Tag Archives: photography

i’m in the middle of an at class leture now. We’re just starting to discuss photography as an art. There’s one thing that reeally bugs me: I don’t agree that what the teacher is showing us all counts as photography. To me, and I forget who I’m quoting here, “photography is truth.” To me, calling something photograph implies a kind of honesty: it’s wht the camera saw. It might not be real – it could be a model or an optical illusion or whatnot – but it is what the camera eally recorded. I’ll allow some minor manipulation, such as cropping or color adjustment, and still call it photography, but when you start to make major changes, then it becomes photomanipulation. if you move objects around with Photoshop, or replace the background, or (like I’ve done) put a cat’s head on a bird’s body, that is not a photograph. it is a separate category of art and should not be judged in the same way that a photograph is. I like both kinds of art; it just annoys me when anybody – especially someone who I think should know better like an art teacher – lumps them both together as one.