To dismiss something as being incapable of being art purely due to the use of a particular piece of software is just silly.

I agree; this wasn’t my argument.

Surely creating something new from a number of elements is just as valid an art form as capturing a moment over which you have no influence?

I think it is yes (and I did make that point above –

Building a composite picture from elements that were never in the scene is still a creative process

.

My argument is whether that process can be considered art in the context of the photography as a genre/medium. Every genre/medium will have a different set of criteria by which we as viewers evaluate the thing we are viewing and which we bring with us (how these criteria are constructed is a separate but no less interesting debate).

Also, the differentiation between medium and genre is important here. It could be that creating entirely fabricated/artificial images in PP is a valid genre within the photographic medium and thus have its own set of values by which the ‘art’ should be perceived and judged.

It could be that I am too dismissive of that genre as a valid artistic construct and that this is why I make the arguments to dismiss the creative process inherent in those images.

Probably I am a purist, which means that for me at least, in order for a ‘photograph’ to be evaluated along artistic lines and congratulated for it’s artistic merit, it needs to be truthful to it’s own characteristics, which is, conveniently, built on veracity; the capturing of real light in real situations in order to create an image that tells a story in some way or which reveals something about the world and the nature of humanity.

Building a composite image still results in something aesthetically pleasing, and can still be seen as art and artistic but it’s less truthful to the medium in which it was created. It’s a different medium in effect; still valid, still important and still art, but not necessarily ‘photography’.

OP thanks for the link, enjoyed that.

Some of the best photo’s I’ve seen on the web are here,some proper stunners.
When I first saw them I didn’t know whether to be inspired or sell my camera gear..
https://www.flickr.com/photos/petehuu/

geetee1972 – Member
To dismiss something as being incapable of being art purely due to the use of a particular piece of software is just silly.
I agree; this wasn’t my argument.

Surely creating something new from a number of elements is just as valid an art form as capturing a moment over which you have no influence?
I think it is yes (and I did make that point above –

Building a composite picture from elements that were never in the scene is still a creative process
.
My argument is whether that process can be considered art in the context of the photography as a genre/medium. Every genre/medium will have a different set of criteria by which we as viewers evaluate the thing we are viewing and which we bring with us (how these criteria are constructed is a separate but no less interesting debate).

Also, the differentiation between medium and genre is important here. It could be that creating entirely fabricated/artificial images in PP is a valid genre within the photographic medium and thus have its own set of values by which the ‘art’ should be perceived and judged.

It could be that I am too dismissive of that genre as a valid artistic construct and that this is why I make the arguments to dismiss the creative process inherent in those images.

Probably I am a purist, which means that for me at least, in order for a ‘photograph’ to be evaluated along artistic lines and congratulated for it’s artistic merit, it needs to be truthful to it’s own characteristics, which is, conveniently, built on veracity; the capturing of real light in real situations in order to create an image that tells a story in some way or which reveals something about the world and the nature of humanity.

Building a composite image still results in something aesthetically pleasing, and can still be seen as art and artistic but it’s less truthful to the medium in which it was created. It’s a different medium in effect; still valid, still important and still art, but not necessarily ‘photography’.

Good points well made, and looking back I think I scanned over your post too quickly initially, so apologies for missing some of your points.

In essence I think I agree with you, though I think there are shades of grey running through the whole issue and no definitive line in the sand as to where “pure” photography stop and “photographic art” (for want of a better term) begins.

I would tend to break down into three genre (rather than media):

Documentary Photography (in which a moment beyond the photographer’s control is captured).
Creative Photography (in which the photographer creates the scene to be captured).
Photographic Art (in which the image or images are manipulated into a final piece which is a distinct creation in its own right).

Of course there are huge grey areas inbetween these, and I would still argue that the vast majority of photographs don’t qualify as art (or creative, in a lot of cases).

Of course there are huge grey areas inbetween these

Yup it’s not all Black & White.

Bustaspoke
Some of the best photo’s I’ve seen on the web are here,some proper stunners.

I like Keith Carter, Hiroshi Sugimoto, Tom Baril, things of that ilk. The gallery you linked to just leaves me cold.

geetee1972 – Member

Could you kindly refrain from talking shit, please? 😆

Jimjam, Fair enough it’s all subjective!

Could you kindly refrain from talking shit, please?

Woah woah woah. This is the internet, imagine what would happen if we all talked sense.

Imagine what would happen if either of you actually engaged your brains for a moment and tried to engage in something worthy of discussion.

Sure what I have written is easily interpreted by others as intellectual nonsense. But there are other people who think this stuff important and I’m more than comfortable in my own intellect to standby what I have said and argue that it says something important about the genre. You don’t have to like it or even understand it. But you don’t get to dismiss it because of that.

geetee1972 – Member
Sure what I have written is easily interpreted by others as intellectual nonsense.

I wouldn’t say intellectual nonsense. You aren’t talking about anything I don’t understand. I just think you are talking shit, not intellectual shit, just pure unadulterated shit! 😆

If you had a valid and informed opinion you’d a) share it and b) realise that nothing screams ignorance more than castigating someone else’s clearly considered opinion by hurling insults at them.

FWIW, I think I’m agreeing with geetee1972. I don’t enjoy looking at photos that have been heavily manipulated to a point they don’t reflect what the human eye actually sees. That allows for some use of post-processing to overcome the limitations of a camera lens/imaging system but falls short of much of the overly-processed stuff around (often on here as it happens).

Some B&W shots might be a special case….

geetee1972 – Member
If you had a valid and informed opinion you’d a) share it and b) realise that nothing screams ignorance more than castigating someone else’s clearly considered opinion by hurling insults at them.

tbh there’s not really much of an opinion to be had, it’s a bunch of nice images flung together on a web page, not much else too it.

Ps, I haven’t insulted you once, just stated that I think your opinion is shit, which I still do! 😆

Some cracking pictures here – probably not much photoshopism gone on