No Apologies Necessary

I just came across the article "Art Does not Apologize" in Wired (from Jockohomo's blog) detailing the author's opinions on the merits of digital photography and art. Basically he states that unless it's shot on 35mm and developed by hand, or painted onto canvas, it's not art. What a load of bullshit.

I don't get offended very easily, but I took great offence at this article. I've been warned about this type of prejudice by gallery owners in Toronto, and have experienced it first hand. It always leaves me with one question, since when did art become solely about the medium?? Does it matter that much? That's the kind of self righteous bullshit that I've run into far too often. I think it's hypocritical for someone to deem something not to be art because it doesn't confine to their set of rules. In fact, isn't that what art is about? Pushing boundaries, changing views, taking things completely out of context? To me, art should invoke a feeling, good or bad. Sometimes you're not really sure what the feeling is, but you love it. Or you absolutely hate it. Either way it's got your attention.

According to this man, if I take my Canon Digital Rebel XT, choose the lens I want, set up a shot, set the aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc, take a picture, import it into my computer, adjust the colour/brightness/contrast, crop it and print it at home on a professional printer, it's crap. However, if I were to take a 35mm Rebel, adjust how I want it, take the exact same picture, develop the film and print it in a darkroom, then it's a wonderful piece of art. I don't get it.

He also mentions time as a deciding factor. Well, let me tell you that getting the perfect print takes time no matter what you're doing. I've wasted many hours, ink, and sheets of paper getting what I want out of a photograph. Also, I don't just "photograph" something. I manipulate it to what I want it to be. I'll literally spend hours "painting" a picture, sometimes pixel by pixel to achieve the end result. It can take days, weeks, even months for it to be finished. Apparently that counts for nothing.

Now I don't consider myself to be a true photographer. I lack the in depth background knowledge that I believe one should have to label themselves as such, but I think that's true for any profession. I have a good eye though, and when I find the time to take a few courses and get some more experience under my belt, then I'll feel comfortable saying that. In the meantime I do consider myself to be an artist, a digital artist if you want to be exact. I express myself through a medium that I understand, am comfortable with, and that finds me voice for what I want to say.

And I don't apologize for that either.