Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:26:01 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> 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.

Stop renaming the threads.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:44:24 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> 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.)
This is just arrogant nonsense.
--
neil
delete delete to reply

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:17:21 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> Not at all. A painting based on a projected image is still a painting,
> which has no direct causal connection to anything else.
>
> Neil Ellwood wrote:
>> 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
So that your earlier claims were wrong.
--
neil
delete delete to reply

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:48:16 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

>
> 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.
The photons that come from a painting are no different from those that are
used in photography.
The causal chain in a painting is the object that is depicted whether or
not it is recognisable in just the same way as in a photograph.
The photons do not go down his sleeve but into his eyes - even if yours do
not see.

--
neil
delete delete to reply

 

[Guest]

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

On 21 Jun 2005 07:19:34 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

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Concepts don't go 'out of date'.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

Philosophy does not rule art.
Therefore, your attempts to declare what is art, and what isn't, by
using philosophy as a rule, fails.

--
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 21 Jun 2005 11:23:32 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>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 need to pull out whatever dictionary supports that, and quote.
Then be prepared to have that definition countered.

>
>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.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 04:57:57 GMT, 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.

I'm wondering if UC and preddy aren't one ad the same, because both
are wont to define words in ways that support their ideas, with no
recognition that those words already have definitions.

--
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 Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:06:36 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>> "Fine art" isn't part of UC's argument.
>
>Yes,that is understood.

It would seem that Colin doesn't understand it.

--
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 21 Jun 2005 07:06:02 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>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.'

Then, you change what you mean to suit your mood.
If you're going to change what you mean on a whim, how are we to take
anything you say seriously?

--
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 21 Jun 2005 07:00:52 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>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.

You and Colin seem to be the only ones trying to connect photography
with "fine art".
Care to let us in on the difference between "art" and "fine art"?
And tell us how long you'll make this distinction, while you're at it,
so we'll know when to expect the next change in definitions.

--
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 21 Jun 2005 07:17:21 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Not at all. A painting based on a projected image is still a painting,
>which has no direct causal connection to anything else.

These paintings just appear?
From nowhere?
>
>Neil Ellwood wrote:
>> 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

--
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 21 Jun 2005 06:44:24 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>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.)

And yet, the photographer *intended* to take the photo of the Queen.
>
>Skip M wrote:
>> <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

--
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 21 Jun 2005 07:36:02 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>William Graham wrote:
>> <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.
>
>'Art' lies in the capacity to show what "isn't".....fictions, in other
>words. Photography is non-fiction.

Absolutely wrong.
Photography *CAN* be non-fiction, but can also be fiction.
Any photograph that shows something the normal human eye can't see is
fictional.

--
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 Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:02:12 -0700, "William Graham"
<weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>Of course. UC's guru is wrong. Not only is he wrong, but he is guilty of the
>grossest of errors....The concept that what is inside the frame....The
>subject matter, is what defines, "art". It is the concept of the artist, and
>not either his subject or his tools that defines the art of the finished
>product. Many years ago I saw a piece of weathered wood with a dirty
>washcloth nailed to it in the Museum of Modern Art in New York, and they
>called it art. I told my father that it was not art. He said, "It may be
>terrible, and stupid, but if somebody created it, and thinks it means
>something, then it's art." Again, if I needed to hang a washcloth on the
>wall, and I nailed it there for some utilitarian purpose, then it would not
>be art. But if I did it to make an artistic statement, as did the guy that
>had that thing hung up in the MMA, then it's art.

I can understand that.
Because I think art is an attempt at communication.
The communication attempted is that of the artist to communicate what
he saw.
If the wood/cloth artist was trying to communicate something (whatever
it was; I don't pretend to know), then it's art.
If, OTOH, he simply needed to hang the cloth somewhere, there was no
attempt to communicate, so no art, even if someone finds the
composition pleasing.

As an aside, that's one of the problems I have with art; so often,
what's passed off as art is pleasing to many people, but there's no
attempt to actually communicate what the artist saw, other than colors
and shapes. No concept, just photons. To me, that's not art.
Of course this means that, to me, abstract art is not much more than a
scam, but that's just me.

--
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 21 Jun 2005 07:15:32 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>> 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?
>
>Yes.
>
>>
>> Is the floor of a paint factory art? Or is intent the key?
>> As in photography?
>
>No. Intent is irrelevant.

Ah, you're a scam artist, then.
If intent is irrelevant to art, how can one tell good art from bad
art?
In fact, how can one tell art from anything else?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

[Confused]

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

Neil Ellwood <charge@eater.pig> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:44:24 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>
> > 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.)
>
> This is just arrogant nonsense.

I thought it was IGNORANT nonsense.

Jeff

 

[Stacey]

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

McLeod wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:26:01 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Stop renaming the threads.

Sorry, I didn't think any newsreader today would "unthread" doing this.. I
sure thought agent was smart enough to not do that...
--

Stacey

 

[Guest]

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

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:vsehb1hacoe3jl9cc83gbce4npbc83obmf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 04:57:57 GMT, 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.
>
> I'm wondering if UC and preddy aren't one ad the same, because both
> are wont to define words in ways that support their ideas, with no
> recognition that those words already have definitions.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

No, I've seen photographs taken by Michael Scarpitti (UC) and Steve
Giavanola (Preddy) and they're most definitely not the same person. Plus UC
revels in his perception that he's the most hated person on the 'net, (he
ain't) while Preddy can't understand why no one likes him or agrees with
him.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news4fhb15q245s4839hu1r4pvg1613d2anib@4ax.com...
> On 21 Jun 2005 07:00:52 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> You and Colin seem to be the only ones trying to connect photography
> with "fine art".
> Care to let us in on the difference between "art" and "fine art"?
> And tell us how long you'll make this distinction, while you're at it,
> so we'll know when to expect the next change in definitions.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

"Fine" became a prefix for "art" about the time "arts and crafts" became a
phrase, in order to distinguish Picasso from Martha Stewart...

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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

In article <3hrkqqFi7ilrU3@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>McLeod wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:26:01 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Stop renaming the threads.
>
> Sorry, I didn't think any newsreader today would "unthread" doing this.. I
>sure thought agent was smart enough to not do that...

Mine tracks the threads (at least as long as the previous
newsreader has been smart enough to maintain the "References: " header.
But -- it makes threads which I have killfiled reappear.

Enjoy,
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 ---