I figured some of you would like to hear a few more opinions on the subject. I certainly didn't have much of an essay format, but it's been a while since I've been in school, and I hope that some of the links make up for it. Check it out! And, if you don't feel like reading, simply visit Carl Warners website and feel inspired.
When does Photography cease to be Photography?
The term Photography, to me, describes the documentation of one's personal reality. A photograph is a tool, as well as a piece of art, used as a demonstration of one's perspective. That being said, not all photography is art, and not every photographer is aware of their perspective(s). Some are not even aware of what a photograph may become, represent, or portray. As Ansel Adams is quoted to have said, "There are two people in every photograph: the photographer and the viewer". Each individual brings their own opinion, knowledge, and interpretation to the image. This principle alone brings a great difficulty to the subject of Photographic Art vs Digital Art, as the difference in realities between one man and another may differ like night and day. To state one of the most over-discussed questions in Philosophy, how do we, as humans, know that our perception of colours remains constant? How do I know that what I see as red, is red to you as well? As humans, we are thus-far incapable of defining and describing our individual realities to the point of understanding. What is reality to one man, may be complete surrealism to another.
Keeping all this in mind, I would define Digital Art as the following:
When the image (photograph) takes on the characteristics of a(n) (complex) imagination, and becomes a personalized version of an image stretched beyond reality.
Or, as Webster's defines surrealism, it would be the production of "fantastic or incongruous imagery or effects... by means of using unnatural, irrational juxtapositions and combinations".
For a few examples of Digital Art, please browse the following links.
My absolute personal favourite, Carl Warner: http://www.carlwarner.com/ ...Once you're on his website, click 'Stills', and then click the first box, 'Foodscapes'. (no direct link available)
A fairly simple photograph with a simple (but obvious) edit, as described for clarification: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sally-jane/2244145147/
A photographer who prefers the 'Vintage Feel', but still shoots and edits digitally, presumably to maintain creative control: http://www.kellypetersenphotography.blogspot.com/
And, two photographs displaying the degree to which Digital Art can be taken:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elfinity/3539539507/in/set-72157594575297472/ (drastically enlarged subject)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dadavid/3468033516/in/pool-utterlysurreal (drastically altered subject)
Where Optimization is an enhancement of the image to produce more attractive, memorable results than a RAW file is able to portray, editing to produce Digital Art is a creative process which stretches the version or reality captured by the original image. When it is no longer a congruent or plausible replication of 'the real world', I would place the image in the category of Digital Art.
For a few examples of Optimization (which occasionally pushed up against the boundaries of Digital Art), please view the following links.
A couple of believable version of reality, although noticeably digitally altered:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zulphadawson/91957795/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/manganite/2404401317/
A self-quoted 'honest' portrait, likely with minimal optimization: http://www.flickr.com/photos/heartlililly/4239398433/
And, from the same photostream, yet another optimized image that could possibly bump past the buffers of reality, but would not be considered Digital Art (for lack of out-of-ordinary aspects): http://www.flickr.com/photos/heartlililly/4265628736/in/photostream/
As I explained earlier, however, it is sometimes difficult to separate reality from memory of the scene, and oftentimes the camera will capture far more detail than what the human eye perceives. Therefore, the lines of clarity between Art Forms and Reality and blurred, and we are left to decipher, and edit, the remains. To be clear, each image produced, be it a Lithograph, a Digital Photograph, a Film Photograph, or a Video... they're all art forms, if the people involved in their creation and interpretation will them to be art forms. All of this brings about the common discussions such as "What is reality?", "What is art?", "Intention vs Interpretation", and other classics. As photographers, it is our responsibility to define our own styles, to create our own intentions, to explore our own creativity, and to document moments of existence. We are here to create aesthetics. We are here to develop our Art Form. I believe there is such a thing as 'Bad Art', just as there is such a thing as 'Bad HDR', 'Bad Film', and 'Bad Representation'. However, I believe as long as we keep our awareness, aesthetics, intentions, and others perceptions in 'check', photographers should be free to create images in whichever style they choose. Whether or not it can be placed under a proper title is slightly irrelevant. (Unless, of course, you are concerned about digital editing becoming the norm, and human beings forget what 'normal' really looks like, in which case we should time-warp back to the 1920's and stop surrealism at it's roots. I bet when folks were used to seeing only factual drawings, this stuff shocked them a bit. Oh, and how about when Surrealists infiltrated photography. The rebellious Claude Cahun brings a good example to the table.)
To View what I find to be the boundaries dividing Optimization and Digital Art in my personal work, please check out my Picassa Album.
Cheers!
