seajak
Well-known
michaelwj
----------------
Good old Tweed, never far from controversy 
But what is a portrait?
I've won a portrait competition without a face in the image so I suppose a portrait is an image that lets the viewers understand the subject.
The real issue in this prize seems to not be what is a portrait, but rather what is a photograph. If no camers, lens, or LIGHT was used, is it a photograph?
I would class this as a portrait, but not a photographic portrait. It's a drawing on film.
But what is a portrait?
I've won a portrait competition without a face in the image so I suppose a portrait is an image that lets the viewers understand the subject.
The real issue in this prize seems to not be what is a portrait, but rather what is a photograph. If no camers, lens, or LIGHT was used, is it a photograph?
I would class this as a portrait, but not a photographic portrait. It's a drawing on film.
pyeh
Member of good standing
I think it's a great idea, conceptually, what Varga did, and very brave of the judge(s) to award the prize to her, but yeah, I don't know if it's a photographic portrait, like Michael says.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
but yeah...what a load of XXXX
Scrambler
Well-known
What part of the image creation does "photo" refer to? I think it would be very hard to argue the winning entry doesn't involve drawing ("graph") but some are questioning the light ("photo") element. And yet, without light there would be no contrast on the image at all.
And whether a photograph needs a camera - what a load of...
I've taken what the critics of this award would consider a photograph using a tin can and paper. There's that famous large photographic work taken using a disused aircraft hanger with a hole in one wall.
What if she had taken an image of her mother's hand resting on the photographic paper, directly exposed? An image, drawing with light, no camera. Instead she has an image of the work of her mother's hand.
I for one applaud the judges. It will certainly result in increased numbers of creative images next year!
And not the first use of direct writing onto negative - there's the Autographic Brownie cameras for example.
And whether a photograph needs a camera - what a load of...
I've taken what the critics of this award would consider a photograph using a tin can and paper. There's that famous large photographic work taken using a disused aircraft hanger with a hole in one wall.
What if she had taken an image of her mother's hand resting on the photographic paper, directly exposed? An image, drawing with light, no camera. Instead she has an image of the work of her mother's hand.
I for one applaud the judges. It will certainly result in increased numbers of creative images next year!
And not the first use of direct writing onto negative - there's the Autographic Brownie cameras for example.
michaelwj
----------------
My underline.
Sure it needs light to provide contrast, but it wasn't made using light. It's a drawing. All drawings need light to be displayed, but they're not photographs.
Both of your 'non cameras', the tin can and the aircraft hanger, are camera obscuras, so cameras. A directly exposed image of the hand is still a photograph, it is an image made using light.
I still think it was a bad call. It shouldn't have passed the entry test as it's not a photograph. You can argue the portrait aspect till the cows come home and never resolve that part, but it doesn't fulfill the technical aspect of a photograph.
Also, who is the artist in this case? By her own admission, the winner did not direct her grandmother to do the drawing, merely took what she'd done and framed it. Doesn't that make her her grandmothers agent and the grandmother is the artist? So it is a self portrait?
michaelwj
----------------
Yes, but he uses light to expose the photo sensitive paper.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
......."That it's placed onto a piece of emulsion, whether that constitutes a photograph, who really is to say?" he added.
...and that is what happens in a politically correct world. no-one knows what to say lest one is offended by the truth.
...and that is what happens in a politically correct world. no-one knows what to say lest one is offended by the truth.
Scrambler
Well-known
My point is that the visible image was made using light, just not ONLY using light. Without light on the photo-sensitive paper it is just white scratches on white paper, no visual contrast at all.
Just what I'm saying. The MEANS of exposing the image is irrelevant. I would argue the tin and the hanger are pinhole cameras not camera obscuras, but it's almost as narrow a difference as whether this image is drawing or photography - but nonetheless debatable. The hand over the paper, though, uses only a light source, and of course a light-removal arrangement to start and stop the exposure.
Well, I think the argument is whether it is a portrait more than whether it's a photograph. It is an image on photographic (light-sensitive) paper, created through the application of light. That the contrast between one part of the image and another is created by abrasion of the surface does not fundamentally change the fact that it is light and light sensitivity of the paper (and the development) that makes it a visible, pigmented image rather than an extremely shallow sculpture.
Er, you need to re-read the article. The maker of the presented image - the designer of the image-capture of the event, the agent creating the required environment and the person responsible for processing it - was the artist (Ms Varga) who presented it for judging. If someone takes your photo, are you saying you are the one who created your own image? Are you the real photographer?
She saw her grandmother doing something and set up an arrangement to take an image of a similar event - from the paper's perspective (so to speak).
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Next year I'm getting granny to doodle on the sensor of my 240 ... the gaulnlet has been thrown down!
michaelwj
----------------
There is no mention of if the film was developed, and by the look of it I'm not sure it was. If the scratches were applied, then the film exposed, developed, and printed, then it is a photogram. Is a photogram a photograph? The entry requirements state it must be photographic...
I think we need more information about how the image was created, I don't see that much in the article.
Isn't a pinhole camera just a small scale camera obscura?
Again I don't see those sort of details in the article. A photograph has a set definition, but what constitutes a portrait is open for interpretation, and is increasingly becoming abstract.
Re-read. I initially read it as she had been doing the original scratches on the film, but now I see the artist had directed her after seeing the initial scratches. I don't think that "If someone takes your photo, are you saying you are the one who created your own image?" is the same as taking someone else's scribbles and calling them art.
So, I'm fine with it being a (highly abstract) portrait. To me the blurriness is whether it is a photograph or not. But in a way the competition has classified it as such...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Actually, even at the provided portrait size, which is obviously too small not even to judge, but actually see it, I could clearly see the face. I think most of you are going to find it in the upper right corner.
The winner case in this case is in using film as photographic media, yet, using it as the canvas.
The complain from former Herald and current camera club guy is the case of vision limited by the photography downsized to the level of trade.
While those of us who see photography as the form of art are familiar with portraits like this:
Courtesy of www.PabloPicasso.org
The portrait as true form of art is something which gives impression, but not always simplified and direct image.
It is in Russian, but easy to get the picture what guys are recognizing person on the portrait:
https://youtu.be/VSyiJ1xb9Pw?t=3m11s
The winner case in this case is in using film as photographic media, yet, using it as the canvas.
The complain from former Herald and current camera club guy is the case of vision limited by the photography downsized to the level of trade.
While those of us who see photography as the form of art are familiar with portraits like this:
Courtesy of www.PabloPicasso.org
The portrait as true form of art is something which gives impression, but not always simplified and direct image.
It is in Russian, but easy to get the picture what guys are recognizing person on the portrait:
https://youtu.be/VSyiJ1xb9Pw?t=3m11s
someonenameddavid
Well-known
It's a piece of crap is what it is....
So it must be art.
Checked all the boxes, matrilineal matriarchal feminist feelings driven, no skill involved.
The competition should be boycotted...
Next thing male artists will have to dress like women to get noticed.
David
So it must be art.
Checked all the boxes, matrilineal matriarchal feminist feelings driven, no skill involved.
The competition should be boycotted...
Next thing male artists will have to dress like women to get noticed.
David
Scrambler
Well-known
I think you are a little off-target here.
Is there a problem with women taking images representing other women? Should awards only go to men taking pictures of men, doing manly things?
No skill involved? The debate so far has been the title for the skill involved - what is the name for what the artist did? Because if you look at the image, quite a bit of skill was required to have anything at all.
But particularly (given the location) it is highly likely that men who dress like women, and women who dress like men, and all shades of gender and dress sense in between are represented among the applicants.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I think, all you need is love. And Peace.
This is 1969 video about Canada and your issue, David.
https://youtu.be/QgaRd4d8hOY
seajak
Well-known
LOL As a fairly recent immigrant to the area I can attest to that, but I'm not prepared to acknowledge which category I fit into .cheers,
clay
Arbitrarium
Well-known
This can be debated forever as to whether it's a portrait or not and whether it's a photograph or not because the boundaries for artistic terms are never absolute.
Portraits can be infinitely abstract. However, I feel perfectly comfortable saying that this isn't a photograph.
Portraits can be infinitely abstract. However, I feel perfectly comfortable saying that this isn't a photograph.
seajak
Well-known
The debate still rages on . The discussion now centres on who owns the copyright for the 'photo', the artist or the grandmother.
cheers,
clay
. The discussion now centres on who owns the copyright for the 'photo', the artist or the grandmother.cheers,
clay
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Granny spit on it... so it must be art.
My grandfatherly opinion is its controversial garbage.
My grandfatherly opinion is its controversial garbage.