The following is a precis of what I tell my students in the first and second lecture.
First I go through the old process of holding up a photograph of a lemon and asking what it is. The correct answer is, of course Ä photograph"
When the students shout out "Lemon"", I take a bite out of the print and scowl ans say: This tastes nothing like a lemon... what kind of lemon is it?"
(etc)
Which reminds me of Marcel DuChamp and his use of a urinal - see
http://surrealists.classifieds4u.co.uk/viewPicture/237/
and Rene Magritte's painting of "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" - see
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T340/TreasonOfImagesShadow.jpg
The title was in fact "La trahison des images" and this is, to my mind, an important concept towards the understanding of photography as well as so-called "Art".
My daughter is currently making some kind of living painting animals for pet-lovers in Kent. Her succesful technique is to achieve such accuracy that the result could easily deceive many viewers into thinking they are really photographs. It is certainly "an art" to do this but is it "Art"? Does it really matter as long as the end viewer loves it?
http://www.sarahspetportraits.co.uk/
I think my photographs are just that - photographs. I don't consider them as "Art". I believe the beauty of photography is its ability to capture some elements of a scene and to reproduce them as you wish. I can't consider using photoshop to produce "painted style" images as "Art" either, but only as a tool to improve the appearance of the final image.
For me the primary function of a photograph is to record what one sees, as accurately as possible. The result can be just a straight record (memory hook), aesthetically satisfying, amusing, emotionally depressing or elevating, etc etc. All I want is to go on enjoying doing it!
Howard
