data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/46f71/46f712a6e3af8dd921b9e9f6f0baae0d3a342ed1" alt=""
It is a question I ask myself as I see more and more photographs being accepted in jury shows. Personally, I have no problem with a well-composed and beautifully rendered photograph. (Think Ansel Adams or Imogen Cunningham.) The question comes up for me in this digital age with the digitally-modified/manipulated photographs.
Is it art or are we just inured to the concept because of all the special effects in movies?
The reason I ask is because with the digital imaging programs such as PhotoShop and PaintShop, anyone can make amazing and interesting changes to an image. Is that art or just skillful manipulation of a software program? Is the adult/child/ape who manipulates the image is some interesting way deserve to be called an "artist?"
I suppose one could liken the software programs to a paint tube, brushes, and myriad other art-making tools. It's just that I wonder. Do digitally manipulated
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/76093/7609334b946a43ee9d0e9d82fe05dfb48994a933" alt=""
As for me, I am having a little trouble with it. I have one of those software programs and I love all the ways that it allows me to modify an image for a website or some other graphic. Personally, I don't consider that to be making art.
Do you think I'm just behind the times? Is this the new direction art is taking? What is your opinion?