Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (
More info?)
William Graham wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119204833.334553.182290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > William Graham wrote:
> >
> >> > --
> >> > Frank ess
> >> I would say that photography can be art.
> >
> > No, photographs cannot be works of art.
> >
> >
> >> That is, a photographer can use the
> >> medium to create artistic works.
> >
> > No, he cannot.
>
> Obviously, we have different definitions of, "art". To me, anything a human
> being does with care, and the desire to do it as best he/she can, is "art".
That definition is incorrect. Unless by 'art' you mean 'set of skills'
such as 'the art of pitching' (baseball), 'the art of cooking', etc.
> I make no distinction between painting, sculpting, woodworking, and
> photography.
There is a distinction. Photographs are different: they are produced by
the subject matter themselves. Paintings, etc., have no causal
connection to anything else existing in the world.
> - Or, for that matter any craft or business.
That's a different sense from 'work of art'. You're talking about
'products of art', as in 'bountiful crops are the products of the
farmer's art'. 'Art' in that sense means 'set of skills', which is a
completely different sense.
> Even accounting
> can be carefully and well done. If one labors to do whatever they do better
> than anyone else, and stands back afterward, contemplates the results of
> their labor with the pride of personal accomplishment, then what they do is,
> to me, "art". I don't have to wonder why the work of a painter is art, but
> the work of the guy at the Saturday market who makes little polished boxes
> out of exotic wood is not. I know that the definition is purely arbitrary,
> and on planet X in some other galaxy, making little boxes out of exotic
> woods is real art, and painting with oils on canvas is just a craft that
> doesn't qualify. Why? - Because the definition is purely arbitrary, and
> there is no intrinsic reason why one would call one labor of love an art,
> and not apply the same term to some other labor of love. IOW, you can change
> the definition of the word if you desire, but the process is the same, just
> as the country in Africa doesn't change just because a different dictator
> takes over and calls it "Jonesland" instead of "Smithland". (Which is why I
> care about Geology, but could care less about Geography)
> So, I refuse to take part in your discussion of what is real art.
'Work of art' is different from 'product of art'. Understand?
Photograps are not 'works of art' but are 'products of art' where 'art'
is understood as'set of skills'.
> I
> don't care what the definition is.
Then my calling your car a poodle will draw no objection from you? You
do not see the importance of using languge with precision? Is it OK to
call Plus-X, Tri-X?
> I have my own definition. Anything I like
> to do, and work at doing well, is art.
Your definition is too vague to be of any significance.
> Why should I give up my hobbies and
> take up some other hobby just so people will call me an, "artist", instead
> of a "craftsperson"?
You missed my point above: 'art' is NOT 'better than' photography. You
must have a real inferiority complex if you believe that calling your
photography 'art' makes it more important. 'Art' IS NOT 'better' or
'more important' than photography. Poodles are not 'better' or 'more
important' than tigers.
> I don't care what they call me. I will continue to do
> what I like to do, and when I do it well enough, I will look at it and know
> that I have created a work of art.
/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
Facebook
Twitter