Photography: Artist vs technician

Page 27 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

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

On 21 Jun 2005 15:06:54 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

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

Arrogant POS -- the rest of the world has already moved on,
leaving you well behind.



>Gig A. Hertzu wrote:
>> In article <11be5lbf6aljq74@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Dick R." <dickr@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> > I've been reading this thread ad nauseum, and it might
>> > be time to end it. Whether photography is art, or not,
>> > opinions won't be changed by messages in this NG.
>> > Let's end this thread!
>> >
>> > Dick R.
>>
>> It always amuses me when someone posts this
>> kind of message; why don't you just ignore it if you don't
>> like the thread, or kill file it.
>> --
>> I am a Fly in your oinkment, I am the one with real squeal appeal.
 
G

Guest

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:1119561103.147742.103480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >From Webster 3rd New Int'l:
>
> Main Entry: stupid
> Function:adjective
> Inflected Form:-er/-est
>

Interesting. I was always taught that not to use the inflection on words of
more than one syllable, and I still feel, despite the evidence, that in this
case particularly, "more stupid" sounds less stupid than "stupider." BTW,
thanks so much for your erudite little email of yesterday, I feel so much
more complete now. Sheesh, what's the matter, Mikey, not getting enough?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
G

Guest

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

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

> No, you're psychotic if you believe this. It violates causality.
> Photographs' content can only be 'caused', unlike paintings, whose
> content can be created out of nothing but the artist's imagination...
You are just spouting RUBBISH. Paintings are 'caused' by the artists
imagination in just the same way as photographs are caused by the
photographers imagination.
Please try to think.

--
neil
delete delete to reply
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 05:19:55 +0000 (UTC), Neil Ellwood wrote:

> Paintings are 'caused' by the artists imagination in just the same way as
> photographs are caused by the photographers imagination.

Someone a while back, possibly in this thread, mentioned something
about "painting with light". I came across an interesting short
article dealing with a slightly different take on this that clearly
shows photographers thinking and using their camera in ways that
artists would. If only UC could understand. If he could, a handle
upgrade from UC to IC would be warranted. But I doubt that he'll
ever truly "see", or admit to it if he does. If you care to see:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/fill-flash.shtml
 
G

Guest

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:37:54 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> 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
It's his causal imagination.
--
neil
delete delete to reply
 
G

Guest

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

Photographs are not 'works of art'. Period. What the 'rest of the
world' (your term) thinks is of no significance whatsoever.

kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2005 15:06:54 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >I agree, sadly. Photographs are not works of art. If everyone would
> >simply accpt that we could move on...
>
> Arrogant POS -- the rest of the world has already moved on,
> leaving you well behind.
>
>
>
> >Gig A. Hertzu wrote:
> >> In article <11be5lbf6aljq74@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Dick R." <dickr@visi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi all,
> >> > I've been reading this thread ad nauseum, and it might
> >> > be time to end it. Whether photography is art, or not,
> >> > opinions won't be changed by messages in this NG.
> >> > Let's end this thread!
> >> >
> >> > Dick R.
> >>
> >> It always amuses me when someone posts this
> >> kind of message; why don't you just ignore it if you don't
> >> like the thread, or kill file it.
> >> --
> >> I am a Fly in your oinkment, I am the one with real squeal appeal.
 
G

Guest

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

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:27:48 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>
> > No, you're psychotic if you believe this. It violates causality.
> > Photographs' content can only be 'caused', unlike paintings, whose
> > content can be created out of nothing but the artist's imagination...
> You are just spouting RUBBISH. Paintings are 'caused' by the artists
> imagination in just the same way as photographs are caused by the
> photographers imagination.

Utter, total garbage. I can sit around all day and think about
paintings I'd like to make....and NOT make them. The camera, lens. and
film HAVE NO OPTION. They are part of a causal chain. That means they
MUST act in accordance with the laws of physics. The imagination of the
painter has no connectedness with his painting in any causal way.

> Please try to think.
>
> --
> neil
> delete delete to reply
 
G

Guest

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

One and MANY two-syllable words are inflected by 'er', 'est',
especially when ending in 'y'.

Common, commoner, commonest...

Happy, happier, happiest...

Clever, cleverer, cleverest.

Stupid, stupider, stupidest...

Silly, sillier, silliest...

See:

http://www.edu.pe.ca/vrcs/studentwork/2001/gr9/grammar/comparative.htm


Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119561103.147742.103480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >From Webster 3rd New Int'l:
> >
> > Main Entry: stupid
> > Function:adjective
> > Inflected Form:-er/-est
> >
>
> Interesting. I was always taught that not to use the inflection on words of
> more than one syllable, and I still feel, despite the evidence, that in this
> case particularly, "more stupid" sounds less stupid than "stupider." BTW,
> thanks so much for your erudite little email of yesterday, I feel so much
> more complete now. Sheesh, what's the matter, Mikey, not getting enough?


How dare you criticize my knowledge of English, and when confronted
with authoritative support, refuse to acknowledge it?

Pig!
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
G

Guest

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

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:48:27 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>
> > The point is existence' and 'giving off photons'. Imagined things are
> > neither existent nor do the give off photons. Clear enough for your
> > miserable excuse for a brain?
> That proves my point, you've lost the argument

No, I have not. The other side has not even mounted an argument. They
don't even understand the concept of an argument to begin with....

> and so turn to abuse.

Abuse? ...What does one do in the face of such utter stupidity?

> Please learn to use usenet properly if your brain cell can cope with it.
> --
> neil
> delete delete to reply
 
G

Guest

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

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:50:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Neil Ellwood wrote:
> >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:27:48 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
> >>
> >> > No, you're psychotic if you believe this. It violates causality.
> >> > Photographs' content can only be 'caused', unlike paintings, whose
> >> > content can be created out of nothing but the artist's imagination...
> >> You are just spouting RUBBISH. Paintings are 'caused' by the artists
> >> imagination in just the same way as photographs are caused by the
> >> photographers imagination.
> >
> > Utter, total garbage. I can sit around all day and think about
> > paintings I'd like to make....and NOT make them. The camera, lens. and
> > film HAVE NO OPTION. They are part of a causal chain. That means they
> > MUST act in accordance with the laws of physics. The imagination of the
> > painter has no connectedness with his painting in any causal way.
> Then by the rules you quoted much earlir in this discussion painting
> cannot be art because the painter has no connection with it (note that I
> never used your non-existant word)
> neil delete delete to reply

Ye gods! You are utterly incapable of reading!

The reason photographs are NOT 'art' is BECAUSE they are the end
product of a causal chain. The relationship between the subject and the
image is CAUSAL. Photographs do not require the participation of any
particular person. They are not unique. Any user of the camera can take
an identical photograph.

'Art' REQUIRES the participation of the artist. There is NO unbroken
causal chain between the subject and the painting or scupture. The only
causal connection is between the ARTIST and the WORK. I can sit right
in front of Queen Elizabeth and make a painting of a dog....one who
never even existed...a dog with five legs and two heads...
 
G

Guest

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

Look, dumbass, under "Inflected Form":

Main Entry: stupid
Pronunciation:*st(y)*p*d
Function:adjective
>>>Inflected Form:-er/-est
Etymology:Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stup*re to
be benumbed, be astonished, be stupefied; akin to Greek typtein to
beat, strike * more at TYPE

1 a : slow of mind : UNIMAGINATIVE, OBTUSE, INSENSITIVE *came to regard
them as stupid, sensual, veritable children of Adam- V.L.Parrington*
*will defy the most phlegmatic and stupid spectator to behold it
without admiration- Tobias Smollett* *bellowed into his ear as if he
were deaf instead of stupid- Anthony Trollope* b : given to
unintelligent decisions or acts : UNTHINKING, IRRATIONAL *while he may
be wrong T he is never stupid- G.W.Johnson* *consider myself at least
stupid for not having profited from many opportunities- Emery Neff*
*reality is right under your stupid nose- Lionel Trilling* c :
lacking intelligence or reasoning power : BRUTISH *getting the better
of stupider beasts- G.A.Morgan*
2 a : dulled in feeling or sensation : being in a state of stupor :
TORPID *stupid with drink- Sherwood Anderson* *stupid with the lust
of gain and the sloth of slavery- Van Wyck Brooks* *let fall the
stupid inanimate limbs of the gone wretch- George Meredith* b :
incapable of feeling or sensation : INANIMATE *nothing is quite so
stupid as a fact- A.L.Gu*rard* *the stupid rain came down in
buckets- J.W.Ellison b.1929*
3 : marked by or resulting from dullness or unintelligent thinking :
SENSELESS *a stupid refusal to be realistic- W.F.Hambly* *appalling
capacity of collective man for stupid, blind, self-destructive
behavior- H.J.Muller* *takes everything seriously in a stupid and
unimaginative fashion- K.T.Bluth* *it is stupid to wait until a
probable enemy has gained a foothold from which to attack-
F.D.Roosevelt*
4 : lacking interest or point : DREARY, BORING *went to an awfully
stupid evening T Monday night- Rachel Henning* *would not have minded
his going to this stupid lunch- A.J.Cronin* *a really stupid
performance*
5 dialect England : OBSTINATE, MULISH
synonyms DULL, DENSE, CRASS, DUMB: STUPID applies to a sluggish,
slow-witted want of intelligence or comprehension, often congenital or
accustomed; it may apply to a senseless, benumbed, or dazed condition
*so stupid and so obstinate that it was impossible to get him to do or
understand anything- Anthony Trollope* *stupid with liquor and unable
to understand that the ambulance had already gone- Scott Fitzgerald*
*sleepy and stupid after a broken night and a hard day's work-
Dorothy Sayers* DULL strongly implies sluggish labored slowness of
mind, with utter lack of quickness, brightness, or liveliness *a dull,
ambitionless, vegetating individual- J.A.Brussel* *with its impotent
ruling classes and its dull and puritanical middle classes- Edward
Shils* DENSE applies to a blockheaded thick imperviousness or
insensitive obtuseness *she never offered to take me over the house,
though I gave her the broadest hints * she's very dense- Clive Arden*
CRASS suggests a fatheaded grossness precluding delicacy,
discrimination, or refinement *in deep disgust at the farrier's crass
incompetence to apprehend the conditions of ghostly phenomena- George
Eliot* *a crass bonehead capable of sneering at the progress of the
human race- Don Marquis* DUMB may apply to an imperceptive vexatious
obtuseness *that the nutmegs were easily sold and eagerly bought is
beside the story; the wonder is that we Southerners were so dumb, we
did not know the difference- Erskine Caldwell* *I guess I was pretty
dumb that morning, but a fellow in love never sees beyond his own
nose- Vicki Baum*


Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:08:28 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>
> > One and MANY two-syllable words are inflected by 'er', 'est',
> > especially when ending in 'y'.
> >
> > Common, commoner, commonest...
> >
> > Happy, happier, happiest...
> >
> > Clever, cleverer, cleverest.
> >
> > Stupid, stupider, stupidest...
> >
> > Silly, sillier, silliest...
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.edu.pe.ca/vrcs/studentwork/2001/gr9/grammar/comparative.htm
> This is of course another proof that you do not know what you are talking
> about. The word you made up (stupider) does not come in the list and
> couldn't as it doesn't exist. Look up the rules of grammar to see when to
> use the others and with a bit of luck you might start talking sense which
> would be a first.
>
> --
> neil
> delete delete to reply
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:48:27 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> The point is existence' and 'giving off photons'. Imagined things are
> neither existent nor do the give off photons. Clear enough for your
> miserable excuse for a brain?
That proves my point, you've lost the argument and so turn to abuse.
Please learn to use usenet properly if your brain cell can cope with it.
--
neil
delete delete to reply
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:08:28 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> One and MANY two-syllable words are inflected by 'er', 'est',
> especially when ending in 'y'.
>
> Common, commoner, commonest...
>
> Happy, happier, happiest...
>
> Clever, cleverer, cleverest.
>
> Stupid, stupider, stupidest...
>
> Silly, sillier, silliest...
>
> See:
>
> http://www.edu.pe.ca/vrcs/studentwork/2001/gr9/grammar/comparative.htm
This is of course another proof that you do not know what you are talking
about. The word you made up (stupider) does not come in the list and
couldn't as it doesn't exist. Look up the rules of grammar to see when to
use the others and with a bit of luck you might start talking sense which
would be a first.

--
neil
delete delete to reply
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:50:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

>
>
> Neil Ellwood wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:27:48 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>>
>> > No, you're psychotic if you believe this. It violates causality.
>> > Photographs' content can only be 'caused', unlike paintings, whose
>> > content can be created out of nothing but the artist's imagination...
>> You are just spouting RUBBISH. Paintings are 'caused' by the artists
>> imagination in just the same way as photographs are caused by the
>> photographers imagination.
>
> Utter, total garbage. I can sit around all day and think about
> paintings I'd like to make....and NOT make them. The camera, lens. and
> film HAVE NO OPTION. They are part of a causal chain. That means they
> MUST act in accordance with the laws of physics. The imagination of the
> painter has no connectedness with his painting in any causal way.
Then by the rules you quoted much earlir in this discussion painting
cannot be art because the painter has no connection with it (note that I
never used your non-existant word)
neil delete delete to reply
 
G

Guest

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:1119622108.822377.315510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> One and MANY two-syllable words are inflected by 'er', 'est',
> especially when ending in 'y'.
>
> Common, commoner, commonest...
>
> Happy, happier, happiest...
>
> Clever, cleverer, cleverest.
>
> Stupid, stupider, stupidest...
>
> Silly, sillier, silliest...
>
> See:
>
> http://www.edu.pe.ca/vrcs/studentwork/2001/gr9/grammar/comparative.htm
>
To quote from the very link you posted:
"You can form most comparisons by adding either -er or -est or by using more
or most with it. For one-syllable words, add -er or -est; others require
more or most or less ore least. For three-syllable or longer words, use
more/most or less/least."
Thanks for finding tht for me, I couldn't find. And thank you for making my
point about "stupider" for me, too...

>
>> >
>> > Main Entry: stupid
>> > Function:adjective
>> > Inflected Form:-er/-est
>> >
>>
>> Interesting. I was always taught that not to use the inflection on words
>> of
>> more than one syllable, and I still feel, despite the evidence, that in
>> this
>> case particularly, "more stupid" sounds less stupid than "stupider."
>> BTW,
>> thanks so much for your erudite little email of yesterday, I feel so much
>> more complete now. Sheesh, what's the matter, Mikey, not getting enough?
>
>
> How dare you criticize my knowledge of English, and when confronted
> with authoritative support, refuse to acknowledge it?
>
> Pig!
What the heck do you thing the above was??? Have you completely lost your
ability to read??? But the link you posted refutes what you said, anyway,
so the point is moot.
>>

Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
G

Guest

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

On 24 Jun 2005 14:16:39 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:


>
>'Art' REQUIRES the participation of the artist. There is NO unbroken
>causal chain between the subject and the painting or scupture. The only
>causal connection is between the ARTIST and the WORK. I can sit right
>in front of Queen Elizabeth and make a painting of a dog....one who
>never even existed...a dog with five legs and two heads...

... which you would then feel qualified to claim that it is
art. Wunnerful.
 
G

Guest

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

On 24 Jun 2005 06:25:53 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Photographs are not 'works of art'. Period. What the 'rest of the
>world' (your term) thinks is of no significance whatsoever.

But your delusions are te stuff of significance? You lonely
loser.
 
G

Guest

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

Almost ALL one-sylallable words and most two-syllable words form the
comparative and superlative by inflection.

Skip M wrote:
> --<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119622108.822377.315510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > One and MANY two-syllable words are inflected by 'er', 'est',
> > especially when ending in 'y'.
> >
> > Common, commoner, commonest...
> >
> > Happy, happier, happiest...
> >
> > Clever, cleverer, cleverest.
> >
> > Stupid, stupider, stupidest...
> >
> > Silly, sillier, silliest...
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.edu.pe.ca/vrcs/studentwork/2001/gr9/grammar/comparative.htm
> >
> To quote from the very link you posted:
> "You can form most comparisons by adding either -er or -est or by using more
> or most with it. For one-syllable words, add -er or -est; others require
> more or most or less ore least. For three-syllable or longer words, use
> more/most or less/least."
> Thanks for finding tht for me, I couldn't find. And thank you for making my
> point about "stupider" for me, too...
>
> >
> >> >
> >> > Main Entry: stupid
> >> > Function:adjective
> >> > Inflected Form:-er/-est
> >> >
> >>
> >> Interesting. I was always taught that not to use the inflection on words
> >> of
> >> more than one syllable, and I still feel, despite the evidence, that in
> >> this
> >> case particularly, "more stupid" sounds less stupid than "stupider."
> >> BTW,
> >> thanks so much for your erudite little email of yesterday, I feel so much
> >> more complete now. Sheesh, what's the matter, Mikey, not getting enough?
> >
> >
> > How dare you criticize my knowledge of English, and when confronted
> > with authoritative support, refuse to acknowledge it?
> >
> > Pig!
> What the heck do you thing the above was??? Have you completely lost your
> ability to read??? But the link you posted refutes what you said, anyway,
> so the point is moot.


You're even stupider than it is possible for a human being to be.
You're now approaching slug-stupidity.

> >>
>
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 

TRENDING THREADS