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:

> Concepts don't go 'out of date'.

Phlogiston, epicycles, vital force, Lamarckian genetics, and on and on.

> Philosophy deal with intangibles.

This is exactly why it is so useless.

> Perhaps you are unfamiliar with that mode of thought.

You are stoooopid beyond description.

 

[Guest]

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

If you look up the guy, you'll find that he's part of the conservative
backlash against modern art in particular and just about everything after
the 19th century in general.

He really is a nutcase. Of course, if you subscribe to a conservative
fundamentalist Christian sort of point of view, you'll really like him.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Concepts don't go 'out of date'.
>
> Phlogiston, epicycles, vital force, Lamarckian genetics, and on and on.

Those are not 'concepts' but hypotheses.

You are the STOOOOOOOPID one, my dear....
>
> > Philosophy deal with intangibles.
>
> This is exactly why it is so useless.
>
> > Perhaps you are unfamiliar with that mode of thought.
>
> You are stoooopid beyond description.

 

[Guest]

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

uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> Phlogiston, epicycles, vital force, Lamarckian genetics, and on and on.
>
> Those are not 'concepts' but hypotheses.

Equivocation.

> You are the STOOOOOOOPID one, my dear....

Non sequitur.

Your ability to think is dropping with each posting. Therefore, you
are a proven negative intelligence.

 

[Guest]

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

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?)

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?)

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:42B757EC.78B522A@killspam.127.0.0.1...
> 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

No, I got that point, between the lines, but what I object to is the idea
that photography is somehow precluded from being art merely because of the
medium.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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

"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.

There are lots of people doing art with photography, and that's been the
case since photography was invented. Denying that is completely ridiculous.
Photography is just another technique for doing what artists had been doing
all along, namely expressing their personal vision of the world.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:14:39 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"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.
>
>There are lots of people doing art with photography, and that's been the
>case since photography was invented. Denying that is completely ridiculous.
>Photography is just another technique for doing what artists had been doing
>all along, namely expressing their personal vision of the world.

Perhaps UC is one of those pathetic painters who never got
over the fact that photographers stole a march on them by attaining
near perfect representation of a subject without paying their
"artistic dues". So they prance off in a different direction, saying,
"That's not at all what we were trying to attain." Sour grapes, pure
and simple.

 

[Guest]

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

Bill Funk wrote:
>
> "Fine art" isn't part of UC's argument.

Yes,that is understood.

 

[Guest]

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

kashe@sonic.net wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:14:39 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
> <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"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.
>>
>>There are lots of people doing art with photography, and that's been the
>>case since photography was invented. Denying that is completely ridiculous.
>>Photography is just another technique for doing what artists had been doing
>>all along, namely expressing their personal vision of the world.
>
>
> Perhaps UC is one of those pathetic painters who never got
> over the fact that photographers stole a march on them by attaining
> near perfect representation of a subject without paying their
> "artistic dues". So they prance off in a different direction, saying,
> "That's not at all what we were trying to attain." Sour grapes, pure
> and simple.

Well, I am amongst the incompetent art students. I turned to the
architectural end and ended up loving photo-graphy.

 

[Guest]

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

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,

Photography is just a medium, art is independent of its media.

> opinions won't be changed by messages in this NG.
> Let's end this thread!
>
> Dick R.

 

[Guest]

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

Nice try. Do you have an argument, perchance?

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

I agree, sadly. Photographs are not works of art. If everyone would
simply accpt that we could move on...

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.
> --
> I am a Fly in your oinkment, I am the one with real squeal appeal.

 

[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:1119361696.597875.315110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >
>>
>> "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.
>
>>
Mikey, I know you've taken the occasional photograph, so I know you don't
actually believe what you just wrote, above. If a photograph appeared out
of thin air, with no input from the photographer, you'd have a point. But
you know very well, that doesn't happen, even with your photographs.
If you do believe what you wrote, above, that does explain a few things,
though, about you and your photography...

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Confused]

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

kashe@sonic.net wrote:

> 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.

effluvia - describes his "you don't understand" agrement perfectly.

This discussion has been quite funny to read. I killfiled him the
first time he put his hands on his hips and more or less said "I'm
right and everyone else is wrong". It's sad though, because he has a
strong desire to be creative and is going through the realization that
creativity cannot be learned.

Jeff

 

[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:1119362217.872575.318760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 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?
One, in college, found it dense, arcane and irrelevant. How many books on
art history, and particularly, the history of photography have you read?
(not that I expect an honest answer.) Because, if you had, you would see
that your hero/philosopher is basing his arguments on concepts that are
discredited in both the art and photographic worlds...
>
>> And there is a
>> causal link between -some- paintings and the real world, that's pretty
>> apparent.
>
> No, never.
>
Often, there has to be. If there weren't, all art would be abstract.

--
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:1119361464.403975.193860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> It is not a painting 'OF' Queen Elizabeth in the same sense of 'OF'
> that a photograph 'OF' Queen Elizabeth is 'OF' her. The relation in the
> latter case is CAUSAL, in the former, INTENTIONAL. (For your
> information, these relations are NOT the same.)
>

The only reasons for them not to be the same would be a) if the image were
of Queen Elizabeth I rather than II, or b) admitting that there was a link
would put your argument out to grass. Hmmm, I wonder which it is. There is
a causal link, in the identity of the subject and in the reason for making
the image, whether it is a photograph, painting ,sculpture or paper doll.
QEII did not "cause" the photograph, therefore the relation is indeed
intentional.

--
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:1119361337.121725.212100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 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.
Very wrong
>
>>
>> Or this? (nude)
>> http/www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44139885
>
> No, not even close.
Why not? It's not a representatin of anyone living or dead.
>
--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Confused]

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

Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> wrote:

> > > A photograph is art if that was the intention of the artist.
> >
> > Shouldn't that read:
> > A photograph is art if
> > someone other than the photographer considers it art. ???
> > Jeff
>
> Not by me.
> Art is an attempt to communicate.
> Communication doesn't *need* to occur.

I'm not sure if that *is* art, but it's definitely an aspect of art.

> Lots of people try to communicate by speech or writing, but fail. :-(

I wish I had a dime for every failed attempt to communicate. ;^)

> But the attempt is there.
> If the attempt to communicate by art is there, but communication
> doesn't occur, it may be *bad* art. But still art.
> Maybe.
> I dunno for sure.

When using words to describe art, I like the distinction made in
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate that ties creativity to the word "art"
separating the ARTS from the CRAFTS and other similar non-artistic
works. (Maybe.

Jeff