Puzzle about the nature of art and artists
A very famous finnish naturephotographer Hannu Hautala
published a
picturebook 'Moments in nature' in 1999. Recently there's
been a huge
debate about it among naturephotographers.
In the book there were 5 digitally manipulated
pictures. Manipulation was
not mentioned in the book. Later on other naturephotographers
got insulted
and very worried about this case. Hannula did
something like this! Why?
They said Hannula has insulted the whole era of
naturephotographing which
is about giving real experiences of nature to
those who are not able to
join all the amazing happenings of it. Viewers
are expecting to see the
very moment when the picture was really taken.
Now the trust and truth has
lost its face.
Hannula's respond is he feels very frustrated about
the debate. He is
simply exited about the possibilities of digital
manipulation. Now he is
able to work the pictures so that they present
the events he has really
seen. There are events in nature when photographer
is not able to catch
the happening with the camera because of technical
impossibilities.
What is the difference between artphotograph and
naturephotograph?
Did Hannula's pictures turn into art because of
manipulation? What is
genuine nature experience? Can manipulated nature
picture give that?
Where is the limit manipulating nature pictures?
Should naturephotographes
have the right to do that in certain limits? Or
is it then just
artpicture?
(You can find article about Hannula and debate and some
pictures in
address:www.helsinginsanomat.fi/uutiset/juttu_t.asp?artid=20001023KU4&pvm
=20001023)