Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

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

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'Salon photography' is my choice, but it sounds a bit outdated.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"?
> 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.
>
No, Bill, I am not trying to do that at all. I have said I can see UG's
point of view re 'causal' vs 'non-causal', but I think it is too narrow
a point on which to declare that photography is 'non-art'. But, since
UG has stated that photography can be 'better than art', then perhaps
photogs would be better to embrace the difference, and not align
photography with art at all, hence an alternative name other than 'fine
art' for exhibition-type images.

Art as in paintings never satisfies me like a good photographic
landscape can. I am always dissatisfied with paintings of real scenes -
or even imagined scenes purporting to show the subject. The detailed
realism of good photographic images is more fulfilling to me. I would
be happy to view photographic works as 'non-fine art', if an alternative
appellation can be devised.

YMMV

Colin

 

[Guest]

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

In article <1119447314.231557.42290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I can plop myself on a stool with brushes, paint, and canvas, before
>Queen Elizabeth, and paint a picture....of a dog.
>
>There is NO causal connection between the art-work and the existence of
>some object. NONE!
>
>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.

It's quite easy to make photographs of things that don't actually exist,
using a variety of techniques (painting with light, multiple exposures,
etc.). Photography isn't limited by your lack of imagination.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:30:54 GMT, Chris Brown wrote:

> You've given us all food for thought, which is quite impressive, because
> it looks like all you ever intended to do was to swear at people a bit.
> Still, every dog has its day, as they say, even if the dog in question
> spends its time licking unopened Leica boxes, rather than its own testicles,
> or the backside of another member of its species.

Are you saying that UC secretly wants to honor his hero by
assuming the alter ego of Dr. Scrotum? I thought it was so obvious
that it didn't warrant saying, given that his purpose here seems to
be solely to get off on what amounts to little more than mental
masturbation.

 

[Guest]

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

Salvador Dali - 1904 - 1989

A "surrealist".....

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119453047.096206.108830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> 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...
>
> William Graham wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119389852.778022.126090@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > 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. 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!
>>
>> The next time you are in San Francisco, go to the Palace of the Legion of
>> Honor, and ask where Dali's "Last Supper" hangs. Go there, and spend 10
>> or
>> 15 minutes looking at the tablecloth folds, wine glass and its shadow,
>> and
>> the broken loaf of bread. Try to imagine how much skill it took to create
>> those three things with nothing but a brush and paint........
>

 

[Guest]

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

On 22 Jun 2005 14:19:49 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com, despite
being handicapped by a severe lack of vision, wrote:

> In the STRICT sense, (dumbass!) an IMAGE is produced
> only by an optical system.

What kind of optics are used when images of stars, nebulae or
galaxies are produced by radio telescopes?

What kind of optics are used when fetus images are produced by
ultrasound?

 

[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
news:conhb1trac631k5kgevc09prrsrkpubfrf@4ax.com...

>>>
>>> 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...
>
> All well and good.
> Except that until called on it, UC didn't make any distinction between
> "art" and "fine art".
> Thus, my point that he can't have anything he says taken seriously,
> becasue he doesn't say what he thinks he means.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

I think the bigger problem is that he doesn't know what he thinks, or means,
until he says it, than spends an immense amount of verbiage trying to
convince all and sundry that it really was what he meant to say.

--
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:1119447441.003930.158770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Skip M wrote:
>> <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?
>
> A number. I have a large libarary of photographic reference books.
>
>
>> (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.
>
> Nonsense. It is quite apparent that you have not the FAINTEST notion of
> what a CAUSAL connection is.

>
Look up "abstract" in the dictionary, bright eyes...
In your usage of "causal," only a photogram, not a photograph, has a causal
connection between the subject and the image.

--
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:1119447722.292197.117350@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 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'.
>
You still haven't explained why. Both are pictures of subjects that do not
exist, they have no causal link, except the most abstract, to the subject.
Keep squirming.

--
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 22 Jun 2005 14:22:05 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>"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....?

I was saying that aesthetics does not define art.
Thak you for demonstrating that I am right.
Read what you quoted above. A description of something is not the same
as defining that thing.
I can describe a dog. I do not get to define what a dog is.
Aesthetics studies (and yes, even describes) art. It does not define
art.
>
>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"

--
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 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:53:33 -0700, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
>news:conhb1trac631k5kgevc09prrsrkpubfrf@4ax.com...
>
>>>>
>>>> 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...
>>
>> All well and good.
>> Except that until called on it, UC didn't make any distinction between
>> "art" and "fine art".
>> Thus, my point that he can't have anything he says taken seriously,
>> becasue he doesn't say what he thinks he means.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> replace "g" with "a"
>
>I think the bigger problem is that he doesn't know what he thinks, or means,
>until he says it, than spends an immense amount of verbiage trying to
>convince all and sundry that it really was what he meant to say.

No, I think he's spending a lot of energy to show that his view of the
world is different from most other peoples' view,and that he thinks
he's right, and the rest of us poor deluded souls are wrong.
Of course, he finds it necessary to redefine reality in his attempts
to do so, with no regard to the fact that it's already been defined.

--
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 13:40:18 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>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'.

It's a pity that this is nowhere near what you said above, isn't it?
Like I said earlier, if you can't say what you mean, how can we tell
what you mean?
>
>> >
>> >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!

Ah, so. Of course.
Another of your attempts to redefine words to match your ideas.
Tell me, does 2+2 equal 4 in your world, or have you redefined math,
too?
>
>> >
>> >
>> >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.

No, it shows that you must search and pick and choose what definitions
you will accept, and reject the others as superfluous.
>
>
>> >> 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.

No, it's you who make that point, and poorly at that.
Why do you think you get to make these distinctions?
>
>> 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.

And one moron saying that photography can't be art means more?
Can you find a hat to fit?
>
>> >
>> >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"

--
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 14:18:18 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Wow. The stupidest thing you have said yet....

And yet, you can't counter it, it would seem.
You claim that others don't understand 'causal", then claim that "art"
must have a causal connection to the artist, then still claim,
evidently, that the photographer has no hand in his photographs.
So which just appears: the painting, or the photograph?
Which one is not the direct result of the person doing it?
Which one is not causal?
You claim that only the painting is causal. Are you saying that the
photograph just appears for no reason?

>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> 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"

--
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 14:23:41 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

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

Of course; it's superfluous.
Becasue it conflicts with your ideas.
>
>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.

--
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 14:19:49 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>In the STRICT sense, (dumbass!) an IMAGE is produced only by an optical
>system.
>
>Paintings do not contain images but rather representations.

Agauin, you redefine words, but you can't produce a body of evidence
to back it up.

http/www.google.com/search?hs=P0H&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1024&q=define%3A+image&btnG=Search
Of course, this body of evidence that you're wrong is also
superfluous, becasue it doesn't agree with you.
You live alone, don't you?
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> 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"

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

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:45:16 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On 22 Jun 2005 14:19:49 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com, despite
>being handicapped by a severe lack of vision, wrote:
>
>> In the STRICT sense, (dumbass!) an IMAGE is produced
>> only by an optical system.
>
> What kind of optics are used when images of stars, nebulae or
>galaxies are produced by radio telescopes?
>
> What kind of optics are used when fetus images are produced by
>ultrasound?

Sorry, you're superfluous.

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

 

[Confused]

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

> In article <1119465383.449519.71140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >'Paintings made with light' are not photographs. Are you usually this
> >****ing stupid, or is this a special effort on your part? You CANNOT,
> >UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, make a photograph of what does not exist.

Are you sure you aren't Vince Lamb in drag?
There is a strong resemblance of him in your
tenacity and lack of creativity. It's also
his vacation season where he trolls in non-
academic circles.

photograph (noun 1839) a picture or likeness obtained by photography
(Merriam-Webster)

You CAN in fact make a picture or likeness of what does not exist, and
it can be done with a still camera if one chooses to do so.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <1119474645.106601.48990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I don't see how the latter is 'photographing something that does not exist'.

Evidently, but we've already established that photography is not limited by
your lack of imagination. Do try to keep up.

 

[Guest]

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

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:curib1p2tt1cbsa5fjj08vi9hgbijdo8he@4ax.com...
> 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.

Ah. Good.

> 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.

If you are at all interested in art in photography, I strongly recommend a
subscription to Lenswork, and maybe their two books (I've just started
reading them, so can't comment yet, thus the maybe) "On Being a
Photographer" and "Letting Go of the Camera". I wasn't expecting much from
"On Being a Photographer", since it's by a photojournalist type, but it's
coughing up lots of "much" so far. In particular that "convey the
photographer's feelings for/reaction to" is from that book.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:15:28 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
>news:curib1p2tt1cbsa5fjj08vi9hgbijdo8he@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>
>Ah. Good.
>
>> 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.
>
>If you are at all interested in art in photography, I strongly recommend a
>subscription to Lenswork, and maybe their two books (I've just started
>reading them, so can't comment yet, thus the maybe) "On Being a
>Photographer" and "Letting Go of the Camera". I wasn't expecting much from
>"On Being a Photographer", since it's by a photojournalist type, but it's
>coughing up lots of "much" so far. In particular that "convey the
>photographer's feelings for/reaction to" is from that book.

Thanks for the recommendations; I'll look into them. Maybe a library
has them.
But no, as I said, I have little art in me. I don't aspire to elevate
my photography to the level of art.
Instead, I use photography as a documentary of things we've seen,
places we've been.
I've been to art appreciation classes. Unfortunately, I just do not
see things in a way that lends itself to the common ideas of "art".
I'm a 'form follows function' person.
Example:
I was recently at the National Museum of the United States Air Force,
near Dayton.
While many people there commented on the "artfulness" of many planes,
in whole or part, I was looking at the same planes, and thinking, "Why
did the designer do that?" In aircraft, especially those in the
military, the designer is little concerned with "art", and instead is
concerned with "function." That fillet isn't there to makek the wing
look nicer, it's there to improve air flow. Looks is not even a
secondary consideration, it simply follows the functional.
To me, does an F-16 look 'nice'? Indeed, it does. But not because of
it's lines, or because of a flow of anything, but because it does a
job very well.
Maybe that's art, after all.

>
>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?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119475421.333779.282040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

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

And I'm sure the hand not involved in the rejection is busily practicing
some kind of auto-eroticism.