Editors are in charge of setting the standards for their publication. Artists are not.

Artists are responsible for acting ethically to properly represent and label their work.

As Guy noted in his reply. All the examples pointed to in Rob’s article are of photographers who were forthcoming in properly labeling their work for what it was. I fail to see how that is the fault of the photographer.

In regard to proper etiquette I do believe that labeling and identifying the type of work produced is important and in some genres of photography ethically required.

In regard to creativity why confine yourself to existing norms? If you want to create art why limit yourself because magazines or contests won’t publish/accept it? Was everyone eager to publish a Pollack or Picasso as soon as it dried? Not likely. Most artists defy convention and are later recognized for their out of the box thinking. I stand by my concluding statement. Create what you want and when you want. Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t do something. If they won’t publish it that’s their decision, but don’t misinterpret my statement that artists have free license to ignore submission guidelines. My point is that submission guidelines like most norms in the visual arts arena are constantly in flux and quite subjective. If you’re constantly operating in these boundaries you’re missing out on a large & important piece of the creative landscape.

“PHOTOGRAPHER ED FREEMAN is working on a book about surfing” .. to me, that is editorial, to some degree. I guess I feel photography is probably ALWAYS editorial to some degree.

I’ve never questioned the choice of tools. I use, albeit poorly, photoshop like everyone else, even have a digital camera. What one does with those tools is up to the artist. How they present that work is, I believe, important.

I’ll raise you one on the quote:

“A witty saying proves nothing” -Voltaire.

Cheers

Carl

Artists are responsible for their art. Their choice of tools, in my mind, has no bearing on the value or validity of their work. The “amount” of realism used or implied is entirely up to the artist. Photographers, painters, creative writers, etc. should all have the exact same uninhibited range of motion in expressing their vision, thoughts, and inspiration.

“Art raises its head where creeds relax.” –Albert Camus

Guy

I think there’s more to the subject than Rob’s article, and the follow up conversations have included -simply because of time and space, of course. Context, of course, is everything, and Rob’s article seemed to me to be reasonably clearly discussing editorial usage – and I can’t understand how anyone might feel some journalistic quality is not inherent (or at least is implicit) in that context.

I can’t agree at all with the closing sentiment >em>“Let editors worry about standards and leave photographers to not just seeing, but creating art” – do you honestly think it’s that simple? Absolve photographers of any responsibility and leave it up to the editors? I think this is a part of the whole problem – as the creators of art, we have not just a reason, but indeed a duty, to be somewhat responsible in its presentation. Would you re-submit to an editor who butchered your work in the printing of it? Of course not! Would you feel somewhat cheated? Of course. I’d submit that we have the same responsibility to viewers of our work as we might feel towards ourselves and the art itself.

Cheers

Carl

Thanks for the book recommendation Roberta!

I’d suggest anyone who has issues with digital photography, and especially any manipulation or processing that occurs in the digital darkroom to study the history of photography. Start by reading The Linked Ring by Margaret F. Harker. You’ll soon realize the issues and arguments (and the way images are manipulated today) are the same as what occurred in the late 1800′s early 1900′s.

Great post.