Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

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

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.

No matter how hard you try, your petty, self-confirming
definitions are hog waste.

>
>eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com top-posts like the fruitcake he is:
>>
>> > [... blah blah blah missing the point blah blah blah ...]
>>
>> Whether or not any of your idiot drivel is true, it still doesn't
>> change the fact that the stench of the output of the "unnatural
>> philosophers" is indistinguishable from that of a hog waste lagoon on a
>> hot August afternoon.
>>
>> Id est and to wit: you have the brains of a gerbil.

 

[Guest]

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

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) is NOT causally
>related to anything. Photographs should not really be called 'pictures'
>for that reason.

Nice attempt to co-opt the commonly understood word "picture"
to support your claptrap. Let's get fundamental -- would you care to
essay a definition of "good" for the drooling, gape-mouthed cretins
assembled at your feet?

 

[Guest]

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

On 20 Jun 2005 08:06:21 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>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.
>
Having worked for many years for a railroad which built a
comuter system used by BR, I am fully aware that the common referent
for railway car, used by people over there in the industry, is
carriage. Do you expect that the Brits find it necessary to refer to
"horse carriages" to make the distinction? Are you really expecting
someone to present you with multi-ton monster on rails when he says,
"I'll send a car around for you"?



>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"

 

[Guest]

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

On 20 Jun 2005 15:24:43 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>That depends. It ceratainly makes things more difficult when the
>meanings of words become almost the exact opposite over the period of a
>few centuries...

Difficult it may be, but it's extremely common. Were you aware
that the word fond originally meant silly? Were you aware that in
Latin the word pudor means both shame and honor? Fortunately neither
we nor the ancient Romans find/found it necessary to get ino such a
lather over the the very normal processes of language.

>
>'Representation', for instance, is a real troublesome word...
>
>Skip M wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119279981.559771.209480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > 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"
>> >
>>
>> So, for the purposes of this discussion, we are to concede that other words
>> may change in usage over time, but "picture," "representation," and "art"
>> may not?
>>
>> --
>> 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 17 Jun 2005 14:03:22 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>I am the most-hated man on the Interent, because I am among the most
>brilliant people on the planet.

No, that title is held by another who used to post here
frequently, though not in the past few months.

You remain, however, perhaps the most self-deluded.

>
>Gerbil wrote:
>> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > Id est and to wit: you have the brains of a gerbil.
>>
>> Please do not insult us Gerbils that way. We're not only more
>> intelligent than Michael Scarpiti, we're better looking too.
>>
>> Regards,
>> I. M. A. Gerbil.

 

[Guest]

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

On 16 Jun 2005 09:15:44 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Photographs are non-fiction. Art is fiction.

Please tell me which one of the combinations cited by the
previous poster below is non-fiction. Any two people with normal
vision, looking at the same scene at the same time will see
substantially the same image.

They will not see blurring, soft focus, single plane of focus,
zooms in a still iimage or any other artistic effects of which a
photographer is capable. So how would I know, given many images of a
scene, which was non-fiction?

>
>Paul Furman wrote:
>> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >
>> > It has to do with unbroken causation (a
>> > photograph is formed in an unbroken causal chain starting with
>> > something that aleardy exists)... A photograph... is a
>> > always a photograph OF something (else). It derives from something
>> > else. It is derivative. Art is not, and cannot be, something
>> > derivative....if it's art, it's not derivative..if it's derivative,
>> > it's not art...
>>
>>
>> While it's possible for any idiot to point a camera at a pretty or
>> interesting scene & make something that looks like art unintentionally,
>> there are plenty of choices a photographer makes when taking a picture
>> and it's those choices in editing the world around them that can make
>> photography art.
>>
>> The world around us doesn't have a bounding frame, depth of field,
>> perspective distorion, is not effected by focal length, film choice or
>> color settings by itself. There are infinite views, lighting conditions
>> and moments in time available for any given scene and it's up to the
>> photographer to chose the precise combination to convey their intent.
>> That's where the causal chain is broken. Those choices are the way the
>> photographer tells a story, just like a writer tells a story. But, maybe
>> this theory would say that literature is not art if it's about the real
>> world; only poetry if sufficiently abstract?
>>
>> --
>> 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?)

On 16 Jun 2005 09:37:15 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Scruton makes the same argument, essentially. You don't understand. The
>fact that you don't understand in no way makes me wrong.

Nor does his imputed lack of understanding make your effluvia
right.

>
>G.T. wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118938544.002167.123410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Photographs are non-fiction. Art is fiction.
>> >
>>
>> That is the biggest piece of BS you've contributed to this thread yet.
>>
>> Greg

 

[Guest]

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

On 17 Jun 2005 13:57:51 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>'Art' is not better than 'non-art'. A really good photograph is no
>closer to being art than a bad one. A really bad painting is art.

Even if it's nothing but a bucket of paint kicked over on a
canvas? By accident?

Is the floor of a paint factory art? Or is intent the key?
As in photography?


>
>'Art' is not a term of praise. It is a technical term, like
>'lubricant'. No matter how well made a brake drum is, it is not a
>lubricant....
>
>Alan Browne wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -- 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?)

Skip M wrote:
> <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.

No, not at all. There is no causal chain. None at all. No painting is
the same as a photograph.

> But,
> on the other hand, manipulated photographs, whether digitally or darkroom,
> will be art, since they are not part of the same chain.

Yes, manipulated photographs, if manipulated enough(!), can be
artworks. That's why such manipulated photographs have such low
standing in the world of photography. The manipulations must
severe.....

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

No. It's a negative print.

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

No, not even close.

>
> 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?)

Skip M wrote:
> <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?

Why not buy the book and read it all the way through?

> >> 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.

Yes, but there is a common element among the fine arts: manual
construction. A photograph is a natural, not artificial product. It is
made in a <<causal>> chain beginning with photons reflected from the
subject. Fine art is not. In fine art, there is no caisal chain, even
though the artists may have looked at some object. The photons do not
come down his sleeve, so to speak.

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

 

[Guest]

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

1) The photons do not come down the artist's sleeve, do they? In a
photograph we have a DIRECT PATH from object to film. Photons emitted
from the sun or other light source strike the object and are reflected
into space. Some of them are reflected back toward my lens and
collected by it. A photograph is of a given object at a given point in
time and space. I cannot photograph soemthing unless I can collected
its reflected rays.

None of this is true of paintings or sculptures. I can paint or sculpt
'unicorns'.

2) Why is a fossil not a work of art?

If you can answer #2, then you understand why photographs are not works
of art.

Frank ess wrote:
> 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 M wrote:

> Dr. Scruton has no effect on the world of art, whatsoever.

The meaning of this escapes me. He's a philosopher. He influences
aesthetic theory (through argument). How many books have you read on
aesthetic theory? Zero, right?

> And there is a
> causal link between -some- paintings and the real world, that's pretty
> apparent.

No, never.

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

 

[Guest]

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

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!

'Salon photography' is my choice, but it sounds a bit outdated. We
definitely need a better term than 'fine-art photography' which is
misleading and false.

Colin D wrote:
> No quotes here, sorry. {
>
> Some points I think are being missed both by UC and others, including
> myself. The manner in which UC is preenting his arguments - statements
> like 'photography is not art' imply that photography is not by
> definition able to reach the lofty heights of 'real art', and is thereby
> seen as apparently denigrating photography vs the antagonists who
> collectively are arguing that photography can be art.
>
> UC is actually saying, as he did to me in an earlier post, that he is
> not comparing the relative level or worth of photography vis-a-vis art,
> and there is no competitive comparison between the two mediums. He said
> that photography can be 'better than art' in conveying information and
> evoking reactions.
>
> What we as photographers are reacting to is the implied denigration,
> when that seems not to be UC's case; rather, by trying to call
> photographs art, we are actually limiting the power of photographic
> images.
>
> Although I have had trouble deciding what UC is getting at, and he could
> probably put his arguments better, I think I am beginning to understand
> where he is coming from. In trying to call photographs 'fine art' we
> are buying into a comparison with painting, etc., which is not really
> valid. Perhaps we should find a new term for 'fine art' photographic
> images and not borrow from the painting scene.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Colin

 

[Guest]

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

By 'art' I mean 'fine art', yes. The 'art of photgraphy', however,
means 'the set of skills that are required to make good photographs of
technical excellence.'

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:57:32 +1200, Colin D
> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >No quotes here, sorry. {
> >
> >Some points I think are being missed both by UC and others, including
> >myself. The manner in which UC is preenting his arguments - statements
> >like 'photography is not art' imply that photography is not by
> >definition able to reach the lofty heights of 'real art', and is thereby
> >seen as apparently denigrating photography vs the antagonists who
> >collectively are arguing that photography can be art.
> >
> >UC is actually saying, as he did to me in an earlier post, that he is
> >not comparing the relative level or worth of photography vis-a-vis art,
> >and there is no competitive comparison between the two mediums. He said
> >that photography can be 'better than art' in conveying information and
> >evoking reactions.
> >
> >What we as photographers are reacting to is the implied denigration,
> >when that seems not to be UC's case; rather, by trying to call
> >photographs art, we are actually limiting the power of photographic
> >images.
>
> I can't agree.
> You're saying that because not all photography can be, or is, art, (to
> quote you, "rather, by trying to call photographs art") none can be.
> What UC is saying is thet photography is not art.
> Not much to seperate the two.
> What I (and others, if I read them right) is that photography can,
> indeed, be art.
> Just like painting can be art. Certainly, everytime paint is applied
> to a medium, it can't be called art. When I apply Rustoleum to my
> trailer hitch, that's not art.
> >
> >Although I have had trouble deciding what UC is getting at, and he could
> >probably put his arguments better, I think I am beginning to understand
> >where he is coming from. In trying to call photographs 'fine art' we
> >are buying into a comparison with painting, etc., which is not really
> >valid. Perhaps we should find a new term for 'fine art' photographic
> >images and not borrow from the painting scene.
>
> "Fine art" isn't part of UC's argument.
> >
> >Any suggestions?
>
> Try to understand what's being said a little better. Read for content,
> not hidden meaning. UC isn't trying to say photography can't be "fine
> art", he's saying photography can't be art.
> There's a difference.
> >
> >Colin
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

 

[Guest]

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

Concepts don't go 'out of date'. Philosophy deal with intangibles.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with that mode of thought.

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:22:21 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>
> > 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.
> Why bother about a book that discusses ideas that are over a century out
> of date and that were ridiculed even then ( viz. Patience by Gilbert and
> Sullivan)
> >
> > No, it isn't. In philosophy, we have to examine the pure state of
> > things, the essence, not what is accidental to things.
> We don't have to do anything, this is the concept of free will.
> >
> >> 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.)
> I have never heard any person in any discipline call their work 'fine
> art'.
>
> --
> neil
> delete delete to reply

 

[Guest]

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

I have in fact contacted Dr. Scruton, who is travelling in the US at
the moment. His secretary reported he did not have the time to become
involved.
You may want to try yourself, or you might want to buy the
book...(perish the thought!).


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

http/www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1890318027/qid=1119364951/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0873327-4339111?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


Frank ess wrote:
> 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,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>
> You know, it's funny, but I was just thinking about that from the other
> point of view. This man is a rather obscure philosopher, with some rather
> curious ideas, of no importance to either photographers or painters.

"Curious" is a rather extreme understatement here. He's an ultraconservative
reactionary nutcase who is in complete denial of the whole 20th century.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:d97gt9$6if$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>> You know, it's funny, but I was just thinking about that from the other
>> point of view. This man is a rather obscure philosopher, with some
>> rather curious ideas, of no importance to either photographers or
>> painters.
>
> "Curious" is a rather extreme understatement here. He's an
> ultraconservative reactionary nutcase who is in complete denial of the
> whole 20th century.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Well, I was trying to be nice... <G>

--
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 15:31:19 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> 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...
It's a pity you don't know what you are blathering on about.
Many artists used a camera obscura to help with their paintings. According
to your arguments this would deny them thright to be called art. Many
artists use models to copy from (go to any life class) and this would also
debar the result being called art.

--
neil
delete delete to reply

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:22:21 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> 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.
Why bother about a book that discusses ideas that are over a century out
of date and that were ridiculed even then ( viz. Patience by Gilbert and
Sullivan)
>
> No, it isn't. In philosophy, we have to examine the pure state of
> things, the essence, not what is accidental to things.
We don't have to do anything, this is the concept of free will.
>
>> 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.)
I have never heard any person in any discipline call their work 'fine
art'.

--
neil
delete delete to reply