Shel Belinkoff wrote: "I recently had a discussion with a couple of photographers, the subject of which was how Photoshop relates to Photography. Is an image that has been extensively "adjusted" in Photoshop still a photograph, or has it somehow morphed into something else? Is there a line somewhere that, when crossed, moves the image out of the category of Photograph into something else?"
If we held ourselves to their standard then we would all be shooting slide film and none of that saturated color stuff either! Everyone draws that line in a different place in the sand because we all have different purposes in our photography. Someone who wants to document the world the way it really is probably appalled by the polarizing filters, saturated films, etc. that we use. Others are after something entirely different and will put a lion lurking on top of the Empire State Building. Who's right? They both are unless their intent is to deceive. That's only allowed in advertising. "And what is that something else? What I see in so many of these bug pictures is a reliance on technique and technology to produce something that's as perfect as possible, but there's no life in what I see, no vibrancy, nothing to get me involved and to move me past an acknowledgement that the workmanship is good. There's something to be said for good workmanship, but that alone does not create art." I can appreciate the photograph as one that says "look at the cool caterpillar I found". It is a beautiful critter in my eyes and that may make it art to me. It evoked an emotional reaction in me. If we have to define art then my definition is that any creation that stirs an emotional response in someone is art to that person. Some might say that an emotional response isn't enough and that it must also stimulate thought. This picture obviously passes that test too! <G> We could also debate whether the emotional response must be positive for the object to be art. I certainly don't think any art can be disgusting but disgusting is an opinion as much as an emotion. "I guess I want MORE from a photograph, more from art ... something that goes beyond the surface of the image and the gloss on the print. I want to feel that the artist has something to say, something original to say, and that he or she is trying to make a statement that goes beyond just capturing light on film and pixels, and which is then run through enough Photoshop to suck the life out of it. I don't mind technically imperfect photos (although I love it when people try to make 'em, push themselves and their work to tell us something) that make us think and feel." That's a difficult standard in nature photography. Drama, suspense, affection, playfulness, serenity etc can all be captured in the natural world but can an artist inject a personal statement into the natural world? Very thought provoking stuff Shel. I for one appreciate your sticking your neck out and risking the flak. Tom Reese
