I don't think the question had anything to do with how photographs
relate to the "real". It was simply a question about termanology.
For clarity of language don't call a photo-based picture a photograph.
i would disagree... all forms of imaging are so called constructs of
reality... so what makes one more of a photograph and the other a photobase?
by the mere act of choosing a particular scene to shoot, the exposure
levels, aperature, focus etc... you are choosing to represent a facade of
reality... so how is that different from a photobased picture construction?
in order to understand what is a photograph
we have to understand what constitute a photographic representation
if the photo rep is divorced from the need to represent reality
then we can call of forms of photobased imaging... a photograph
if we cannot divorce photo rep from the need to represent reality
then any form of photographs cannot be called a photograph...
essentially... photolithography... used in sign making or any kind of
imaging that use light to form its base image is a PHOTOGRAPH (a drawing
with light... correct me if i am wrong... photo means light in latin and
graph means drawing)
which is why it is so crucial to divorce photography as a medium for
representing reality (this is more a bastion for the photojournalists)...
people have to understand that photography can never and will never
represent reality... once people can accept that... then people will be ale
to accept that photography is nothing more than a light drawing...
alfred
_________________________________________________________________
Download MSN Messenger emoticons and display pictures.
http://ilovemessenger.msn.com/?mkt=en-sg
