Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

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

Paul Furman wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Advertsing / commercial Art is primarily about communication
>>>> regarding a product; as it's not purely for art's sake, ..."
>>>
>>>
>>> But what is art's sake? I'm saying it's not just communicating an
>>> emotion in an 'artificial' way, meaning not simply in the act of
>>> living or survival but doing so for the enrichment of humanity (or
>>> oneself).
>>
>>
>>
>> Art should be created because there is a need or desire to create.
>> That enriches.
>
>
>
> Agreed, though the enrichment needs to be emotional, not just physical.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating the "emotional" context. I suggest
that a bit of research on 'emotion' will reveal a sea of possible
responses to a visual (or other) input. These responses manifest
themselves physically as well as in other ways. What motivates the
artist to create might not evoke the same feelings in the viewers. But
it's still art.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Advertsing / commercial Art is primarily about communication
>>>>> regarding a product; as it's not purely for art's sake, ..."
>>>>
>>>> But what is art's sake? I'm saying it's not just communicating an
>>>> emotion in an 'artificial' way, meaning not simply in the act of
>>>> living or survival but doing so for the enrichment of humanity (or
>>>> oneself).
>>>
>>> Art should be created because there is a need or desire to create.
>>> That enriches.
>>
>> Agreed, though the enrichment needs to be emotional, not just physical.
>
>
> I'm not sure why you keep repeating the "emotional" context. I suggest
> that a bit of research on 'emotion' will reveal a sea of possible
> responses to a visual (or other) input. These responses manifest
> themselves physically as well as in other ways. What motivates the
> artist to create might not evoke the same feelings in the viewers. But
> it's still art.


Without the emotional communication motivation, science could be art if
it enriches the human condition, or food. I'm just trying to come up
with a definition of art.

 

[Guest]

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Advertsing / commercial Art is primarily about communication
>>>>> regarding a product; as it's not purely for art's sake, ..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But what is art's sake? I'm saying it's not just communicating an
>>>> emotion in an 'artificial' way, meaning not simply in the act of
>>>> living or survival but doing so for the enrichment of humanity
>>>> (or
>>>> oneself).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Art should be created because there is a need or desire to create.
>>> That enriches.
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed, though the enrichment needs to be emotional, not just
>> physical.
>
> I'm not sure why you keep repeating the "emotional" context. I
> suggest that a bit of research on 'emotion' will reveal a sea of
> possible responses to a visual (or other) input. These responses
> manifest themselves physically as well as in other ways. What
> motivates the artist to create might not evoke the same feelings in
> the viewers. But it's still art.
>

In the Art of effective advertisement, it is a well-known principle
that one must sell the "sizzle", not the steak. What else does
"sizzle" appeal to, if not food-related emotion?

PS: "enrichment" does not have "needs". Living organisms have needs.
YOU may need emotion to be enriched, but that does not exclude
physical enrichment as a component of creative behavior, nor does the
obverse hold true.

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

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

Frank ess wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Advertsing / commercial Art is primarily about communication
>>>>>> regarding a product; as it's not purely for art's sake, ..."
>>>>>
>>>>> But what is art's sake? I'm saying it's not just communicating an
>>>>> emotion in an 'artificial' way, meaning not simply in the act of
>>>>> living or survival but doing so for the enrichment of humanity (or
>>>>> oneself).
>>>>
>>>> Art should be created because there is a need or desire to create.
>>>> That enriches.
>>>
>>> Agreed, though the enrichment needs to be emotional, not just
>>> physical.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you keep repeating the "emotional" context. I
>> suggest that a bit of research on 'emotion' will reveal a sea of
>> possible responses to a visual (or other) input. These responses
>> manifest themselves physically as well as in other ways. What
>> motivates the artist to create might not evoke the same feelings in
>> the viewers. But it's still art.
>>
>
> In the Art of effective advertisement, it is a well-known principle that
> one must sell the "sizzle", not the steak. What else does "sizzle"
> appeal to, if not food-related emotion?
>
> PS: "enrichment" does not have "needs". Living organisms have needs. YOU
> may need emotion to be enriched, but that does not exclude physical
> enrichment as a component of creative behavior, nor does the obverse
> hold true.



Good point about feeling emotional about food but it still doesn't have
the higher enrichment of humanity aspect. I'm just trying to come up
with a workable definition for art and in my mind, it should include
something higher than physical pleasure. I suppose we could call cuisine
and pornography the 'sensual arts'. Kung Fu and the 'martial arts' are
primarily a craft, though they can also be a religion. But they are not
necessarily abstract enough. Art is abstract expression. Real life or
life sustaining activities are not art, they may be evidence of living
good but are too practical to be art. In that sense I agree art is
artificial.

 

[Guest]

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>

> What photographers think is silly is of absolutely no importance
> whatsoever in philosophyical discussions.

Whatever you believe you think about anything has absolutely no
importance as it is manifestly clear that you do not actually think.

Go on letting others think for you, the rest of us will make our own
conclusions.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> Whetehr they were 'assumed to show something that exists' is not the
> point (and false). Many paintings even in ancient times represented
> mythological figures. The point is that photographs show only that
> which exists and as it exists, to which the photograph stands in a
> causal chain. The painting is 'artificial', not part of any such causal
> chain, and that distinction is the one that makes the painting 'art'
> and prevents the photograph from being 'art'. The photograph is the
> reult of a natural process; the painting is not: it is artificial
> through and through. 'Art' must be 'artificial'.

False. Stop letting otheres think for you. What ends up printed or
displayed is as artificial as any other product of hands and
immagination. A given photograph can be printed in an infinite number
of ways, and even the most technically controlled photograph does not,
and cannot reproduce a viewpoint absolutely perfectly.

And even that does not matter.

Art is the result of an intention to make art and has no bearing
whatsoever on how that art was made. This includes photographs where
artisitic intent was present.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

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

Well after a few days of circling, Mikey has failed to show that
photography can not be art.

He has demonstrated that he can't think for himself and that he has a
very narrow base of source material.

For my part, this discussion is over. There are some lovely photographs
at the art gallery a couple towns over, and I'll go have a look this
evening.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

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

False from top to bottom.

Paul Furman wrote:
> Frank ess wrote:
>
> > Paul Furman wrote:
> >
> >> In the case of artistic photography, I find the intention behind
> >> photographs more interesting than the fact that the subject exists. Of
> >> course the subject exists. Before photography and abstract art, most
> >> paintings were assumed to show something that exists and that was the
> >> purpose of many of them.
> >
> >
> > Me, too, on the intention bit.
> >
> > This "Before photography ... " part is very difficult to accept. Most of
> > what paintings? Assumed by who? How do we know what they assumed, or
> > what was the purpose of many of them? Of any of them? How many is
> > "many", and what is the significance of the assumptions of the "many",
> > if at all? Was there another "many" whose different assumptions were
> > considerable? Why do we ignore them?
>
> I should have said "some" not most, but you're right, there was a time
> when people had no idea about the idea of represnting things acurately,
> it wasn't in their vocabulary. There wasn't even such a thing as a
> stable reality, everything was mystical and mutable.
>
> >
> > My assumption is that representational photography can be no more, no
> > less, than showing that and how an object exists; however, if I
> > demonstrate that and add a little elegance or a fillip or two that
> > renders an accurate representation in a way that further enhances the
> > viewer's apprehension of the object, by transmitting something of my
> > attitude toward it, isn't that art?
>
>
> If it has a higher emotional intent, yes. If it's just emphasizing a
> scientific fact or shallowly tittilating, no.
>
>
> > If I do that unconsciously, without
> > intending any enhancement of the viewer's experience
>
>
> Was it intentional for your unconcious? If so then it's art. Our
> unconcious thinking is highly abstract and symbolic, dreams are very
> much like art.
>
>
> > is it less artful?
>
>
> No.
>
>
> > If the viewer's experience is _not_ enhanced by my conscious or
> > unconscious artfulness, has the art evaporated?
>
>
> For the viewer it has evaporated but it was created as art. Great art is
> noticeable to most people, mediocre half hearted art could easily be
> missed. A sensitive viewer could see art in things that were not created
> as art. That's what photographers do, find the art that's just sitting
> out there unrecognized and frame it.

 

[Guest]

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> False. Stop letting otheres think for you.

I had made the same arguments years ago, before I read Dr. Scruton's
work.

 

[Guest]

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

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Why don't you start by studying some aesthetic theory instead of
> > > groping on your own, relying on half-assed notions formulated by the
> > > ignorant?
> >
> > You're not an artist, are you?
>
> You're not a philosopher, are you? You know nothing of aesthetic theory,
> do you?

Sure I do, but I asked if you were an artist. I don't think you are.

I mean, if philosophers really understood art, they'd be artists
instead, wouldn't they? If you ask a philosopher about being a
firefighter, they can tell you what they *think* about fighting fires,
but they can't really understand what it is to walk into a burning
building, perhaps to their death, in order to save somebody they don't
know and who may never thank them. They can't speak with authority about
that topic.

Or if you ask a philosopher about art, they can make all kinds of silly
distinctions about 'fiction' or 'representationalism' or 'emotional
context,' but they don't know what it means to create something and put
it on display with hopes of some form of edification for those who
experience it, do they? They have no authority to address it, just as
you, as a philosopher, have no authority to say that photography is in
no way an artform.

 

[Guest]

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

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > > <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why don't you start by studying some aesthetic theory instead of
> > > > groping on your own, relying on half-assed notions formulated by the
> > > > ignorant?
> > >
> > > You're not an artist, are you?
> >
> > You're not a philosopher, are you? You know nothing of aesthetic theory,
> > do you?
>
> Sure I do, but I asked if you were an artist. I don't think you are.

I am not a trained artist (one who makes paintings or sculptures).

> I mean, if philosophers really understood art, they'd be artists
> instead, wouldn't they?

No. You confuse theory with practice.

> If you ask a philosopher about being a
> firefighter, they can tell you what they *think* about fighting fires,
> but they can't really understand what it is to walk into a burning
> building, perhaps to their death, in order to save somebody they don't
> know and who may never thank them. They can't speak with authority about
> that topic.

I'm not sure what you mean. To my knowledge, there is no philosophy of
firefighting...

> Or if you ask a philosopher about art,

Aesthetics or Aesthetic Theory....

> they can make all kinds of silly

They're not silly at all. They're simply unfamiliar to you...

> distinctions about 'fiction' or 'representationalism' or 'emotional
> context,' but they don't know what it means to create something and put
> it on display with hopes of some form of edification for those who
> experience it, do they? They have no authority to address it, just as
> you, as a philosopher, have no authority to say that photography is in
> no way an artform.

I have every right to make the distinctions I make speaking as a
philosopher. Especially when they are backed up by Dr. Scruton. There
is clearly a causal connection between a photograph and its subject
(collected photons). Just as clearly there is no such <<causal>> link
between a painting and anything else, or am I mistaken?

Yes or no?

Answer the question! YES OR NO!

 

[Guest]

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

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > > > <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why don't you start by studying some aesthetic theory instead of
> > > > > groping on your own, relying on half-assed notions formulated by
> > > > > the ignorant?
> > > >
> > > > You're not an artist, are you?
> > >
> > > You're not a philosopher, are you? You know nothing of aesthetic
> > > theory, do you?
> >
> > Sure I do, but I asked if you were an artist. I don't think you are.
>
> I am not a trained artist (one who makes paintings or sculptures).

I didn't ask if you were a trained artist. I asked if you were an
artist.

> > I mean, if philosophers really understood art, they'd be artists
> > instead, wouldn't they?
>
> No. You confuse theory with practice.

Not in the slightest. *You* created the dichotomy between artist and
philosopher.

> > If you ask a philosopher about being a firefighter, they can tell you
> > what they *think* about fighting fires, but they can't really understand
> > what it is to walk into a burning building, perhaps to their death, in
> > order to save somebody they don't know and who may never thank them.
> > They can't speak with authority about that topic.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. To my knowledge, there is no philosophy of
> firefighting...

Don't play coy.

> > Or if you ask a philosopher about art,
>
> Aesthetics or Aesthetic Theory....
>
> > they can make all kinds of silly
>
> They're not silly at all. They're simply unfamiliar to you...

No, as I said, I am familiar with them. I simply regard them as silly
and irrelevant. I don't give them much authority. At all.

I suggest you spend some time contemplating Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain,'
since, by your definition(s), it is art.

> > distinctions about 'fiction' or 'representationalism' or 'emotional
> > context,' but they don't know what it means to create something and put
> > it on display with hopes of some form of edification for those who
> > experience it, do they? They have no authority to address it, just as
> > you, as a philosopher, have no authority to say that photography is in
> > no way an artform.
>
> I have every right to make the distinctions I make speaking as a
> philosopher.

True. But you still have no authority in the matter, since you're a
non-artist talking about what is and isn't art.

> Especially when they are backed up by Dr. Scruton. There is clearly a
> causal connection between a photograph and its subject (collected
> photons). Just as clearly there is no such <<causal>> link between a
> painting and anything else, or am I mistaken?
>
> Yes or no?
>
> Answer the question! YES OR NO!

Answer: Irrelevant.

 

[Guest]

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

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.

 

[Guest]

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

Paul Mitchum wrote:

> > > > > You're not an artist, are you?
> > > >
> > > > You're not a philosopher, are you? You know nothing of aesthetic
> > > > theory, do you?
> > >
> > > Sure I do, but I asked if you were an artist. I don't think you are.
> >
> > I am not a trained artist (one who makes paintings or sculptures).
>
> I didn't ask if you were a trained artist. I asked if you were an
> artist.

Depends on what you mean then. I have not studied painting or
sculpture, and I do not make paintings or sculptures. Most people who
go into such a field study it first.

> > > I mean, if philosophers really understood art, they'd be artists
> > > instead, wouldn't they?
> >
> > No. You confuse theory with practice.
>
> Not in the slightest. *You* created the dichotomy between artist and
> philosopher.

No, I pointed out that 'artists' were not trained in 'aesthetics',
which is a branch of philosophy that deals with theories and principles
of art, and that philosophers are trained in 'aesthetics'.

> > > If you ask a philosopher about being a firefighter, they can tell you
> > > what they *think* about fighting fires, but they can't really understand
> > > what it is to walk into a burning building, perhaps to their death, in
> > > order to save somebody they don't know and who may never thank them.
> > > They can't speak with authority about that topic.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean. To my knowledge, there is no philosophy of
> > firefighting...
>
> Don't play coy.

Asked and answered. There are different kinds of 'understanding'. Just
ask Plato...

Aesthetics is concerned with theories of art (including the nature of
art). Artists themselves have no such formal education, typically.

>
> > > Or if you ask a philosopher about art,
> >
> > Aesthetics or Aesthetic Theory....
> >
> > > they can make all kinds of silly
> >
> > They're not silly at all. They're simply unfamiliar to you...
>
> No, as I said, I am familiar with them. I simply regard them as silly
> and irrelevant. I don't give them much authority. At all.

They are relevant. How else can we distinguish between 'art' and
'non'art'? There have to be SOME criteria, right?

> I suggest you spend some time contemplating Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain,'
> since, by your definition(s), it is art.
>
> > > distinctions about 'fiction' or 'representationalism' or 'emotional
> > > context,' but they don't know what it means to create something and put
> > > it on display with hopes of some form of edification for those who
> > > experience it, do they? They have no authority to address it, just as
> > > you, as a philosopher, have no authority to say that photography is in
> > > no way an artform.
> >
> > I have every right to make the distinctions I make speaking as a
> > philosopher.
>
> True. But you still have no authority in the matter, since you're a
> non-artist talking about what is and isn't art.

You haven't the slightest niotion of what philosophers do, or why what
we say matters, or why it carries more weight than a bunch of moron
photographers...

> > Especially when they are backed up by Dr. Scruton. There is clearly a
> > causal connection between a photograph and its subject (collected
> > photons). Just as clearly there is no such <<causal>> link between a
> > painting and anything else, or am I mistaken?
> >
> > Yes or no?
> >
> > Answer the question! YES OR NO!
>
> Answer: Irrelevant.

Why is it (in your incorrect opinion) not relevant? What is the main
distinction is there between painting and photography?

Answer: CAUSALITY!

 

[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:1119278887.425596.71140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > "1 ---
>> > In order to understand what I mean by saying that photography is not a
>> > representational art, it is important to separate painting and
>> > photography as much as possible, so as to discuss not actual painting
>> > and actual photography but an ideal form of each, an ideal which
>> > represents the essential differences between them. Ideal photography
>> > differs from actual photography as indeed ideal painting differs from
>> > actual painting. Actual photography is the result of the attempt by
>> > photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and
>> > methods of painting.
>>
Here's where Scruton goes astray. One, in order to buttress his argument,
he tries to separate them by calling on the ideal. (Since I don't feel like
wading through 462 pages or so of his work to see if you are quoting
selectively, though I feel you are, I'll take this quote at face value.) It
is an artificial separation, first. Then, the goes on to say that "actual"
photography (as opposed to the ideal) is the "result of the attempt by
photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and methods
of painting." That, by the time he wrote that, in 1974, was an outdated
concept, held by the "Pictorialists" of the late 19th and early 20th
century, discredited by Steichen and Steiglitz, and later by the members of
the f64 group, Adams, Weston, et al. Also, that is an assumption he makes
about the intent of an individual photographer that he is in no way in a
position to make.
--
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:1119280671.339854.259520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Skip M wrote:
>
>>
>> Earlier, I said this was just an opinion, but its more than that. It's a
>> silly opinion, redefining terms in order to fit a silly argument.
>
> What photographers think is silly is of absolutely no importance
> whatsoever in philosophyical discussions. The argument is quite sound
> and technically sophisticated. If you cannot understand the difference
> between 'causally connected' and 'not causally connected' I pity you.
>
> A photograph is no more a 'work of art' than is a fossil, and for
> exactly the same reasons.
>
You know, it's funny, but I was just thinking about that from the other
point of view. This man is a rather obscure philosopher, with some rather
curious ideas, of no importance to either photographers or painters. Or
sculptors, for that matter. And I know the difference, I don't agree with
what is apparently the application of the term.
And comparing a photograph to a fossil is sort of weird, Mikey, even for
you. A fossil is naturally occurring, it takes human input to create a
photograph.

--
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:1119281800.498554.267970@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The root of 'picture' is 'pingere', paint:
>
>
> -Piciture-(p~tii1;1, pi.ktI9;1), sb. late ME. [- L. pictura, f. pict-,
> pa. ppl. stem of pingere paint.] tl. The action or process of painting
> or drawing; the fact of being painted or pictorially represented; the
> art of painting; pictorial representation -1844. 2. The concrete result
> of this process. Painting -1580. b. An individual painting, drawing,
> or representation on a surface, of an object or objects; esp. as a work
> of art. (Now the prevailing sense.) 1484. c. spec. The portrait or
> likeness of a person. Now colloq. or affected. 1505. A iikeness in the
> solid, esp. a statue or monumental effigy -1771. e. A person so
> strongly resembling another as to seem a likeness of him. Const. 1712.
> f. A tableau; spec. at the end of an act or play. Also living p. (Fr.
> tableau vivant). 1865. In full, cinematograph, cinema, or moving p., a
> cinematograph film; the p-s, the cinema (colloq.) 1912. h. fig. colloq.
> A very picturesque object. i. Into the p., so as to be obvious. In the
> p., in evidence 1919. 3. trans/. A scene; the total visual impression
> produced by something; hence = IDEA III. 1. 1547. 4. fig. A graphic
> desciption, written or spoken, of an object, capable of suggesting a
> mental image 1588. 5. A symbol, type, figure; an illustration 1656.
> 1. P. took her fel~ng from Poetry B. JONS. :l. b. Every noble p. IS a
> manuscript book. of which only one copy exists RUSKIN. c. Twel. N. m.
> Iv. 228. e. The sons are the very p. of their father DE FOE. g. I saw
> it done In the pictures, Sir 1916. h. The little girl is a p. 1906. 3.
> Clinical p., the total Impression of a diseased condition. formed by
> the physician. 5. He looks the p. of health 1871.
> attrib. and Comb. a. General: as p.-dealer, -shop, etc.; p.-language,
> -puzzle, etc.; p.-cover, -paper; p.- cleaner, cleaning, -restorer, etc.
>
> b. Special: as p.-book; -card, a court-card in a pack of cards; -frame;
> -frock, a frock designed ill Imitation of the style of an earlier
> period, esp. such a frock copied from a portrait; p. gallery, a hall or
> building containing a collection of pictures; the collection Itself; p.
> hat, orlg. a lady's wide-brimmed hat, usually black and adorned with
> ostrich feathers, as in the paintings of Reynolds and Galnsborough;
> hence, any wide- brimmed hat, usu. of straw and with a curving brim;
> p.-house, a cinema; p.-mouldlng, a horizontal wooden moulding, parallel
> to the ceiling of a room, for hanging pictures; p. palace, a cinema; P.
> play. a clnematDaranh film" n.
>
>
>
Just out of curiosity, if it isn't a painting or drawing, but is a
"representation on a surface," just what else falls under that heading? A
carving? Not the usual use of the word "picture." The only other thing I
can come up with is a photograph. A photograph also fits the bill under
"illustration." (see #5 above...)

--
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:1119279981.559771.209480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Over time, some words tend to lose a little of their precision. It is
> usually useful to ignore the latest trends and focus on core meanings.
> If you watch a film from the 1940's, especially a British film, the
> term 'picture' will almost certainly be used in connection with
> painting. The term 'photograph' is used more widely in Britain among
> both educated and non-educated classes. People in the US tend to be
> less precise in their usage. 'Car', for instance, is 'motor-car' in
> Britain, to distinguish it from a railway car, which is commoner in
> Britain than in the US.
>
> W3:
>
> "Car: a vehicle adapted to the rails of a railroad or street railway
> and used for carrying passengers and mail, baggage, freight, or other
> things - in British usage usually applied only to city tramways not
> railroads"
>

So, for the purposes of this discussion, we are to concede that other words
may change in usage over time, but "picture," "representation," and "art"
may not?

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

 

[Guest]

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

The book's copyright is 1998. Only two chapters are devoted to
photography; one to still photography, one to cinema. I quoted from the
chapter on still photography.

Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119278887.425596.71140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "1 ---
> >> > In order to understand what I mean by saying that photography is not a
> >> > representational art, it is important to separate painting and
> >> > photography as much as possible, so as to discuss not actual painting
> >> > and actual photography but an ideal form of each, an ideal which
> >> > represents the essential differences between them. Ideal photography
> >> > differs from actual photography as indeed ideal painting differs from
> >> > actual painting. Actual photography is the result of the attempt by
> >> > photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and
> >> > methods of painting.
> >>
> Here's where Scruton goes astray. One, in order to buttress his argument,
> he tries to separate them by calling on the ideal. (Since I don't feel like
> wading through 462 pages or so of his work to see if you are quoting
> selectively, though I feel you are, I'll take this quote at face value.) It
> is an artificial separation, first.

No, it isn't. In philosophy, we have to examine the pure state of
things, the essence, not what is accidental to things.

> Then, the goes on to say that "actual"
> photography (as opposed to the ideal) is the "result of the attempt by
> photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and methods
> of painting." That, by the time he wrote that, in 1974, was an outdated
> concept, held by the "Pictorialists" of the late 19th and early 20th
> century, discredited by Steichen and Steiglitz, and later by the members of
> the f64 group, Adams, Weston, et al. Also, that is an assumption he makes
> about the intent of an individual photographer that he is in no way in a
> position to make.

This is false on its face. Ever see Monte Zucker's work? Many
photographers today want to call their work 'fine art'. They write
'artist's staements' and the like. (I think Dr. Scruton could have made
himself clearer in the passage to which you refer, though.)

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

 

[Guest]

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

That depends. It ceratainly makes things more difficult when the
meanings of words become almost the exact opposite over the period of a
few centuries...

'Representation', for instance, is a real troublesome word...

Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119279981.559771.209480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Over time, some words tend to lose a little of their precision. It is
> > usually useful to ignore the latest trends and focus on core meanings.
> > If you watch a film from the 1940's, especially a British film, the
> > term 'picture' will almost certainly be used in connection with
> > painting. The term 'photograph' is used more widely in Britain among
> > both educated and non-educated classes. People in the US tend to be
> > less precise in their usage. 'Car', for instance, is 'motor-car' in
> > Britain, to distinguish it from a railway car, which is commoner in
> > Britain than in the US.
> >
> > W3:
> >
> > "Car: a vehicle adapted to the rails of a railroad or street railway
> > and used for carrying passengers and mail, baggage, freight, or other
> > things - in British usage usually applied only to city tramways not
> > railroads"
> >
>
> So, for the purposes of this discussion, we are to concede that other words
> may change in usage over time, but "picture," "representation," and "art"
> may not?
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com