I'm never sure what I think of stories like this. I think photography can undeniably be an art form. I'm always hazy when the photographer hasn't arranged the elements themselves though. For example, landscape photography. Is is art if i wander into a field and take a pic with my phone of the landscape. What of a tree? What about of a dropped crisp packet on the floor? If so can I claim ownership of that photo? What if I hand my phone to a stranger and get them to take a photo of the crisp packet. Do I still own the rights to that picture? It's on my phone so I guess I do. Does that apply if I set a camera up aimed at a crisp packet and step back and throw stones at the camera until after knocking the camera to not point at the crisp packet, I finally knock the shutter release button. I've not actually specifically arranged the shot, instead setting it up so natural processes like physics actually dictate the composition and actually release the shutter.
David Slater hoped this picture would earn him a fortune, presumably because it's a remarkable picture. But actually, this picture is only remarkable because David Slater didn't take it. The macaque did.
"You're saying I can't have this picture and it's not mine because I didn't do it!
But that's exactly why it's important and why I want it: Because *I'm* the one who made sure I *didn't* take it!"
What a position to have to try to defend!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Let me know your thoughts!