The problem with your theory is that you are lumping a photograph into created art like sculpting, painting, sketching, or even musical composition. There are no rules to art created from imagination, but a snapshot of the real world is only as impressive as it’s ability to stand up to scrutiny that it was not doctored. When someone submits a photograph they are automatically claiming that what it shows actually happened. This is why a photograph of a UFO or the Loch Ness Monster is only worth looking at if it can pass the test. And in today’s day and age, it is very easy to alter images with a program like photoshop. I can take a generic picture of a sunset and edit it to have a sky with incredible vibrant colors and an amazing in focus flying saucer hovering above the setting sun in less than 15 minutes. Now if a photo was taken that showed all that without being edited, it would be a lock for the pulitzer prize. Whereas a picture that was created in the way that I described is worthy of nothing but a quick laugh on some hoax website. The entire field of photography is dependent on the credibility and authenticity of it’s photographs. If they are not held to this standard, then they lose all power whatsoever. The reason photos inspire awe, is because we look at them as if seen through our own eyes. Their authenticity is EVERYTHING. They would never even be considered a form of art if they were allowed to be a mundane moment frozen in time, then later made to look like an amazingly unique one after computer manipulation. There is nothing impressive about doing what an average 15 year old with some basic editing software can do on his apple computer in his bedroom.
love bracelet replica replica http://www.golden-bracelet.com/we-even-have-cartier-love-bracelet-on-your-boyfriends.html
|