Phil, you better watch out getting too close to those "traditional"
painters. They will be out in force with pitchforks and torches. [:))]
Eric Clayfadedbeauty.com
--- In artshow_photo@yahoogroups.com, "philmguy@..." <philmguy@...>
wrote:
>
> Good question. I think it's in the eye of the beholder.
>
> In recent years my work has been evolving and becoming less
documentary and more -- for lack of a better word -- artsy. Some of that
process comes about in the camera, but I do a lot of work in Photoshop
to get the look and feel I want for my images. My booth at shows has a
banner with my business name, Phil Marty Photography, but I go out of my
way to explain my creative process to people who come in the booth,
telling them the images are often heavily manipulated in Photoshop to
make them look more like paintings or drawings. I also have gone to
canvas wraps for everything that I hang in the booth.
>
> When I apply to shows, if I ever am unsure from a show description
whether my work should be in the Photography or Digital Art category, I
ask.
>
> I think the important thing is to be upfront with people while being
true to one's creative vision and not get hung up on labels.
>
> Phil
>
> --- In artshow_photo@yahoogroups.com, "silenceintonoise"
silenceintonoise@ wrote:
> >
> > Hello, my name is Eric and this is actually my first post here. I
was anxious to get some feedback on one of my blog posts regarding an
observation I made at a recent show and thought this would be a good
place for it...
> >
> > I took some time out this past weekend to walk around the art
festival in Gainesville that I was exhibiting at. With somewhere around
twenty-six photographers exhibiting there, I was curious to see what
kind of work was being shown. Overall, the predominate theme was of
Florida landscape and nature photography. There was also several
photographers with their own niches of landscapes and scenery from a
variety of regions, florals, and a few unique people study collections.
However, the one display that really caught my attention was from an
artist whose work consisted of heavily manipulated surrealist images
that were very prominently being declared as photographs. This lead me
to ask myself the often debated question of "When does a photograph stop
being a photo?"
> >
> > On a semi-regular basis I get asked, "Did you do a lot of
post-manipulation to your images?" The answer, of course, is it depends
on which image you are asking about. With most of the images that I am
currently displaying at art shows, the editing is usually limited to
color correction or conversion, expansion of the dynamic range, and on a
rare occasion the removal of a distracting element. Overall though, in
almost all my images the base photo has only had a level of manipulation
that could have been achieved in a traditional darkroom.
> >
> > With that being said, I am in no way a photo purist that believes
that a photograph should appear exactly as the original scene appeared.
However, i do feel there is a certain point at which a photo has had so
much digital manipulation that it can no longer be classified as purely
a photograph and has now crossed a line into what should be under the
"digital art" category.
> >
> > I have noticed that some art shows do have a specific category for
"digital art". Though, in some cases such as The Melbourne Art Festival,
there is actually no longer a photography category and only a digital
arts category. This seems extremely wrong, since a photographer that is
still using traditional photography is clearly not a "digital artist".
> >
> > What really bothered me about this one artist though was that he was
pushing that he was a "photographer" in such a big way. He had a large
metallic sign in his booth with his name underlined with the title
"photographer". In my opinion there had been so much splicing of
multiple images and digital painting that this could no longer really be
considered photography. It also kind of makes me want to see his source
images, since when there is this amount of manipulation being performed
it would be easy to cannibalize stock images into your work without
anyone being able to tell.
> >
> > Really, just like many other debates this is an entirely subjective
debate and without some clearly defined standard there really is no
clear cut answer. So, what do you think, when does a photo stop being a
photo?
> >
> >
> > Eric Clay
> > fadedbeauty.com
> >
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://artshowphoto.com/support.htm
PLEASE READ....PLEASE TRIM POSTS!!! Keep quoted material short.
Repeat or create accurate subject lines.
If you want to advertise services related to art shows or photography, either in a forum post or on the resource web site, please contact the forum owner for permission.
Resource web site at
http://ArtShowPhoto.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment