In a demacratic society, of course, majority rules. But I still object to composing a completely computer generated image in PS (or any other program) and calling it photography. Webster's: pho-tog-ra-phy\ n1839: the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radient energy and especially light. Of course I need a new dictionary, one that now has the definition of digital photography. But I still need to hold on to, for now, that photography is, by its nature, something more than the product of a program without a "photograph", be it film or digital.
SM
Hi all,
trying to settle a conceptual question with a dictionary is a bad idea, I think. And here, if we read "as a film" as indicating the typical case only, we do, I think, get that any image displayed on the surface of a CRT monitor (a sensitized surface struck by radiant energy if anything is), counts according to the offered definition.
In my on and off viewing of the gallery, I've liked quite a few of the heavily PS'ed street screens Chris has put up. I like the computer generated naked girl images rather less. If I were a philosopher-king, it were my gallery, and I felt the need to have a rule here, I'd be uncertain about whether to include them, too.
But, there is a pragmatic argument that (unless I missed it) no one has advanced. The `enqued' number has, of late, been between 0 and 3, and, if I recall aright, not every gallery over the last year has managed to have 10 images. One might think then that there is plenty of reason for the Gallery `staff' to take a permissive view and leave the interesting question of whether Chris' images are photography or photography-like aside.
Best to all,
Brian vdB
