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 in message
news:1119288326.235802.77430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> 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).
>

By that reasoning, if a painting is of a certain tree, person, building,
etc, it cannot be art, "BECAUSE art is NOT causally connected to anything or
dependent upon the existence of
anything else,." You're argument is starting to look even sillier...

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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:1119288326.235802.77430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > 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).
> >
>
> By that reasoning, if a painting is of a certain tree, person, building,
> etc, it cannot be art, "BECAUSE art is NOT causally connected to anything or
> dependent upon the existence of
> anything else,." You're argument is starting to look even sillier...

A painting CANNOT be 'OF' a certain tree, person, building, etc., at
least not in the same sense as the photograph is 'OF'. In the case of a
photograph, the 'OF' is causal...in the case of a painting, the 'OF' is
intentional. The 'OF-ness' is quite different, and THEREIN lies the
whole difference between art and photography...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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

Skip M wrote:
>
>
> By that reasoning, if a painting is of a certain tree, person, building,
> etc, it cannot be art, "BECAUSE art is NOT causally connected to anything or
> dependent upon the existence of
> anything else,." You're argument is starting to look even sillier...

Further clarifcation:

The photograph is impossible without the tree. The photograph cannot be
taken of the tree as it was, or as it may become, but only as it IS.
Its existence is inextricably involved in the photograph...the
photograph is causally dependent on the tree's existence...it is proof
of its existence...


>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[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:1119282133.202649.51430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 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'.
>

By that definition, portrait paintings are not art, since they indeed
represent something that exists, or existed, as it exists or existed in that
moment of time, and is, indeed, part of a causal chain, as you put it. But,
on the other hand, manipulated photographs, whether digitally or darkroom,
will be art, since they are not part of the same chain.

Is this art?
http/www.pbase.com/skipm/image/45091293

Or this? (nude)
http/www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44139885

Be careful, neither are representative of any person or thing in existence,
nor a moment in time...

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[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:1119306886.182577.317270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Skip M wrote:
>>
>>
>> By that reasoning, if a painting is of a certain tree, person, building,
>> etc, it cannot be art, "BECAUSE art is NOT causally connected to anything
>> or
>> dependent upon the existence of
>> anything else,." You're argument is starting to look even sillier...
>
> Further clarifcation:
>
> The photograph is impossible without the tree. The photograph cannot be
> taken of the tree as it was, or as it may become, but only as it IS.
> Its existence is inextricably involved in the photograph...the
> photograph is causally dependent on the tree's existence...it is proof
> of its existence...
>

A painting of Queen Elizabeth would be impossible with out Queen
Elizabeth...

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[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:1119306141.393936.231100@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The book's copyright is 1998. Only two chapters are devoted to
> photography; one to still photography, one to cinema. I quoted from the
> chapter on still photography.
>
> Skip M wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119278887.425596.71140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
>> >>
>> Here's where Scruton goes astray. One, in order to buttress his
>> argument,
>> he tries to separate them by calling on the ideal. (Since I don't feel
>> like
>> wading through 462 pages or so of his work to see if you are quoting
>> selectively, though I feel you are, I'll take this quote at face value.)
>> It
>> is an artificial separation, first.
>
> No, it isn't. In philosophy, we have to examine the pure state of
> things, the essence, not what is accidental to things.

So, just what is the "ideal" photograph and the "ideal" painting?

>
>> Then, the goes on to say that "actual"
>> photography (as opposed to the ideal) is the "result of the attempt by
>> photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and
>> methods
>> of painting." That, by the time he wrote that, in 1974, was an outdated
>> concept, held by the "Pictorialists" of the late 19th and early 20th
>> century, discredited by Steichen and Steiglitz, and later by the members
>> of
>> the f64 group, Adams, Weston, et al. Also, that is an assumption he
>> makes
>> about the intent of an individual photographer that he is in no way in a
>> position to make.
>
> This is false on its face. Ever see Monte Zucker's work? Many
> photographers today want to call their work 'fine art'. They write
> 'artist's staements' and the like. (I think Dr. Scruton could have made
> himself clearer in the passage to which you refer, though.)
>

"Fine art" and "aims and methods of painting" are two different things. And
while not mutually exclusive, a desire to call something "fine art" does not
necessarily mean that the object is aping painting. Sculpture,
representative or abstract, does not use the aims or methods of painting,
and is considered a fine art.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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:1119288326.235802.77430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> 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).
>>
>
> By that reasoning, if a painting is of a certain tree, person,
> building, etc, it cannot be art, "BECAUSE art is NOT causally
> connected to anything or dependent upon the existence of
> anything else,." You're argument is starting to look even
> sillier...

I think Mr Committee and perhaps his Source may need to make their use
of "causally" a little clearer for us non-philosophers. A painting of
a tree arrives at its paintingness through some or several
intermediaries, perhaps a painter's apprehension of a particular or
imagined object, a transfer process, in which his apprehension is
given substance.

The vibes come in through his eye, are processed in his "mind" and
transliterated into brush- or pen- or pencil-controlling movement, or
similar succeeding craft-like requirements, so there eventually you
have it: a picture of a tree.

How is that "causally" different from the causality inherent in vibes
through a photographer's eye, processed in his "mind" and
transliterated into camera-controlling movement and its succeeding
craft-like requirements, and there eventually you have it: a picture
of a tree?

Unless Scruton has passed on recently, perhaps Mr UC can ring him up
and have him drop by to settle this once and for a while?

Interpreters from "philosophy-speak" to "meaningful language" please
stand by for service.

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

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

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119304597.227398.324550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
..
>>
>> Not in the slightest. *You* created the dichotomy between artist and
>> philosopher.
>
> No, I pointed out that 'artists' were not trained in 'aesthetics',
> which is a branch of philosophy that deals with theories and principles
> of art, and that philosophers are trained in 'aesthetics'.

And are not trained in art. (and all this time, I thought as "aesthetician"
was a fancy name for a hair dresser...)
>
>> > > If you ask a philosopher about being a firefighter, they can tell you
>> > > what they *think* about fighting fires, but they can't really
>> > > understand
>> > > what it is to walk into a burning building, perhaps to their death,
>> > > in
>> > > order to save somebody they don't know and who may never thank them.
>> > > They can't speak with authority about that topic.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure what you mean. To my knowledge, there is no philosophy of
>> > firefighting...
>>
>
> Aesthetics is concerned with theories of art (including the nature of
> art). Artists themselves have no such formal education, typically.
>
>>
>> > > Or if you ask a philosopher about art,
>> >
>> > Aesthetics or Aesthetic Theory....
>> >
>> > > they can make all kinds of silly
>> >
>> > They're not silly at all. They're simply unfamiliar to you...
>>
>> No, as I said, I am familiar with them. I simply regard them as silly
>> and irrelevant. I don't give them much authority. At all.
>
> They are relevant. How else can we distinguish between 'art' and
> 'non'art'? There have to be SOME criteria, right?
>
>> I suggest you spend some time contemplating Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain,'
>> since, by your definition(s), it is art.
>>
>> > > distinctions about 'fiction' or 'representationalism' or 'emotional
>> > > context,' but they don't know what it means to create something and
>> > > put
>> > > it on display with hopes of some form of edification for those who
>> > > experience it, do they? They have no authority to address it, just as
>> > > you, as a philosopher, have no authority to say that photography is
>> > > in
>> > > no way an artform.
>> >
>> > I have every right to make the distinctions I make speaking as a
>> > philosopher.
>>
>> True. But you still have no authority in the matter, since you're a
>> non-artist talking about what is and isn't art.
>
> You haven't the slightest niotion of what philosophers do, or why what
> we say matters, or why it carries more weight than a bunch of moron
> photographers...
Except you are not a philosopher, you are someone who repeats the words of
obscure reactionaries who are dissatisfied with the idea that few are taking
them seriously.
>
>> > Especially when they are backed up by Dr. Scruton. There is clearly a
>> > causal connection between a photograph and its subject (collected
>> > photons). Just as clearly there is no such <<causal>> link between a
>> > painting and anything else, or am I mistaken?
>> >

Dr. Scruton has no effect on the world of art, whatsoever. And there is a
causal link between -some- paintings and the real world, that's pretty
apparent.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:xtGdnfIzxPmI0yrfRVn-tg@giganews.com...
> Skip M wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119288326.235802.77430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>
>> By that reasoning, if a painting is of a certain tree, person,
>> building, etc, it cannot be art, "BECAUSE art is NOT causally
>> connected to anything or dependent upon the existence of
>> anything else,." You're argument is starting to look even sillier...
>
> I think Mr Committee and perhaps his Source may need to make their use of
> "causally" a little clearer for us non-philosophers. A painting of a tree
> arrives at its paintingness through some or several intermediaries,
> perhaps a painter's apprehension of a particular or imagined object, a
> transfer process, in which his apprehension is given substance.
>
> The vibes come in through his eye, are processed in his "mind" and
> transliterated into brush- or pen- or pencil-controlling movement, or
> similar succeeding craft-like requirements, so there eventually you have
> it: a picture of a tree.
>
> How is that "causally" different from the causality inherent in vibes
> through a photographer's eye, processed in his "mind" and transliterated
> into camera-controlling movement and its succeeding craft-like
> requirements, and there eventually you have it: a picture of a tree?
>
> Unless Scruton has passed on recently, perhaps Mr UC can ring him up and
> have him drop by to settle this once and for a while?
>
> Interpreters from "philosophy-speak" to "meaningful language" please stand
> by for service.
>
> --
> Frank ess

That's one of the problems I have with many philosophers of the late 20th
century. They either latch on to a narrow, obscure definition of words and
profess that to be the only meaning of them, or redefine words to suite
themselves, and sow confusion among the less well informed.
I see UC's point, and by extension, what he says is Scruton's, that a
photograph is a direct result of the reflected photons bouncing off of the
object and hitting the film or sensor, a painting is by usage only the
painter's translation of what he saw. But that is an artificially narrow
(see above) usage of the term "causal." Because, more often than not, a
painting is, indeed "OF something," even if it is "OF" the perception of the
subject.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:20:29 -0500, 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!

There are a few reasonably interesting subthreads, easily
identified by UC's absence. Normally I say that those playing the
fool, as UC does, should be ignored. But those that rise to his
bait, knowing full well that he's nothing more than a troll that
can't be reasoned with, probably deserve to be strung along ad
infinitum, ad nauseam. On the other hand, maybe they're really
stringing UC along, trolling the troll. It certainly helps keep him
isolated in a small number of recognizable and easily ignored
threads. Once was the time that UC could be counted upon to
regularly drop his "Leica solves all" non-sequitur stools.

 

[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:1119274011.667098.320600@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> William Graham wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> 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.

As near as I can tell, it is the dictionary definition, and that is good
enough for me. If I needed a philosopher in order to define a word, then I
would not use that word. I only expect the people who read what I write to
use the dictionary definitions of the words I use. For example, I would not
use the expression, "glorious contingency" without defining what it means.
Otherwise, I wouldn't expect the average person to know what it means, and I
write for the average person, and not for people who have PhD's in
philosophy.

 

[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:1119306886.182577.317270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> The photograph is impossible without the tree. The photograph cannot be
> taken of the tree as it was, or as it may become, but only as it IS.
> Its existence is inextricably involved in the photograph...the
> photograph is causally dependent on the tree's existence...it is proof
> of its existence...

The above may be true, but I fail to see just what this has to do with the
definition of art. In the first place, one can distort a photograph in a
number of ways to get it to depict that which was not there, or to make that
which was there vanish, so the above is not quite true. Also there are those
who can record that which was there quite accurately without the use of
photography. There are spies, for example who can simply look at a scene,
and then, days later, draw or describe exactly what they saw with more
detail than even would exist in a photograph. (especially if the light was
poor at the time of their observation) But none of this has anything to do
(necessarily) with "art", which is defined perfectly well in the dictionary,
and also has different definitions for different people, as this discussion
has adequately shown. After all, it is only a three letter word. Why make it
so complicated? In nothing else, use a simple modifier, such as, "fine", or,
"commercial" in front of it to specify a more complicated version.

 

[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:
[..]
> > > > Or if you ask a philosopher about art,
> > >
> > > Aesthetics or Aesthetic Theory....
> > >
> > > > they can make all kinds of silly
> > >
> > > They're not silly at all. They're simply unfamiliar to you...
> >
> > No, as I said, I am familiar with them. I simply regard them as silly
> > and irrelevant. I don't give them much authority. At all.
>
> They are relevant. How else can we distinguish between 'art' and
> 'non'art'? There have to be SOME criteria, right?

Sure. You'll just have to accept that your stated criteria carry little
weight, because you are neither an artist nor a very good philosopher.

> > > > distinctions about 'fiction' or 'representationalism' or 'emotional
> > > > context,' but they don't know what it means to create something and
> > > > put it on display with hopes of some form of edification for those
> > > > who experience it, do they? They have no authority to address it,
> > > > just as you, as a philosopher, have no authority to say that
> > > > photography is in no way an artform.
> > >
> > > I have every right to make the distinctions I make speaking as a
> > > philosopher.
> >
> > True. But you still have no authority in the matter, since you're a
> > non-artist talking about what is and isn't art.
>
> You haven't the slightest niotion of what philosophers do, or why what we
> say matters, or why it carries more weight than a bunch of moron
> photographers...

You were wrong up until that very last point.

> > > Especially when they are backed up by Dr. Scruton. There is clearly a
> > > causal connection between a photograph and its subject (collected
> > > photons). Just as clearly there is no such <<causal>> link between a
> > > painting and anything else, or am I mistaken?
> > >
> > > Yes or no?
> > >
> > > Answer the question! YES OR NO!
> >
> > Answer: Irrelevant.
>
> Why is it (in your incorrect opinion) not relevant? What is the main
> distinction is there between painting and photography?

Who cares what the main distinction between painting and photography is?
Why is it relevant? Answer: Because unless there's a distinction,
there's no way for you to be correct when you say that photography isn't
art. That's the only game you're playing, Uri, and it's tedious as hell.

Look: Artists work at their art. What they leave behind is an artifact
of their art. A painting is not art; the process which created it *is*
art. Whether that process involves taking a picture or sketching on a
canvas, it's art. Art is an expression of the artist, and as such, is
only bounded by the limitations placed on it by the artist, and their
art is judged within the context of all human activity. Art is a human
endeavor, not a finished piece.

If you were an artist, you'd know this.

 

[Stacey]

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> 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.

Sounds like someone with a preformed bias looking for a way to prove his
point. Given there is no "ideal" painting, photography or art, seems like a
moot point to me.

Then again you came into this with your own preformed bias so trying to
discuss this with you also seems to be a moot point. Given you've
dismissed my multiple examples showing the faults of your arguement, you
seem unwilling to learn anything or move from your stoic position. Enjoy
living in the past using other's words and thoughts rather than thinking
for yourself.
--

Stacey

 

[Guest]

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

Stacey wrote:

>
> Then again you came into this with your own preformed bias so trying to
> discuss this with you also seems to be a moot point. Given you've
> dismissed my multiple examples showing the faults of your arguement, you
> seem unwilling to learn anything or move from your stoic position. Enjoy
> living in the past using other's words and thoughts rather than thinking
> for yourself.

What a good idea to dismiss *all* of the specious arguments. Now, if
you, Stacey, and whomever else has been drawn in by this boy genius
could also restrain themselves, this thread could be given a peaceful
burial. Unless you need to keep feeding Mikey's ego.

--
John McWilliams

 

[Guest]

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

In article <3hp8laFhor4nU1@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

[ ... ]

>Sounds like someone with a preformed bias looking for a way to prove his
>point. Given there is no "ideal" painting, photography or art, seems like a
>moot point to me.

Could you *please* stop changing the "Subject: " header? You're
making it more difficult to keep this thread killfiled, and I may have
to killfile *you* in self defense.

Thanks,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http/www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

 

[Guest]

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

In article <11be5lbf6aljq74@corp.supernews.com>,
"Dick R." <dickr@visi.com> 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.

It always amuses me when someone posts this
kind of message; why don't you just ignore it if you don't
like the thread, or kill file it.
--
I am a Fly in your oinkment, I am the one with real squeal appeal.

 

[Guest]

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

Gig A. Hertzu wrote:
> In article <11be5lbf6aljq74@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Dick R." <dickr@visi.com> 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.
>
> It always amuses me when someone posts this
> kind of message; why don't you just ignore it if you don't
> like the thread, or kill file it.
Hi Gig,
Yup, I'll do that. Glad you were amused.

Take care,
Dick R.

 

[Guest]

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

On 17 Jun 2005 06:29:08 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

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

Your authority for issuing this command? Dr. Scruon, perhaps?

>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?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:51:18 -0700, "William Graham"
<weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Paul Bielec" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:d8sjah$2n6$1@dns3.cae.ca...
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am a philosophy major, after all
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow!
>>>
>>> Here most philosophy majors end up being artists for the government.
>>>
>>> They draw unemployment!
>>
>> ROTFL
>> Back at university, in one issue of the student paper there was a map of
>> the campus. Philosophy was named "unemployment factory"...
>> Yes, philosophy is nice, but making your living out of it...I wouldn't
>> try.
>> On the other hand, fine arts academies teach photography.
>
>In Scotland, they call physics majors, "Natural Philosophers", so it can
>have a different meaning.....
>

As can be seen from the clown's postings, it's obvious what
effect physics have on the body.