sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography

"Photography is the art, science and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film."

I only see Photoshop-generated images in the articles about Sansour.

Because that is their opinion? And the opinion of Lacoste is that she was discarded because she didn't keep to the theme.

And the opinion of Elysee is that the theme (joie de vivre) could be interpreted in any which way and the opinion of Lacost is that the theme were to be interpreted less liberarly.

And in the end, they divorce due to difference of opinion and each issue a statment claifying their opinion. Nothing unusual really...

You see what you want to see....and art is about a free vision of the world.

Photomontage or photocollage has always been part of photographic art (already in 19th century). We are in the 21st century and photoshop can be used as means to express artistic ideas and it's still photography.

PS: by the way "sci-fi" photography is probably the best representation of what it's to be "palestinian" today (or is it also a photoshop of History for you?).

Sorry but they discarded her because they want to be a-political and saw her work as too "pro-palestinian" (whatever that means)....now the explanation of it does not fit the contest seems like a last minute explanation to avoid the PR & image fiasco for Lacoste (a lot of boycott appeals on internet already).

Heh.

This makes me chuckle and wonder what would have been if great visionaries and artists like Walt Disney and Charlie Chaplin had been around today.
With this oversensitivity on Political Correctness, we would, maybe, never see some great works of art.

Tsk tsk.

Well, we don't know that for sure, do we? We can assume or suspect or think that this was the underlying reason but we can never know and as it stands, have to respect that there is a difference of opinion on the matter. We will also never know of Lacoste has a problem with any type of political statement through art or if they only have a problem with pro-Palestinian statements. We can, based on our own beliefs and biases, make assumptions but we will never know.

This is a very good illustration of course of why I personally don't find sponsoring of public awards and activities by private enterprises a briliant idea.

There's a difference between making collages of or mounting material generated through a photographic process, and rendering images digitally. If no ray of light has been involved, it's not photography. Paintings aren't photographs either.

Great! thank you for this official photographic art definition.

PS: Since you have a good sense of humor, could you change in your profile "Occupation:Economist" to "Occupation: palestinian territories"

Israeli or palestinian definition?

Yours...we are a-political here.

Then I'll opt for "palestinian terrorists" instead of "palestinian territories"

Gives more weight to your expertise in arts.

We're not discussing artistic value, we're discussing disciplines. You've benn proven wrong, you can't stand that you try to start a secondary area of conflict. Find a proof that digital rendering is photography, or shut up.

Great sense of open discussion and democracy. I'm lucky we are in Europe otherwise you'd just point a gun at me I guess.

PS: you haven't proven anything except your narrow-minded view of art.

Well, it could be.

I tried to look around the Internet and I found two blogs which claim that Lacoste gives money to support the zionism. I can't possibly take it seriously since it is just some "ouie-dire". They didn't provide any link to prove their statements. But let's assume it is the case. They (Lacoste) are entirely entitle to do so since it is their money. They can invested the way they want. The prize they received few years back directly from Shimon Perez could be also a weight in their decisions to not accept any pro-Palestinian art works.

What is the truth, we don't know. We are talking over some speculations. It is a difference of opinion between Lacoste and the museum. It could be a difference of values and on what they believe too.

I believe politics has nothing to do in art and art can do everything about politic.

Disclaimer:

* I do not share any opinions about the above, it is only a between two loads of laundry speculations...

Who?


.................

Another proof that you don't get the difference between: "Is it art?" and "Is it part of a specific discipline of art?".

Smart arse! My iPad auto-corrected into Sharon!

In the community of politics, arts, science, literature, intellectuals, activists etc., the voice of support of Palestinians is routinely silenced...and more often than not, the messengers are admonished for brazenly being 'anti-semetic'...It's the art of perpetuating the apartheid...You can pretty much be critical of anyone or any country but if Israel comes up, it's met with the usual spin & propaganda machine

It's remarkable really that it's gone on for as long as it has

Which apartheid?