Christian wrote:
Really what Shel and E. are saying is that they don't like this FORM of
photography; purists that they are.
Well, when I say iced tea is not Coke, I mean that they are different,
not that I don't like iced tea. The fact that I don't like iced tea is
irrelevant, even though true. The same applies here --
I don't like that type of art for the most part but my point was that
I'd like it not called photography so as to avoid confusion with
pictures that captured an actual view that existed in a particular place
and time, which type of picture is what most people understand to be a
"photograph."
If you take bits and pieces of several photographic prints and you cut
them up and paste them together in a new way, that's not called a
"photograph." ( I think it's called a "collage" but I could be wrong
about that specific term -- anyway, I have never heard anybody call such
a thing a photograph.) I just think that, for the longest time, MOST
people have understood "photograph" to mean a composition that was
captured all at the same time by a camera. (Two or more such images,
combined in the camera, being known as a "double exposure" or a
"multiple exposure" to set them apart from something captured in one
exposure.) I'm just saying that if you take pieces of images and combine
them in the darkroom or the computer to create something completely new,
you shouldn't call that just "photograph" any more than you would apply
that term to the finished product of the scissors and glue activity I
described above.
ERNR
