March 31, 2006

Digital Roots

Graphic Design has been an important part of my education of PhotoShop and given me more freedom in helping my work flourish in style and color. When I worked in Television Production, I was an assistant editor, this position required an extensive use of a number of Adobe products including Adobe PhotoShop and Illustrator. My Job included creating logos that exactly matched the logo used by that particular company, matching exact type, even recreating posters used in advertisments for various productions. Besides that, I also helped create type, moving type, and anything that consisted of overlaying object onto video. After the first company I worked for went Bankrupt, I decided to design on a freelance basis. The following works are some of the things that I helped create.Using mainly PhotoShop and Illustrator, I went of creating Flyers, logos, and other graphic heavy materials. Uneducated in graphic design, I thought I did a pretty good job for some of the companies I worked for.

Again, with my Photographs, I use PhotoShop sparingly. I do not alter the orginality of the photograph, move objects, or create objects that do not exist. If I do, I catagorize the work as graphical, not as a photograph. With the intergration of Film into Digital medium, it is so much easier to take out objects that do not fit into the frame. To me, the Photograph itself has taken form once the shutter has been released and the image is now burned to film or to memory. I strongly believe that the photograph is concieved at the place of conception, Once the picture is taken, 85% of the work is already done.

Now, Here is some of the work I created during my year as a freelance designer:

March 23, 2006

Photography Vs Art

Recently I had a debate with a painter friend of mine about what is constituted as art and where photography stands in the art world. “Photography isn’t art” he stated. “Everyone can do it and it is not difficult to do, you pick up a camera and shoot. Especially with digital photography, there is just plain nothing to it.” I came back with it depends on how the photograph is prepared, the intention of the photographer, and how the work is displayed.

He then asked if I thought images from a newspaper or if I believed that wedding portraits are something that should be put up against a painting, a sculpture, or even a drawing. Again I stated that it all depends on the photographer and what the intentions are. Is the photographer is planning to show the work to the public, how much emotion is invoked into the intended audience, or what stories can be told from the particular image.

I agreed that consumer photography should not be considered an art form because most people take the picture and store them away forever. Even commercial photography should not be considered because it separates the photographer from the image; meaning that someone tells the photographer what they want, giving the photographer very little freedom or control. I then told him, the same goes with a painting….if an art director says to a painter I want this and I want you to change this and get rid of that; now, the element of self is taken out of the painting and you now have a mechanical element rather than an artistic element.

To me, art is the expression of ones self and how it is portrayed by the artist. When you bring in any other input to your work… is no longer yours, and thus is no longer art. I guess that is why I never got into journalism…. When somebody tells you what to shoot, the only element the photographer brings to the table is the element of composition and the ability to be able to control the camera.

I again, believe the same for any so called art styles such as sculpting, painting, and drawing. When your art director tells a painter to paint anything, you now have lost a large portion of what is considered to be the freedom of expression.

What do you consider art?