Anthony Mottram 04 Jan 2005

This is my original shot.

Anthony Mottram 04 Jan 2005

It all became this image.

Anthony Mottram 04 Jan 2005

Perhaps the point I emphasise here is that I believe image 1 would be the best seller if it was to be produced in Oils or Pastels, where as image 2 is more appealing as a photograph.

Image 3 becomes the concept image derived via intergration of all the ideas on offer.

All 3 would perhaps be of greater commercial value as Paintings/Traditional Art forms, yet are born via Digital.

I question HOW we view Art as a medium not its Aesthetic appearance. Laz

Clare Rowley 04 Jan 2005

Well, as a photographer I was impressed by the first shot and it is simply too late to express the thoughts I have with regard to your question... I get what you are saying though...

The value of something is not based soley on how it makes us feel to look at it but rather how the image was created.... Right?

sher richardson 04 Jan 2005

Bon Jour Laz...

I hope you don't mind- but the first image i used as my new desktop background...i love the dark ominous feel..i needed that for a while.. : )

All of the above images are grand..

Since this era and moment of time we are in, is more or less a revolution or evolution in art with the addition of digital manipulation, whatever we invent or create will be the future in art. Traditional art will not be in any danger with all the great fusions of digital endeavors, i feel... Oh what art historic times we are witnessing...

So i really don't think 'fake' is a great word for what you accomplished. I think photographers and digital artists are a lucky group to mix and master this kind of work... I have done a few images and know the same wonderful feeling of accomplishment when a piece is finished... art is art, no matter how its accomplished.

MoreMore! : )

Mike Sankey 05 Jan 2005

Even though its a fake it looks damn good laz - I wouldnt know how to do that, so i just wait for the right skyline to appear!

Jane McIlroy 05 Jan 2005

I don't like the word 'fake' in this context.

Photographers take an original image provided by nature and use their artistic ability (through camera angles, exposure, depth of field or whatever) to produce a creation that is something beautiful or meaningful (or both), i.e. Art.

Digital workers do the same thing - it's just that the image they use as a starting point comes from a different source and their artistic ability finds expression through the medium of computer software.

Both are genuine artists, and their creations are equally authentic works of art, as are all three of the images posted by Laz.

That's my opinion, anyway!

Jane McIlroy 05 Jan 2005

...and Mike, you're being too modest - your skylines don't just 'appear' - it's what you do with them that counts!

Clare Rowley 05 Jan 2005

Hmm this makes for an interesting topic that I was wanting to post... So I will start a new thread and let's see what we come up with...

05 Jan 2005

Anthony Mottram 05 Jan 2005

Hi everyone :-)

Clare: "The value of something is not based soley on how it makes us feel to look at it but rather how the image was created.... Right?"

This is great statement because it actually raises 3 seperate points.

1. This is True in the eyes and thoughts of Artists. It is this, perhaps because we "Know" to varing extents the work involved in the images creation. As artists we apportion or "Feel" for an image based upon what we know and what we assume as " How much work" went into the end product.

Effectively, by being creational beings, we overlook or harden to the Aesthetics of the end product. This in turn perhaps leads "US" to believe an image is wonderful because of its Medium/Complexity of Construction/Mastery of said Medium Needed.

2. This brings us to How the Image was created. In brief I find a single shot from a camera that Can/Has captured such a brief moment of nature so clearly is to be admired and respected.

In nature itself these fleeting moments of complete and absolute beauty last mere seconds in reality. Their "Unaltered Capture" is vital for the viewers to be able to grasp natures True Beauty. Moreover, such captures by the nature of their rarity demand Perfection in order for the Honest Beauty to be Deciphered and Comprehended by viewers. It is this distinction that allows me to Aesthetically admire ANY image, yet understand the nature of that which I see. Quite often nature presents imagery of Pure Marvel, yet it eludes our senses because in our imaginations we create what we think these images would look like.

3. This brings me to this 3rd perception of these images, " How does a Non Artistic person see and react to them "

I feel that it is these people who are the best judges of how an image appeals to the untainted eye. Their innocent visions are unaffected by ALL of the above. It is these people who ultimately Pay to own such imagery. On a wider level, it is their Innocence that I seek to tap into, " What image of life in Their Eyes is missing from the Art world "

To seek to portray/lay open/visualise that which the Innocents have yet to see or comprehend. To give cause for them to take, without diminishing this innocence they unwittingly give back to me as viewers.

I could go on forever Clare, but in making these images, it seemed a fragmented attempt to Enhance something that was already beautiful without my interference. There is Beauty and there is my opinion of beauty, and there is an Abstract version of Beauty, OR perhaps more aptly put, I use Innocent Beauty to as a tool to promote The Horrors of Natures indifference to That which it often causes in its splendour.

What thinks Ye :-) ??? All the best, Laz.

Anthony Mottram 05 Jan 2005

Bon Jour Madame Sher :-) By all means Lovely, if any of my images are deemed fit for your desktop, take take take :-)

For everyone on AW:

"I have NO issues over anything I post here on AW, I post in the hope that it will appeal to someone. Take it, Print it, Sell it even, its all fine by me. Selling is something I am unlikely ever to attempt, so if someone could make a living and Eat from my creations, by all means do so :-)" If you see something you like and the 600 480 AW version is too small let me know, and I'll post the complete A2 version. I'm even prepared to post the created version in all of its layered format for anyone wanting to "Work on it some more". My real work is here in my home :-) Please feel free.

( I should post this on my Bio page where approriate.)

Keep smiling Madame Sher, Laz.

Anthony Mottram 05 Jan 2005

Hi Mike :-) I've done a small Tut on the basics of How and Why I changed these images for you. I'll start a new thread :-)

I thought this might get ya juices flowing, open some Thought wave for you :-) My latter post might put it in a better perspective.

Love to see that Majors Degree in Art& Photography :-) later dude Laz.

Anthony Mottram 05 Jan 2005

Hi Jane :-) welcome aboard. I do these posts from time to time, they just sort of need to come out, to keep me focussed or "Open Minded".

I called it a fake, because if the mood suited me I could post a Bullet proof Fake. It would be impossible to tell the difference EVER. The merging of cloud formation whilst tricky can give the most amazing results.

It would appeal to your senses of WOW, but it would in my humble opinion be a false sense achievement on my part. To know what will make the eye say WOW and to actually capture it genuinely are different entities.

My "faked/created" image perhaps diminishes the TRUE beauty in cloud formation. With each creation, so the True Beauty loses its appeal via Over Use. Effectively, Rarity is what always seems to appeal and hold value in the world of Art. A good example of this is in Man Made Diamonds. There are the same as real ones, infact they are real, just not been dug out from beneath billions of tons of earth. herein lies a thought I tried to highlight :-)

All the best, Laz.

This is a real diamond :-)

Anthony Mottram 05 Jan 2005

Hi Leigh :-) :-) Its been a while since I let 1 loose on the community LOL. Its great to see you again, love it when you pop in for a chat and a cuppa :-)

Its funny Leigh, but sometimes when I get behind the Lense of my computer I feel like a cheat, not in the sense of delusion, just that this tool allows portrayal of something that might otherwise remain unseen, that I'm sort of betraying Mother Natures Secrets.

I was sitting going through some of my old stuff, of which I have far too much, and found my old SKY folder. I went crazy when I got my Binocular Camera and found out it took such amazing shots of the sky, sort of "In there" shots.

Nature inspires me, always always has. I have to confess that whilst "Loving" some art I have encountered in my life, it has Never influenced me. Nature has always held that sway.

I felt the 3 images might show how "She" kick started me, let me mess around with her beauty, and then utimately find outlet for recent imagery flooding my mind. I guess I'm still using imagery as a quicker version of writing my thoughts out :-)

I suspect from writing this thread that I hold Cloud Formation as Sacred Ground, and prefer Unaltered Imagery over Enhanced imagery. Though the former is often more visually appealing, the latter has a Purity & Innocence that as you have come to know from me, is something I value above all else in life.

Innocence NEVER lies, it doesn't know how. Nature never lies, she doesn't know how :-)

Thanx for calling in Leigh, its great to see you again. Laz

Jane McIlroy 05 Jan 2005

Hi again Laz :-)

Thanks for replying. I take your point, but I think we're just arguing about the etymology of the word "fake" here.

Following your diamonds analogy, you could say that your "original" photo was a fake, because it was only a picture of a sky, rather than a "real" sky.

I think I'll stop here, before I dig myself into a hole!

Regards, Jane

Anthony Mottram 05 Jan 2005

Hi again Jane :-) All's far in love and war and Art :-) You seem a bit held back in your reply :-) I'm a scouse "No Worries" sorta guy. Never offended by anyones opinions or thoughts friend.

Let rip, if its where you are at friend :-) I'm cool for a chat on whatever aspect of art it is :-)

Keep smiling. Laz

PS Its just a general post about how I can manipulate art and my own grievances with this issue. Nothing too serious about those who earn a living doing such work :-) Your folder looks impressive. Great shots :-) Laz

Eva Rogers 06 Jan 2005

i like the " fake" its more dramatc and better composed .. yes it just what we are looking for..i was told // art is an illusion.. the drama you created does exist in nature but you might not be there to see it.. so its an homage to the sky.. not a bastardization.. id like to know your tricks

Eva Rogers 06 Jan 2005

or is it too normal to u in it would have mass appeal just a standard image of like the glory of god .. his hand could be coming down from the heavens or an army of angel flying hence from there just foun your invite to this on my other thread

joan warburton 06 Jan 2005

Laz, I'm having a problem with all of this controversy over digital altering. Can't all of these effects be produced in a dark room during developing? The first time a photographer accidentally crossed two photos during developing, was he told that he's not allowed to do that? I don't think so.....

What about the first time someone decided to use the negative as the final photo. That suddently became very popular. What about under and overexposures?

What is the difference between working in the dark room or on the computer besides not having the chemical smells and the risk of blowing up your home?