The power of photography to illuminate details in the mundane and to completely transform the nature of its subject was shown throughout the MoMA. Minute pieces of dust and cotton became voluminous clouds, and the silhouettes of local statues in a Parisian courtyard were starkly contrasted against a hazy white sky. A series of statues that were photographed during different seasons looked completely different, demonstrating the artists ability to alter our perception. Statues photographed in the early morning, as the sunlight began to break through the clouds, looked as though they were stooped in reverence to a higher being. Each picture captured a moment exclusive to the photographer, that they chose to share with the rest of the world. A woman used photography to document the changes in her body over the course of several days, which couldn’t have been accomplished so easily otherwise. Photography is definitely considered an artform, and we may even see phone art in the future. I myself doodle on mine using certain applications, and I don’t see a reason why it can’t be considered original art.
Photography is a means to convey an emotion or theme or idea that will be preserved for posterity. It can also be used to save a certain moment from a performance piece, which otherwise would have been lost except to those that were there to witness it firsthand. I don’t think digital photo manipulation should be considered art, because I don’t really know the boundary where the original photo can still be called original.
So is the use of a computer distract from originality? Does it matter what technique you might use to produce an art work?