e-string wrote:
It's called makeup "artist" for a reason.

Third question:  If a makeup "artist" contributes, then who owns or was responsible for the final art?

-D

Edit - Question 3A:  Do makeup artists ever exhibit in galleries or museums?

D. Brian Nelson wrote:

Third question:  If a makeup "artist" contributes, then who owns or was responsible for the final art?

-D

Edit - Question 3A:  Do makeup artists ever exhibit in galleries or museums?

3: I know you know the official answer to that.
I believe that if a MUA is responsible for a large part of the final product, he or she should be given credit for it anywhere the image appears. For example, I have had some intricate body paint done. I always make sure it's clear that the MUA gets credit for the work as well as the concept (he did design it all himself).

3A: Not that I know of... but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

stan wigmore photograph wrote:
Where on earth did you ever hear that,it's your photograph and Your "art",you can do what ever you please.What are the "art police" going to come get you?

Clearly you underestimate methods of the artsier-than-thou...



I would imagine that in the creation of art with a camera, you can certainly use make-up.  If we view the camera as a tool by which the artist creates, then it is equal to paint and brushes in that respect, correct?  With that in mind, I don't think anyone would begrudge a painter the right to use a subject who has make-up on.  Or having a make-up artist apply it. 

In the end, the photographer created the image you see, much as a painter would.  I think if the use of make-up is an ethical conflict, then so would the mere presence of a tattoo.  In fact, I think you could make the claim that it's just a photo featuring someone else's artistic creativity (the tattoo artist) and not your own. 

So perhaps a deeper question would be "Would a photo that captures the art of another make the photograph art (and the photographer an artist)?"

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
...for makeup to be used in art photography?

Second question:  If makeup is used, can a photograph of the subject using it still be called a "portrait?"

-Don

Actually the correct answer is, it depends. It depends on the concept, what the 'artist' is after. As I know you are aware, much of the idea of no makeup for artistic shots stems from history. A couple of generations ago, if a photo was nude  and was not shot on a clean unobstusive background, if any makeup or any sort of prop was used, it was considered something other than "art". The classic "figure study" involved absolutely nothing other than the model.  Makeup or a prop made it either a portrait, glamour or porn.  Art has evolved and in most circumstances that is no longer true, though some art gallery curators disagree with me about this!

In my own work, I simply don't care.  My own current collection is about the woman as she chooses to present herself to be photographed. I'm trying to document the "Sensual Woman", if she wears makeup or not, it's her choice.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Third question:  If a makeup "artist" contributes, then who owns or was responsible for the final art?

-D

We covered that to a stomach churning non-conclusion in a massive thread last year. The closest answer we arrived at is that where the make-up is EXTENSIVE and INDEPENDENTLY, CREATIVELY, and UNIQUELY EXPRESSIVE then the MUA - MAY - have a claim to an underlying copyrightable work... though you, the photographer, probably own the copyright to the images your copyright MAY not be inclusive of the MUA's work... causing some interesting questions if the you, the photographer, want to exploit the photographs in almost any way you can think of because of the underlying copyright... nor can the MUA independently exploit the photographs, either, because of your copyright. The answer is fairly straight forward - in simplist terms - by cross licensing to each other.

This is not as unusual as it may seem in the creative arts... and very common in other areas such as cinema and music productions where there is often layer upon layer of underlying copyrighted input to a the final product you see on screen or hear performed on stage.

Studio36

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
...for makeup to be used in art photography?

Second question:  If makeup is used, can a photograph of the subject using it still be called a "portrait?"

-Don

Would context and intent need to be considered?