Nope, 'bokeh' is the quality of the background blur which lies outside the DOF zone.
Now explain the parameters of what the quality needs to be for the blur to be bokeh? pretty please? how much quality, what is the quality, and who decides it?
Restating what I posted in post 25 of this thread, by the guys who collectively popularized the concept 'bokeh' in the 1996 publication of Photo Techniquies:
I've already read that way before this thread and it's gibberish now just as it always has been. Doesn't matter who comes up with the gibberish, it's still gibberish.
In his 1996 article, Merklinger stated, "Japanese apparently refer to the
quality of the out-of-focus
image as 'bokeh'." Later in the same article he amplifies, "Bokeh, the quality of the out-of-focus
image, is determined by the set of brushes: the circles of confusion characteristic of the lens, its aperture and how far out-of-focus it is." © Harold M. Merklinger, Halifax, Canada 1996.
The same issue of Photo Techniques
also included an article by Oren Grad. Some of the salient points and terminology from Oren Grad‘s article:
•bokeh refers to the rendition
of the out of focus areas of a photograph, and may be classified as good or bad bokeh.
•good bokeh softens the objects in front of the plane of focus (mae-boke).
•Out-of-focus background objects (ushiro-bokeh) lose detail but maintain their shapes and tones.
Funny stuff, and of course, just gibberish. he even says good or bad bokeh, so he means already existing bokeh is good or bad for a separate reason. See?
So again i ask, define the quality it needs to actually be bokeh, and make sure that two people cannot disagree on it, or you are saying that bokeh can both exist and NOT exist in the same photo, which is silly.