I'm having a hard time taking in the fact that we are having THIS discussion again, and again, and again. It goes around in circles, and all there is is disagreement about what is photography and what is not photography.
The making of images is going to evolve, both because of, and in spite of how we feel about changes in technology. Trying to define when and how we leave one clearly defined territory and slide into a new/uncharted one is pointless.
Wife 2 was an trained old master oil painter, NOT approved by CIA aka Cleveland Institute of Art as it was NOT au courant
Marni had several painting stolen by the gallery she was 'selling' in
2 big Teamsters found her $50k of art in Minneapolis, they returned it to her before I knew her
After our marriage she sold one to a Rock Star who donated it to The Rock and Roll Museum
The painting gave us a very good home down payment
The Punk Rock people do have money
Stiv Bators
but not on display, I think it in a home
Tin Can
The point is
don't trust art sellers
Tin Can
"Photographer" is a general term which means one who takes photographs. My suggestion is rather than narrow the definition of "photographer", use adjectives like "professional", "amateur", "casual", "designated", " film", "digital", etc. in front of the word if you want to use it in a limited rather than general sense. That way you can save all your mental energy for defining "photograph".
LOL. the photograph part I'm not worried about, I don't really care what a photograph is
I just want to know what or who is called a "photographer" now. Im glad I read that it had to do with printing one's own work
that always makes me cringe a little because 99.9% of working photographers don't print or develop anything they produce,
but they are alive, maybe that's the thing, you have to be alive?
Now AI is thrown in just to screw things up even more.
Bookmarks