Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

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

On 22 Jun 2005 06:45:25 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> 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Concepts don't go 'out of date'.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.
>
>Utter rubbish. Aesthetics is the theory of art. Aesthetics is a
>sub-discipline that falls under philosophy.

Aesthetics is the *STUDY* of beauty and taste, not the *DEFINITION* of
art, nor any theory of art.
Look it up. You claim to know how to use a dictionary.
>
>> 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"

--
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 22 Jun 2005 08:02:24 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> 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'Salon photography' is my choice, but it sounds a bit outdated.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"?
>
>'Art' has many meanings. 'The Arts' are (in part)
>
>Literary Arts (poetry, fiction, etc)
>Fine Arts (painting, sculpture, etc)
>Healing Arts (medicine, etc)
>Military Arts (warfare, strategy, etc)
>Mechanical Arts (design of machines, etc)
>Agricultural Arts (farming, etc)
>
>When photographers call their work 'art', they mean as equivalent to
>one of the 'fine arts'. This is clear.

So, according to your own writing, as above, "art" and "Fine art" are
not the same thing, as "Mammal" and "dog" are not the same.
Thank you.
>
>See:
>
>http/www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1024&q=fine+art+photography+&btnG=Search

This seems to directly counter your idea that photography can not be
art. Why did you post this link?
>
>
>But see this entry in Webster's Third New International:
>
>Main Entry:2art

<snip long definition that does not define "art" and "fine art" as
being te same thing>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>All sorts of landscape and nude photographers are calling their work
>'fine art photography' or 'fine art nature photography' or 'fine art
>nudes', etc.

So? Does the definition of "Fine art" or "art" now depend on what all
sorts of people say? If so, you are one of those sorts, but certainly
of no more import than all those other sorts. Which means that by your
own words, you show that you say is no more important than what anyone
else says.
>
>http/www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1024&q=fine+art+photography+&btnG=Search
>
>
>http/www.radekaphotography.com/links.htm
>
>
>>
>> --
>> 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 22 Jun 2005 07:41:09 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Good point: No causal connection to anything other than the artist,
>would be more accurate.

Then, by that correction, you must also place photography in the "art"
class.
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> 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"

--
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 22 Jun 2005 06:40:53 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>'Images' are made by lenses only. What appears in a picture (a
>painting) is not an 'image' at all. It is a 'representation'. A
>'representation' is not a copy. The snake in many Christian religious
>painings represents Satan. It is a SYMBOL. A representation is a
>symbol, not an image.
>
>Only lenses or the like can produce images. Images are connected
>causally to some object by collecting photons.

You like Google search, try this one:

http/www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1024&q=define%3Aimage&btnG=Search

Keep on redefining words. It's your world.
>
>
>Skip M wrote:
>> <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

--
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 22 Jun 2005 07:49:09 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> 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.
>
>That is superfluous, and Scruton points that out.

Of course it is. Anything that doesn't support your ideas is
superfluous.
>The relation of the
>image to the Queen is causal, whereas the relationship between a
>picture (painting) and its subject is not causal.
>
>> >
>> >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"

--
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 22 Jun 2005 06:42:02 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>Skip M wrote:
>
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>
>Those are PHOTOGRAPHS, not 'art'.

That's the debate, isn't it?
Simply stating your position does not add anything.
Or do you consider yourself somehow beyond the "all sorts of people"
you earlier said define art?

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

 

[Guest]

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

On 22 Jun 2005 07:50:25 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On 21 Jun 2005 14:37:32 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >The trouble, as I see it, is that the words 'art' and 'artist' carries
>> >more prestige than they merit. To 'be' an artist is somehow viewed (by
>> >non-artists, especially) as conferring some sort of sainthood.
>>
>> I am sure that there are some people who do this.
>> That does not make them the arbiters of anything.
>> >Go to
>> >your loacl arts festival sometime and look at what these paople make.
>> >For a while I dated an artist. She made little glass thingies. I was
>> >never in awe of her abilities, or of any artist's work, except Bernini.
>> >I visited an art museum in Toronto a few years back. There I saw a bust
>> >of some pope, made by Bernini, I believe. It was a thrill to stand
>> >before this piece of rock, which looked as though it were alive!
>>
>> So? Why are you elevating Bernini to the level of a saint?
>
>I don't. I was simply thrilled, that's all. It's all just a trick, you
>know. A high degree of skill.

I still see it.
You deny elevating Bernini to the level of a saint, yet you act just
like those you belittle for doing the exact same thing.
>
>> Oh, never mind, I see it now.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> replace "g" with "a"

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

 

[Guest]

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

On 22 Jun 2005 08:10:47 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>I'm am aware that Italian Renaissance art is spectacular. I have been
>to Florence and have seen it first-hand. Nonetheless, at the time this
>stuff was being made, it was not worshipped...it was quotidian...

Sure it was.
That's why the work was commissioned; because a rich patron wanted a
pedestrian doodling on his walls.

You're getting to be better than preddy!

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

 

[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:1119451269.894590.213190@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Good point: No causal connection to anything other than the artist,
> would be more accurate.

Unless painting is restricted to finger painting, all pigments are derived
from bodily excretions, and the only canvas is human skin, ALL painting is
inherently dependent upon technologies that are external to the artist and
yet absolutely necessary to the creation of the artist's work. Thus, all of
this dubious philosophizing about causal connection and art vs. technology
is utter nonsense: Art is to be found in the artist's intent and execution
and not in bystanders' quibbling over inanities. Reading much of this
thread has been like witnessing some idiot in a museum pointing and shouting
at a painting, "That's not art! There are TREES in that picture and trees
are not a product of the so-called artist's imagination! It isn't art if
there's a traceable connection to anything real!"

"Art" exists within an artist's mind, but what we call "art" is the physical
manifestion of an artist's idea expressed through media and technology which
are under the creative control and direction of the artist. Since a
photographer can imagine a photograph and can also control the subject
matter (the concrete representation of the idea), the lighting, the
orientation, exposure, processing and printing of the photograph, he or she
is just as much an artist as the person who chisels marble or puts brush to
canvas; more to the point, the work so produced is undoubtedly art.

I fully understand that art "purists" may disagree with this assessment, but
on the other hand, geography "purists" still think the earth is flat.

 

[Guest]

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

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

No. If it's an attempt to convey the photographer's feelings for/reaction to
the scene, then it's art. If it's an attempt to communicate "what he saw",
it's a snapshot.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:53:07 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>No. If it's an attempt to convey the photographer's feelings for/reaction to
>the scene, then it's art. If it's an attempt to communicate "what he saw",
>it's a snapshot.

In my poor fashion, that's what I'm trying to say.
I have little "art" in me, so I'm probably not communicating my
definition of "art" quite right. But yes, indeed, that communication
is about what the artist felt, as well.
Thanks.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>

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

 

[Guest]

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

These are the sorts of posts that try my patience.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2005 08:02:24 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> 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"?
> >
> >'Art' has many meanings. 'The Arts' are (in part)
> >
> >Literary Arts (poetry, fiction, etc)
> >Fine Arts (painting, sculpture, etc)
> >Healing Arts (medicine, etc)
> >Military Arts (warfare, strategy, etc)
> >Mechanical Arts (design of machines, etc)
> >Agricultural Arts (farming, etc)
> >
> >When photographers call their work 'art', they mean as equivalent to
> >one of the 'fine arts'. This is clear.
>
> So, according to your own writing, as above, "art" and "Fine art" are
> not the same thing, as "Mammal" and "dog" are not the same.
> Thank you.

No, not at all. What I meant was that some uses of the word 'art' refer
to a body of knowledge or set of skills, whereas other uses of the word
'art' refer to 'fine art'. An 'art gallery' is a place where fine art
is on display, not products of the 'mechanical arts'.

> >
> >See:
> >
> >http/www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1024&q=fine+art+photography+&btnG=Search
>
> This seems to directly counter your idea that photography can not be
> art. Why did you post this link?

The point was that people are indeed using this term, but that THIS
USAGE IS INCORRECT!

> >
> >
> >But see this entry in Webster's Third New International:
> >
> >Main Entry:2art
>
> <snip long definition that does not define "art" and "fine art" as
> being te same thing>

I repeat the relevant part of what you cut:

"ART"
6 a : the craft of the artist; specifically : the technical devices
used by a painter regarded especially as a subject of study b : a
method or device that produces an artistic effect or is used for
decorative purposes *art needlework*
7 a : FINE ARTS b : one of the fine arts c : a plastic art d : a
graphic art e : PAINTING

This clearly shows what you said is false. Note especially definition
7a and 7e.


> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >All sorts of landscape and nude photographers are calling their work
> >'fine art photography' or 'fine art nature photography' or 'fine art
> >nudes', etc.
>
> So? Does the definition of "Fine art" or "art" now depend on what all
> sorts of people say?

No, and you make my point for me. All these people calling their work
'fine-art photography' are idiots.

> If so, you are one of those sorts, but certainly
> of no more import than all those other sorts. Which means that by your
> own words, you show that you say is no more important than what anyone
> else says.

Numbers mean nothing. The dictionary, and the history of the terms mean
a lot more. My arguments mean more. 1,000,000 morons calling their
photography 'fine art' means nothing.

> >
> >http/www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1024&q=fine+art+photography+&btnG=Search
> >
> >
> >http/www.radekaphotography.com/links.htm
> >
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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?)

Chris Brown wrote:

>
> Let's think about this for a moment....

Which you obviously failed to do, dumbass...

Photons are recorded in photography....

No photons come from things that don't exist, now do they? Are there
photons emitted by or reflected from imaginary things, things that
don't exist?

Noooooooooooooooo.............................

Therefore: We cannot make photographs of things that don't exist....

 

[Guest]

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

"2 : the philosophy or science of art; specifically : the science
whose subject matter is the description and explanation of the arts,
artistic phenomena, and aesthetic experience and includes the
psychology, sociology, ethnology, and history of the arts and
essentially related aspects"

You were saying....?

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2005 06:45:25 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >Utter rubbish. Aesthetics is the theory of art. Aesthetics is a
> >sub-discipline that falls under philosophy.
>
> Aesthetics is the *STUDY* of beauty and taste, not the *DEFINITION* of
> art, nor any theory of art.
> Look it up. You claim to know how to use a dictionary.
> >
> >> 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"
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

 

[Guest]

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

Your attempt at an intelligible reply is noted, and rejected out of
hand.

Paul H. wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119451269.894590.213190@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Good point: No causal connection to anything other than the artist,
> > would be more accurate.
>
> Unless painting is restricted to finger painting, all pigments are derived
> from bodily excretions, and the only canvas is human skin, ALL painting is
> inherently dependent upon technologies that are external to the artist and
> yet absolutely necessary to the creation of the artist's work. Thus, all of
> this dubious philosophizing about causal connection and art vs. technology
> is utter nonsense: Art is to be found in the artist's intent and execution
> and not in bystanders' quibbling over inanities. Reading much of this
> thread has been like witnessing some idiot in a museum pointing and shouting
> at a painting, "That's not art! There are TREES in that picture and trees
> are not a product of the so-called artist's imagination! It isn't art if
> there's a traceable connection to anything real!"
>
> "Art" exists within an artist's mind, but what we call "art" is the physical
> manifestion of an artist's idea expressed through media and technology which
> are under the creative control and direction of the artist. Since a
> photographer can imagine a photograph and can also control the subject
> matter (the concrete representation of the idea), the lighting, the
> orientation, exposure, processing and printing of the photograph, he or she
> is just as much an artist as the person who chisels marble or puts brush to
> canvas; more to the point, the work so produced is undoubtedly art.
>
> I fully understand that art "purists" may disagree with this assessment, but
> on the other hand, geography "purists" still think the earth is flat.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:40:53 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> 'Images' are made by lenses only. What appears in a picture (a
> painting) is not an 'image' at all. It is a 'representation'. A
> 'representation' is not a copy. The snake in many Christian religious
> painings represents Satan. It is a SYMBOL. A representation is a
> symbol, not an image.
>
> Only lenses or the like can produce images. Images are connected
> causally to some object by collecting photons.
>
This is even worse claptrap than you usually spout. Please learn and
connect properly with the subjects.



--
neil
delete delete to reply

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:10:47 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> I'm am aware that Italian Renaissance art is spectacular. I have been
> to Florence and have seen it first-hand. Nonetheless, at the time this
> stuff was being made, it was not worshipped...it was quotidian...
Again you show your lack of understanding, almost all of this art would
have taken much longer than a day to produce and therefore was not
quotidian.

--
neil
delete delete to reply

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:07:49 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:53:07 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
> <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>No. If it's an attempt to convey the photographer's feelings for/reaction to
>>the scene, then it's art. If it's an attempt to communicate "what he saw",
>>it's a snapshot.
>
> In my poor fashion, that's what I'm trying to say.
> I have little "art" in me, so I'm probably not communicating my
> definition of "art" quite right. But yes, indeed, that communication
> is about what the artist felt, as well.
> Thanks.
>
That is the essence of 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 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:45:25 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

>
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Utter rubbish. Aesthetics is the theory of art. Aesthetics is a
> sub-discipline that falls under philosophy.
Yes a discipline that failed in the 19thC
--
neil
delete delete to reply

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:35:14 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> I can plop myself on a stool with brushes, paint, and canvas, before
> Queen Elizabeth, and paint a picture....of a dog.
Self portrait.
>
> There is NO causal connection between the art-work and the existence of
> some object. NONE!
Rubbish.
>
> I CANNOT take a photograph of Queen Elizabeth if there is no Queen
> Elizabeth, and unless she is within view of my lens at the moment I
> desire to make a photograph.
>
> Is this clear enough for you, cretin?
You are the cretin and are proving more and more as this thread continues.


--
neil
delete delete to reply