CAROL WROTE: How long is a piece of string? It is absurd to pose the question "How Far....?", in the context of Art. I think that "Digital Art" has been assumed to be an extension of the photographic process - freedom from the darkroom - into the light - whereas Techno Art has been around, a long time ,since back in the 1950s. Of course, new advances have been made since then to expand the range of palettes for artists. I am perhaps being abit facetious here - because I know that we are talking about Digtal Art in the aforementioned context, of Photography, but there is also the need to distinguish between the photographer, who believes heshe is a purist in that medium, using only darkroom techniques, who abhors computer manipulation of any sort, or a photographer, having the compulsion to express something deeper within the self, using manipulation to achieve this aim. For me, using a computer is advantageous, not only because it means working in the light, but it enables the important element of communication, through the internet and web. Darkroom habitation is, to my mind, one of the loneliest occupations. Out of sight, out of mind! I agree with you Tim, that it is pointless to manipulate a picture solely to say "I can manipulate pictures very well!" but when it comes to making an image, having the need to make a true expression, it is valid for the artist to use anymanydiversespontaneousmethods. It must also be equally valid for a photographer to "draw a line" as far as manipulation goes, have their reserves and limits. It is a free choice. It will stem from our personalities. Coming to Digital Art from a Fine Art background, it is probably easier to exploit the techno media and call it "ART" than it is for the Photographer, being equally, an artist, who may be shunned by fellow photographers who are purists. I had an e mail yesterday from an internet friend, who lives in Tennessee. Interesting. - quote - "It seems to me that digital art is more "readily" accepted where you are than here in the US. From what I hear from some other folks working digitally is that they cannot get digital work accepted in some shows, and competitions. And, it seems there are some really nice digital publications coming from overseas. Sometimes I worry about his a bit because I'm not doing as much "direct" painting now as I did before. But, I really enjoy working this way.....and that's what counts.!" Absolutely right! Any process which is both creative and enjoyable - what more could we wish for! I am not sure that Digital Art is more acceptable here in the U.K.? Will have to explore that one! I don't think we can differentiate between varying levels of manipulation. If you want to manipulate a photograph beyond recognition, add toothpaste and shoe polish to it - then do it. Who is to say it's not valid? OK, I draw the line at using my own blood on a picture!

Tim:

I don't think "How long is a piece of string?" is an absurd question at all. Neither is the question of "How far is too far?" in the context of Art, or any other subject for that matter. That the question of how far is relative to the artist's personal choice is one side of the equation. Artists quite regularly make choices that exceed the boundaries of what a majority of the people who see their stuff define as 'too far.' Those artists are destined to change their choices, have a second job, or starve to death. Being someone who is averse to starving to death, and who wants to eventually support himself artistically, I choose to find a relatively acceptable boundary for my art, so that the people whose support I will eventually need will indeed support my efforts. Sure, in an ideal world there wouldn't be any boundaries or limits to what could be done as a valid personal expression. But this isn't even close to an ideal world. So the question of 'how far' is decidedly NOT absurd. So Carol defines the use of her own blood in a picture as being 'too far,' at least for her. How interesting! I bet she would not allow the use of her own blood in anybody else's work, either. Thus she has defined a distinct limit, a hard boundary, not only on herself, but on the rest of the world.

I agree that there are stigmas sometimes associated with the digital photographer. From the non-photographic art community, photography has quite often suffered under the stigma of "those who can't paint, take pictures." And within the photographic community, an axiomatic stigma is applied to digital photographers by traditional photographers: "those who can't develop, use digital." I've done plenty of darkroom work in my time, and so those kind of prejudices don't bother me. Traditional photographers will eventually go the way of glass blowers: a craft that fewer and fewer people know or learn over time, and which seems to linger indefinitely, producing uniquely beautiful one-of-a-kind works of art. In the meantime, I'll place myself on the cutting edge, and learn to express myself in ways that are simply impossible with silver chemistry. However, the traditional photographers do have some valid criticisms of digital technology. One of them is that pictures can easily be made to lie with digital manipulation. Beyond simple blemish removal on a portrait, a picture can be made to say something that isn't true, like "I was in a certain place" when I really wasn't. This kind of manipulation, unless it is clearly stated as such, is 'too far.' Carol's beautiful photographic art is not this kind of manipulation, as it clearly is artistic work, not documentary work. But manipulations that attempt to pass themselves off as documentary, which contain 'documentary evidence' of something that simply is not true, is a good example of manipulations that are simply unacceptable.

We have to remember that the world is quite full of people that will believe almost anything they see. It is incumbent upon us to accept some responsibility for projecting our manipulated expressions into the world in such a way that people know that this is an expression, not a documentary depiction of physical reality. I've had several experiences where I've showed some work of mine, even abstract work, to friends who have asked where I took that picture! My "Flashpoint" picture shows a globe on fire, sitting on my dining room floor, with the smoke rising toward a blood-red moon. The flame was cut from a different picture, and positioned on an image of a globe that I have. Several people asked me how I avoided burning my house down by igniting that globe! In one instance, I decided to see just how deeply this person believed that I had ACTUALLY started a fire in my own house so I could take this picture... It was shocking how convinced that person was, in spite of the obvious absurdity of the idea, that I had done this thing. It showed me that people will believe what they see over almost anything else, including what they know to be true and false. This gives us as artists a fearful opportunity to be responsible with our manipulations, or to be irresponsible with them. To ignore the question of "How far is too far?" is simply throwing the door wide open to irresponsibility.

CAROL REPLY: I cannot say that, as an artist, I have ever exceeded the limits whereby causing offence to others - that would not be in my nature . Having said that, there may be those who do offend, either by default or by deliberation. To deliberately cause offense is unsympathetic and crass. There are two separate issues here- how far we digitally manipulate, which is the subject we are discussing - and secondly, the actual subject matter, which could also cause upset or embarrassment. It has been said that "art", in hindsight, shows the state of consciousness of the society at the given time - and subjectat times to wars, horror and apathy, it is no wonder that there have been art movements historically, that have depicted disturbing or negative subjects. There have been periods also of apathetic art. That word "apathy" makes me think that it is certainly more positive to be brave, to express deep feelings, even if it may uncover uncomfortable awareness in others' responses. As along as the feeling is expressed with integrity. Your comments that digitally manipulated photographs are deceptive, is interesting. People do believe what they see, especially in the realms of reportage. I can't agree that, because your picture,"Flashpoint", caused people to believe you set your house on fire, was an irresponsible use of digital manipulation! Would people believe that in Marc Chagall's town of Vitebsk, that his grandfather sat on the roof , playing a violin he actually did amidst cows that could fly, himself and his wife, Bella, in suspended-in-the-sky embrace ----- It's a fantasy life. painted by an innocent, to express his loveof his spiritual home. Maybe we dont manipulateenough! To manipulate to the point of unbelievability is honest. The nasty bits are where people might change things in a photograph to cause deception about real, nameable people. I feel paranoid now! - because I am doing a talk about my work to a digital group next week and the title is "Layers of Deception!"These said Layers, are undefined layers in Photoshop, hidden by the use of blending modes.! Honest! It's not that I mean to deceive - its just using the tools of software.

This brings me to another point - that is the software. I have been through a quandry because I had to come to terms with the fact that I use Photoshop and Painter - and I did not write, or cannot understand, how those who did write the program did it. Was it all too easy? I have justified using this form of manipulation by saying that I did not make my paints, or my pens either. It comes down to using tools which make our expressions possible. Unlike you, Tim, I am not a great darkroom worker. I tried it for a year and gave it up as soon as I got a computer. When Iwas in the darkroom, not being technically minded, I spent most of my time painting with the developer onto the exposed paper, to get the effects I wanted. Definitely an electrical health risk. If we use this particular tool for cleaning up a sky, cloning a piece out - yes, it may cause deception, but it is not malicious. It must be up to the integrity of the photographer as to what is allowed. The comment about making your living through your art, therefore having to conform to others' expectations - I found it was possible to have two separate lives - through teaching art in a respectable institution - and almost being expected to be unconformist in my personal expression of art. Brings back a memory -

Walking the dog, late one evening, darkness falling - along a narrow lane alongside fields, were barbed-wire fences. Suddenly, I had a strong vision of the "figures in the fences". This was actually bindweed stems which were twisted amongst the wire, looking in the dusk like imprisoned figures. The next day I went back and photographed the fences. In those days there was no computer - so I made photocopies, reducing the tones , and did the manipulation only a touch here and there! with a black felt-tip pen. They made quite a strong series, which ended up in an exhibition. To my absolute horror, on the opening night, I was confronted by a very elderly woman, upset by the images, because they brought back her experience of a prison of war camp. Wow - that was not what I had in mind. She was very kind to me. It showed me that you can cause upset - but she assured me that it was OK, that if people did not have that experience it would not have hurt as much - but they should know - if they can feel it.I know that we have to be careful. If we care -

As for the blood - its not on a particularly moral ground!It dries an awful colour!

TIM: Ok, I'll respond one item at a time...

First of all, there is no need to feel 'guilty' because you're using software that you don't understand. I don't understand how paint brushes are made, how paints are constructed from pigments and binders, or how canvas is woven. Yet I've used these things to express myself. I don't (really) understand how film records light, yet I've used film to express myself. I don't even really understand the intricate mechanisms of a camera, yet I've used cameras to express myself. I don't understand the intricacies of the how my body makes the sounds of language... I could go on and on.

Next, in artistic work, manipulation of reality is generally accepted practice. Nobody expects 'art' to accurately portray physical reality, as what is being expressed is often not physical, but requires physical manifestation nonetheless. Take, for example, an angry person screaming in a rage. The sounds coming out of their mouth are physical, but are not necessarily accurately portraying any real physical sound. Thus, they are at least an extreme manipulation of reality. But I've never seen someone walk up to a screaming angry person and suggest that they stop because their screams don't sound anything like a natural earthly sound... It's the same with art. To express the non-physical requires manipulation of physical reality. The problem, then, comes in when we are discussing (in this instance) artistic work versus documentary work. Documentary work, by definition, should accurately portray reality. Now we're not talking about documentary work in this discussion, but quite often the line between documentary work and artistic work becomes blurred. Journalists want to produce art. Artists want their work to be understood and believable. It is in this middle ground that the problem lies. Nobody would look at Chagall's work, and mistake it for a photojournalistic treatment of some paranormal phenomenon. That example is completely irrelevant. However, someone might look at some other work and make erroneous assumptions about what was real and what wasn't within that work. Art should clearly be presented as art, and documentary work should be clearly presented as such.

And last but not least, the issue of offense. It is entirely possible for anyone to be offended at some work of art. It is probably impossible to produce a work of art that isn't offensive to somebody. Take for instance, Carol's beautiful Nymphomania collection. In that collection, there are artistic renderings of women's breasts. While to most, this would be considered tasteful art, to others, religious fundamentalists for example, it might be considered entirely pornographic. They would be offended. This is unavoidable. The problem then becomes one of the artist's motive. If Carol produced that art for the purpose and intention of offending religious fundamentalists, or targeting any other group for that matter, then I might wish to discuss with her the validity of that as a motive. That's not to say that motive is not valid, but it's a slippery slope from there to bigotry or other clearly defined evils. Manipulation can, then, be a tool of intentional offense, and that, from my perspective is dangerously close to "too far."

CAROL'S REPLY

"Artists want their work to be understood and believable..." I'm not too sure about that. "Understood "- well if the message or content of a piece of artwork makes a connection with some of the viewers, that is great, but I wouldn't expect that the artwork would be understood by everyone who looks at it. I don't think that is an aim. I don't think that the image has to be believable either. It depends on the subject. If the image is of a fantastic nature then it would not obviously be believable. If you are saying that, in the case of a photographer, who makes a picture, showing his house with wolves running from the door, that this is unbelievable therefore wrongfully manipulated - I cannot agree, because that picture could be making a statement, therefore relying on the manipulation to make a point. I think really, that we are agreed that manipulation goes too far in the case of a truth that is expected to be valid, ie in the case of photo journalism, and that an artist has freer rein, and that the gap therein is the question mark. Manipulation, of any kind, whether literally, through personality trait, or by photo editing software - must be tempered by the restraint of "integrity" and sensitivity. I would like to think that photographers and artists are nice people who make kind images - but sadly that is naive!

In our U.K photographic societies we have certain rules for different subjects. "Wild life" photography must never be manipulated. We have a category called "Illustrative". Again, no manipulation. The remainder - "Pictorial", "Architecture and Record", "Portrait" and "Landscape" may be manipulated, to enhance atmosphere. The fact that we have these categories in the first place, has caused some argument because many of us would prefer the competitions to be "Open". The categories stem from the days pre computers and leave many of us, who work digitally, with no niche to place our work. There have been many occasions, where a judge has said "I can't consider that - it has been manipulated." We can never make hard and fast rules because it is up to the individual - the photographer - the viewer - the intent - the honesty - -the integrity.

As an afterthought, if you were put on a desert island, you could make your art. You may not know how to - -make brushes,--- paint etc but you would do it with something. Stone alterpieces, figures of branches, dirt on your face - no computer. Now - that has given me a big idea!

If I were put alone on a desert island, there would be no reason to make art. Self expression, indeed communication in general, is only meaningful in contexts where there is a sender and a receiver. On a desert island, I could engage in introspection and learn to know myself. This knowledge would need no communication, as I would already be in posession of it. Now I may create art in the hope that at some point someone else would show up and be interested in what I thought or felt while alone on that island. But apart from that, and even that includes the eventuality of there being a receiver, there is absolutely no more reason to create art than there is to speak aloud.

So I still stand by my statement, "Artists want their work to be understood and believable...", which was twisted by Carol into "Artists want their work to be understood and believable by everybody..." Obviously I don't want my art to be understood by EVERYBODY. That is ludicrous. But I do want it to be understood by SOMEBODY, otherwise I'm speaking a language that nobody else speaks, and thus I am expressing myself to the wind.

As to believability, this is a quality that has less to do with the actual subject matter, than it has to do with the artist. A pack of wolves running from my front door may or may not be believable, depending on what it is that I am trying to express. In other words, the subject matter of the expression must somehow relate both to the artist and to the expression. If both conditions are not true, then the art is invalid.

Carol presents an interesting set of "Rules" regarding manipulation in her photographic society. I would imagine that these rules cause quite a commotion at times. What is the definition of "manipulation?" Is contrast enhancement considered manipulation? I'm

The definition of "manipulation" in my photo society is the use of computers. Full stop. Each to their own , I say. Yes, this does cause some factions but we are sort of split into two camps - those who do and those who don't. It all depends on the judges when there are competitions - if they are supportive of digital work - our work gets a "look in!"

If I were on a desert island, my great joy would be to create - I can imagine that to be in a world where there is no distraction, no people, no responsibility, just the days, turning into night - the selfish act of creation would be a "at one with life" experience. OK! Let's be real now! It's not likely to ever happen! - so, in real life, the creative act has to be compartmentalised with all the other life things, including our relationships with other people, etc etc - I don't believe that other people are necessary in the creative process. I think I can honestly say that I create because it's what brings me closer to understanding what my life is for. I find that other people, and life events can be distracting. Too much time can be taken up with daily life things - Sadly,I am a monster. Art is a selfish act when the artist is "driven".

This is a very interesting comment about the desert island. I disagree with the concept that art is created for viewers. Artists are driven to create..to self express as a singer would sing to comfort or express their emotions so must any artists. That drive comes form a deep need to "release" inner feelings, to express from the very depth of a place that resides deep in the heart of a artist.

Isolation and despair could really turn on this need to create. Emotions,feelings makes art. Many think that to be a great artist one needs to have suffered in life and then to be a Master artist one needs to be on the brink of madness. Extremes perhaps but look at the many "standing" artists of our past, even in music.writings,dance the souls life will show thru.

I do not strive for anyone to understand or believe my art, to create like that all work would be the same,there would be very little unique art.

Art is communicating not to others but to ourselves. I create because I am an artist, I must create and reveal myself without any restrictions or any preconceived viewpoints of others.

I suppose there are as many definitions of artists as there are of art. My personal feelings are quite different from those expressed. If I were on a deserted island, and had time on my hands, I would be making art - probably sculpture of some sort. I do not make my art as an attempt to communicate with others. I could care less. I create art because it is joyous and because I love it. My art is created for my own personal enjoyment. It really does not need an audience. However, if I receive great joy from looking at a piece of my own art, then I would want others to have that same opportunity. With my art, MOST people do NOT receive the same joy or appreciation as I do. And that is fine. However, others do. My art was not meant for mass communication. That is why I no longer produce general landscapes or sunsets. They appeal to the masses, but bore me to death. I am searching for a little deeper meaning than "Isn't that pretty". I have never had an art class, photography class (the Masters degree did not include one photography class), or computer class so I only learned what I needed to learn. I feed on, and am generally inspired by, the creative work of others. This is my classroom. To say, "I love this, but I wonder what it would look like if the artist had tried . . ." And so I get not only joy from seeing other's work but a wonderful desire to create my own! Art begets art. Ideas need not communicate. That is up to the viewer. And if a few viewers are insulted or even if ALL the viewers feel insulted. It matters not.

Having said all that, however, I do respect and appreciate the feed back I get from fellow artists or art lovers. Artists whose work I know and love or from people who have studied art. What the average Joe thinks of my art matters not. As a child of eleven I heard my first classical violin concert. I was instantly a lover of classical music. Probably 98% of my fellow classmates would not have felt the same way. And this 98% would say the music was terrible. The music did not communicate with this 98% and therefore was bad because IT failed to communicate? Gimme a break. Art serves the soul. It teaches us who we are. Art communicates at a much higher level then "pretty to look at".