Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:52:48 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Wow!
>
>Here most philosophy majors end up being artists for the government.
>
>They draw unemployment!

I think Scarpitti has a real job. Last I heard he was a janitor at
the university so at least he works for a living.

 

[Stacey]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
> Stacey wrote:
>> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > It's not my responsibility to teach you the history of art.
>>
>> Ah so there can be no NEW formulas/forms of art allowed? When exactly was
>> the official cut off date for this "history"?
>
> The 'newness' is not an issue. It has to do with unbroken causation (a
> photograph is formed in an unbroken causal chain starting with
> something that aleardy exists).

So for a painting to be "art", the artist can't be painting something that
exists? I fail to see how someone sketching a scene and then later painting
it in to create the feelings they had is any different from someone
photographing the same scene and then manipulating it to create the feeling
they had at that same point in time.

--

Stacey

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

You have no idea what you are talking about. Get out of here.

Scott W wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
> > uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > After ding an Internet search, I found that Dr. Scruton, an expert in
> > > the field of aesthetics, has made many of the same arguments that I
> >
> > "An expert in the field of aesthetics"? How many of those do you
> > suppose there are in the world?
> >
> > Same arguments?
> >
> > How many do you suppose have differing views?
> >
> > THINK Mikey, THINK. You can't grow a mind on eating pablum thought.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Alan
> >
> You guys really know how to feed UC, so the guy is crack pot who wants
> to try and define for all what art is and is not. Why should we care
> what he thinks, I doubt that his views will carry much weight.
>
> Scott

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Yes, but only as incorporating some other art form into it. That's
called motion pictures, for instance. It's an art form because it
incorporates an art form into it. The story and drama are the art form.
The rest is just photography.

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Not the same thing. 'Lie' and 'truth' are not the same dichotomy as
> > 'fiction' and 'non'fiction'.
>
> If it could be shown that photography could tell a story of its own
> creation, would you admit that it can be an art form?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

No, you don't understand. The photograph of something proves that it
exists. Thae painting does not. Photographs can be used as evidence in
court. Painting cannot. Do you understand now? Paibtings have no
<<causal connection>> to anything. Photographs do.

Stacey wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Stacey wrote:
> >> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > It's not my responsibility to teach you the history of art.
> >>
> >> Ah so there can be no NEW formulas/forms of art allowed? When exactly was
> >> the official cut off date for this "history"?
> >
> > The 'newness' is not an issue. It has to do with unbroken causation (a
> > photograph is formed in an unbroken causal chain starting with
> > something that aleardy exists).
>
> So for a painting to be "art", the artist can't be painting something that
> exists? I fail to see how someone sketching a scene and then later painting
> it in to create the feelings they had is any different from someone
> photographing the same scene and then manipulating it to create the feeling
> they had at that same point in time.
>
> --
>
> Stacey

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

No, you don't understand. The photograph of something proves that it
exists. Thae painting does not. Photographs can be used as evidence in
court. Painting cannot. Do you understand now? Paintings have no
<<causal connection>> to anything. Photographs do.

Stacey wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Stacey wrote:
> >> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > It's not my responsibility to teach you the history of art.
> >>
> >> Ah so there can be no NEW formulas/forms of art allowed? When exactly was
> >> the official cut off date for this "history"?
> >
> > The 'newness' is not an issue. It has to do with unbroken causation (a
> > photograph is formed in an unbroken causal chain starting with
> > something that aleardy exists).
>
> So for a painting to be "art", the artist can't be painting something that
> exists? I fail to see how someone sketching a scene and then later painting
> it in to create the feelings they had is any different from someone
> photographing the same scene and then manipulating it to create the feeling
> they had at that same point in time.
>
> --
>
> Stacey

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Huh? What point are you ineptly trying to make?

Alan Browne wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Yes, but only as incorporating some other art form into it. That's
> > called motion pictures, for instance. It's an art form because it
> > incorporates an art form into it. The story and drama are the art form.
> > The rest is just photography.
>
> http/www.aliasimages.com/images/PICT2036SM.jpg
>
> This photo is one of a series of strobe lit subjects.
>
> The scene only existed for a brief moment of time (less than 1
> millisecond). There was no modeling light. No way for a person to see
> the work. The work was created to be recorded on film / digital.
>
> Only the camera can be the canvas for this image.
>
> It is only art, nothing else.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Nope. No photograph is a work of art, that one included.

Alan Browne wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Huh? What point are you ineptly trying to make?
>
>
> I'm very eptly making the point that there are photographs that are
> solely art. That was the only purpose of the image.
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

These are not art. They are equivalent to fossils. Fossils are not art
either.

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:53:58 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, but only as incorporating some other art form into it. That's
> >> called motion pictures, for instance. It's an art form because it
> >> incorporates an art form into it. The story and drama are the art form.
> >> The rest is just photography.
> >
> >http/www.aliasimages.com/images/PICT2036SM.jpg
> >
> >This photo is one of a series of strobe lit subjects.
> >
> >The scene only existed for a brief moment of time (less than 1
> >millisecond). There was no modeling light. No way for a person to see
> >the work. The work was created to be recorded on film / digital.
> >
> >Only the camera can be the canvas for this image.
> >
> >It is only art, nothing else.
>
> You don't need the camera. Consider the work of Moholy-Nagy.
>
> http/www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/o39033.html
>
> http/www.geh.org/fm/amico99/htmlsrc2/
>
> Look at his photograms....
> ******************************************************
>
> "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
> my testimony. The events I have recorded should
> not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
>
> -James Nachtwey-
> http/www.jamesnachtwey.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

William Graham wrote:


> In Scotland, they call physics majors, "Natural Philosophers", so it can
> have a different meaning.....

Given the many difficulties with string theory, to which many physicists
are now dedicating their time, the word "philosopher" is very apt. Much
of what counts in string theory cannot be stimulated in experiment or
observed in nature (with the technology we have). So some physicists
(notably Weinberg) have labled string theory: "philosophy, not physics".

Even the bits predicted by string theory, such as supersymmetry are also
predicted in the standard model of quantum mechanics, so the upcoming
(assumed) observation of supersymmetry at CERN (Large Hadron Colider)
will not confirm string theory. Nor will the absence of a supersymmetry
particle kill string theory as that will just say, "the experiment
failed to detect supersymmetry confirming particles."

To be fair, many of the physicists who labeled string theory as quackery
in the 80's have made cautious revisions to their opinions ...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:56:46 -0700, "William Graham"
<weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118938544.002167.123410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Photographs are non-fiction. Art is fiction.
>
>Van Eyke didn't paint fiction......
>

All painting is fiction.



******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http/www.jamesnachtwey.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> Yes, but only as incorporating some other art form into it. That's
> called motion pictures, for instance. It's an art form because it
> incorporates an art form into it. The story and drama are the art form.
> The rest is just photography.

http/www.aliasimages.com/images/PICT2036SM.jpg

This photo is one of a series of strobe lit subjects.

The scene only existed for a brief moment of time (less than 1
millisecond). There was no modeling light. No way for a person to see
the work. The work was created to be recorded on film / digital.

Only the camera can be the canvas for this image.

It is only art, nothing else.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:53:58 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Yes, but only as incorporating some other art form into it. That's
>> called motion pictures, for instance. It's an art form because it
>> incorporates an art form into it. The story and drama are the art form.
>> The rest is just photography.
>
>http/www.aliasimages.com/images/PICT2036SM.jpg
>
>This photo is one of a series of strobe lit subjects.
>
>The scene only existed for a brief moment of time (less than 1
>millisecond). There was no modeling light. No way for a person to see
>the work. The work was created to be recorded on film / digital.
>
>Only the camera can be the canvas for this image.
>
>It is only art, nothing else.

You don't need the camera. Consider the work of Moholy-Nagy.

http/www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/o39033.html

http/www.geh.org/fm/amico99/htmlsrc2/

Look at his photograms....
******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http/www.jamesnachtwey.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:02:00 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

>
>
> Stacey wrote:
>> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > It's not my responsibility to teach you the history of art.
>>
>> Ah so there can be no NEW formulas/forms of art allowed? When exactly was
>> the official cut off date for this "history"?
>
> The 'newness' is not an issue. It has to do with unbroken causation (a
> photograph is formed in an unbroken causal chain starting with
> something that aleardy exists). If one were to make a new kind of
> painting (say, electronic) that had no kind of causal relationship to
> some object, then it would be art. Paintings of this kind created in
> electronic form would qualify as art, sure. A photograph, however, is a
> always a photograph OF something (else). It derives from something
> else. It is derivative. Art is not, and cannot be, something
> derivative....if it's art, it's not derivative..if it's derivative,
> it's not art...
>
> This argument is also made by Scruton, but there is a lot more to his
> presentation, most of which probably would go over the heads of typical
> photographers.
y
Going by this very few paintings are art as they are from other objects.

What a load of codswallop.
--
neil
delete delete to reply

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Not the same thing. 'Lie' and 'truth' are not the same dichotomy as
> > > 'fiction' and 'non'fiction'.
> >
> > If it could be shown that photography could tell a story of its own
> > creation, would you admit that it can be an art form?
>
> Yes, but only as incorporating some other art form into it. That's called
> motion pictures, for instance. It's an art form because it incorporates an
> art form into it. The story and drama are the art form. The rest is just
> photography.

So then you'd say that, while a series of still images shown at 24
frames per second can be art by telling a tale, a single still image
shown in a frame can't possibly be a work of art even though it can also
tell a tale.

Is that right?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> Huh? What point are you ineptly trying to make?


I'm very eptly making the point that there are photographs that are
solely art. That was the only purpose of the image.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> Nope. No photograph is a work of art, that one included.

Your statement above is noise. There is no 'truth' in it, as
established. You're fighting for a polarized viewpoint which is simply
not supportable by the facts.

Photographs can be art.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

William Graham wrote:

> In Scotland, they call physics majors, "Natural Philosophers", so it can
> have a different meaning.....

Suggesting that the rest of them are "unnatural philosophers". Which
is about right: any sort of thinking that is not, ultimately, rooted
in observations of physical reality are just tepid, unimaginative,
mind-games. Why waste a day in the life reading wretched claptrap like
Roger Scruton (or anyone elses) babbling on "aesthetics" when the sound
of a flushing toilet conveys more useful, meaningful and enjoyable
information?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> Aesthetics is the conceptual analysis of the structure and nature of
> art,

You mis-spelled "a heap of cow manure". Are you officially licensed to
discuss this subject?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Billygoat excrement. All of us make analyses and excercise
discrimination every day. A goat is not a dog. A house is not a car. We
know what those terms mean. Photography is not art. It may take a
little analysis to discern why, but we perform such analyses all the
time. All that is necessary is a little thought.

Photography is not art for the same reason a fossil is not art. Now,
tell me (if you can) what that reason is!

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> William Graham wrote:
>
> > In Scotland, they call physics majors, "Natural Philosophers", so it can
> > have a different meaning.....
>
> Suggesting that the rest of them are "unnatural philosophers". Which
> is about right: any sort of thinking that is not, ultimately, rooted
> in observations of physical reality are just tepid, unimaginative,
> mind-games. Why waste a day in the life reading wretched claptrap like
> Roger Scruton (or anyone elses) babbling on "aesthetics" when the sound
> of a flushing toilet conveys more useful, meaningful and enjoyable
> information?