Photograph? or Photographic Art?

Photography is a discipline that can be undertaken as an art or as a more scientific record, so just as all art is not all photography not all photography is art.

I took both the photos above on the same day while walking along the Thames Path, and the difference between the photograph as a record on the left and the photograph as art image on the right is clear.

Nobody would argue with anyone taking photographs like the right one above calling themselves a photographer, after all it is an unedited photograph. Similarly photographs that have been touched up or slightly modified in programs like photoshop are still fundamentally photographs and so most would agree the producer is a photographer. But where does it end? 

 

The image above is of the Albert Bridge in London. On the left is the original, on the right is the significantly modified derivative. Is the modified version a photograph? I think so, just, given that it is essentially just changing the colours around. I consider myself to be the photographer for both, as I took the original and did the modifications it matters little in practical terms.

The next example is of Stonebridge Park tube station. The left half is a photograph and so I'm a photographer for taking it, clearly. But what about the right half? This is digitally traced from the photograph, but there are no photographic elements left in it, so I'd say it's not a photograph and I regard myself as the artist of it, rather than the photographer. 

 

The top row images of Ickenham are by "cso" and "bowroaduk"
both are used with permission.

Finally we come to a composite of four images, which have then been repeated to produce the final image. Two of the component photographs are of Ickenham tube station, one is Imperial Wharf railway station and the final one is of Island Gardens DLR station (the only Transport for London stations starting with the letter I). The final image is certainly artistic – but is it a photograph and am I a photographer for producing it? I think it is <i>photographic</i> but not a <i>photograph</i>, despite being composed solely of photographic elements*. I do not regard myself as a photographer for having created it though, and I would not think it honest of anyone else to do so either. Particularly if none of the original photographs were taken by them, they're an artist working with photographs rather than a photographer in my opinion.

*Other than the station names being blanked digitally – it was originally created for a quiz where people had to identify the stations, so leaving them in would be a bit of a giveaway!

References:

Costello, Diarmuid and Iverson, Margaret, "Photography After Conceptual Art", 2010

Gerlach, John and Gerlach, Barbara, "Digital nature photography: The art and science", 2007