Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Roberta33 on June 12, 2018, 06:40:06 am
-
Can something like this be considered as art ?
https://photoguru.site/gallery/40-examples-of-incredible-photo-manipulation-by-erik-johansson/
I know that the photos are photoshoped but would you put something like this on your wall ?
-
Can something like this be considered as art ?
https://photoguru.site/gallery/40-examples-of-incredible-photo-manipulation-by-erik-johansson/
I know that the photos are photoshoped but would you put something like this on your wall ?
Yes, but no.
-
Yes, but no.
+1
-
Yes, but no.
+2
-
Yes, but no.
+3
-
My thinking is that art is something that can elicit an emotional response in the viewer/listener/reader. So yes, I think it's art. I might "hang on my wall" something like that. A shot I always wanted to do was of a glacial valley near me with a railroad running down the middle. What I envision is that valley with a wall of ice on the north end and a train emerging from it. To me that photo would tie together the present with the ancient past. I don't have the skills to do that yet, of course.
Kent in SD
-
Yes and yes.
-
Yes, but no.
+4.
But I might put them on Slobodan's wall. ;)
-
Can something like this be considered as art ?
Yes, although I prefer the approach by photographers like Chema Madoz. He manages to confuse the observer by using everyday objects (often found in the street), and sometimes by just using clever perspective with light and shadows:
http://www.chemamadoz.com
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes and yes.
+1 (shocked but that's how I see it).
-
What if it was a Jerry Uelsmann?
-
What if it was a Jerry Uelsmann?
Uelsmann is exactly who I think of when I see this kind of work. Whatever his intent was, I've always seen his stuff as humorous. Same here. Not sure I'd put any of it on my wall, though…unlike, say, one of Helen Levitt's funny street scenes. The observation-centric nature of her photo humor puts 'em on another level for me. YMMV.
-Dave-
-
Can something like this be considered as art ?
https://photoguru.site/gallery/40-examples-of-incredible-photo-manipulation-by-erik-johansson/
I know that the photos are photoshoped but would you put something like this on your wall ?
Yes and Yes. However, I already have Uelsmann images on my wall, so maybe I'm an outlier. I also like Ted Orland's stuff.
Jim
-
Of course it's art. It's not photography.
(Boy, I'm I going to get it.)
-
It's not photography.
How so?
-
How so?
I refuse to bite. :)
-
I refuse to bite. :)
No worries, I'll ignore the comment as it makes zero sense to me, perhaps others. ;)
-
Of course it's art. It's not photography.
But where would you draw the line?
Correcting perspective in an architectural photo? (It is permissible if you use a tilt-shift lens but unacceptable if you do it in post-processing?)
Using local adjustments to dodge, burn, selectively sharpen, modify saturation?
Combining several shots for focus-stacking? Combining several exposures to increase dynamic range?
Eliminating distracting or extraneous elements from an image (e.g., with Photoshop’s content-aware fill)?
Using a long exposure to blur moving elements (e.g., water) or alter the quality of the light?
Replacing a featureless sky with one that has more character?
Shooting a multiple-exposure or combining photographs made at different times to create a composite image? (This is my admittedly modest contribution (https://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskernpix/28721707852/in/datetaken-public/) to the genre—a response to a request from my wife to photograph one of her sculptures.)
I suppose it’s possible to argue endlessly about what should be considered "art" because that’s an inherently subjective issue. But doesn’t anything composed exclusively from one or more images captured by a camera objectively constitute photography?
-
+1 (shocked but that's how I see it).
Finally a Plus One I can agree with - so +2.
This kind of photography always frightens the old figs. There are no straight lines in nature. If you want to know what Uelsmann would think just ask his wife, Maggie Taylor (https://tinyurl.com/y9ejp4vd)
Don Bryant
-
If you want to know what Uelsmann would think just ask his wife, Maggie Taylor (https://tinyurl.com/y9ejp4vd)
Yeah, Maggies work is also awesome IMHO. FWIW, I think she's now an ex-wife but the two produce very compelling images.
-
It’s kind of interesting that no one seemed to question whether Uselmann’s work was photography but when it’s done digitally then people are less comfortable with it.
-
@ Roberta33: Yes, I would certainly categorize the works you referenced as art. In particular, most of the images would be considered “photo surrealism” in the art world.
Here’s a tip: Don’t approach such work as photography. Stand away from camera gear and computer processing when experiencing such work; it’s irrelevant. The art process starts as an idea, which each of these surely did. So ignore how they were produced and evaluate the ideas they seem to be trying to communicate. Art is not decoration. Art = Communication.
- Ken Tanaka (http://www.KenTanaka.com) -
-
Here’s a tip: Don’t approach such work as photography. Stand away from camera gear and computer processing when experiencing such work; it’s irrelevant. The art process starts as an idea, which each of these surely did. So ignore how they were produced and evaluate the ideas they seem to be trying to communicate. Art is not decoration. Art = Communication.
- Ken Tanaka (http://www.KenTanaka.com) -
+1.
Well put, Ken.
-
Of course. If enough ' knowledgable ' people can convince the plebes it is art; so it seems to be.
Heck; even a dead shark in a tank is ' art '.
-
@ Roberta33: Yes, I would certainly categorize the works you referenced as art. In particular, most of the images would be considered “photo surrealism” in the art world.
Here’s a tip: Don’t approach such work as photography. Stand away from camera gear and computer processing when experiencing such work; it’s irrelevant. The art process starts as an idea, which each of these surely did. So ignore how they were produced and evaluate the ideas they seem to be trying to communicate. Art is not decoration. Art = Communication.
- Ken Tanaka (http://www.KenTanaka.com) -
+1. And beautiful work on your web, Ken.
-
It’s kind of interesting that no one seemed to question whether Uselmann’s work was photography but when it’s done digitally then people are less comfortable with it.
Well, Uelsmann's work is so obviously composite, everyone understands what's going on. It's when the final image appears perfectly normal but in fact was a composite or some other digital manipulation beyond the boundaries of simple exposure adjustments and cropping that we get into these arguments about photography vs. digital art.
-
Art is not decoration. Art = Communication.
Best quote ever! Something we should all remember, every time we're out there.
-
"In the strictest sense, Fine Art is considered a visual object with no functional purpose except to be admired and contemplated as an aesthetic object. Decorative Art, however, is also visual and aesthetically pleasing but serves a useful function such as a piece of furniture, tableware, textiles and so on." https://www.thebalancecareers.com/fine-art-or-decorative-1295903
I don't see how art can not decorate the walls ie a photo for example even though it's not "decorative art" in the sense it has a function other than pleasing our eyes and heart. . In fact most people use art exactly that way.
What do people mean when they say art communicates?
-
This is one of the great problems for people selling art today. The customers frequently ask "Will it match the drapes?"
-
This is one of the great problems for people selling art today. The customers frequently ask "Will it match the drapes?"
Drapes are art too. Decorative art. They also have functional value, but appreciating beauty as art is important to us. The fact other art matches the drapes adds to the beauty. Art is mainly about aesthetics. We all should enjoy it in all its varieties. What should we do? Hide our photos in the attic?
-
What do people mean when they say art communicates?
Look at a really good street shot, like HCB's "The Locks at Bougival" and you'll understand, Alan.
-
Look at a really good street shot, like HCB's "The Locks at Bougival" and you'll understand, Alan.
Russ, How does it communicate to you?
-
It communicates to me that here's a family, hard working, a long way from well-to-do, with a baby and a grandmother, and it communicates intense joie de vivre. What could be more decorative than that, Alan?
-
I'm just trying to get your definition of communications. How would you describe it generally? Do people interacting have to be in it? Or can a landscape that provides the power of awe be considered as communicating as well? Maybe communications is just in the eye of the beholder, like when people try to define the word "art"? These things seem so personal.
-
They are personal Alan, some people understand the language, some don't.
Rich
-
THIS (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/TouchingTheSeer.html)is what I mean by communication, Alan.
-
THIS (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/TouchingTheSeer.html)is what I mean by communication, Alan.
Russ the guy refers to a few paintings and photos that have "touched" him. But then he goes on to say he can't explain what it was that touched him. Apparently he can't communicate what makes the image communicate to him. Maybe you can explain it in your own words. I'm not trying to be picky. What does it mean when you say the photo communicates?
-
They are personal Alan, some people understand the language, some don't.
Rich
Same questions I just asked Russ. Saying only you understand the language and can't explain it has no value to anyone else. Surely you can give something of your understanding.
To me, communication is on different levels. There's the street type that may show an interesting interaction between people. There's the personal portrait of let's say mother and child that communicates love. There's the landscape shot that communicates our smallness in the universe and awe and an appreciation of things greater than ourselves and how insignificant we are. There's photojournalism that tells a story of a current event. Then there's the photo album of let's say a journey you took that now takes the viewer along with you on that trip.
What is communication to you? There must be some way you can quantify or qualify it. I gave you my understanding. Maybe you and others have a different understanding.
-
Russ the guy refers to a few paintings and photos that have "touched" him. But then he goes on to say he can't explain what it was that touched him. Apparently he can't communicate what makes the image communicate to him. Maybe you can explain it in your own words. I'm not trying to be picky. What does it mean when you say the photo communicates?
Those are my words, Alan. All of 'em. You obviously didn't read the header with my copyright notice. I'm "the guy."
From your reaction I conclude that by "communication" you mean a definition: something spelled out in detail. That's one kind of communication, but the other kind of communication -- the non-verbal kind that grabs you and gives you a shake -- is a lot more important than the definitive kind, and it's art in its greatest glory. It doesn't require "explanation." Real art never requires explanation.
Try this stanza, from Dylan Thomas's "Do not go gentle into that good night":
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
From the standpoint of definitive explication, that stanza is gibberish, as is the rest of the poem, but if you stop trying to "understand" it and simply let it penetrate your spirit, you receive a kind of communication you never can receive from explication. That's Art, with a capital A.
-
Oops. Sorry Russ. I still like to hear explanations. Maybe from others. In any case, if prophets can try to explain the nature of God, who is unseeable, untouchable, etc, we should be able to express to some degree what we mean too. I tried in my post above. Does it match anything you feel?
-
No reason to be sorry, Alan. I agree with you that communication comes on different levels. There's explication and there's a kind of transfer that passes beyond explication and touches the soul. I think real art always communicates in that way.
-
Alan, I ran back through my essays on photography and found THIS ONE (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/WhyClicktheShutter.html). I think it deals with stuff closer to what you're after than the one on the seer, which I'll confess is pretty far out for LuLa.
-
Thanks for the essay Russ. Very informative. The way I try to get "better" shots is to also trust my feelings. If I'm driving along for instance, and I see a shot and say "wow" to myself, then that view is communicating to me. Hopefully I catch it so it communicates with others. That's the hard part.
It may be awe due to the terrific light, https://flic.kr/p/92Jk9E
or something funny or unusual - a juxtaposition, https://flic.kr/p/jA6NH7
a feeling between people. https://flic.kr/p/hoce5R
Getting back to the original OP question, Moonrise over Hernandez had a lot of darkroom manipulation to get the final results. Check this for the original and after prints.
https://www.google.com/search?q=moonrise+over+hernandez&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=bMyXE3_RaFrtVM%253A%252C4nxsNcORHStR8M%252C_&usg=__n6BUjRF6dt75pVuLsawZY2v_Qds%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikhNGatuLbAhVF9YMKHT9pC1IQ_h0I1wEwFg#imgrc=bMyXE3_RaFrtVM:
-
I'm just trying to get your definition of communications. How would you describe it generally? Do people interacting have to be in it? Or can a landscape that provides the power of awe be considered as communicating as well? Maybe communications is just in the eye of the beholder, like when people try to define the word "art"? These things seem so personal.
You pose keen questions, Alan, which have been at the very fulcrum of the art world since its birth. We could organize a 3-day symposium (at some idyllic scenic spot, of course) around these general questions and return home a bit fatter in the belly but no fatter in the head.
So to concisely offer my thoughts while staying on-topic let me hold a mirror up to you. What messages or impressions did the original set of referenced images impart on you? To me some seemed to bear implicit messages or metaphors but most seemed to be purely exercises in visual puns. And that’s really mostly what Surrealism has ever been across media. Look at the works of Magritte, Tanguy, and Ernst, for good examples.
But now to your question regarding how works can communicate with their viewers I, again, turn the light toward you. This time with an excercise. Make a photograph that conveys a message. It doesn’t have to be a heavy message. But your image should attempt to convey some message/impression more specific than, “Ain’t this pretty?”. And most importantly you must start with the message you want to express, not retrofit an existing image into the message. Show the image to friends and family and ask what what message they see. At the end of this exercise I’m confident that you’ll have answered most of the questions you posed above much better than anyone else could.
-
. . .Moonrise over Hernandez had a lot of darkroom manipulation to get the final results.
Absolutely. In the original the moon barely was there, and the sky was much brighter. But there's Ansel's famous proclamation: "The negative is the score. The print is the performance." I agree with him, but only up to a point.
-
Ken, Coincidentally, I think I already responded with samples to your exercise in my last post. It seems we're on the same wavelength. The only caveat is that street shots can happen so quickly. You often don't have much time to think about the aftereffects beforehand in "planning" the shot.
-
Absolutely. In the original the moon barely was there, and the sky was much brighter. But there's Ansel's famous proclamation: "The negative is the score. The print is the performance." I agree with him, but only up to a point.
When do you reach that "point"?
-
Ken, Coincidentally, I think I already responded with samples to your exercise in my last post. It seems we're on the same wavelength. The only caveat is that street shots can happen so quickly. You often don't have much time to think about the aftereffects beforehand in "planning" the shot.
Here's an example. Shot while driving, the picture jumped out as something really unusual. Wearing all that religious garb yet checking the oil on his bus. That said something to me, hopefully to others. But the guy on the sidewalk wasn't in the picture at first. He walked into it while I was shooting (with my cellphone through a dirty windshield.) So not everything can be planned. Sometimes luck enters the situation. Of course, you have to be ready to shoot. So there's that.
https://flic.kr/p/CCo3p9
-
When do you reach that "point"?
That's a fair question, Alan, and all I can say is that it depends on the picture. I'd certainly carry out the darkroom conversion Ansel did on Moonrise, because I think that's the way he saw the final result when he tripped the shutter. Where I'd stop is the point at which post-processing changes the message I was getting from the subject when I tripped the shutter.
-
That's a fair question, Alan, and all I can say is that it depends on the picture. I'd certainly carry out the darkroom conversion Ansel did on Moonrise, because I think that's the way he saw the final result when he tripped the shutter. Where I'd stop is the point at which post-processing changes the message I was getting from the subject when I tripped the shutter.
The way that AA printed Moonrise changed quite a bit over the years. The early prints were not so dramatic. And then there was that intensifier intervention...
Jim
-
That's a fair question, Alan, and all I can say is that it depends on the picture. I'd certainly carry out the darkroom conversion Ansel did on Moonrise, because I think that's the way he saw the final result when he tripped the shutter. Where I'd stop is the point at which post-processing changes the message I was getting from the subject when I tripped the shutter.
Some of my takes evolved. I've tried different things afterwards in post processing and often like the new results. I don't think it's necessary to only provide what you intended at the time you snapped the shot even assuming you knew at the time. In any case, the viewer doesn't know what's in the photographer's mind. He can only look at the end result and if it works for him, that's great. Just like I may interpret your essay one way, and another person interprets in a different way, it could be that neither of us interpret it exactly as you intended it. When you read so called experts reviews of photos, when they try to get into the photographer's mind as to what he intended, it's all hokum. It may be a fun exercise in a college class. But most people give about three seconds to the view and move on.
-
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes even three seconds seems too long.
-
Ansel had no problem altering the negative as well - see quote below. I make images that speak to me to visually but also resonate for me at a deeper level. Hopefully, they speak to others as well but that's never my goal. I have little concern if my images are manipulated as long as they reflect my vision. I realize that we likely have different views on this but that's what makes art so intellectually interesting for me.
The enterprising youth of the Lone Pine High School had climbed the rocky slopes of the Alabama Hills and whitewashed a huge white L P [the letters “L” and P”] for the world to see. It is a hideous and insulting scar on one of the great vistas of our land, and shows in every photograph made of the area. I ruthlessly removed what I could of the L P from the negative (in the left-hand hill), and have always spotted out any remaining trace in the print. I have been criticized by some for doing this, but I am not enough of a purist to perpetuate the scar and thereby destroy — for me, at least — the extraordinary beauty and perfection of the scene.
-
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes even three seconds seems too long.
Speaking of three seconds, I use to set the time length for my digital slide show on the HDTV of vacation pictures to 5 seconds for each "slide". I used 1 second cross dissolves but that's included in the five seconds. Two vacation ago, I changed the length to 4 seconds with the same one second cross dissolve. For my last trip to the southwest national parks, I set it at three seconds. I find 3 seconds moves the show and people don't get bored (at least I hope so. ). 4 and 5 seconds per shot is too long. For a few special pictures, I'll set the time to 4 or 5 seconds because they're particularly nice. But otherwise, each of the slides are set for three seconds including the one second cross dissolve. Most photographers, myself included, think too highly of their work. :)
-
Ansel had no problem altering the negative as well - see quote below. I make images that speak to me to visually but also resonate for me at a deeper level. Hopefully, they speak to others as well but that's never my goal. I have little concern if my images are manipulated as long as they reflect my vision. I realize that we likely have different views on this but that's what makes art so intellectually interesting for me.
The enterprising youth of the Lone Pine High School had climbed the rocky slopes of the Alabama Hills and whitewashed a huge white L P [the letters “L” and P”] for the world to see. It is a hideous and insulting scar on one of the great vistas of our land, and shows in every photograph made of the area. I ruthlessly removed what I could of the L P from the negative (in the left-hand hill), and have always spotted out any remaining trace in the print. I have been criticized by some for doing this, but I am not enough of a purist to perpetuate the scar and thereby destroy — for me, at least — the extraordinary beauty and perfection of the scene.
Cam, I wanted to see your pictures. I tried the link next to your avatar. When I clicked on Portfolio, nothing happened. Not sure the other links there are working right either.
Regarding your comment, I flip between purist and well, it's OK to really edit a lot. Removing an ugly sign is OK. However, when the final image becomes just the results of digital manipulation in a computer, it's no longer a photograph and we shouldn't call it a photo. Maybe digital art is the right term. Exactly what point that happens is always a huge, unwinnable debate.
-
Cam, I wanted to see your pictures. I tried the link next to your avatar. When I clicked on Portfolio, nothing happened. Not sure the other links there are working right either.
Regarding your comment, I flip between purist and well, it's OK to really edit a lot. Removing an ugly sign is OK. However, when the final image becomes just the results of digital manipulation in a computer, it's no longer a photograph and we shouldn't call it a photo. Maybe digital art is the right term. Exactly what point that happens is always a huge, unwinnable debate.
With your definition, is the thumbless version of Lange's Migrant Mother a photo? Would it have been a photo if the thumb had been removed digitally?
Jim
-
With your definition, is the thumbless version of Lange's Migrant Mother a photo? Would it have been a photo if the thumb had been removed digitally?
Jim
I didn't give a definition. I said, " Exactly what point that happens is always a huge, unwinnable debate." Obviously, if the whole photo was created in a computer, than the\at would surely be digital art. But at what point it would lose its description as a photo if less was created or modified in a computer and the balance from image created through a camera is up to debate. Me? I keep flip flopping on the issue. I can't make up my mind.
-
With your definition, is the thumbless version of Lange's Migrant Mother a photo? Would it have been a photo if the thumb had been removed digitally?
What is the thumb or thumbless version of the photo?
-
What is the thumb or thumbless version of the photo?
http://www.mocp.org/pdf/education/MoCP_Ed-Dorothea_Lange_Migrant%20Mother_and_the_Documentary_Tradition.pdf
Jim
-
Cam, I wanted to see your pictures. I tried the link next to your avatar. When I clicked on Portfolio, nothing happened. Not sure the other links there are working right either.
Scroll down and then you will see the portfolios. Not the best website! My goal is to redo it when I can get around to it.
-
Cam, Still hard to get too but I got there. Nice shots.
-
Thanks!
-
This may be a little off topic but here it goes. I am often too quick in accessing images and as a result I often miss the real richness of an image. For me, knowing the backstory can dramatically influence how a photograph speaks to me. A couple of examples that come to mind are Walk to Paradise Garden and Tomoko in Bath by Eugene Smith. After reading the backstory, these images reach me at a much deeper level. Sometimes I feel like I’m so inundated with imaginary that I don’t take the time to see and feel what’s in front of me.
-
And THIS ONE (https://i.pinimg.com/236x/a2/e8/69/a2e8690c412c35cbaff63eecdeb2c15f.jpg) Cam, his inmate at a Haitian asylum. It needs words. All three of these are a kind of photojournalism that's high art. The man was a perfectionist, which we all should be but seldom are.
-
It's a very thought provoking image. I happen to have that print! Photojournalist, it seems, are often underappreciated as artists. To me, if you only see one image in a series it's the equivalent of reading a chapter in a great novel.
-
Real? Fake? Does it matter?
-
Doesn't matter. Nothing does. The current meme is "Truth Decay"
And it doesn't end with still pix and the cloning tool.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/deepfake-politics-1.4731665
-
Doesn't matter. Nothing does. The current meme is "Truth Decay"
And it doesn't end with still pix and the cloning tool.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/deepfake-politics-1.4731665
That is a truly worrying development.
I wonder if mankind is actually going to destroy itself courtesy its own inventions?
Rob
-
Someone posted recently that Adobe was using AI to forensically identify digital image manipulation. This should work for video, too but it won’t do anything to prevent the spread of doctored imagery in the first place.
It truly is a “No Rules” World.
-
I love how the article points fingers at Russia, as in "Russia is surely going to use it," as if we wouldn't... against them or, even more likely, domestically.
-
Speaking of three seconds, I use to set the time length for my digital slide show on the HDTV of vacation pictures to 5 seconds for each "slide". I used 1 second cross dissolves but that's included in the five seconds. Two vacation ago, I changed the length to 4 seconds with the same one second cross dissolve. For my last trip to the southwest national parks, I set it at three seconds. I find 3 seconds moves the show and people don't get bored (at least I hope so. ). 4 and 5 seconds per shot is too long. For a few special pictures, I'll set the time to 4 or 5 seconds because they're particularly nice. But otherwise, each of the slides are set for three seconds including the one second cross dissolve. Most photographers, myself included, think too highly of their work. :)
This is the problem with standardized slide shows. For some photos, 2 seconds is too long, and for another image I would need 15-30 seconds.
-
Well, Uelsmann's work is so obviously composite, everyone understands what's going on. It's when the final image appears perfectly normal but in fact was a composite or some other digital manipulation beyond the boundaries of simple exposure adjustments and cropping that we get into these arguments about photography vs. digital art.
+1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Well, Uelsmann's work is so obviously composite, everyone understands what's going on. It's when the final image appears perfectly normal but in fact was a composite or some other digital manipulation beyond the boundaries of simple exposure adjustments and cropping that we get into these arguments about photography vs. digital art.
And I think that unless it's done for fraud, then so what? Art is one thing, and the declaration of fact another. Either way, film or digital, people have always been able to photograph from an agenda-driven perspective; even when trying their best not to, it comes through via framing, juxtaposition of content. How can anyone avoid being themselves?
-
And I think that unless it's done for fraud, then so what? Art is one thing, and the declaration of fact another. Either way, film or digital, people have always been able to photograph from an agenda-driven perspective; even when trying their best not to, it comes through via framing, juxtaposition of content. How can anyone avoid being themselves?
+1
-
The fact is digitally manipulated photographs sell better than their straight version.. Call it what you want I dont care
http://www.douglasdolde.com/-/galleries/joshua-tree-np/-/medias/dd17b825-6e45-47fb-8fd0-5b0741f93b93-electric-cholla
-
What does it mean when you say the photo communicates?
If I could easily explain why or how an image, or a subject communicates with me, I'd be a writer not a photographer or an artist. What's the old saying..."one picture etc....."?
-
The fact is digitally manipulated photographs sell better than their straight version.. Call it what you want I dont care
http://www.douglasdolde.com/-/galleries/joshua-tree-np/-/medias/dd17b825-6e45-47fb-8fd0-5b0741f93b93-electric-cholla
Vincent van G with a computer?
;-)
Rob
-
My answer to the thread title:
Yes. If enough of those people that ' matter ' consider it so!