art or photograph?
1/18/2007 at 8:31 PM
why do some of you feel the need to say my photos are art and not photography?
is it cause its digital? if i did my cloning and manipulations all on film, would it then be a photograph instead?
i do believe its definition either way is and always will be a photograph, so why should my images be in the art section and not the photograph section?
they are all individual photographs layerd together and displayed as one, if you would like i can take them all on slide film and sandwich them all like i used to and display tem that way, would it then be "more" of a photograph? would it be less art?
if i added a haze filter and a tone filter instead of doing the same in photoshop is it more photographicaly acceptable? i dont get it, same thing different method equals same definition but makes it art and not a photograph?
photographic art you might say? well doesnt that term begin with the term photographic? hence photograph and then i believe would mean its a photograph?
so then that means it should be enterd into the photography section due to its original and techinical means of creation.
im not madd nor angry nor full of myaself or anything, im only trying to explain/understand why im geting so many messages and comments stating i should enter my work into "art" and not "photography"
i take photos, i CREATE photos i show photos. my art IS my photography and my photography IS my art.
To Disturb, Make you Think, to Make you Feel.
1/14/2007 at 7:31 PM
Just started this site, looks like it will be good and fun.
only time will tell. will try and keep up to date with uploading etc.
All prints are for sale, ffeel free to contact.
Personal site is www.theunsceneart.com
more to come
