Yes
YesMiddle or Muddle?
You apparently missed my point in attempting to answer the question you raised..My point exactly. Why draw the line? Define graphic arts anyway one wants -- two or three or four terms. A subjective decision. The graphic art within the general field of graphic arts is not (IMO) the polar opposite of photography, instead can be a blend of photographic elements along with other elements of the graphic arts - a collage or a montage.
Or any other way one wants to define it -- as long as both parties trying to communicate can do so.
Why is a rigid definition necessary?
Ahhh, but we are not talking about ships, trains and bikes (types of photography), but instead their classification as transportation (photography) -- as opposed to a chair, which is not a method of transportation -- unless one makes a 'collage' and puts it on a train, bus, etc.Transportation: Ships, airplanes, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, etc. They are all transportation. Why categorize them?
I guess because I like to be a bit more precise. If I go to Avis and ask to rent some transportation, and they give me a bicycle, do I have any right to complain?
So, it's not fine art. It's a martial art. And hybrid would be a mixed martial art?Photography, noun. 1) various sports utilizing image-making skills, mainly of Japanese and French origins, that originated as forms of self-defense or attack on other image-making skills and sports
Ahhh, but we are not talking about ships, trains and bikes (types of photography), but instead their classification as transportation (photography) -- as opposed to a chair, which is not a method of transportation -- unless one makes a 'collage' and puts it on a train, bus, etc.
We are asking, then, in the case above, does the chair become a method of transportation when put on a train and sat upon?
Since I started the his thread ( as a barometer of what people here do hi k photography is ) I’ve realized that maybe the reason since 1839 photography has struggles so hard to be true legitimate art form is because maybe there are too many ideas what photography is. 7 pages in this thread and probably15-20 different definitions... seems photography can’t get out of its own way. the ideas that plagues photography in the 1850 are still plaguing it, just because it’s what people with cameras do.The thread has tried to differentiate between digital, traditional, manipulated, non-manipulated, etc. as being differences worthy of disparate terms. I think that's fairly rigid.
We are asking, then, in the case above, does the chair become a method of transportation when put on a train and sat upon?
Who bloody cares!
I don’t think too many ideas about what photography is has anything to do with its historical struggles. I can tell you what has quite a lot to do with that, but it’s best left for offline discussion.
Anyone care to join me? The bar is well stocked and the front door is unlocked!Well, folks... I’m all tuckered out. Thinking this hard about these lofty topics is fatiguing. I think I’ll make a martini. Should i use gin or vodka? And how many olives? Shaken or stirred?
Since I started the his thread ( as a barometer of what people here do hi k photography is ) I’ve realized that maybe the reason since 1839 photography has struggles so hard to be true legitimate art form is because maybe there are too many ideas what photography is. 7 pages in this thread and probably15-20 different definitions... seems photography can’t get out of its own way. the ideas that plagues photography in the 1850 are still plaguing it, just because it’s what people with cameras do.
pigeon holing of typology and process and isn’t doing anyone any favors, it just becomes weakest link
Anyone care to join me? The bar is well stocked and the front door is unlocked!
Neither does yours
And how long has painting, music and so on been around to have their questions answered? 1839 -- less than 200 years ago...phtttt...a mayfly's lifeSince I started the his thread ( as a barometer of what people here do hi k photography is ) I’ve realized that maybe the reason since 1839 photography has struggles so hard to be true legitimate art form is because maybe there are too many ideas what photography is...
Since I started the his thread ( as a barometer of what people here do hi k photography is ) I’ve realized that maybe the reason since 1839 photography has struggles so hard to be true legitimate art form is because maybe there are too many ideas what photography is.
Since I started the his thread ( as a barometer of what people here do hi k photography is ) I’ve realized that maybe the reason since 1839 photography has struggles so hard to be true legitimate art form is because maybe there are too many ideas what photography is. 7 pages in this thread and probably15-20 different definitions... seems photography can’t get out of its own way. the ideas that plagues photography in the 1850 are still plaguing it, just because it’s what people with cameras do.
pigeon holing of typology and process and isn’t doing anyone any favors, it just becomes weakest link
I know my definition doesn’t help eitherdo you think this definition helps?
to me it is just about light sensitive media, or no media at all.
it is about a shadow on a wall, or impression something leaves on a painted or unpainted surface after the sun bleaches everything around it, its about using a device, any sort it doesn't matter to me with a lens or without, with photo emulsion that is fixed or stained in a camera or out of a camera, with a sensor or without, and its about using light sensitive materials that react with uv light that might create some sort of image or design ...
According to this, a sunburn or a faded curtain is photography.
what's the difference between the computer generated image from the latent image on the plate and the chemical generated image from the latent image on the plate?Photography isnt the problem. Its the people in it. It doesnt matter in the method the way that the image is taken, digital camera or film or wet plate for the persnickety ones here.
The actual point at debate is when does it STOP being photography/image taking and computer generated images created by computer software.
Don't put words into my mouth. The slight alterations to photograpguangong. nothing is obvious that is why I asked for definitions... and I was hoping for a normal definition
not a what's its not definition...
with your and mr glass' definition I have questions which I have asked before and got no answer
is a photogram a photograph ?
what about a tinted ambrotype or tintype that is in a locket from 1870?
or a hand tinted daguerreotype or one of jerry ulesmann's images?
what about the color images of Russia in the early 1900s, or autochromes?
or a one of Andrew O'Neil's gum prints or Vaugh's carbon prints?
or a black and white image from tri x or tmx100 processed in xtol taken on a Hasselblad with a 150 Zeiss lens?
because the act of photography/converting all of these things to picture-form manipulates and changes them to something else.
and by your definitions none of these things are photographs .....
but according to philosophers, galleries, museums, teachers and historians of
what about this is obvious...
guangong. nothing is obvious that is why I asked for definitions... and I was hoping for a normal definition
not a what's its not definition...
with your and mr glass' definition I have questions which I have asked before and got no answer
is a photogram a photograph ?
what about a tinted ambrotype or tintype that is in a locket from 1870?
or a hand tinted daguerreotype or one of jerry ulesmann's images?
what about the color images of Russia in the early 1900s, or autochromes?
or a one of Andrew O'Neil's gum prints or Vaugh's carbon prints?
or a black and white image from tri x or tmx100 processed in xtol taken on a Hasselblad with a 150 Zeiss lens?
because the act of photography/converting all of these things to picture-form manipulates and changes them to something else.
and by your definitions none of these things are photographs .....
but according to philosophers, galleries, museums, teachers and historians of photography, and the people who make these images all of them have been considered photographs.
what about this is obvious...
I didn't put words in your mouthDon't put words into my mouth. All of the variations you mentioned are nothing but minor variations and tweeks of photography. The unique character of photography is that manipulation of the scene for making a picture is nil compared to other forms of representation. For example, Goya's etchings on the horors of war were easier to compose, than photos shot by a combat photographer. Canaletto was able to move whole buildings when composing his landscapes.. The reason that I distinguish digital capture is because it is not limited by he constraints of photography as far as manipulating images in picture. This does not mean that DC is better or worse, it's just different.
What makes photography both difficult and interesting are the constraints placed on capturing an image. To make a really great photograph is extremely difficult. We enjoy many photographs simply because of the confidence that they are more or less a depiction of reality.
To get bent out of shape with sophistry is a waste of words and time. Like pornography, you know what a photograph is when you see it.
I did my best to understand what you and ... were suggesting since it makes absolutely no sense.... said:Photography is about taking a photograph of something as it is. If one changes it to something else, that is NOT photography.
ference between an image on a wet plate or film or sensor, and an "image" made by photoshop is that the photoshoped image NEVER happened.I know my definition doesn’t help either
and I completely agree, a faded curtain and sunburn with pizazz is a photographic.
you should have seen the photograph made by the the Hunter Thompson poster on my roomate's wall. not only was it made with UV light but it was toned with nicotine.
what's the difference between the computer generated image from the latent image on the plate and the chemical generated image from the latent image on the plate?
that seems top be a question too, no?
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?