The written and spoken word can be limited. That is why we also need the visual arts, music, etc. to communicate ideas.
I'm retired now, but during my career I paid very close attention to the meaning and use of words.
Words used as labels can be very helpful, or incredibly confusing.
I'm not sure that an attempt to essentially stake out a particular defined meaning for the word photography helps protect or enhance those processes that are non-digital.
With all due respect to Maris, of course.
To my mind, this thread is more about word choice than Philosophy or Ethics.
Again, you are focused on outcome and unaware of the dangers in the email process.Email (or even text) is a lot more intimate than snail mail. The recipient can read it anywhere, over and over (since virtually everyone has portable email). Then the recipient can respond immediately or later and together the participants can develop ideas over time, depending on how the participants feel and think.
Your proposition is mistaken, and (for what it's worth) most of the world has long known that. That's why most of the world uses email and little of it uses snail mail.
The initial "message" of each becomes inconsequential or consequential, depending on what develops and upon the participants ability to formulate sentences and ideas...which seems to validate human evolution beyond the mere opposable thumb dead end, like that of some teens and famous politicians.
Word choice is called semantics. The philosophical question here is whether digital image making will create another loss of privacy and further reduce image making to that which is approved by authorities....e.g. un-democracising.I'm retired now, but during my career I paid very close attention to the meaning and use of words.
Words used as labels can be very helpful, or incredibly confusing.
I'm not sure that an attempt to essentially stake out a particular defined meaning for the word photography helps protect or enhance those processes that are non-digital.
With all due respect to Maris, of course.
To my mind, this thread is more about word choice than Philosophy or Ethics.
The Oxford dictionary defines photograph as "a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally." The words "or stored digitally" were added along the way as a new method for making pictures with a camera was developed. It was an act of inclusion. Advocating deleting the words "or stored digitally" is an act of exclusion, and pointing it out is hardly a straw man.No person was excluded from anything. You have just launched a straw man.
YouTube grows them. Almost none of the regulars are good photographers.There are false authority figures that will claim they're the expert and will define what something is
Your original claim offered the connotation that I was "excluding people" from something with my argument. That's black print rubbish and all you have to do is read my posts to understand that. .There was no attempt at reducing peoples to some lesser status. Everything has been about preserving the differentiation between processes for all the reasons I have spelled out at least twice. You're usually better than this sort of cheap sniping.The Oxford dictionary defines photograph as "a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally." The words "or stored digitally" were added along the way as a new method for making pictures with a camera was developed. It was an act of inclusion. Advocating deleting the words "or stored digitally" is an act of exclusion, so it is hardly a straw man.
@jtk It's not paranoia when it is real. Hard to believe that in 2018 there are still people who haven't understood Internet surveillance, but I suppose some level of ignorance offers some level of bliss?
You are clearly excluding individuals who make images using digital cameras from the definition of photographer by limiting the definition of photography to making images by film and chemical means. Exclusion does not imply a lesser status. That is your spin. You can preserve differentiation among processes by means other than redefining general terms. Distinguishing between film photographers and digital photographers seems a rational demarcation.Your original claim offered the connotation that I was "excluding people" from something with my argument. That's black print rubbish and all you have to do is read my posts to understand that. .There was no attempt at reducing peoples to some lesser status. Everything has been about preserving the differentiation between processes for all the reasons I have spelled out at least twice. You're usually better than this sort of cheap sniping.
FWIW, my post about semantics (I prefer "word choice") was in response to the question you initiated this thread with, not the subsequent discussions which appear to have wandered into more Orwellian themes. It seems to me that the latter are worth a thread of their own.The philosophical question here is whether digital image making will create another loss of privacy and further reduce image making to that which is approved by authorities....e.g. un-democracising.
@jtk It's not paranoia when it is real. Hard to believe that in 2018 there are still people who haven't understood Internet surveillance, but I suppose some level of ignorance offers some level of bliss?
I still think those who wish to narrowly define photography, on both sides, do so to justify their personal choice and (perhaps) insecurities with that decision. The same goes with which method is "superior".What is the motivation and goal of those who persist in excluding those who make images by digital rather than chemical means from the definition of photographer, and the images themselves from the definition of photographs? Is it something more than mere semantics? When these arguments are advanced, I always ask the question: "And?"
I still think those who wish to narrowly define photography, on both sides, do so to justify their personal choice and (perhaps) insecurities with that decision. The same goes with which method is "superior".
The desire to place creative endeavors into an us vs. them choice is a useless exercise. Art should be a pursuit void of tribalism. Perhaps, though, it is natural, as tribalism has infected almost every other area of our existence, from politics to culture.
I'll try to get this back on track.
QUOTE
An image may be worth 1000 words, but image metadata may spill far more information than that, especially when applied to a Google service. According to this year's Google I/O keynote, the Photos service will offer a search function that can find people, places, and objects — all without any active tagging on the end user's part.
It does this in part by scanning your image's metadata: the location and other information your camera builds into the underlying code of your digital image. For the rest, I suspect Google is inventing its own supplemental metadata, using rapid image scans and automatic face detection as part of the company's continuous "machine learning" system. It may not be perfect at the start, but as Google gets more and more photographs to scan, it could become the most accurate auto-tagging service on the Internet.
End Quote = source:https://www.imore.com/google-photos-may-be-free-what-personal-cost
Google photos is the tip of the iceberg. Google is the world's leading AI developer and has been in a permanent partnership with the NSA since they launched. Of course many people think "google" is a search engine, so it might be hard to make this point strong enough.
How does any of that get us back on track with respect to the thread topic and original post? It seems to just take us farther afield.I'll try to get this back on track.
QUOTE
An image may be worth 1000 words, but image metadata may spill far more information than that, especially when applied to a Google service. According to this year's Google I/O keynote, the Photos service will offer a search function that can find people, places, and objects — all without any active tagging on the end user's part.
It does this in part by scanning your image's metadata: the location and other information your camera builds into the underlying code of your digital image. For the rest, I suspect Google is inventing its own supplemental metadata, using rapid image scans and automatic face detection as part of the company's continuous "machine learning" system. It may not be perfect at the start, but as Google gets more and more photographs to scan, it could become the most accurate auto-tagging service on the Internet.
End Quote = source:https://www.imore.com/google-photos-may-be-free-what-personal-cost
Google photos is the tip of the iceberg. Google is the world's leading AI developer and has been in a permanent partnership with the NSA since they launched. Of course many people think "google" is a search engine, so it might be hard to make this point strong enough.
No. What is your point? That when people hire a photographer they are expecting a film photographer and are outraged when he shows up with a digital camera? No one but a film photographer with an agenda thinks that the term photographer means only film photographer.Someone hires a portrait painter to create a painting of their daughter. They hire them because their CV says they are a classically trained painter and their portfolio features some excellent portraits that appear to have been created using oil, which the client loves.
They arrive on the first day with a laptop, Wacom tablet and a copy of Painter (https://www.painterartist.com/en/product/painter/)
They explain that it’s still oil painting, even though it’s all pixels, and the inkjet print they will deliver is indistinguishable from oil on canvas. They tell the client that nothing matters but the final image.
If you were the paying client, would you be okay with that?
Someone hires a portrait painter to create a painting of their daughter. They hire them because their CV says they are a classically trained painter and their portfolio features some excellent portraits that appear to have been created using oil, which the client loves.
They arrive on the first day with a laptop, Wacom tablet and a copy of Painter (https://www.painterartist.com/en/product/painter/)
They explain that it’s still oil painting, even though it’s all pixels, and the inkjet print they will deliver is indistinguishable from oil on canvas. They tell the client that nothing matters but the final image.
If you were the paying client, would you be okay with that?
Email (or even text) is a lot more intimate than snail mail. The recipient can read it anywhere, over and over (since virtually everyone has portable email). Then the recipient can respond immediately or later and together the participants can develop ideas over time, depending on how the participants feel and think.
Your proposition is mistaken, and (for what it's worth) most of the world has long known that. That's why most of the world uses email and little of it uses snail mail.
The initial "message" of each becomes inconsequential or consequential, depending on what develops and upon the participants ability to formulate sentences and ideas...which seems to validate human evolution beyond the mere opposable thumb dead end, like that of some teens and famous politicians.
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?