Photography

As far as I see things, photo-based art is divided into two subsections, photography and photo-based (or digital/media) art. It sounds straight-forward to me, but I'm guessing that statement just might benefit from a more detailed explanation. I'm not saying that either is not art, but I positively cannot classify the myriad of Photoshop creations as photography. They do, of course, share a starting point, but there is a line in my perception dividing the two end points. Photoshop is the tool that allows people to cross it. Without such a tool, the result stays within the realm of photography, along with the act of its conception. However, once an image gets thrown up on a screen and gets manipulated, it's over, at least in my book.

I consider photography as an exploration in the abilities of an artist (or layperson) to capture something beautiful in an image. To capture a moment, a short period of time, in a single frame. It's the art of capturing something hidden about what is real. It's drawing new light and attention to something we may have forgotten. It's the study of the beauty of what's real. It's the admiration of both the art of the capture and the hidden beauty of the world. It's the beauty of the fleeting instant, and capturing it for the ages. I don't mind a little manipulation in the exposure of the film, but its the cutting and moving and transposition of elements that causes me to separate them. Some experts would argue that some cutting and pasting can be done with plain film, but I don't accept that as photography either. That's pushing into that more general field of photo-based art. The image of woodworking by Nick Switzer (above), on the other hand, is what I consider not just photography, but good photography. It fits into those little outlines I've been tracing, and it was created by simply using the right exposure settings, angle, timing of his camera in conjunction with the physical elements of the scene. Though uploaded through a computer, its beauty is not the direct result of that computer's rendering software.So, that's what I count as photography, and I guess it's a loose interpretation, but I can't help but admire and respect being able to do so much with a simple moment, a burst of light.

Since I feel that way, I just can't give the same credit to someone spending time on a computer making an image. I attempt to protect and classify, and I judge them respectively. I realize Photoshop has its applications, and I have no problem giving equal creative and artistic credit to its users, but I just can't give them the same credit. That may be a little vague, but what I'm trying to say, without drawing on the negative connotation and application of segregationists, is that I could still consider the two art forms "separate but equal". They both have their beauty and both warrant appreciation, but they are not the same item, but they can't have the same label. I equate it to labeling both a car and a boat as a car as opposed to simply vehicles (or another suitable term). They share some of the same components and base materials, and they both have beauty and value, but they are not the same product. That's the message I'm attempting to convey. Photoshop, and methods of the like, allow users to send raw images and material from field of photography, across the line I tried to illustrate, into the digital and photo-based art realms of our times. I admire and appreciate that work and do consider it art, but I'm just not fond of labeling its creations as photography.