Covers, Concreteness, and Craft: A Reply To Giupponi, Pettersson and Campion

I reply to three authors who responded to my target article: 'Music, Visualization and the Multi-stage Account of Photography'. Mikael Pettersson raises concerns about absent light because traditional theories suppose that a photograph is a causal trace of light and there can be no causal trace where there is no light. I explain how a multi-stage account can handle these concerns. Pettersson explores the music-photography analogy by considering cover versions in music but wonders whether every rendering of a register must count as a photograph. To evaluate examples, I claim that we need contextual information, which may include artist testimony. However, Ben Campion argues that a dilemma arises if this methodological principle is applied to videogame photography, a practice which involves making images from screenshots of computer-generated scenes. Artist testimony may tell us that such work is photography, but this claim conflicts with my theoretical commitments. I argue that the dilemma will seem plausible only if videogame ‘photography’ is affiliated with a single-stage account. Affiliation with the concreteness of a multi-stage account is far from plausible, so my commitments can be preserved. In her case study of Renaissance intarsia, Claudia Giupponi successfully appeals to artistic testimony to show how the music-photography analogy can extend to another artform. To support her position, I query the distinction she draws between art and craft and recommend that she accept the account of craft and creativity offered by Ansel Adams.