Photography: Artist vs technician

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119204453.793871.158410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
>
> >
> > In the Oxford (1928) and Shorter Oxford (4th edition, 1974) English
> > Dictionary, the usage is mentioned as applying to paintings or
> > sketches. Photographs are NOT mentioned in those editions. More recent
> > editions of the SOED do mention photographs, as usage has become less
> > distinct. Traditionally, however, the word 'picture' refers properly to
> > paintings and the like (a photograph is not 'the like').
> >
>
> Why don't you quote it?

I don't have a scanner at home.

> "Picture" in the sense you're using here is a verb,

No, noun.

> and, yes, the Oxford does not mention photography specifically, it does say,
> "pictorial representation." It's also interesting to note that most of the
> usages noted in the "Oxford Universal Dictionary" (Third Edition, 1933) are
> from the 19th century or earlier.

Correct. My point is that the word 'picture' was historically connected
to painting.

> Except for the usage connoting motion
> pictures, or, in other words, serial photographs. One of the definitions
> given is, "An individual painting, drawing or representation on a surface,
> of an object or objects, esp. as a work of art. (Now the prevailing sense)
> 1484." Now, a photograph is certainly a "representation on a surface, of an
> object or objects."

A photograph is NOT a 'representation'. Again, I quote from Scruton:


"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.

The ideal painting stands in a certain 'intentional' relation to a
subject.[2] In other words, if a painting represents a subject, it does
not follow that the subject exists nor, if it does exist, that the
painting represents the subject as it is. Moreover, if x is a painting
of a man, it does not follow that there is some particular man of which
x is the painting. Furthermore, the painting stands in this intentional
relation to its subject because of a representational act, the artist's
act, and in characterizing the relation between a painting and its
subject we are also describing the artist's intention. The successful
realization of that intention lies in the creation of an appearance, an
appearance which in some way leads the spectator to recognize the
subject.

----------------------------------------------------------------
[2] See Franz Clemens Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical
Standpoint, ed. Linda McAlister (London and New York, 1973); Roderick
M. Chis- holm, Perceiving (London and Ithaca, N.Y., 1957), chapter 11;
and G. E. M. Anscombe, 'The Intentionality of Sensation', in R. J.
Butler (ed.), Ana- lyticql Philosophy, Second Series (Oxford, 1965).

-----------------------------

The ideal photograph also stands in a certain relation to a subject. a
photograph is a photograph of something. But the relation is here
causal and not intentional.[3] In other words, if a photograph is a
photograph of a subject, it follows that the subject exists, and if x
is a photograph of a man, there is a particular man of whom x is the
photograph. It also follows, though for different reasons, that the
subject is, roughly, as it appears in the photograph. In characterizing
the relation between the ideal photograph and its subject, one is
characterizing not an intention but a causal process, and while there
is, as a rule, an intentional act involved, this is not an essential
part of the photographic relation. The ideal photograph also yields an
appearance, but the appearance is not interesting as the realization of
an intention but rather as a record of how an actual object looked.

Since the end point of the two processes is, or can be, so similar, it
is tempting to think that the intentionality of the one relation and
the causality of the other are quite iuelevant to the standing of the
finished product. In both cases, it seems, the important part of
representation lies in the fact that the spectator can see the subject
in the picture. The appreciation of photographs and the appreciation of
paintings both involve the exercise of the capacity to 'see as', in the
quite special sense in which one may see x as y without believing or
being tempted to believe that x is y.

---2---
Now, it would be a simple matter to define 'representation' so that 'x
represents y' is true only if x expresses a thought about y, or if x is
designed to remind one of y, or whatever, in which case a relation that
was merely causal (a relation that was not characterized in terms of
any thought, intention, or other mental act) would never be sufficient
for representation. We need to be clear, however, why we should wish to
define representation in one way rather than in another. What hangs on
the decision? In particular, why should it matter that the relation
between a painting and its subject is an intentional relation while the
photographic relation is merely causal? I shall therefore begin
by....."

(end of quote.....)

>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

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.

The ideal painting stands in a certain 'intentional' relation to a
subject.[2] In other words, if a painting represents a subject, it does
not follow that the subject exists nor, if it does exist, that the
painting represents the subject as it is. Moreover, if x is a painting
of a man, it does not follow that there is some particular man of which
x is the painting. Furthermore, the painting stands in this intentional
relation to its subject because of a representational act, the artist's
act, and in characterizing the relation between a painting and its
subject we are also describing the artist's intention. The successful
realization of that intention lies in the creation of an appearance, an
appearance which in some way leads the spectator to recognize the
subject.

----------------------------------------------------------------
[2] See Franz Clemens Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical
Standpoint, ed. Linda McAlister (London and New York, 1973); Roderick
M. Chis- holm, Perceiving (London and Ithaca, N.Y., 1957), chapter 11;
and G. E. M. Anscombe, 'The Intentionality of Sensation', in R. J.
Butler (ed.), Ana- lyticql Philosophy, Second Series (Oxford, 1965).

-----------------------------

The ideal photograph also stands in a certain relation to a subject. a
photograph is a photograph of something. But the relation is here
causal and not intentional.[3] In other words, if a photograph is a
photograph of a subject, it follows that the subject exists, and if x
is a photograph of a man, there is a particular man of whom x is the
photograph. It also follows, though for different reasons, that the
subject is, roughly, as it appears in the photograph. In characterizing
the relation between the ideal photograph and its subject, one is
characterizing not an intention but a causal process, and while there
is, as a rule, an intentional act involved, this is not an essential
part of the photographic relation. The ideal photograph also yields an
appearance, but the appearance is not interesting as the realization of
an intention but rather as a record of how an actual object looked.

Since the end point of the two processes is, or can be, so similar, it
is tempting to think that the intentionality of the one relation and
the causality of the other are quite iuelevant to the standing of the
finished product. In both cases, it seems, the important part of
representation lies in the fact that the spectator can see the subject
in the picture. The appreciation of photographs and the appreciation of
paintings both involve the exercise of the capacity to 'see as', in the
quite special sense in which one may see x as y without believing or
being tempted to believe that x is y.

---2---
Now, it would be a simple matter to define 'representation' so that 'x
represents y' is true only if x expresses a thought about y, or if x is
designed to remind one of y, or whatever, in which case a relation that
was merely causal (a relation that was not characterized in terms of
any thought, intention, or other mental act) would never be sufficient
for representation. We need to be clear, however, why we should wish to
define representation in one way rather than in another. What hangs on
the decision? In particular, why should it matter that the relation
between a painting and its subject is an intentional relation while the
photographic relation is merely causal? I shall therefore begin
by....."

(end of quote.....)


Stacey wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > A photograph is evidence that something exists, more or less(!) as
> > depicted in the photograph.
>
> A print sure isn't, again it's way to easy to "doctor" it so it no longer is
> representative of what actually existed. Now that this arguement has been
> shown to be faulty, what's the next reason it can't be art?
> --
>
> Stacey
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119274731.156889.292360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Skip M wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119204453.793871.158410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > In the Oxford (1928) and Shorter Oxford (4th edition, 1974) English
>> > Dictionary, the usage is mentioned as applying to paintings or
>> > sketches. Photographs are NOT mentioned in those editions. More recent
>> > editions of the SOED do mention photographs, as usage has become less
>> > distinct. Traditionally, however, the word 'picture' refers properly to
>> > paintings and the like (a photograph is not 'the like').
>> >
>>
>> Why don't you quote it?
>
> I don't have a scanner at home.
>
>> "Picture" in the sense you're using here is a verb,
>
> No, noun.
>
>> and, yes, the Oxford does not mention photography specifically, it does
>> say,
>> "pictorial representation." It's also interesting to note that most of
>> the
>> usages noted in the "Oxford Universal Dictionary" (Third Edition, 1933)
>> are
>> from the 19th century or earlier.
>
> Correct. My point is that the word 'picture' was historically connected
> to painting.
>
>> Except for the usage connoting motion
>> pictures, or, in other words, serial photographs. One of the definitions
>> given is, "An individual painting, drawing or representation on a
>> surface,
>> of an object or objects, esp. as a work of art. (Now the prevailing
>> sense)
>> 1484." Now, a photograph is certainly a "representation on a surface, of
>> an
>> object or objects."
>
> A photograph is NOT a 'representation'. Again, I quote from Scruton:

Quote all you want, here's one, from the very same Oxford Universal
Dictionary," Representation: 2. An image, likeness, or reproduction in some
manner of a thing. ME"
>

>
> "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.

That is an opinion, not a definition.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

The term 'representation' has many senses, obviously. In the sense of
'representation' used here, photographs are NOT representations but
paintings are. You really need to know more about aesthetics.

Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119274731.156889.292360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Skip M wrote:
> >> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1119204453.793871.158410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > In the Oxford (1928) and Shorter Oxford (4th edition, 1974) English
> >> > Dictionary, the usage is mentioned as applying to paintings or
> >> > sketches. Photographs are NOT mentioned in those editions. More recent
> >> > editions of the SOED do mention photographs, as usage has become less
> >> > distinct. Traditionally, however, the word 'picture' refers properly to
> >> > paintings and the like (a photograph is not 'the like').
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why don't you quote it?
> >
> > I don't have a scanner at home.
> >
> >> "Picture" in the sense you're using here is a verb,
> >
> > No, noun.
> >
> >> and, yes, the Oxford does not mention photography specifically, it does
> >> say,
> >> "pictorial representation." It's also interesting to note that most of
> >> the
> >> usages noted in the "Oxford Universal Dictionary" (Third Edition, 1933)
> >> are
> >> from the 19th century or earlier.
> >
> > Correct. My point is that the word 'picture' was historically connected
> > to painting.
> >
> >> Except for the usage connoting motion
> >> pictures, or, in other words, serial photographs. One of the definitions
> >> given is, "An individual painting, drawing or representation on a
> >> surface,
> >> of an object or objects, esp. as a work of art. (Now the prevailing
> >> sense)
> >> 1484." Now, a photograph is certainly a "representation on a surface, of
> >> an
> >> object or objects."
> >
> > A photograph is NOT a 'representation'. Again, I quote from Scruton:
>
> Quote all you want, here's one, from the very same Oxford Universal
> Dictionary," Representation: 2. An image, likeness, or reproduction in some
> manner of a thing. ME"
> >
>
> >
> > "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.
>
> That is an opinion, not a definition.
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119274731.156889.292360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Skip M wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119204453.793871.158410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > In the Oxford (1928) and Shorter Oxford (4th edition, 1974) English
>> > Dictionary, the usage is mentioned as applying to paintings or
>> > sketches. Photographs are NOT mentioned in those editions. More recent
>> > editions of the SOED do mention photographs, as usage has become less
>> > distinct. Traditionally, however, the word 'picture' refers properly to
>> > paintings and the like (a photograph is not 'the like').
>> >
>>
>> Why don't you quote it?
>
> I don't have a scanner at home.
You don't have to scan it, just quote what it says...
>
>> "Picture" in the sense you're using here is a verb,
>
> No, noun.

The one place that painting and drawing are mentioned in connection with the
definition is with the first one, "The action or process of painting or
drawing, the fact of being painted or pictorially represented."
The only other place the two are mentioned are also in conjunction with the
phrase "represented on a surface."
>
>> and, yes, the Oxford does not mention photography specifically, it does
>> say,
>> "pictorial representation." It's also interesting to note that most of
>> the
>> usages noted in the "Oxford Universal Dictionary" (Third Edition, 1933)
>> are
>> from the 19th century or earlier.
>
> Correct. My point is that the word 'picture' was historically connected
> to painting.

That point would be made, before the invention of photography. That would
be not unlike saying a car does not move, since the term was applied to
horse drawn carriages.
>
>> Except for the usage connoting motion
>> pictures, or, in other words, serial photographs. One of the definitions
>> given is, "An individual painting, drawing or representation on a
>> surface,
>> of an object or objects, esp. as a work of art. (Now the prevailing
>> sense)
>> 1484." Now, a photograph is certainly a "representation on a surface, of
>> an
>> object or objects."
>
> A photograph is NOT a 'representation'. Again, I quote from Scruton:

By the way, what book of Scruton's are you quoting from?

>
>
> "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.

Earlier, I said this was just an opinion, but its more than that. It's a
silly opinion, redefining terms in order to fit a silly argument.
>
> 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.
>
> The ideal painting stands in a certain 'intentional' relation to a
> subject.[2] In other words, if a painting represents a subject, it does
> not follow that the subject exists nor, if it does exist, that the
> painting represents the subject as it is. Moreover, if x is a painting
> of a man, it does not follow that there is some particular man of which
> x is the painting. Furthermore, the painting stands in this intentional
> relation to its subject because of a representational act, the artist's
> act, and in characterizing the relation between a painting and its
> subject we are also describing the artist's intention. The successful
> realization of that intention lies in the creation of an appearance, an
> appearance which in some way leads the spectator to recognize the
> subject.

By that logic, a painting of GeorgeIII is not a picture of that person, if a
photograph of, say, Queen Elizabeth isn't.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Over time, some words tend to lose a little of their precision. It is
usually useful to ignore the latest trends and focus on core meanings.
If you watch a film from the 1940's, especially a British film, the
term 'picture' will almost certainly be used in connection with
painting. The term 'photograph' is used more widely in Britain among
both educated and non-educated classes. People in the US tend to be
less precise in their usage. 'Car', for instance, is 'motor-car' in
Britain, to distinguish it from a railway car, which is commoner in
Britain than in the US.

W3:

"Car: a vehicle adapted to the rails of a railroad or street railway
and used for carrying passengers and mail, baggage, freight, or other
things - in British usage usually applied only to city tramways not
railroads"

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2005 11:07:33 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On 18 Jun 2005 09:34:02 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >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)
> >>
> >> Can you please show a site that supports this definition of a
> >> painting? I can't seem to find one.
> >
> >Oh, try the Oxford English Dictionary, for instance. The word 'picture'
> >is most closely related to painting, though it is sometimes used
> >(sloppily) to refer to photographs.
> >
> >> >is NOT causally
> >> >related to anything. Photographs should not really be called 'pictures'
> >> >for that reason.
> >>
> >> See above.
> >>
> >> I can't seem to find any support for your contention that a photo
> >> isn't a picture. In fact, when I ask Google to define "picture"
> >> (define: picture), photographs are specifically included as
> >> "pictures".
> >> A clarification of why everyone else is wrong would be appreciated.
> >
> >In the Oxford (1928) and Shorter Oxford (4th edition, 1974) English
> >Dictionary, the usage is mentioned as applying to paintings or
> >sketches. Photographs are NOT mentioned in those editions. More recent
> >editions of the SOED do mention photographs, as usage has become less
> >distinct. Traditionally, however, the word 'picture' refers properly to
> >paintings and the like (a photograph is not 'the like').
>
> IOW, you're wrong.
> Unless you want to live in the past.
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bill Funk
> >> replace "g" with "a"
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119274731.156889.292360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Skip M wrote:
> >> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1119204453.793871.158410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > In the Oxford (1928) and Shorter Oxford (4th edition, 1974) English
> >> > Dictionary, the usage is mentioned as applying to paintings or
> >> > sketches. Photographs are NOT mentioned in those editions. More recent
> >> > editions of the SOED do mention photographs, as usage has become less
> >> > distinct. Traditionally, however, the word 'picture' refers properly to
> >> > paintings and the like (a photograph is not 'the like').
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why don't you quote it?

I don't have the dictionary at work, where my internet connection is.

> >
> > I don't have a scanner at home.
> You don't have to scan it, just quote what it says...
> >
> >> "Picture" in the sense you're using here is a verb,
> >
> > No, noun.
>
> The one place that painting and drawing are mentioned in connection with the
> definition is with the first one, "The action or process of painting or
> drawing, the fact of being painted or pictorially represented."
> The only other place the two are mentioned are also in conjunction with the
> phrase "represented on a surface."

Do you have a copy of the third edition handy? It was edited in the
1920's Photography had been around for almost 100 years, but recorded
usage did not change appreciably during that time.

> >> and, yes, the Oxford does not mention photography specifically, it does
> >> say,
> >> "pictorial representation." It's also interesting to note that most of
> >> the
> >> usages noted in the "Oxford Universal Dictionary" (Third Edition, 1933)
> >> are
> >> from the 19th century or earlier.
> >
> > Correct. My point is that the word 'picture' was historically connected
> > to painting.
>
> That point would be made, before the invention of photography. That would
> be not unlike saying a car does not move, since the term was applied to
> horse drawn carriages.

The connection was already made before photography came along. That was
my point. The usage continued and strictly speaking should continue in
the same way.

> >
> >> Except for the usage connoting motion
> >> pictures, or, in other words, serial photographs. One of the definitions
> >> given is, "An individual painting, drawing or representation on a
> >> surface,
> >> of an object or objects, esp. as a work of art. (Now the prevailing
> >> sense)
> >> 1484." Now, a photograph is certainly a "representation on a surface, of
> >> an
> >> object or objects."
> >
> > A photograph is NOT a 'representation'. Again, I quote from Scruton:
>
> By the way, what book of Scruton's are you quoting from?

The Aesthetic Understanding

http://www.rogerscruton.com/books/aesthetic_under.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1890318027/qid=1119280410/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0873327-4339111?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://www.rogerscruton.com/
>
> >
> >
> > "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.
>
> Earlier, I said this was just an opinion, but its more than that. It's a
> silly opinion, redefining terms in order to fit a silly argument.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The ideal painting stands in a certain 'intentional' relation to a
> > subject.[2] In other words, if a painting represents a subject, it does
> > not follow that the subject exists nor, if it does exist, that the
> > painting represents the subject as it is. Moreover, if x is a painting
> > of a man, it does not follow that there is some particular man of which
> > x is the painting. Furthermore, the painting stands in this intentional
> > relation to its subject because of a representational act, the artist's
> > act, and in characterizing the relation between a painting and its
> > subject we are also describing the artist's intention. The successful
> > realization of that intention lies in the creation of an appearance, an
> > appearance which in some way leads the spectator to recognize the
> > subject.
>
> By that logic, a painting of GeorgeIII is not a picture of that person, if a
> photograph of, say, Queen Elizabeth isn't.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

>
> Earlier, I said this was just an opinion, but its more than that. It's a
> silly opinion, redefining terms in order to fit a silly argument.

What photographers think is silly is of absolutely no importance
whatsoever in philosophyical discussions. The argument is quite sound
and technically sophisticated. If you cannot understand the difference
between 'causally connected' and 'not causally connected' I pity you.

A photograph is no more a 'work of art' than is a fossil, and for
exactly the same reasons.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

The root of 'picture' is 'pingere', paint:


-Piciture-(p~tii1;1, pi.ktI9;1), sb. late ME. [- L. pictura, f. pict-,
pa. ppl. stem of pingere paint.] tl. The action or process of painting
or drawing; the fact of being painted or pictorially represented; the
art of painting; pictorial representation -1844. 2. The concrete result
of this process. Painting -1580. b. An individual painting, drawing,
or representation on a surface, of an object or objects; esp. as a work
of art. (Now the prevailing sense.) 1484. c. spec. The portrait or
likeness of a person. Now colloq. or affected. 1505. A iikeness in the
solid, esp. a statue or monumental effigy -1771. e. A person so
strongly resembling another as to seem a likeness of him. Const. 1712.
f. A tableau; spec. at the end of an act or play. Also living p. (Fr.
tableau vivant). 1865. In full, cinematograph, cinema, or moving p., a
cinematograph film; the p-s, the cinema (colloq.) 1912. h. fig. colloq.
A very picturesque object. i. Into the p., so as to be obvious. In the
p., in evidence 1919. 3. trans/. A scene; the total visual impression
produced by something; hence = IDEA III. 1. 1547. 4. fig. A graphic
desciption, written or spoken, of an object, capable of suggesting a
mental image 1588. 5. A symbol, type, figure; an illustration 1656.
1. P. took her fel~ng from Poetry B. JONS. :l. b. Every noble p. IS a
manuscript book. of which only one copy exists RUSKIN. c. Twel. N. m.
Iv. 228. e. The sons are the very p. of their father DE FOE. g. I saw
it done In the pictures, Sir 1916. h. The little girl is a p. 1906. 3.
Clinical p., the total Impression of a diseased condition. formed by
the physician. 5. He looks the p. of health 1871.
attrib. and Comb. a. General: as p.-dealer, -shop, etc.; p.-language,
-puzzle, etc.; p.-cover, -paper; p.- cleaner, cleaning, -restorer, etc.

b. Special: as p.-book; -card, a court-card in a pack of cards; -frame;
-frock, a frock designed ill Imitation of the style of an earlier
period, esp. such a frock copied from a portrait; p. gallery, a hall or
building containing a collection of pictures; the collection Itself; p.
hat, orlg. a lady's wide-brimmed hat, usually black and adorned with
ostrich feathers, as in the paintings of Reynolds and Galnsborough;
hence, any wide- brimmed hat, usu. of straw and with a curving brim;
p.-house, a cinema; p.-mouldlng, a horizontal wooden moulding, parallel
to the ceiling of a room, for hanging pictures; p. palace, a cinema; P.
play. a clnematDaranh film" n.



Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119274731.156889.292360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Skip M wrote:
> >> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1119204453.793871.158410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > In the Oxford (1928) and Shorter Oxford (4th edition, 1974) English
> >> > Dictionary, the usage is mentioned as applying to paintings or
> >> > sketches. Photographs are NOT mentioned in those editions. More recent
> >> > editions of the SOED do mention photographs, as usage has become less
> >> > distinct. Traditionally, however, the word 'picture' refers properly to
> >> > paintings and the like (a photograph is not 'the like').
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why don't you quote it?
> >
> > I don't have a scanner at home.
> You don't have to scan it, just quote what it says...
> >
> >> "Picture" in the sense you're using here is a verb,
> >
> > No, noun.
>
> The one place that painting and drawing are mentioned in connection with the
> definition is with the first one, "The action or process of painting or
> drawing, the fact of being painted or pictorially represented."
> The only other place the two are mentioned are also in conjunction with the
> phrase "represented on a surface."
> >
> >> and, yes, the Oxford does not mention photography specifically, it does
> >> say,
> >> "pictorial representation." It's also interesting to note that most of
> >> the
> >> usages noted in the "Oxford Universal Dictionary" (Third Edition, 1933)
> >> are
> >> from the 19th century or earlier.
> >
> > Correct. My point is that the word 'picture' was historically connected
> > to painting.
>
> That point would be made, before the invention of photography. That would
> be not unlike saying a car does not move, since the term was applied to
> horse drawn carriages.
> >
> >> Except for the usage connoting motion
> >> pictures, or, in other words, serial photographs. One of the definitions
> >> given is, "An individual painting, drawing or representation on a
> >> surface,
> >> of an object or objects, esp. as a work of art. (Now the prevailing
> >> sense)
> >> 1484." Now, a photograph is certainly a "representation on a surface, of
> >> an
> >> object or objects."
> >
> > A photograph is NOT a 'representation'. Again, I quote from Scruton:
>
> By the way, what book of Scruton's are you quoting from?
>
> >
> >
> > "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.
>
> Earlier, I said this was just an opinion, but its more than that. It's a
> silly opinion, redefining terms in order to fit a silly argument.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The ideal painting stands in a certain 'intentional' relation to a
> > subject.[2] In other words, if a painting represents a subject, it does
> > not follow that the subject exists nor, if it does exist, that the
> > painting represents the subject as it is. Moreover, if x is a painting
> > of a man, it does not follow that there is some particular man of which
> > x is the painting. Furthermore, the painting stands in this intentional
> > relation to its subject because of a representational act, the artist's
> > act, and in characterizing the relation between a painting and its
> > subject we are also describing the artist's intention. The successful
> > realization of that intention lies in the creation of an appearance, an
> > appearance which in some way leads the spectator to recognize the
> > subject.
>
> By that logic, a painting of GeorgeIII is not a picture of that person, if a
> photograph of, say, Queen Elizabeth isn't.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>
>> "Advertsing / commercial Art is primarily about communication
>> regarding a product; as it's not purely for art's sake, ..."
>
>
>
> But what is art's sake? I'm saying it's not just communicating an
> emotion in an 'artificial' way, meaning not simply in the act of living
> or survival but doing so for the enrichment of humanity (or oneself).

Art should be created because there is a need or desire to create. That
enriches.


>> Where architecture is intended (beyond function) to make a visiual
>> statement (bold or demure), it is art.
>
>
>
> Not if it has a deceptive intent and not if it's merely a pretty
> physical pattern, it has to have feeling and sincerity. I would call

You can't measure or define 'feeling', sincerity, etc. Wherever the
architect added form for a reason not related to purpose, it is art.
How talented he is at it, is an completely different matter.

> some architecture art where the design is genuine enough and so true to
> form and function and sense of place that it gives a feeling of
> belonging to the place and the earth and makes a statement about that.

Frank Lloyd Wright in Arizona. Although the statement is very low key.

> Vernacular architecture of course had those properties but that was just
> craft (commonsense), today in our world of cookie cutter pre-fab & lack
> of sense of place, it could be a real statement to build such a thing
> with modern materials and an ancient sensibility. That sort of thing is
> rare but yes there is some architecture that qualifies as art though
> most is simply craft. Churches & monuments can easily be art, they exist
> to communicate noble ideas but what is a house or office building
> supposed to 'say'? 'I have money' or 'I have good taste' or 'I like
> Medeterannean style'. Those aren't art though they may be beautiful.

See above.
>>
>> Art has many elements which begin with the artists intent to create.
>> We tend thereafter to qualify whether it is for
>> commercial/advertising, etc. But art remains art if that was the
>> intent of the artist regardless of the quality of it. (That artists
>> starve or work at McDonalds for lack of patrons is another issue).
>> Pornography is art if that is what it was intended to be, even if its
>> actual patrons have other uses for it. We usually recognize
>> pornography for being pornography by merely seeing it. As some judge
>> once said, "I can't define it, but I know pornography when I see it."
>>
>> Even the most simple graphic design is art, if so intended.
>
>
>
> If it was intended to evoke a sincere emotion then yes.
>
>
>>
>> Why can't a roller coaster be art? It can be if the artist intended
>> it to be so. But like porn, the real use of most if not all roller
>> coasters is as a thrill ride. A few months ago I wandered into an art
>> gallery. A sign said, the artist wants you to rearrange the pieces in
>> each exhibit as you see fit. I did a little, but got little out of
>> the experience.
>>
>> Art is not static (danse, film, stage) and so anything, including a
>> mechanical contraption or food may be art. Fine cuisine often has
>> presentation as a highly regarded aspect of the experience. If this
>> is constued by the chef to be art, then so be it. Art may be eaten!
>> (And I disagree with you that the sensations linked to food (look,
>> smell, taste, texture, even sound) are not linked to emotion, they
>> most definitely are).
>
>
> Fine cuisine is a craft, not art. I can possibly imagine a chef
> arranging and presenting a meal to evoke a feeling of 'home' for
> instance and that might be art but evoking 'luxury' or 'glamour' doesn't
> make it art unless maybe it's prepared for someone poor and desperate
> with the meaning that they are worthwhile enough to be treated like
> royalty by a loved one (maybe). It's pretty unusual to make food into
> art, we generally just enjoy it for the taste and attractive
> presentation. Attractive presentation is craft, not art, it's mere
> titillation. It would need to have some meaning to become art.

See above. If the intent is creation beyond the mere sustenance
offered, it may 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.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> "Advertsing / commercial Art is primarily about communication
>>> regarding a product; as it's not purely for art's sake, ..."
>>
>> But what is art's sake? I'm saying it's not just communicating an
>> emotion in an 'artificial' way, meaning not simply in the act of
>> living or survival but doing so for the enrichment of humanity (or
>> oneself).
>
>
> Art should be created because there is a need or desire to create. That
> enriches.


Agreed, though the enrichment needs to be emotional, not just physical.


>
>>> Where architecture is intended (beyond function) to make a visiual
>>> statement (bold or demure), it is art.
>>
>> Not if it has a deceptive intent and not if it's merely a pretty
>> physical pattern, it has to have feeling and sincerity. I would call
>
> You can't measure or define 'feeling', sincerity, etc. Wherever the
> architect added form for a reason not related to purpose, it is art. How
> talented he is at it, is an completely different matter.
>
>> some architecture art where the design is genuine enough and so true
>> to form and function and sense of place that it gives a feeling of
>> belonging to the place and the earth and makes a statement about that.
>
> Frank Lloyd Wright in Arizona. Although the statement is very low key.


Agreed, or maybe even Le Corbusier (for his time) with a revolutionary
idea of open free thinking modern simple clean living:
<http://www.felsted.essex.sch.uk/~nlo/ASHoAFINAL/LE%20CORBUSIER.htm>
Though the legacy of these ideas turned out a failure in many cases.

>>>
>>> Even the most simple graphic design is art, if so intended.
>>
>> If it was intended to evoke a sincere emotion then yes.
>>
>> Fine cuisine is a craft, not art. I can possibly imagine a chef
>> arranging and presenting a meal to evoke a feeling of 'home' for
>> instance and that might be art but evoking 'luxury' or 'glamour'
>> doesn't make it art unless maybe it's prepared for someone poor and
>> desperate with the meaning that they are worthwhile enough to be
>> treated like royalty by a loved one (maybe). It's pretty unusual to
>> make food into art, we generally just enjoy it for the taste and
>> attractive presentation. Attractive presentation is craft, not art,
>> it's mere titillation. It would need to have some meaning to become art.
>
>
> See above. If the intent is creation beyond the mere sustenance
> offered, it may be art.


I still think food is almost always a purely physical enrichment without
emotional content.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

False and idiotically so.

Alan Browne wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Alan Browne wrote:
> >
> >>Mikey: Stop making up comparisons that nobody has uttered to attempt to
> >>defend your fallacious argument. Further, we're not discussing whether
> >>a particular photograph is a better image than a particular painting or
> >>sculpture.
> >>
> >>If the intent of the artist is that the photograph is art, than that is
> >>what it is regardless of anything else.
> >
> >
> > Nonsense. What qualifies as 'art' has long been established.
>
> What stupidity. If the intent is to make art, then it is 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.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

False and idiotically so.

Alan Browne wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Whetehr they were 'assumed to show something that exists' is not the
> > point (and false). Many paintings even in ancient times represented
> > mythological figures. The point is that photographs show only that
> > which exists and as it exists, to which the photograph stands in a
> > causal chain. The painting is 'artificial', not part of any such causal
> > chain, and that distinction is the one that makes the painting 'art'
> > and prevents the photograph from being 'art'. The photograph is the
> > reult of a natural process; the painting is not: it is artificial
> > through and through. 'Art' must be 'artificial'.
>
> False. Stop letting otheres think for you. What ends up printed or
> displayed is as artificial as any other product of hands and
> immagination. A given photograph can be printed in an infinite number
> of ways, and even the most technically controlled photograph does not,
> and cannot reproduce a viewpoint absolutely perfectly.
>
> And even that does not matter.
>
> Art is the result of an intention to make art and has no bearing
> whatsoever on how that art was made. This includes photographs where
> artisitic intent was present.
>
> --
> -- 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.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Whetehr they were 'assumed to show something that exists' is not the
> > point (and false). Many paintings even in ancient times represented
> > mythological figures. The point is that photographs show only that
> > which exists and as it exists, to which the photograph stands in a
> > causal chain. The painting is 'artificial', not part of any such causal
> > chain, and that distinction is the one that makes the painting 'art'
> > and prevents the photograph from being 'art'. The photograph is the
> > reult of a natural process; the painting is not: it is artificial
> > through and through. 'Art' must be 'artificial'.
>
> False. Stop letting otheres think for you. What ends up printed or
> displayed is as artificial as any other product of hands and
> immagination.

HUH? What are you talking about?

> A given photograph can be printed in an infinite number
> of ways, and even the most technically controlled photograph does not,
> and cannot reproduce a viewpoint absolutely perfectly.

Who says it has to? It said 'more or less', right?

> And even that does not matter.
>
> Art is the result of an intention to make art and has no bearing
> whatsoever on how that art was made.

Photographs are not and cannot be works of art, BECAUSE art is NOT
causally connected to anything or dependent upon the existence of
anything else, whereas photographs are causally connected to something
else and dependent upon the existence of something else.

That IS the difference bewteen photographs and art. A photograph is
ALWAYS a photograph "OF" something else (meaning causally related). A
painting or other work of art is not 'OF' something else (i.e., not
causally related).

Photographs are derivative. Art is not derivative. That's what makes it
'art'.

Can you read or not?

> This includes photographs where
> artisitic intent was present.
>
> --
> -- 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.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Why don't you start by studying some aesthetic theory instead of
groping on your own, relying on half-assed notions formulated by the
ignorant?

Paul Furman wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
> > Paul Furman wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Browne wrote:
> >>
> >>> Paul Furman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Alan Browne wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Advertsing / commercial Art is primarily about communication
> >>>>> regarding a product; as it's not purely for art's sake, ..."
> >>>>
> >>>> But what is art's sake? I'm saying it's not just communicating an
> >>>> emotion in an 'artificial' way, meaning not simply in the act of
> >>>> living or survival but doing so for the enrichment of humanity (or
> >>>> oneself).
> >>>
> >>> Art should be created because there is a need or desire to create.
> >>> That enriches.
> >>
> >> Agreed, though the enrichment needs to be emotional, not just physical.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure why you keep repeating the "emotional" context. I suggest
> > that a bit of research on 'emotion' will reveal a sea of possible
> > responses to a visual (or other) input. These responses manifest
> > themselves physically as well as in other ways. What motivates the
> > artist to create might not evoke the same feelings in the viewers. But
> > it's still art.
>
>
> Without the emotional communication motivation, science could be art if
> it enriches the human condition, or food. I'm just trying to come up
> with a definition of art.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why don't you start by studying some aesthetic theory instead of groping
> on your own, relying on half-assed notions formulated by the ignorant?

You're not an artist, are you?
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why don't you start by studying some aesthetic theory instead of groping
> > on your own, relying on half-assed notions formulated by the ignorant?
>
> You're not an artist, are you?

You're not a philosopher, are you? You know nothing of aesthetic
theory, do you?
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>Mikey: Stop making up comparisons that nobody has uttered to attempt to
>>defend your fallacious argument. Further, we're not discussing whether
>>a particular photograph is a better image than a particular painting or
>>sculpture.
>>
>>If the intent of the artist is that the photograph is art, than that is
>>what it is regardless of anything else.
>
>
> Nonsense. What qualifies as 'art' has long been established.

What stupidity. If the intent is to make art, then it is 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.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

The distinction between 'art' and 'non-art' is evidently beyond the
understanding of photographers. Even worse, photographers think that
calling their work 'art' makes it more important.

Dick R. wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've been reading this thread ad nauseum, and it might
> be time to end it. Whether photography is art, or not,
> opinions won't be changed by messages in this NG.
> Let's end this thread!
>
> Dick R.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> In the case of artistic photography, I find the intention behind
>> photographs more interesting than the fact that the subject exists. Of
>> course the subject exists. Before photography and abstract art, most
>> paintings were assumed to show something that exists and that was the
>> purpose of many of them.
>
>
> Me, too, on the intention bit.
>
> This "Before photography ... " part is very difficult to accept. Most of
> what paintings? Assumed by who? How do we know what they assumed, or
> what was the purpose of many of them? Of any of them? How many is
> "many", and what is the significance of the assumptions of the "many",
> if at all? Was there another "many" whose different assumptions were
> considerable? Why do we ignore them?

I should have said "some" not most, but you're right, there was a time
when people had no idea about the idea of represnting things acurately,
it wasn't in their vocabulary. There wasn't even such a thing as a
stable reality, everything was mystical and mutable.

>
> My assumption is that representational photography can be no more, no
> less, than showing that and how an object exists; however, if I
> demonstrate that and add a little elegance or a fillip or two that
> renders an accurate representation in a way that further enhances the
> viewer's apprehension of the object, by transmitting something of my
> attitude toward it, isn't that art?


If it has a higher emotional intent, yes. If it's just emphasizing a
scientific fact or shallowly tittilating, no.


> If I do that unconsciously, without
> intending any enhancement of the viewer's experience


Was it intentional for your unconcious? If so then it's art. Our
unconcious thinking is highly abstract and symbolic, dreams are very
much like art.


> is it less artful?


No.


> If the viewer's experience is _not_ enhanced by my conscious or
> unconscious artfulness, has the art evaporated?


For the viewer it has evaporated but it was created as art. Great art is
noticeable to most people, mediocre half hearted art could easily be
missed. A sensitive viewer could see art in things that were not created
as art. That's what photographers do, find the art that's just sitting
out there unrecognized and frame it.