This is interesting - of sorts.
Firstly let me say that it's a nice photograph, even in it's original state and not necessarily the one modified by Mike.
However, this has been discussed before in the art magazines I have bought (can't be asked to look for it) where structures like this, statues, and other paintings even are really the creation of the original architect (in this case). Who, therefore, deserves the real credit, the architect or the photographer?
After all, the image the photographer has recorded is only the effect that the architect wanted people to see in the first place. Similarly, if you painted your own version of, say, the Rokeby Venus (real name - Venus at her Toilet by Velázquez) could you be credited with the creation. It's a copy. The same, if still in copywrite, would see you in court double quick.
If we take a picture of a cathedral in it's setting, then it can be considered to be OUR creation since it forms part of the overall scene. The fact that an architect designed the building is neither here nor there. But where the picture (be it a photo or painted) is entirely of another work of art, is it fair to take the credit for it?
That's the argument. I hold no direct opinion on this matter, strangely enough. I just like this photo anyway.
What is your opinion?
