I don't think that documentary photography can ever be truly objective, closure is interpreted differently depending on the viewer, and certainly not commercial/ product photography which 9 times out of 10 is concerned with aesthetics and manipulation.

Sorry, Darger is significantly different than your average point click 10 renders of v4 a week Poser/DS user. This is where I'm critical. No further explanation is necessary, regardless of appropriation...I'd say any comparisons are really reaching.

"in fact most functional object we use are not considered art if that 3 layered communication is absent. Generally Art is communication with functionality considered as irrelevant in most cases."

A few images. (I said I wouldn't do this, but it's to make a point).

Functional objects. You can hold and pour liquid from the pitcher. You can eat off the plate. Dinnerware is functional. These objects are dishwasher safe. ;)

A pitcher and a plate. 100% my own creation.

Is this art?

The three figure pitcher sold for $800, the plate for $400. Out of a real world fine art gallery, within days of being contracted to the gallery, noob rate. This isn't bragging but just a little context for my next statement. I recently posted these images to my cgbytes gallery. Guess how many comments I got as compared to, say, a nearby picture of a scantily clad vickie? Yup, zero. Quite a dichotomy between the two realms of art huh? Lol. I won't elaborate with my thoughts on this. Hope that answers your questions razor... glad some people kinda like my Poser/model stuff though. And yeah, I only use my own creations there now too. Not elitist. Just the truth.

---

W10 Pro, HP Envy X360 Laptop, Intel Core i7-10510U, NVIDIA GeForce MX250, Intel UHD, 16 GB DDR4-2400 SDRAM, 1 TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD

Mudbox 2022, Adobe PS CC, Poser Pro 11.3, Blender 2.9, Wings3D 2.2.5

My Freestuff and Gallery at ShareCG