One of the things I noticed last night, was that my artwork is hard to classify.

A lot of the photography on display, and even the image that won in the best photograph, were, what I call straight photography. Now I am not saying they were not good or did not evoke emotion (as good art should), but the idea of the photo was based in the subject matter. For example, the best in show image was a very good shot of a fire pit somewhere outside some slums. For me, the image only said anything in relation to the poverty and political situation in the middle east. My works tend to be “placeless” and “timeless”. The location of the work is less important than what the image conveys to you.
I am neither complaining, nor jealous. I am just trying to figure out how to market my own work. Since much of my work is quite abstract, or explores themes deeper and/or different from the nominal subject, can I really call it photography?
I also am a bit afraid to call my work digital Imaging (even though I tend to spend a lot of time in PhotoShop), because there is still a stigma{{1}} about digital art.

I guess I need to worry less about labels, and what other people think. I am going to stop calling myself a photographer (largely because I don’t want to get asked to shoot weddings) and start calling myself an artist.

[[1]]Much digital art is more about technique than content. it is more about, ” wow, look at what I can do”. This may be valid in it’s own right, but I am not sure I would classify it as fine art. For example, look at the main page of deviantart.[[1]]