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 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.

'Define'? What do you mean by 'aesthetics does not define art'. Your
expression is so vague as to be meaningless.

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Concepts don't go 'out of date'.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

Bill Funk wrote:
> 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.

How's this, bubba?......


>From Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

IMAGE:
"2 : a thing actually or seemingly reproducing another: as a (1) : the
optical counterpart of an object produced by a lens, mirror, or other
optical system and being the geometric figure made up of the foci
corresponding to the points of the object - see REAL IMAGE, VIRTUAL
IMAGE(2) : an analogous phenomenon in some field other than optics *an
acoustic image* *an electric image* b : any likeness of an object
produced on a photographic material"

This is EXACTLY what I mean by 'image'. OK? Paintings do not contain
'images' except in the extended sense, the metaphorical sense. The
TECHNICAL sense, the STRICT sense is what I care about, and that sense
is given above.

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

Bill Funk wrote:

> >> >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.

But what you said contradicted this. You're a damned liar! This is the
common, everyday sense of 'art' and you know it!

(Snipped incomprehensible bullshit)

 

[Guest]

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

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:23:41 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>
> > Your attempt at an intelligible reply is noted, and rejected out of
> > hand.
> This is not discussion but you just turning your back, stamping your foot
> and hoping that the answers to your perversions will just go away - such
> as I hope with your persistant top posting rudeness.

No, it means you are so far off that you're not even 'wrong'. You're
not worth talking to, simply put.


>
> --
> neil
> delete delete to reply

 

[Guest]

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

On 23 Jun 2005 08:12:26 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>How, sir, does successive illumination of parts of an object render it
>non-existent?

Where did this come from?
I want to know because I am interested in how people manage to make
such strange comments or questions that have nothiong to do with the
converstaion.
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On 22 Jun 2005 14:10:45 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >'Painting with light' can mean different things. The sense I took it
>> >was spraying film with light beams. Another sense is passing a beam of
>> >light over a stationary object, illuminating the various parts of it in
>> >sequence. This is done when the object cannot be conveniently
>> >illuminated all at once. I don't see how the latter is 'photographing
>> >something that does not exist'.
>>
>> I know you don't see it. You continue to say so.
>> Your ignorance does not define photoraphy, nor dioes it define art.
--
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 23 Jun 2005 08:21:53 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> >> >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.
>
>But what you said contradicted this. You're a damned liar! This is the
>common, everyday sense of 'art' and you know it!

So one (and the seventh, at that) definition in a dictionary is *the*
definition of a word?
Is this how far you are willing to go to prove your stupid ideas?
It would seem so.

--
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 23 Jun 2005 08:19:50 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> 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.
>
>How's this, bubba?......
>
>
>>From Webster's Third New International Dictionary:
>
>IMAGE:
>"2 : a thing actually or seemingly reproducing another: as a (1) : the
>optical counterpart of an object produced by a lens, mirror, or other
>optical system and being the geometric figure made up of the foci
>corresponding to the points of the object - see REAL IMAGE, VIRTUAL
>IMAGE(2) : an analogous phenomenon in some field other than optics *an
>acoustic image* *an electric image* b : any likeness of an object
>produced on a photographic material"
>
>This is EXACTLY what I mean by 'image'. OK? Paintings do not contain
>'images' except in the extended sense, the metaphorical sense. The
>TECHNICAL sense, the STRICT sense is what I care about, and that sense
>is given above.
>

<sigh>
So all other definitions are wrong, becasue you say only *this* one is
right?
Well? Are you really that delusional? Do you really think you get to
define all words for the rest of us? Are all dictionaries you own cut
up, deleting those definitions you don't agree with?

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

 

[Guest]

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

Paul H. wrote:

> > Fairies, ghosts, Satan, my memory of 'last summer': these cannot be
> > photographed.
>
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and many other spirtualists of the early 20th century
> (incorrectly) believed absolutely they had seen photographs of the first two
> things in your list, though obviously (and not surprisingly) you didn't
> realize this.

Ha! I am well aware of the episode.

> And if you were placed in a fMRI machine and thought about
> 'last summer', the memory could indeed be photographed, since there's a
> one-to-one correspondence between your brain's electrical activity map and
> the particular memory being activated when the map is made.

No. 'My memory of last summer' cannot be photographed as such, although
the lectrical impulses that are part of it may well be recordable. They
are not the same thing.

> You're correct
> about Satan, though, since he's only a delusionary construct in virtual
> control of what passes for your mental processes, at least the ones
> connected to your typing finger [sic].

Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

> Relatedly, I've been observing your part in this thread for quite some time
> and have noticed several things:
>
> 1) you have little knowledge of art

More than most peole who call themselves 'artists'.

> 2) you have little knowledge of philosophy

Not even close.

> 3) you have little knowledge of science

Wrong, again....

> 4) you have little understanding of technology
Depends on what you mean, bubba...I cannot fix a car, but I know how it
works...I also know how thermonuclear weapons work...

> 5) you seem to think you have both vast knowledge and complete understanding
> of all of the above.

No, not vast, but far in excess of that demonstrated by the denizens of
this pathetic nesgroup.

> In short, you are a pompous, ignorant blow-hard who thinks contrariness is
> synonymous with debating skill. I'm not dismissing you out-of-hand, mind--
> you have supplied ample evidence of you irrelevancy and incompetence
> regarding the subject under discussion.

Pathetic, just pathetic...is this the best you can do?

 

[Guest]

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

Paul H. wrote:

> > Fairies, ghosts, Satan, my memory of 'last summer': these cannot be
> > photographed.
>
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and many other spirtualists of the early 20th century
> (incorrectly) believed absolutely they had seen photographs of the first two
> things in your list, though obviously (and not surprisingly) you didn't
> realize this.

Ha! I am well aware of the episode.

> And if you were placed in a fMRI machine and thought about
> 'last summer', the memory could indeed be photographed, since there's a
> one-to-one correspondence between your brain's electrical activity map and
> the particular memory being activated when the map is made.

No. 'My memory of last summer' cannot be photographed as such, although
the lectrical impulses that are part of it may well be recordable. They
are not the same thing.

> You're correct
> about Satan, though, since he's only a delusionary construct in virtual
> control of what passes for your mental processes, at least the ones
> connected to your typing finger [sic].

Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

> Relatedly, I've been observing your part in this thread for quite some time
> and have noticed several things:
>
> 1) you have little knowledge of art

More than most peole who call themselves 'artists'.

> 2) you have little knowledge of philosophy

Not even close.

> 3) you have little knowledge of science

Wrong, again....

> 4) you have little understanding of technology
Depends on what you mean, bubba...I cannot fix a car, but I know how it
works...I also know how thermonuclear weapons work...

> 5) you seem to think you have both vast knowledge and complete understanding
> of all of the above.

No, not vast, but far in excess of that demonstrated by the denizens of
this pathetic newsgroup.

> In short, you are a pompous, ignorant blow-hard who thinks contrariness is
> synonymous with debating skill. I'm not dismissing you out-of-hand, mind--
> you have supplied ample evidence of you irrelevancy and incompetence
> regarding the subject under discussion.

Pathetic, just pathetic...is this the best you can do?

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:23:41 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> Your attempt at an intelligible reply is noted, and rejected out of
> hand.
This is not discussion but you just turning your back, stamping your foot
and hoping that the answers to your perversions will just go away - such
as I hope with your persistant top posting rudeness.

--
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 17:53:33 -0700, Skip M wrote:

> 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.
I believe that he has just read the book, doesn't understand it becuase of
all the unclear ideas in it and is trying to convert others to the fog.

--
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 14:22:05 -0700, uraniumcommittee 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....?
Please bandage your foot.
Read that which you wrote carefully and note that you have contradicted
all that you have been posting about.

--
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 17:37:12 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

> 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.
By playing with his 'Scrotum'.
--
neil
delete delete to reply

 

[Guest]

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

On 23 Jun 2005 09:27:48 -0700, World Champ uraniumcommittee wrote:

> I think you did now break the world record for stupidty, which
> was previously held by a 13-year old boy in Scranton, Pa.....

So that's your purpose. Give it up. Others may earn the title,
but once won, it's owned for life. Now please return to Scranton so
we may once again enjoy our peaceful ways and civility.

 

[Guest]

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

"Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote in message
news:ieidnRkTr473YCffRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>

>
> Relatedly, I've been observing your part in this thread for quite some
> time
> and have noticed several things:
>
> 1) you have little knowledge of art
> 2) you have little knowledge of philosophy
> 3) you have little knowledge of science
> 4) you have little understanding of technology
> 5) you seem to think you have both vast knowledge and complete
> understanding
> of all of the above.

You forgot "little understanding of grammar." I.e. "stupider," a word which
he repeats, so there's no doubt he is under the impression this is correct.
>
> In short, you are a pompous, ignorant blow-hard who thinks contrariness is
> synonymous with debating skill. I'm not dismissing you out-of-hand,
> mind--
> you have supplied ample evidence of you irrelevancy and incompetence
> regarding the subject under discussion.
>
>
He has done one useful thing, call my attention to the idea that there are
actually people (Scroton) who still hold concepts as outdated at that one,
and make money selling books expounding their misguided point of view.
--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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

>From Webster 3rd New Int'l:

Main Entry: stupid
Function:adjective
Inflected Form:-er/-est

Skip M wrote:
> "Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote in message
> news:ieidnRkTr473YCffRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> >
>
> >
> > Relatedly, I've been observing your part in this thread for quite some
> > time
> > and have noticed several things:
> >
> > 1) you have little knowledge of art
> > 2) you have little knowledge of philosophy
> > 3) you have little knowledge of science
> > 4) you have little understanding of technology
> > 5) you seem to think you have both vast knowledge and complete
> > understanding
> > of all of the above.
>
> You forgot "little understanding of grammar." I.e. "stupider," a word which
> he repeats, so there's no doubt he is under the impression this is correct.
> >
> > In short, you are a pompous, ignorant blow-hard who thinks contrariness is
> > synonymous with debating skill. I'm not dismissing you out-of-hand,
> > mind--
> > you have supplied ample evidence of you irrelevancy and incompetence
> > regarding the subject under discussion.
> >
> >
> He has done one useful thing, call my attention to the idea that there are
> actually people (Scroton) who still hold concepts as outdated at that one,
> and make money selling books expounding their misguided point of view.
> --
> 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 wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2005 08:19:50 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >How's this, bubba?......
> >
> >
> >>From Webster's Third New International Dictionary:
> >
> >IMAGE:
> >"2 : a thing actually or seemingly reproducing another: as a (1) : the
> >optical counterpart of an object produced by a lens, mirror, or other
> >optical system and being the geometric figure made up of the foci
> >corresponding to the points of the object - see REAL IMAGE, VIRTUAL
> >IMAGE(2) : an analogous phenomenon in some field other than optics *an
> >acoustic image* *an electric image* b : any likeness of an object
> >produced on a photographic material"
> >
> >This is EXACTLY what I mean by 'image'. OK? Paintings do not contain
> >'images' except in the extended sense, the metaphorical sense. The
> >TECHNICAL sense, the STRICT sense is what I care about, and that sense
> >is given above.
> >
>
> <sigh>
> So all other definitions are wrong, becasue you say only *this* one is
> right?
> Well? Are you really that delusional? Do you really think you get to
> define all words for the rest of us? Are all dictionaries you own cut
> up, deleting those definitions you don't agree with?

This is the RELEVANT sense, you twit....

>
> --
> 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.

Translation -- urinalcommittee doesn't grasp the points
raised.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:43:52 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
wrote:


>
>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.

In short, he thinks he (and Screwed-on) are the only two on
the parade field who are in step.

 

[Guest]

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

On 21 Jun 2005 14:37:32 -0700, urinarycommittee@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. 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.

Aren't you the special child. You finally found _one_ who met
your lofty ideal. How sterile your life is.