On Mon, 21 Mar 1994, Carl Drott wrote:
>
I would agree that it is questionable whether a photographer who copies a photograph or a reproduction from a book onto a 35mm slide is producing 'intellectual property,' however, I would not accept that rationale when considering original object photography which is produced for museum, gallery or private collection use. There is definitely aesthetic and intellectual content in the way a photographer chooses to portray an art object in a documentary photograph. Regardless of the copyright status of the object in the photograph, the way the piece is lighted, the camera angles chosen, the studio setup -- all these elements produce their own aesthetic value in and of themselves. The amount of consideration for how an object is displayed in the photograph also serves to 'interpret' the object (in terms of scale, function, important points about the piece which merit special attention) to the viewer.
Of the 5 professional photographer's which have been employed at my institution, if you compare their individual photography of the same object side by side, the intellectual content in their work becomes readily apparent; each photographer has a distinct aesthetic style, and a particular interpretive statement to make about how the object is depicted in the photograph.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kevin J. Comerford | internet: czbb020[_at_]access.texas.gov Director of Information Technology | aol: DalMuseum Dallas Museum of Art | compuserve: 71233,2412 1717 North Harwood | voice: 214-922-1281 Dallas, TX 75201 | fax: 214-954-0174=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Received on Tue Mar 22 1994 - 02:54:37 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:11 GMT