P� 5. mar. 2004 kl. 06.48 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Had to think about that for a bit. But then it came to me that the guys who make
catalog sketches and such are considered artists.
So why not photographers? Maybe because of the perception that anybody can do
it? But then that is not true. Anybody can draw lines on paper but that does not
make them an artist. It is only when the lines mak a meaningful picture that the
person is considered an artist.
I've always thought that the problem it is pretty hard to make a
photograph of something that did not PHYSICALLY exist at the moment you
triggered the shutter. You can imagine an elephant with 5 legs and paint
it, but to photograph such a thing you'd actually have to make one
somehow, or alter the photo after taking it.
You can do tricky things with light that create an effect captured on film that never existed at one time in the real world, or multiple-exposure stuff, but "straight" photography is fairly limited by physical reality, which is not the case with other arts.
Well, the point I tried making when referring to my unmanipulated photos was that they do, in fact, refer to the reality that existed in front of the camera during the exposure. Still, they are not "real". and very manipulated. It is like the fifth foot of the elephant that suddenly appeared because there was a second elephant behind the first.
The "truth" shown in a photo does not have to be a reality.
DagT
