem. (Categories that are created by definitions don't. For instance, all words that begin with the letter 'B' or the set of all prime numbers.)</p>

 

<p><b>Example 2. Camera Obscura</b></p>

 

<ol>

<li>Seal off you bedroom from all light.</li>

<li>Allow a pinhole of light through the window to project an image on the opposite wall.</li>

<li>Use a material light film or a digital sensor to record the image.</li>

<li>Process to taste.</li>

</ol>

 

<p>Here we have a process that doesn't fit your definition—it uses no camera—but most people would call it photography. The

conditions of the definition are not sufficient to encompass all the things the community call photography.</p>

 

<p>You might object to example by saying, "Well, really you turned your room into a camera." Fair enough, but this brings up a

third problem, which is the real killer for your enterprise. Your definition depends on how we define camera. If a room can be a

camera, can a desktop scanner? if a desktop scanner, what about a grocery store scanner?—with a little

creativity, I'm sure I can make an image with one. Until you've defined camera, your definition of photography isn't complete. So now

you define 'camera.' I promise that your definition of camera will have other words than need to be cleared up. The process continues endlessly. You

need to keep deferring the meaning in a never ending cycle in order to complete the definition. Isn't this the old problem of <a

href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Différance">différance?</a>

[nicolerenee]

<p>At what point then, if we flout definitions, does an image cease to be a photograph? If there is no boundary then when I say "it is a photograph" I can mean anything or nothing. And does it matter?</p>

[stp]

<p>I just found this thread, and so much has been said that I don't know if I can effectively jump in at this point. In reading through all of the postings, the first one that caught my attentions was from John A. on 12/18: "<em>I actually thought that this thread was going to be more about what is photography, not comments I might have made in some other context. I thought the idea was maybe 1) Is there a difference between Art and Photography and maybe more to the point 2) When does photography cease to be photography and become something else?</em>"</p>

<p>I was anticipating somewhat the same. I don't question John's #1 (i.e., I assume that most photography is art, with possible exceptions of crime-scene photography and perhaps some photojournalism, although I suspect many photojournalists make conscious or unconscious decisions that deal with artistic elements). I do have questions regarding a possible transition from photography to some other form of art. My questions in this regard arise from the question I hear at art shows: When people see a striking photo, they ask, "Is it real?" It's this simple question that gets me to thinking about photography and other art forms.</p>

<p>Either my definition of photography is too narrow, or there is indeed a new expansion of photography that deserves it's own name and its own category.</p>

<p>This has nothing to do with digital photography. If photography has expanded in a direction to create a new kind of art, that new art is not digital photography.</p>

<p>I think this has everything to do with the computer. The computer has given us the power and ease to change (or manipulate, if you like that word) a photograph in such significant ways that the changed photograph would not and could not exist without the computer.</p>

<p>It's the extensive use of the computer to change the image significantly, especially with respect to color saturation, that is causing the non-photographing general public to ask the question, "Is it real?" I think what they're asking is, is this what the photographer actually saw? Was the sunset really this intense? Did the photographer actually experience what is shown in the photograph? Or was the magnificence of the photograph largely created on the computer, and therefore not seen and not experienced by the photographer?</p>

<p>I think those are important questions because photography, in contrast to other forms of art, has always been assumed to capture a moment in time in a more or less realistic way (look, I know this is a gross generalization, and all kinds of exceptions can be identified, but for the moment I'd like to keep this at the large scale of photography as an art form in contrast to other art forms such as a painting or sculpture.... don't use the exceptions just yet to shoot down my point of view -- that can come later).</p>

<p>I contend that a photograph can become so altered, so changed, or so manipulated by computer software that it enters the world of a new art form, and for convenience I'll call that digital art or computer art. Even if it started as a photograph, at some point it's possible to convert that photograph to a new art form.</p>

<p>Some will say that I simply need to expand my definition of photography. Let me address that by putting myself in the shoes of a computer artist or a digital artist. If I've studied and experimented with computer art for a decade, and if I've then produced some outstanding computer art (computer art that has, at its base, a photograph, but which has been so altered that it could not exist without the computer), frankly I'd be offended if you called me a photographer. I may have used a camera to take the base photograph, but that was 2% of my final product, with the other 98% being my expertise in computer software and my artistic imagination that guided my computer-based manipulations.</p>

<p>To those who ask of my computer-altered photograph, "Is it real?," I would say no, it is not real. I created it rather than captured it. I did not experience it except in my mind. It is not something that I saw except with my mind's eye.</p>

<p>So I'm going to contend there are two categories of photographic art, both of which start as a photograph, but at some point computer art proceeds to become its own art form. This is the form of art that is so new that we don't yet have the standards or language to distinguish it from photography. We're also hampered in making this distinction because the line from photography to computer art is a fairly continuous, unbroken series of steps, and drawing a line somewhere along that line to distinguish the two art forms is (at least right now) very arbitrary and subjective. But I still contend the end points are sufficiently different that each deserves to be called its own form of art. Therefore, somewhere there is a line between the two.</p>

<p>John A. provided a real example that may help the discussion, that being the work of John Pfahl. I found those images to be quite artistic, interesting, even intriguing. Are they real in the sense of having been experienced? No, they're not. Do they owe their essence to computer manipulation? I think so. I would consider this computer art rather than photography.</p>

<p>That is in no way a criticism of John Pfahl's work. John's work is more imaginative and thought-provoking than my own photography, and many will prefer to look a John's work than my photography. But what John has done with his base photograph and what I have done with my base photographs are very different, with different goals, with different processes, and with different responses to the basic question, "Is it real?"</p>

<p>It's not that I don't want to see photography grow. It's not that I want to put it in a little box only for the elite. I just place a lot of emphasis on what the computer can do, and I make a distinction between what photographers have done in the past and what computer artists are doing today. To call all of that "photography" is to avoid seeing and not honoring the art of today's computer-based artists.</p>

<p>@ Mark M: in your last post, you concentrated on what was used to produce the photograph. I think I'm more concerned with what was done with the image after it was captured. Was it printed and presented after it was captured, or was that only the first step in a series of additional computer-based manipulations that produced a piece of art that was never experienced by anyone, that sprang only from a person's creative mind, and that did not represent a moment in time of an aspect of our world/universe.</p>

<p>@ Dieter: in your last post, I'd agree with you that it's silly to elevate craftsmanship behind the camera over craftsmanship in post processing. I'd consider the resulting images you describe to be photographs: the images were experienced, and they represent real moments in time. Post processing was necessary to overcome the inherent limitations of sensor/film.</p>

<p>Also @ Dieter, your post on 12/20 really illustrates the problem I'm having between the two endpoints of photography and computer graphics. You've given some good examples of cases in the middle. Is the cloning of a little twig sufficient to change a photograph into something other than a photograph? I don't think so. Is the upping of saturation significantly sufficient to change a photograph into something other than a photograph? I think so.</p>

<p>I think the bottom line for me is "experience" and a "slice in time regarding our world/universe." I also want to apply this at a relatively gross scale, and not negate an entire argument by finding an obscure outlier that doesn't yet fit a definition of photograph versus digital art. Those outliers are important, but they are refinements of a general scheme, and the general scheme hasn't yet been developed. One step at a time.</p>

<p>This has been too long with too many thoughts. I hope those characteristics don't stand in the way of the discussion.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Take a close up photo (digital or film) of a Campbell soup can held in your hand centered in the frame and print it poster size and hang it in your home.</p>

<p>Take the same close up of the can of soup with a white background and print it poster size and display it in a New York gallery.</p>

<p>The second one is worth millions now because of its cultural context and comment on our industrialized throw away society and the history it represents that changes the perception of it by the viewer. When that Andy Warhol piece first came out, he was saying more about himself while at the some time making an ambiguous comment about modern society by using an advertising industry inspired minimalist design approach. He didn't pretty up the photo or try to make it look more than it is. That would distract from what he wanted to communicate. Thus by not manipulating the image he actually was manipulating how it was perceived by the public. That is one of the ways it defined it as art.</p>

<p>The moment a photo/image, manipulated or not, communicates something inward about the photographer as well as outward within the context of its use and the way it is viewed or presented consciously or unintentional, that's when it becomes art.</p>

<p>It's the context of its use of the image, i.e. gallery, advertising, fine art publication, room decoration or family photo album that plays an important role here in defining it as art. If Andy just hung the soup can image in his home and never showed it to the public, I doubt it would command such a price as it does now. Timing had a lot to do with its value today. This concept also became part of defining it as art as it added to his comment on modern, industrialized, media driven society. Whether he did this intentionally or not doesn't matter. He let the public fill in the rest which again became part of the art.</p>

<p>Everyone with a camera is acting as walk around art directors just like Andy Warhol where every decision made to compose the scene within the frame and trip that shutter, manipulated or not in post is saying something about the thoughts, intentions and sensitivities of the photographer. If it's something that's never been said or seen before in quite the same way, the more it becomes art. If the viewer possesses the same sensitivities and gets what's being communicated, a connection on a personal level occurs between image maker and viewer. The more folks "get it" the more it becomes art. Not everyone will "get it" or have the same sensitivities.</p>

<p>If we didn't define photos/images as art this way then we wouldn't be categorizing photos/images into snap shots and doodlings as opposed to fine art or high concept piece. Once you define it, communication has already occurred and has exposed these sensitivities between the photographer and the viewer. </p>

[stp]

<p>O.k., Tim, (nearly) everyone with a camera is taking pictures that can be described as art, with some being better art than others. I think the question now is: does that photograph always remain a photograph no matter how much manipulation it receives during post-processing, or is there a point at which a manipulated photograph leaves the realm of being a photograph and becomes another form of art, such as computer art?</p>

<p>I'd like to know whether people agree that two categories exist as distinct kinds of art: photography and computer art (including computer art that may have begun as a photograph but has few or none of the original pixels remaining).</p>

<p>If the eventual answer is "yes," then I'd also like to know if we can also agree that a photograph can be manipulated to varying degrees and in various ways, and that there is a continuous path of manipulation from a photograph to a piece of digital art.</p>

<p>If the eventual answer is "yes," then I think it would be very useful to describe and give examples of the different kinds and degrees of manipulation that can be applied to a photograph. In looking at this broad range of possible manipulations and combinations of manipulations, I wonder if some generalities might emerge regarding insignificant versus significant manipulations, and possibly regarding the distinction between a photograph versus digital art.</p>

<p>At least that's how I'm interpreting the question that sparked this discussion.</p>