That's what I meant by "cg"... computer generated

Thanks to everyone for all the comments, this was an idea that had been floating around my head for a while and the theme seemed a good catalyst to experiment with it. Lot's to think about how successful the image was.

The image was created from two photographs I took of the television on 9/11, one is of Osama Bin Laden and the other George.W.Bush. George's eyes are above Osama's and their mouths meet in the same place. The look of Osama is the result of playing around with smart blur, Gaussian blur and different layer blends and opacity's, there where three layers of Osama all up. The top most layer of George.W.Bush was desaturated and the contrast increased and again played around with layer blends untill it worked.

I didn't want the image of George to be immediately obvious, for it to reveal itself slowly, I could see it knowing it was there but it was hard to judge how subtle it should be, by the sounds of it I made it too subtle, but that's good, I've learnt something.

That's the basics, I experimented with things until I was happy.

By the looks from the comments what I was trying to achieve worked in some cases and in others didn't. I was trying to convey Osama and George as opposing forces to each other but also as being in opposition to peace. They both claim to be religious people, yet their actions, with each of them having blood on their hands, are at odds with what I regard as the fundamentals of both Christianity and Islam which are Peace and Love.

There is a few more levels to it than that, but just to make sure everyone understands, this is a comment on two particular individuals and their small band of insane zealots, Osama Bin Laden and Taliban etc, George.W.Bush and Donald Rumsfeld etc, not on attack on any race, Islam and Americans.

In relation to the images used being mine. From my understanding of copyright in Australia at that time, my taking photographs of my television did not breach any copyright laws but you could argue a moral breach of copyright by my actions. I did not lift an image off the internet anyway. It's a hard one, none of us like having our images stolen but where would Warhol, Rauschenberg and the Beastie Boys be without a little lifting of other peoples material. Art is appropriation.

I think when it comes to making political commentary of public figures that there has to be some leeway, really how easy would it be for people to access either of these two people to take photographs of them. I'm not saying it should be a free for all, but in this case I feel comfortable with where I have sourced the images from, I don't feel like I have stolen them. If I was to look at creating the work for an exhibition I might consider purchasing images from a photo library, higher res, rights to use etc, except that the context of when these images where taken is an important part of the final image.

But again, you could argue that as I didn't take the original images of either person then I have no claim to argue any creative authorship on the final image at all. Some may consider that my taking a photograph of a television screen of a public broadcast is no different from me stealing the image from someone else's web site, so be it.

Now the really hard one, is it a photograph? That's one for the ages, I consider it a photograph, my background is in photography rather than graphic design so my approach to the work is based upon that background. It's in the eye of the beholder, I consider artists such as Gilbert and George, Willie Doherty and Bernard Faucon photographers, others would argue differently.

For me weeklyshot has been a great incentive to attempt new stuff and get feedback. This image especially has been great in that context as I have got a lot from the comments and ratings that otherwise I would not have necessarily got. But first and foremost weeklyshot is a photographic meme and the general consensus maybe that such work as this has no place here.

Anyway thanks for the feedback, I have got a lot out of it and have much to think about.

Regards,

Jeremy

Sorry, this paragraph should have been this:

There is a few more levels to it than that, but just to make sure everyone understands, this is a comment on two particular individuals and their small band of insane zealots, Osama Bin Laden, Al-Zakarwi and Taliban etc, George.W.Bush and Donald Rumsfeld etc, not on attack on any race, Islam, Christianity or Americans.

Jeremy

I see no problem with using images taken of the television--good way to get your own take on these images. I didnt realize the eyes above Osama's were Bush's--that adds another layer.

The discussion over whether this is really a photo or not is a discussion that could go on for years. I see arguements from both sides of that coin.

In the end, thank you very much for your detailed explanation. I found it an interesting read and a very good response to the comments left.

Thanks Jeremy, it just didn't come to my mind that you may have taken a picture of TV screen.
I think I am one of the few who even saw the Bush face in there.
Thanks for explanation.

Cheers.

The George layer really needs working, much too subtle, where as the text layer is too much and needs to be more subtle.

You live and learn. :-)

Jeremy. my previous comment about not considering this as a photograph is withdrawn - sorry, i was too fast to rush to the conclusion that you had chosen to use stock imagery and ps. however, i suppose i would have still left that text away from it - i believe an image should talk for itself, i think this is what photography and that's why i'm very very apprehensive about considering this as photography. the reason i do now though is that i think the image behind the text tells the message itself fairly clearly.

improvements i would have made - making this more obvious it's a television image... no shame in that and personally i think it's a good source of photographic imagery and a useful tool. it's part of our culture - perhaps not sidelining george so much... you may have noticed in previous comments that osama was really the only one noticed.

I agree there are things wrong with this image and that I need to work on it, it was an experiment with ideas and techniques and I've gotten a lot out of the feedback, but "not very creative"... humph !