Photo-manipulations vs. photography

Started 3 months ago | Polls thread
knickerhawk Veteran Member • Posts: 6,334
Re: Photo-manipulations vs. photography

FoPar wrote:

to be meaningful a photograph has to be an accurate record

Your two adjectival qualifiers ("meaningful" and "accurate") make this claim so vague as to be empty. As soon as you start defining those two terms, things start getting complicated. Indeed, that's pretty much what this whole thread has been about.

photo manipulations may be decorative, attractive, enjoyable etc. but are essentially meaningless

In which case, you're condemning the entire history art photography to being non-meaningful. You seem to be arguing here that any form of photography that isn't purely forensic and admissible as evidence in a court of law isn't "meaningful." I don't think I'm alone in rejecting the idea that photography is "meaningful" only to the extent it involves no human judgment either during capture or during transformation to a viewable medium or, for that matter, during the act of viewing the image (i.e., your monitor's settings, the room's lighting, the distance of the viewer from the image, etc.)

otherwise a 'photograph' is just another entertainment and has no historical and lasting value and photography is no longer a unique medium

Better tell that to all those patrons of the photographic arts who've wasted a lot of good money to purchase/invest in photographs that you've declared to be historically short-lived and valueless!

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow