steve said:There is a long tradition in visual arts of the artist not making the final print. In lithography, and often with etchings, a printer is employed to make the print for the artist. This is because the printer has greater skill with the techniques needed to ensure a good print. This does not detract from either the work as being art, or the person who made the original image (on a plate or stone) as being an artist. Why should photography be any different than other forms of graphic expression in this respect?
Mateo said:This is true. And guess who owns the copyrights after the edition has been made. Not the party with the original concept.
jnanian said:what if there is no film in the camera, and the image was taken and is in the head of the photographer, with no physical recording on film or paper - only the memory of the event.
is he still an artist, even though the final result is only for him/her and not for other people to enjoy?
Ed Sukach said:Vapor trails. Art is the particle and I am the cloud chamber.
In a cloud chamber, we cannot "see" the particles - whatever they are called - mesons, pions, peons ... some are too short-lived for any hope of being seen ... but we have evidence that they are there by the effect they have in the surrounding atmosphere in the cloud chamber - they leave vapor trails.
So it is with me. I can't consciously "see" art - but I know that it exists, by its effect - the "vapor trails" left on my "being".
Andre R. de Avillez said:So that good feeling we get when we shoot or print is a vapor trail? That would make sense. After all, the feeling itself doesn't exist (materialy). Its all chemical signals in the brain.
Right?
Cheryl Jacobs said:I dunno. I just take pichers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?