It seems there is a long-standing debate around photographing other people’s work. It’s a simple debate: what exactly is the photographer creating if the photograph includes an object or structure that has been created by someone else?
This debate arises mostly in relation to works that exist in public spaces. The originating works may already be labelled “works of art” or may be labelled “architecture”, “edifice”, “structures”, “building”, “hardscape”, “figure”, “carving”, “casting” or any of many names that don’t necessarily assign an aesthetic value.
And yet all of it was imagined by someone, designed by someone, built by someone and placed on display. Even if the work has another function, such as a building, there was a creative effort expended to provide that space. If a photographer takes an image of it, presents it as their own creation and maybe makes a profit from it, is that right? Disclaimer: this is not a legal review. Continue reading “Photographing the Work of Others”
And then what do we do? We turn everything off and shoot completely manually, because “that’s what pros do”. Think about that for a minute. Does that make sense to you? Give your head a shake.
In 1935, Eastman Kodak Company introduced Kodachrome and changed the world forever. Despite this, colour photography did not become widespread, at least not in the consumer market, until the 1960’s. So colour image capture has really been in broad use for just 50 years.
This leaves me wondering. If photography must be art to be successful, is there a point where a photograph is no longer a photograph? And where is that line? The answer isn’t obvious. Here’s why…
But there is one thing I continue to struggle with overall – it’s simply 
oldgirlphotography.ca 