Who are we to judge Todd when Kermit's character is in question? He may have deserved decapitation.

as for robert's comment "but I have never heard of a photographer, artist, writer, etc. include a statement of intent with their work. The art form should stand alone..." ...i have seen many times where an artist describes intent...(for instance a 'manifesto' can be an artistic explanation of a body of work or viewpoint) however i am often bored by a wordy explanation...i believe if the viewer can see the intent and additionally bring other meanings and insight into the work...then it is truly successful...if the artist's statement serves to overtly direct the reading of the piece...well then maybe the piece is not quite there yet...but on its way?

for steph's work this week...i am on the fence...i am not sure the post-processing of the piece fully relays steph's intent for ....."captur(ing) in time an expression that has just flitted across their faces"...(for me it seems more of a static state; not instaneous)...but i do think the image falls in a curious position within the scope of 'photography', definately it falls under 'the artistic image'...i'm not sure then how to place it in relation to 'photography'...my lack of 'photography history' is my problem...but i just want to commend steph...she has produced some challenging images to date...that have started this great thread of debate

and just an overall thanks...i am really enjoying this discussion with all of you...

"My goal in shooting toys is to have them not look like toys in the finished image. I want it to appear like I’ve captured in time an expression that has just flitted across their faces."

I totally agree that Brian's images definitely look like toys. I was just pointing out that you can have them look like toys, and still convey an emotional quality normally attributed to people. I'm not sure, but it sounded like Steph's decision to have them not look like toys, was linked to her desire to have them convey a feeling. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

I think either approach works. I was just offering other options.

Oh, and I agree with Robert... "this is great fun".

Paul pointed out to me another weekly photo assignment site. It’s a very popular site and they have gone as far as creating multiple sets of rules specifically governing how much editing will be allowed for one assignment versus another. The fact that they have created such specific guidelines indicates there is a lot of passion in the photography community regarding what acceptable or not. http://www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_rules.php

For me, I really like Steph’s image, however I would not necessarily identify it as a photograph unless I was told that it originated from a camera. Therefore, I would probably avoid using the term “photograph� just like I would for many of Andy Warhol’s art icons that were created from photographs. I would however label this type of art “photographic.�

Some abstract subjects will not look like a photograph even without any manipulation. Therefore, I would suggest that being able to recognize an image as a photograph should not be a criteria to determine if it should be called a photograph.

One final note. Thanks, Paul for pointing out Brian McCarthy’s site. These are awesome toy pictures, however they do mostly look like toys placed in real environments. Therefore, if Steph’s intent was to have an image that doesn’t look like a toy, then I would say her process achieves that better than Brian’s.

One of my favorite scientific books is a taxonomy of Sonoran plants on the Papago reservation that was an odd combination of scientific descriptions of the plants, the Papago legends surrounding them and illustrations done by a classically trained Japanese watercolor artist. The scientific descriptions established the plants firmly in the real world, the Papago legends gave them a spiritual significance that impirical science never could and the ethereal, almost abstract, paintings gave them a life that neither precise scientific illustrations or mere words could. The result of the odd combination was much stronger and deeper than any one of its elements would have been alone.

I submit that art need not require any explanation. I think Steph has raised an excellent dialogue by simply taking a picture. And, now we are all conversing about her perception of the topic, and more importantly art in general.

For the purposes of our project, perhaps an explanation would enhance the photography. But I have never heard of a photographer, artist, writer, etc. include a statement of intent with their work. The art form should stand alone. However, raising a dialog as Steph did is a different story. She has succeeded because she has raised questions, forced the audience to consider her work in a different light.

By the way, thank you for letting me participate, this is great fun. I may not make the next deadline, i am going out of town. But I will try.

I think Robert and Stephanie raise good points / questions about intent vs. perception. Do some photographs require an explanation to make their intent clear? If they do, what does that say about the image... Is it less successful, or does it matter? In other words, does an image (or group of images) have to accurately relay the topic, without an explanation, to be considered successful?

Also, how much of the responsibility is on the photographer vs. the viewer to relay the intent? Should things be glaringly obvious, or is it up to the viewer to give it more thought? As a practical example, I would bring up Photo Assignment #3. I thought my image was fairly straight-forward, but Todd later told me that he didn't understand it without my explanation. Was my image unclear, or did Todd not give it enough thought?

As for Stephanie's, I think it is highly successful at NOT looking like toys, as she intended. I think they do come across as more alive. But, I don't agree with her when she said, "it’s a photograph if I want to call it a photograph and something else if I want to call it something else." Personally, I would say it's not a photograph, simply because it looks to much like an illustration now (to me). Not that that's a bad thing. I'm not implying that it is somehow wrong. I'm just bringing up the question about it still being a photo or not. I'm also not totally convinced that the image required the extra post-processing to achieve her goal. I'll bring up a photographer named, Brian McCarty, as an example. He's done some brilliant photos of toys that seem to show genuine emotion.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?