Quote:
|
I would imagine Andy Warhol (like his work or not) would take some exception to being called a cheat when he manipulated the photo of Marilyn Munro to create a pop art classic.
|
This is an interesting and appropriate example of manipulation. There is no doubt that Warhol created a compelling piece of art by manipulating a photograph, but I would not call it photography. And I imagine if you presented that piece to 10 people, not 2 would call it a photograph. It's something else, graphic art, pop art, but not photography.
Trying to say just how much manipulation is allowed before a photograph becomes graphic art (or any other name you want to use) or some other form is impossible and pointless to identify. And becoming graphic art doesn't make it part a lesser art form. My point is that just because a piece of art starts out as a photograph, doesn't mean it will always be a photograph. I'm guessing Warhol wasn't playing with colors just to salvage a mediocre portrait of Marilyn Monroe. He was conciously moving away from photography because he wanted the piece to convey different feelings than what was available from a photograph.
P.S. This is a great discussion so please keep it going.