Would love to know more about how the image was actually worked; like how were the images captured to ensure a seamless stitch on the software?

If you say “this is just a bunch of photos stitched together. Anyone can do that!” is a way of seeing the trees instead of the forest. At the most basic level, a Van Goh or a Rembrandt is nothing more than “a bunch of brush strokes overlaid on one another. Anyone can do that!”

Art is end result, the composition of those mechanical bits in to something new. “Starry Night” may be nothing more than a lot of paint laid on canvas, but the composition created by those strokes is what we’re judging, no the brushstrokes themselves. Dimissing a photo-mosaic because it’s bunch of photos stitched together is silly. Of course it’s a bunch of photos stitched together. That’s what makes it a photomosaic. Should we dismiss “Starry Night” because, from a certain viewpoint, it looks like something a five year old could have drawn with crayons?

Just because “We’re all gonna die…” is stitched together in a way to suggest that you’re looking at a single instant time, that doesn’t somehow disqualify it from consideration as art. Would be more “artsy” if the photos were literally a mosaic with frames around each photo? It would be different, but I’d argue about it somehow being more “valid” as art.

The “art” comes from the decisions about which of the 3000 shots to use and how to arrange them to present the artist’s vision. Not from the simple fact of a camera taking photographs for a few weeks. Now, criticizing it as ineffective is certainly valid. I’d agree with the poster who said “It doesn’t tell a story, it tells 178 stories…”. It’s not about weaving a theme between all of these people. It’s a slice of life, albeit an artificially enhanced one.

Is “We’re all gonna die…” art? I find it intriguing and through provoking. That’s as reasonable a definition of “art” as any I can think of.

IANAL, but even though in Germany the concept of “right to one’s own picture” exists and seems to restrict publishing of photographs (in the sense of making them available to somebody else) more than the rules in other countries, there also exist provisions in the context of art to allow publication. It basically boils down to a per case consideration if somebody is really put off – that is what a court of law is for, right? ;-) – but an artist may sometimes have more freedom than, say, a reporter (without regarding the obvious “public interest” they can invoke, etc.)
As to the question of the role of the publication on the website, I must admit that I have no good understanding how the laws are applicable but common sense would hint that it could most likely depend on the nationality of the owner and the server location, plus the demographics of the denizens (to assess the gravity of the insection to personal rights, etc.)…

Looking forward to seeing more enlightening
comments on this matter :-)
Georg

P.S: For a good read (in German) see also:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/b32zwz

P.P.S: Of course playing it safe with model releases would be preferable, but then again, with 3000 pictures taken to exhibit 178 of them…

Some great shots, luv the man with the baby in the sling. The eye patch couple is something else too…

If he’s not selling it, and not making defamatory remarks – I’d suggest he’d be just fine to exhibit the work.

(Laws may vary from country to country)

Great rant Digital Photography Tips – I believe that art is in the eye of the beholder and that different people view the same piece of art differently – but some things out there are a real load of s-crap (pickled cows anyone?) even though they are being hailed as masterpieces.

The image is great – I looked some of the people and it made me think why they were doing what they were doing at that moment of time (the guy in a hurry, the 2 girls sharing a laugh, the eye patch man & woman – same eye !!! what are the chances !!! )

Question – can the photographer use this as a public exhibit ? Doesnt he need to get the permission of those photographed ? I am sure there is some legal impediment in doing it as a public exhibit – even though one may argue the website itself is a public exhibit !

And as for saying that stitching images together isn’t art because its easy, well that’s ridiculous. You could say the same about pressing a shutter button…