I think you're right in saying that it's all about semantics. And I suspect that "collage" connotes something a bit different over there than it does over here. There you Brits go again, corrupting OUR language <vbg>. Paul
> On 17/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: > > >I can't remember the last time i've seen advertising photography that > >didn't include some compositing of elements. No one calls that a collage. > >It's a photograph. "Collage" suggests numerous elements arranged in an > >artful fashion. A combination of two photos and some retouching to yield > >a final image doesnt' qualify as a collage.Paul > > 1. The boundary appears hazy to say the least. If I saw an advert on a > printed page with obvious signs that separate elements were brought > together onto one canvas, so to speak (for example a shot of a car on the > moon), I would say: "have you seen this photographic collage, love, it's > quite good". > > 2. Other less obvious images, where it isn't readily easy to spot > separate elements brought together, and perhaps leaves the viewer > wondering if it really happened or if it was 'faked' (say, a car going > over Niagara Falls), I would say: "look at this picture, love, it's quite > good". > > 3 Still other images, say a photo of a cat with it's handler cloned out, > I would say: "hey, nice pussy, love. And the photo" :-) > > My point is that, to me, it's about semantics. If I hadn't been to art > college all those years ago, I probably wouldn't call scenario 1 (above) > a collage. > > In scenario 2, if I was trying to decide if the picture really happened > or not, I would say: " I can't decide whether it's an actual photograph, > or a collage". > > In scenario 3, I'd give my own pussies a stroke ;-) > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com > _____________________________ > >
