What if Chris had made his creation and then printed it and photographed the print for presentation in the Gallery? Would that make it more acceptable?
How different is Chris's work (in terms of reality) than a studio photographer building sets, adjusting lighting (color, intensity, etc.) and photographing a manmade object? Only in one way that I can see: The primary subject of Chris's submission this week is not photographically derived, and the photographic portion of the submission is relegated to a the background (heavily manipulated). A studio photographer would at least be using photographic means to record their unreality. So, what if Chris's digital creation was a smaller component of a larger photographic composition? Can we draw that line? Wouldn't it be more a matter of taste and personal preference than whether the work is completely "photographic?"
I rather like AZ's suggestion to use the "model" as a commentary on more traditional photography. I'd like to see Judy strolling through some of the street scenes Chris has shown previously in the Gallery.
"...what is before the lens always has the illusion of reality; but what is selected and put before the lens can be as false as any totalitarian lie."
--Ansel Adams, 1962 letter to Dorothea Lange, quoted in Ansel Adams, An Autobiography. With Mary Street Alinder. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1985, p. 269.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/sfeature/sf_role.html
Cheers, Rich Mason
On Tuesday, February 15, 2005, at 10:56 AM, ADavidhazy wrote:
Just a thought - should images that have no connection to reality be shown in our photography gallery?
andy
http://richmason.com
