When does photography stop being photography?
Nov 3, 2014 08:31:01 #
[quote=Delderby]BUT there is a difference between reality and "temporary reality". It is probable that when the artist began painting his picture, the people weren't there, and that by the time he finished, they were gone.
First ... the artist is a she. I did have a talk with the artist and I specifically asked if she was going to paint in people.
Her answer was "Why?" Her subject was the rock - not the people. The point I was trying to make was that paintings and photographs have merged. The painter always had the option not to put in to a scene anything they didn't want to, now the photographer can easily make the same choices.
First ... the artist is a she. I did have a talk with the artist and I specifically asked if she was going to paint in people.
Her answer was "Why?" Her subject was the rock - not the people. The point I was trying to make was that paintings and photographs have merged. The painter always had the option not to put in to a scene anything they didn't want to, now the photographer can easily make the same choices.
Nov 3, 2014 08:58:43 #
[quote=Howard5252]
The painter also had the option to include something that wasn't there. Now so does the photographer - but should they? I believe (Jimmy Carter?) that artists licence is not photographers licence. Unless the photographer readily admits to it.
Delderby wrote:
BUT there is a difference between reality and &quo... (show quote)
The painter also had the option to include something that wasn't there. Now so does the photographer - but should they? I believe (Jimmy Carter?) that artists licence is not photographers licence. Unless the photographer readily admits to it.
Nov 3, 2014 09:47:49 #
Delderby wrote:
The painter also had the option to include something that wasn't there. Now so does the photographer - but should they? I believe (Jimmy Carter?) that artists licence is not photographers licence. Unless the photographer readily admits to it.
That depends on the type of photography. For photojournalism or documentary, taking things out or putting things in is unethical. For everything else, anything the photographer does to realize their vision is OK. And I don't think the photographer owes anyone an explanation of what they have done. Viewers should accept the image as it is presented, and not have to be told there were people in the photo and they were taken out.
Nov 3, 2014 09:58:24 #
Delderby wrote:
The painter also had the option to include something that wasn't there. Now so does the photographer - but should they? I believe (Jimmy Carter?) that artists licence is not photographers licence. Unless the photographer readily admits to it.
You have it exactly. People have always understood photographs differed from paintings. I have stopped telling people when I edit a photograph. I have found that they assumed EVERY photo I show has been edited. My intention is to present my photographs as an interpretation of what I saw. In the case of the rock - People were present but I was concentrating on the rock and did not "see" them. They were not pertinent to my subject and so I removed them - the artist had the same idea and simply never put them in.
Nov 3, 2014 11:56:55 #
Howard5252 wrote:
You have it exactly. People have always understood... (show quote)
We are in tune :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.