Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> I agree they can be classified as means of transportation, but (of
> course) you ignore the point that they are not the same thing. A horse
> and an automobile are essentially different, even if they are both
> pleasurable to ride.
>
> Photographs and art can both be pleasurable to look at, but that does
> not mean that the one falls under the same class as the other. 'Art' is
> not a broader classification that includes 'photography' and
> 'painting', although 'means of transportation' can include 'horse' and
> 'automobile'. 'Automobile' belongs to the class of 'machines'
> primarily. Horses belong to the class of animals principally. That they
> can be used for similar purposes is of no importance in their
> classifications.

While it's amusing to watch you bury yourself this way, the more you
try, the more you highlight your total lack of any grasp of art.



--
-- 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?)

Again, you're referring to material that is impressive in its verbiage
and empty of truth.

Art is first off an intention. If the artistic intention was to make a
photographic print, then that print visual is the art from the artist.

In the first paragraph from your hero below, he immediately states a
separation where none necessarilly exists for all photographs.

You REALLY must begin thinking for YOURSELF Mikey. Quoting some
dickhead who impresses you, makes us despise you more than we despise
the dickhead. The dickhead put his convictions to paper, right or wrong
and is likely prepared to defend them, right or wrong. All you can do
in your drooling idiocy is quote from a dickhead for the only reason
that you're impressed with him.

Pitiful.

Cheers,
Alan


uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> No matter what you do in producing a photograph, it cannot be a work of
> art while remaining a photograph. If you take a dog and perform surgery
> on it, you cannot make it a cat. The difference betwen 'art' and
> 'non-art' is not a matter of degree, but of kind. The gulf is infinite.
> 'Bad' art is still art. 'Good' photography (whatever you want to
> consider that to be) is not art, no matter how 'good' it may be, and
> regardless of ther intentions of the photographer...
>
> The difference between 'art' and photography is a technical one. In
> other words, it is not a matter of 'quality'. It rests on the defining
> characters of the two.
>
> As Scruton also argues:
>
> Part of Scruton's argument:
>
> "1 ---
> In order to understand what I mean by saying that photography is not a
> representational art, it is important to separate painting and
> photography as much as possible, so as to discuss not actual painting
> and actual photography but an ideal form of each, an ideal which
> represents the essential differences between them. Ideal photography
> differs from actual photography as indeed ideal painting differs from
> actual painting. Actual photography is the result of the attempt by
> photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and
> methods of painting.
>
> By an 'ideal' I mean a logical ideal. The ideal of photography is not
> an ideal at which photography aims or ought to aim. On the contrary, it
> is a logical fiction, designed merely to capture what is distinctive in
> the photographic relation and in our interest in it. It will be clear
> from this discussion that there need be no such thing as an ideal
> photograph in my sense, and the reader should not be deterred if I
> begin by describing photography in terms that seem to be exaggerated or
> false.

<snipped>


--
-- 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:

> No, that is the point! You have no conception of what essential
> characters make up 'art'.

Oh, I certainly do. You, on the other hand are trying to give it a
lofty, useless and ponderously false definition. At that, you're so
clueless that you have to regurgitate the lofty and pretentious but no
less false proclamations of some braindead dickhead who impresses you
becasue he's put it all in a book. Don't believe everythhing you read,
Mikey. Rather, read more diverse material and come to your own
conclusion after a little thought. That requires thinking, so it may be
a fresh challenge for you and that would have collateral benefits.

All art is intent. An intent to create something with no purpose other
than its enjoyment (or not) by the artist and others. The art may be
exclusive or inclusive of connection to the real world or not. The
medium is not important with regards to what art is or is not.

Beyond that, any attempt (like that of your favourite dickhead who
'thinks' for you) to analyze various contributions to the arts with the
intent of excluding a range of intentional contribution to art, is not
only a sham, but begins to even look like a form of intellectual
censorship. Such might impress you Mikey, but those of us who think for
ourselves are not only not impressed, but somewhat miffed at the lame
attempt.

Photography, where there is intent that it be art, is 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?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119016565.472526.161580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> No, you don't understand. The photograph of something proves that it
> exists. Thae painting does not.

You're seriously deluded.

Greg

 

[Guest]

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

Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:

> <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?

<crickets>

I win. Everybody can go home. Thanks for playing.

🙂

--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:44:44 -0700, "William Graham"
<weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>
><uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1119045446.225056.176990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> 'Beauty'? Who said anything about 'beauty'? That has nothing to do with
>> it.
>
>Well, if "art" isn't an attempt to create beauty, or that which is
>beautiful, then just what do you think it is?
>

Not all "art" is an attempt to create beauty. Have you looked Goya's
"Disaster of War". Very great art but not beauty.

http/www.napoleonguide.com/goyaind.htm

In fact, beauty can degenerate in to Kitsch quicker than it can become
art.


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

"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?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f4m6b19al4vhe8402e7vdorqj8qc0ee9ja@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:44:44 -0700, "William Graham"
> <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>><uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1119045446.225056.176990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> 'Beauty'? Who said anything about 'beauty'? That has nothing to do with
>>> it.
>>
>>Well, if "art" isn't an attempt to create beauty, or that which is
>>beautiful, then just what do you think it is?
>>
>
> Not all "art" is an attempt to create beauty. Have you looked Goya's
> "Disaster of War". Very great art but not beauty.
>
But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are those who call something
beautiful for the brush technique....This is why I like Dali.....Many of his
paintings are ugly, but the craftsmanship, or his use of the brush is
fantastic, and it makes the whole thing for me. The subject matter is almost
completely unimportant. There is little I find beautiful about a female
breast that is 10 meters long, but if such a thing existed, Dali would
capture it to perfection........

 

[Guest]

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

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:44:44 -0700, "William Graham"
> <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>><uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1119045446.225056.176990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>'Beauty'? Who said anything about 'beauty'? That has nothing to do with
>>>it.
>>
>>Well, if "art" isn't an attempt to create beauty, or that which is
>>beautiful, then just what do you think it is?
>>
>
>
> Not all "art" is an attempt to create beauty. Have you looked Goya's
> "Disaster of War". Very great art but not beauty.


There a humane intent though, to show worthy people suffering from an
awful thing; we can imagine they are beautiful people. If it was just
glorifying senseless violence. That would be ugly, inhumane and not art.

Recently on this list, someone mentioned a comissioned portrait from a
famous photographer of a rather evil Nazi industrialist and he was shown
in an awful light to look grotesque. It was meant to be ugly because he
was telling the truth and truth is beauty. One might even think "I'm
glad I don't know anyone evil like him" and be comforted in the thought
of kind friends & family.

>
> http/www.napoleonguide.com/goyaind.htm
>
> In fact, beauty can degenerate in to Kitsch quicker than it can become
> art.


--
Paul Furman
http/www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

 

[Guest]

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

William Graham wrote:
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:f4m6b19al4vhe8402e7vdorqj8qc0ee9ja@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:44:44 -0700, "William Graham"
>> <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1119045446.225056.176990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> 'Beauty'? Who said anything about 'beauty'? That has nothing to
>>>> do
>>>> with it.
>>>
>>> Well, if "art" isn't an attempt to create beauty, or that which is
>>> beautiful, then just what do you think it is?
>>>
>>
>> Not all "art" is an attempt to create beauty. Have you looked
>> Goya's
>> "Disaster of War". Very great art but not beauty.
>>
> But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are those who call
> something beautiful for the brush technique....This is why I like
> Dali.....Many of his paintings are ugly, but the craftsmanship, or
> his use of the brush is fantastic, and it makes the whole thing for
> me. The subject matter is almost completely unimportant. There is
> little I find beautiful about a female breast that is 10 meters
> long,
> but if such a thing existed, Dali would capture it to
> perfection........

My favorite aspect of Dalí's work is his masterfully crafted
dissimulation.


--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

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

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119042202.956812.269380@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am the most-hated man on the Interent, because I am among the most
> brilliant people on the planet.

for someone of such brilliance you are a lousy speller. Try making
grandiose statements without any smelling pistakes next time and we might
take you seriously. ;P

 

[Guest]

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:d8vcpn$t2v$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You're an advanced idiot not fit to discuss anything, Mikey. Idiots, by
>>>definition, are not thinkers. You've proven the point very clearly.
>>
>>
>> Alan... why are you arguing with this wanker?
>
> An excellent question, when I figure out the answer I'll give you a call.
> I guess since "art" is one of the most difficult things to define in any
> respect, Mikey's absolute exclusion of photography on pseudo-intellectual
> grounds is just too insulting to not reply to.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

Just shove him in ya killfile. When i had to do a fresh install he was
released from mine. he is currently more amusing than roxy or polson so has
lasted longer this time. Actually up till now he has been relatively well
behaved.

 

[Guest]

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

On 17 Jun 2005 06:57:15 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> Huh? What point are you ineptly trying to make?

The one that he just successfully made, that as with art, some
points are beyond your ken.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 17 Jun 2005 13:53:21 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> Why? Is an automobile a horse? What if you insist on calling it a
> horse? I can point out to you that a horse is an animal and an
> automible is a machine, but if you scream in my face: "What difference
> does THAT make, you idiot? You ride from place to place with them", I'm
> afraid any discussion with you on the matter is impossible.

At least you're aware of your own limitations. Now don't go away
mad. Drive away in style, in a Mustang (or Colt, Pinto, even Fury).

 

[Guest]

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

On 17 Jun 2005 13:53:21 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> Why? Is an automobile a horse? What if you insist on calling it a
> horse? I can point out to you that a horse is an animal and an
> automible is a machine, but if you scream in my face: "What difference
> does THAT make, you idiot? You ride from place to place with them", I'm
> afraid any discussion with you on the matter is impossible.

At least you're aware of your own limitations. Now don't go away
mad. Drive away in style, in a Mustang (or Colt, Pinto, even Fury).

 

[Guest]

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

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119039140.981572.131060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Matt Clara wrote:
>
>>> Well, I'm saying it all reads like noise to me. But then again, I was
>>> so disappointed in what passes for "school" in these parts when
>>> "English" was revealed not to be a study in the structure of the
>>> language (ie, linguistics), but warmed over psycho-analysis of
>>> characters that don't even exist.
>>
>> There's a difference between the study of English Literature and the
>> study
>> of English Grammar.
>
> Linguistics is much more rich than knuckle-whacking control freaks who
> bitch about people who end sentences with prepositions.
>
>> Most elementary schools focus on the later, with
>> middle
>> and some high schools focusing on both, and if the high school is big
>> enough, then it becomes like college where you can elect to take either a
>> literature or a grammar course. And "warmed over psycho-analysis of
>> characters that don't even exist," as you put it, is akin to discussing
>> what
>> a photograph is about. You know, what's the story there, or the
>> metaphor,
>> that impacts the viewer. I may be biased, with two degrees in English
>> Language and Literature, but I think it's a worthwhile effort.
>
> Yeah, you are biased. As am I: I tend to favour the external reality
> of the real world over the fictitious worlds created by humans with
> limited imaginations. Shall we psycho-analyze the poet's true
> intentions about his descriptions of a cup of coffee, or shall we just
> drink the coffee and move on to more important matters?

Your argument here seems specious: "limited imaginations" does not describe
every author, indeed, many of the greats have been brilliant men and women,
with imaginations to match Albert Einstein himself. And your example poem,
a description of a coffee cup, certainly not anything I've studied, and
chosen by you to ridicule poetry in general, where great works of poetry
continue to challenge thinking men and women to understand better themselves
and the world in which we live.

>
>> If
>> nothing
>> else, it teaches a person to be analytic and forces them to make sense of
>> abstract ideas.
>
> Piffle. Mathematics does a better job of this than any so-called
> "English" class ever will.
>

Nonsense. A single course writing essays on literature can teach the most
basic of student how to work out complex ideas about life on paper, giving
that student a better grasp on his or her own understanding of life. I
don't know how many students I've helped work through essays on subjects
ranging from religion to slavery and capital punishment, pushing them to
explore their own feelings and ideas on the subjects, to find that they
indeed do have ideas unique from their parents'. These are things they
would not have discovered without such reflection and genuflection, and
certainly these represent revelations that the study of math would never
have caused them to wrestle with. I will say that math can help make one's
thought more analytic in terms of pure logic, which can be applied to
thought anywhere, but math itself has very defined boundaries, where as
literature by its very nature, does not. People who study math exclusively,
without rounding out their education with things like literature, reading
and writing in general, tend to see things in black and white. The world is
not black and white, except through my camera.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

 

[Stacey]

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> No, you don't understand. The photograph of something proves that it
> exists.

Not after you take the clone brush to it..

> Thae painting does not. Photographs can be used as evidence in
> court.

Maybe if you have the RAW file/negative. A print sure can't be in an
important case.
--

Stacey

 

[Guest]

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3hhvv3Fh9eofU2@individual.net...
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> No, you don't understand. The photograph of something proves that it
>> exists.
>
> Not after you take the clone brush to it..
>
>> Thae painting does not. Photographs can be used as evidence in
>> court.
>
> Maybe if you have the RAW file/negative. A print sure can't be in an
> important case.
> --
>
> Stacey

In the 1430's a realistic painter like Jan Van Eyck could use his paintings
as court testimony as long as he was there to assert that things were as he
painted them to be....Today, photographs can be used in court as long as the
photographer is there to provide the same testimony. And the reason is the
same in both cases. Just as a painting can be altered, so can a photograph
be altered......

 

[Guest]

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

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems 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
> did.

Ths simple fact that someone is a practising academic in the field
does not make their arguments correct. Scruton is a dead loss. If
anyone here is really interested in aesthetics, check out _But Is It
Art?_ by Cynthia Freeland.

Andrew.

 

[Guest]

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

The principle is that, given that a photograph has not been doctored,
it IS causally related to the scene it depicts and therefore can be
used as evidence. A painting (alone) cannot be so used under any
circumstances.

Stacey wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > No, you don't understand. The photograph of something proves that it
> > exists.
>
> Not after you take the clone brush to it..
>
> > Thae painting does not. Photographs can be used as evidence in
> > court.
>
> Maybe if you have the RAW file/negative. A print sure can't be in an
> important case.
> --
>
> Stacey

 

[Guest]

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

RichA wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2005 13:48:44 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >No matter how good a dog is, it cannot be a cat.
> >
> >No matter how good a photograph is, it is not a work of art.
>
> How about the theory that some artists (Da Vinci, for instance)
> used camera obscura to assist them? Does the projected image
> they used as a template mean their art isn't art?

No, because they could chose to follow the projected image or not...the
painting is not an 'image'. An 'image' is causally related to something
else. A 'picture' (the technical term for a painting) is NOT causally
related to anything. Photographs should not really be called 'pictures'
for that reason.