Digital BW, The Print

> I didn't mean to suggest that a photojournalist couldn't be an 
artist.
> Rather the function of photojournalism puts an additional 
constraint on
> their output...requiring image fidelity...a requirement that 
doesn't seem to
> be a necessary constraint for other art forms...which seem to be 
to be about
> the artist's message and their ability to communicate that message.
>   
> 
> Robert

If I may add my two-cents worth: IMO not only is 'camera image 
fidelity' not relevant if you are offering your work as art, one 
could argue that it is actualy detrimental in terms of our 
acceptance among other artists, dealers, and the public. I once had 
an interesting exchange with a painter who opened my eyes to this 
attitude. I asked if she thought it appropriate that photography was 
still struggling for recognition and value as an art form; her 
answer was, in short, yes; because for the most part photographers 
don't 'create' their images, they walk around until they find 
something interesting, and then record it. So to the extent that we 
insist on 'camera image fidelity' we are doing ourselves a 
disservice-the faster we can achieve a disconnect between reality 
and our finished art, the better of we are. The more imagination and 
creativity we excercise along the way, the better of we are. From 
that point of view digital imaging is the best thing that could have 
happened to us. Perhaps soon the viewers will stop asking things 
like 'Where was that' and 'Is that for real?' and simply consider an 
image on its own merits.  

 Of course, accepting this viewpoint depends to a great extent on 
having the sheer gall to call yourself an artist. I've noticed that 
most photographers are quite uncomfortable with that, they seem to 
feel it's pretentious and egotistical. But that's a whole 'nother 
discussion, yes?

Steve Karafyllakis