Is this photography or is it art?

[theantiquetiger]

This is a link to an image I saw in another forum in the critique section. It is a great piece, but is it photography or another art form with photography as one of the mediums?

http://flic.kr/p/jmb4KV

[Anuj]

i saw many of the photos. its a medium imo,a projections of imagination? of course mastering that medium is paramount!

[Marko]

Everything u make for creative expression is art. Now is it photography?
For me, if the work is impossible to produce without the use of the computer then it's digital art or mixed media. (My answer tomorrow may change though)

[theantiquetiger]

Everything u make for creative expression is art. Now is it photography?

I wasn't implying photography isn't art, just does it fall out of the art of photography and into another form of art?

Here is the original image (self portrait) Self-Portrait | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerryleecolbert/12023098526/)

I see it as another art form by using this image as one of the mediums, plus the medium of graphic art.

The artistic image (in the OP) reminds me of some artist, I cannot put a finger on it, maybe Dali.

[Marko]

I guess I wasn't clear - yes, of course I believe that photography is Art, as is finger painting, sculpture, performance art etc.

In my opinion, the self portrait link from your last post is photography and art.
The first image in this thread is no longer photography, because a computer did so much of the 'heavy lifting' - therefore for me it is digital media or mixed media which is of course art.

[amitchhabra]

Photography an art…. YES….
It speaks stronger then words… photography expresses itself, speaks emotion. Defiantly skills are required to create a moment. People generally think whatever is in front of them they just do clicking.. but thts not true, And as a photographer I know the time, the moment, the thought process, the emotions – that a photographer is thinking to produce and others to interpret his unspoken language.

[Mad Aussie]

Legally Photography is usually considered art. What we see in your link AT, for me, is exactly as Marko says, mixed media or digital art.

However, in my mind, photography is not art. I know many here would disagree with me, but for me, photography is not something that can be categorised with other forms of expression. For me, photography stands alone however connected it may be to forms of art or expression.

[steve231]

It looks the art work on photography. It may be photography with black and white portrait and art effects on it.

[christopher steven b.]

As pointed out above, art and photography aren't mutually exclusive--a particular piece can satisfy both concepts, I think.

I have a fairly broad conception of art and then have my own ideas obviously about what constitutes good or bad art. I'm stuck with a complex set of criteria that allows for the possibility of 'art' as being in part about the process itself and not only the object that falls out of that process. In this case you can imagine the process of making the piece as linked to in the OP as being 'good', as being helpful for the creator to express something about himself. For him it was probably an expressive act. But at the same time I don't really think the finished piece itself is very interesting--at least in isolation. I fully grasp how it was constructed and it's hard for me to look at it and not see a photoshop window with a texture layer set to overlay etc. This is something all of us can do all day--slap gritty textures onto other images--and I just don't find it to be that compelling.

I wonder if there were contemporaries of Ansel Adams who thought that the title of 'real photography' was reserved for works that didn't require dodging and burning, crops--all work done after taking the photograph.

I'd describe the piece linked to in the OP as an image, not a photograph. That said, a double exposure done well could have produced a very similar effect.