howard <home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
I think presenting an image, or expressing with an image, can take on a variety of media. However, when one has the pomp to step up and call their work "art", a price tag is usually involved (those that don't sell their work might be less inclined to call it art). Hence, the oxymoron, "a priceless work of art." In Portland, Oregon, there is a local artist named Peter Cress...folks call him PC. PC is homeless and survives by the good graces of a few close friends and his drawings which, in my opinion, are mind blowing. The PC transaction was always uncomfortable because the price was left to the customer, but then one could say he was getting ripped off because he needed to eat. It would take the studied economist about twenty seconds to realize that the art market does not really follow the laws of pricing and equilibrium. Logic would only follow that one of the parties in the equation, consumer or producer,
is full of shit.
For the academics out there, and anybody interesting in something to chew on, if a photo, or a drawing/painting (whatever) is used in more of an application or industrial sense, does this remove the artistic nature of the work?
"The optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds.
The pessimist fears it's true" - J Robert Oppenheimer
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
