Is photographic integrity dead?

[percepts]

At what point in time did the meaning of the word photography change?

‘photography’, etymology of, from photos (ϕοτοσ), light, and graphos (γραοσ), writing, delineation, or painting. Although ‘heliography’, ‘photogeny’, and ‘daguerreotypy’, were first used as alternatives, ‘photography’ eventually gained universal precedence as the preferred name. First published by the German astronomer Johann von Mädler in the Vossische Zeitung, the name appears to have occurred to Charles Wheatstone and Sir John Herschel independently in England. (Hercules Florence in Brazil had already used the term photographie—albeit to describe a cameraless process—in his experimental notebooks in 1833-4, but these were not discovered until much later.) Herschel had long been the authority on new nomenclature, and his use of the term in ‘Note on the Art of Photography’, 14 March 1839, was a catalyst for its adoption as a properly inclusive name for both ‘photogenic drawing’ and ‘daguerreotypy’.

It seems to me that due to the lack of imagination of digital manipulators they have decided to steal the word for their own use. Or pehaps are afraid of being honest about what they are doing. Or maybe it just hasn't occured to them that what they are doing is not photography.
Inflamatory? No just reminding people that if they don't have the integrity to be up front about what they are doing then they will be suspect for hiding the fact. What have they done wrong? Nothing. So why hide behind something else? What are you afraid of? Is being a digital artist something dirty or demeaning? You seem to want to embrace it, then why not celebrate it. What's your problem?

[Paul_C]

What's your problem?

the problem is all yours

[percepts]

the problem is all yours

Oh really? I have no problem whatsoever with using digital cameras and / or scanning and/or digital printing. What I do have a problem with, is where the original capture has been so fundamentally altered that it ceases to be a photograph and becomes a piece of digital art but is passed off as a photograph. That indicates a lack of integrity on the part of the creator in my world. You don't like that? Tough. The public will decide. But you would be wise to remember that the public don't like being duped.

[rdenney]

Read more of the wikipedia entry. You and it agree more than you think.

(Of course, your position doesn't necessarily reflect any scholarship or authority.. I wonder if you'd have included that bit if you agreed with the quote you read.)

The answer to that is that I never use a Wiki entry in a debate without explaining why I agree or disagree with it. That way, anyone reading my post is empowered to decide for themselves. That is usually more trouble than it is worth. In fact, I can't remember when I used a Wiki entry as support for a debate, though I have used it as a resource for providing mere facts when I thought they were accurate.

Had I agreed with the part you quoted, I'd have felt no need to challenge it. That would not, of course, constitute an endorsement of Wikipedia on my part.

I have extensively contributed to several Wikipedia entries, including one concerning my professional expertise where my credentials are frankly the equal of anyone in the world, and I eventually gave up trying to keep silliness from working its way in. That experience informs my use of Wikipedia and my willingness to challenge something I see there. Please don't consider that an attack on you--I don't intend it as such.

Rick "who mostly used the disagreement as an opportunity to draw the link between the integrity and the definition of 'purely photographic'" Denney

[Paul_C]

the problem is all yours

Oh really? ... What I do have a problem with...

yes, really.

[Paul_C]

Please don't consider that an attack on you--I don't intend it as such.

Not taken as such

[Kirk Gittings]

At what point in time did the meaning of the word photography change?

There never was a question amongst the general public about whether digital was photography or not. Digital cameras made pictures of their grandma just like their film cameras did. Kodak, Canon, Nikon et al sold it as photography from day one. No one "stole" the term (using your inflammatory language). It became general usage from the inception of digital capture. It was a logical evolution of the term in the face of changing technology. It is generally accepted worldwide except amongst a small percentage of traditional photographers who....I don't know what.......want to be seen as some special class of image makers? Upholders of the true religion?

Here is the current definition from Merriam-Webster, a definition which reflects the generally held view.

Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈtä-grə-fē\
Function: noun
Date: 1839

: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)

Whether digital is photography or not was settled years ago as a result of the marketing of the big photo companies and the perceptions of the public.

[BrianShaw]

In all honesty, I marvel at the passion and intelligence expressed in this thread. But if I once again try reading it from beginning to end in an attempt to fully understand the complexity of the issues I think I might "loose" my mind.

[Robert Hughes]

...you would be wise to remember that the public don't like being duped.

... thus explaining the overwhelming popular preference for documentary and straight news on television.

[percepts]

Whether digital is photography or not was settled years ago as a result of the marketing of the big photo companies and the perceptions of the public.

Well yes the perceptions of the public and they do have them. Some don't care and some do. And what about the art buying public and collectors? Do you think they care if an image has been photoshopped to the nth degree and passed off as a photograph?
Or are they just after some wall art and couldn't care less how it was made or if there is some "photographic integrity" in what they are purchasing? Well if they are a collector of photography they just might care and would likely be pretty pissed off to find that what they bought was not what it purported to be.