Olive Cotton Award: $20k Photographic Portrait prize awarded to an image that isn't a photograph

[weepete]

But the film used for the image is not a photograph either.
Look at the following definition of Photography (pulled off the net via Google) 'Photography is the science, art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film.'
Other definitions would be broadly similar, but may be more restrictive.

The film here does not show a recorded image of light it's fully darkened, leaving no image from the exposure.
The definition quoted does not mention a camera, and so can easily be stretched to cover images like photograms or sun prints, which are IMO photographs. In this case the image was not recorded electromagnetic radiation, just material subsequently applied to the film.
While things often have grey areas there are also core parts that are required. Drawing on a car does stop it being a car, but here there was no image before the drawing so it wasn't a photograph before or after the drawing.

I didn't say the film was a photograph, in my opinion but I'd stretch the definition to anything made on film and then developed a photograph. If a shot made with the lens cap on and then is developed, most people would still consider that as a photograph. Therefore actually using light to produce an image is not a pre-requisite. The film is a just that, until a print is made.

 

[weepete]

Right, but the car was a car to begin with. The artist did not start with a photograph, just a piece of film with no photograph imprinted on it as a canvas for a drawing. At the end of the day it's still a drawing, not a photograph, and it took no photographic skill whatsoever to create. In the context of a photography contest, photographic technique should matter quite a bit and there was none used.

But most film starts with nothing on it unless you are double exposing.

I've seen some work with an image made by light and coloured with paint. In that instance I'd agree because the paint was applied to a print, but this one is the opposite.

Development is also a photographic technique and requires skill.

 

[weepete]

I wonder about some people having had such negative experiences with art - at least it seems like it. I always loved to draw and paint, etc. and took art all through school as electives. But nobody has to go to art exhibits or museums or do anything with art if they aren't into it. So if someone doesn't like this one or agree with the choice or whatever, then you don't have to like it or support it; it's their museum and exhibition and up to them I think. Although I can understand people not agreeing with this choice; it is a stretch.

There was a time in my life where I'd have been with most people in this thread. Interestingly enough it was when I was most active drawing and painting (not that I was actually any good) but my favorites were always the Dutch movement. It's not till I've gotten older and a bit more mellow that I've been able to appreciate conceptual art a bit more.

I do get it, most of the time though we are so consumed by reproducing a realistic image of what we see and striving to get that fantastic shot that I guess the push in one way in my head has created an equal and opposite reation in the part of my brain for tolerance of art! lol

 

[limr]

But the film used for the image is not a photograph either.
Look at the following definition of Photography (pulled off the net via Google) 'Photography is the science, art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film.'
Other definitions would be broadly similar, but may be more restrictive.

The film here does not show a recorded image of light it's fully darkened, leaving no image from the exposure.
The definition quoted does not mention a camera, and so can easily be stretched to cover images like photograms or sun prints, which are IMO photographs. In this case the image was not recorded electromagnetic radiation, just material subsequently applied to the film.
While things often have grey areas there are also core parts that are required. Drawing on a car does stop it being a car, but here there was no image before the drawing so it wasn't a photograph before or after the drawing.

I didn't say the film was a photograph, in my opinion but I'd stretch the definition to anything made on film and then developed a photograph. If a shot made with the lens cap on and then is developed, most people would still consider that as a photograph. Therefore actually using light to produce an image is not a pre-requisite. The film is a just that, until a print is made.

The shutter released with the lens on is called a **** up and is considered a waste of film.

Edit: Apparently I neglected to type the word 'cap' in the above message.

 

[weepete]

But the film used for the image is not a photograph either.
Look at the following definition of Photography (pulled off the net via Google) 'Photography is the science, art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film.'
Other definitions would be broadly similar, but may be more restrictive.

The film here does not show a recorded image of light it's fully darkened, leaving no image from the exposure.
The definition quoted does not mention a camera, and so can easily be stretched to cover images like photograms or sun prints, which are IMO photographs. In this case the image was not recorded electromagnetic radiation, just material subsequently applied to the film.
While things often have grey areas there are also core parts that are required. Drawing on a car does stop it being a car, but here there was no image before the drawing so it wasn't a photograph before or after the drawing.

I didn't say the film was a photograph, in my opinion but I'd stretch the definition to anything made on film and then developed a photograph. If a shot made with the lens cap on and then is developed, most people would still consider that as a photograph. Therefore actually using light to produce an image is not a pre-requisite. The film is a just that, until a print is made.

The shutter released with the lens on is called a **** up and is considered a waste of film.

Edit: Apparently I neglected to type the word 'cap' in the above message.

True, but is it not still a photograph?

 

[weepete]

But the film used for the image is not a photograph either.
Look at the following definition of Photography (pulled off the net via Google) 'Photography is the science, art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film.'
Other definitions would be broadly similar, but may be more restrictive.

The film here does not show a recorded image of light it's fully darkened, leaving no image from the exposure.
The definition quoted does not mention a camera, and so can easily be stretched to cover images like photograms or sun prints, which are IMO photographs. In this case the image was not recorded electromagnetic radiation, just material subsequently applied to the film.
While things often have grey areas there are also core parts that are required. Drawing on a car does stop it being a car, but here there was no image before the drawing so it wasn't a photograph before or after the drawing.

I didn't say the film was a photograph, in my opinion but I'd stretch the definition to anything made on film and then developed a photograph. If a shot made with the lens cap on and then is developed, most people would still consider that as a photograph. Therefore actually using light to produce an image is not a pre-requisite. The film is a just that, until a print is made.

The shutter released with the lens on is called a **** up and is considered a waste of film.

Good thing I am shooting digital then and am only wasting pixels because I always have a lens on when I release the shutter.

Yup, I have neglected digital a bit but have said that that while development of film is a defining feature it is not the single one.

 

[limr]

But the film used for the image is not a photograph either.
Look at the following definition of Photography (pulled off the net via Google) 'Photography is the science, art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film.'
Other definitions would be broadly similar, but may be more restrictive.

The film here does not show a recorded image of light it's fully darkened, leaving no image from the exposure.
The definition quoted does not mention a camera, and so can easily be stretched to cover images like photograms or sun prints, which are IMO photographs. In this case the image was not recorded electromagnetic radiation, just material subsequently applied to the film.
While things often have grey areas there are also core parts that are required. Drawing on a car does stop it being a car, but here there was no image before the drawing so it wasn't a photograph before or after the drawing.

I didn't say the film was a photograph, in my opinion but I'd stretch the definition to anything made on film and then developed a photograph. If a shot made with the lens cap on and then is developed, most people would still consider that as a photograph. Therefore actually using light to produce an image is not a pre-requisite. The film is a just that, until a print is made.

The shutter released with the lens on is called a **** up and is considered a waste of film.

Edit: Apparently I neglected to type the word 'cap' in the above message.

True, but is it not still a photograph?

No. There is no image.

 

[weepete]

I think you missed what I was posting as you missed what was typed in the post I quoted. Read the words that are there not the ones your mind wants to tell you are there.

Sorry buddy! Spanish measures! I'll have anther look tomorrow

 

[petrochemist]

I didn't say the film was a photograph, in my opinion but I'd stretch the definition to anything made on film and then developed a photograph. If a shot made with the lens cap on and then is developed, most people would still consider that as a photograph. Therefore actually using light to produce an image is not a pre-requisite. The film is a just that, until a print is made.

I think most people would happily call it an attempt at photography, at least if they realize what it is. Most people probably wouldn't recognize it.

 

[limr]

An interesting discussion of the copyright issue.

'A very real concern': Should Justine Varga give her $20,000 art prize to her grandmother?