Hey #Photographer 's, a little Monday Poll for fun.
By removing an object from a photograph (like a tree, garbage, building, or person), the image should no longer be considered a photograph, and just digital art now?
I think the poll is missing an option:
Is it art?
If it is then do whatever you wanna do.
Authenticity is contextual.
Erasing details from a story is to be expected from a memoir writer, but frowned upon from a court stenographer.
@rexbron Great response and completely agree - I was unfortunately limited in my ability to elaborate the options. But completely agree that context applies.
For the sake of discussion, because for say documentary type photography the answer should be obvious. Where does your line get drawn for photographs as art?
Yeah, I actually get to use some of my art degree!
Documentary is not necessarily strictly factual presentation. The act of framing integral to print based and screen based media is it itself inherently subjective.
Framing tells you what the photographer thought was interesting or worth, including and this is true of every form of photography .
So to dodge your question, I don’t really draw a line. It depends on the claims the author makes.
@rexbron haha glad I could make your degree have a use! 😂
Another thoughtful response. I think your shift to mentioning the artistic claims is important, and maybe a better way to frame a future poll. In many ways the artist pre-defines those lines for the viewers by making a statement about their process or vision.
Geoffrey Giebelhaus
Andrew Hunter