Photography: Artist vs technician - Page 4

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

Photographs are not and cannot be works of art, ever.

Stacey wrote:
> Mike Henley wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Tony wrote:
> >> Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills
> >> we wanted.
> >> What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
> >> photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
> >> don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects.
> >
>
> >
> > I think in photography it would be useful to distinguis between the
> > "craft", and the "art". The "craft" is all issues of equipment and
> > "technique", particular to photography, but photography really has *no*
> > "art" that should set it apart from drawing, painting, sculpture,
> > architecture, cinematography or any visual medium; "art" is just "art",
> > and to be illiterate in it, and too many are, won't be changed by a
> > practice of the "craft" of photography, however long or frequent,
> > regardless of how many cameras you own or years you've used them for.
> >
>
> Exactly. There are plenty of people who are good at a craft (which is
> something I respect) but what they produce it's "art". IMHO that doesn't
> make it any less interesting, just different.
> --
>
> Stacey

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> Photographs are not and cannot be works of art, ever.
>


So what crafts are allowed to be art? Or are you going to say any painting
or piece of sculpture is "art" just because of the craft/medium used to
produce it.

--

Stacey

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> It's not my responsibility to teach you the history of art.

Ah so there can be no NEW formulas/forms of art allowed? When exactly was
the official cut off date for this "history"?



--

Stacey

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> The 'newness' is not an issue. It has to do with unbroken causation (a
> photograph is formed in an unbroken causal chain starting with
> something that aleardy exists). If one were to make a new kind of
> painting (say, electronic) that had no kind of causal relationship to
> some object, then it would be art. Paintings of this kind created in
> electronic form would qualify as art, sure. A photograph, however, is a
> always a photograph OF something (else). It derives from something
> else. It is derivative. Art is not, and cannot be, something
> derivative....if it's art, it's not derivative..if it's derivative,
> it's not art...
>
> This argument is also made by Scruton, but there is a lot more to his
> presentation, most of which probably would go over the heads of typical
> photographers.

While it is clear, Mikey, that you are easilly impressed by people who
spoonfeed you with their thoughts and big words, it is also clear that
in your straightjacketted mindset you can't see the myriad ways in which
photography can be art. Possibly you have the mistaken notion that
photography takes place only in the camera. I suggest you wake up from
your decades of eating mind-pablum and begin thinking, interpreting and
exploring the world on your own.

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.

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

I have formulated my arguments regarding this quite some time ago,
quite independently of Dr. Scruton. That he makes virtually the same
arguments is telling...

Alan Browne wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > The 'newness' is not an issue. It has to do with unbroken causation (a
> > photograph is formed in an unbroken causal chain starting with
> > something that aleardy exists). If one were to make a new kind of
> > painting (say, electronic) that had no kind of causal relationship to
> > some object, then it would be art. Paintings of this kind created in
> > electronic form would qualify as art, sure. A photograph, however, is a
> > always a photograph OF something (else). It derives from something
> > else. It is derivative. Art is not, and cannot be, something
> > derivative....if it's art, it's not derivative..if it's derivative,
> > it's not art...
> >
> > This argument is also made by Scruton, but there is a lot more to his
> > presentation, most of which probably would go over the heads of typical
> > photographers.
>
> While it is clear, Mikey, that you are easilly impressed by people who
> spoonfeed you with their thoughts and big words, it is also clear that
> in your straightjacketted mindset you can't see the myriad ways in which
> photography can be art. Possibly you have the mistaken notion that
> photography takes place only in the camera. I suggest you wake up from
> your decades of eating mind-pablum and begin thinking, interpreting and
> exploring the world on your own.
>
> 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.

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

Photographs are non-fiction. Art is fiction.

Paul Furman wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > It has to do with unbroken causation (a
> > photograph is formed in an unbroken causal chain starting with
> > something that aleardy exists)... A photograph... is a
> > always a photograph OF something (else). It derives from something
> > else. It is derivative. Art is not, and cannot be, something
> > derivative....if it's art, it's not derivative..if it's derivative,
> > it's not art...
>
>
> While it's possible for any idiot to point a camera at a pretty or
> interesting scene & make something that looks like art unintentionally,
> there are plenty of choices a photographer makes when taking a picture
> and it's those choices in editing the world around them that can make
> photography art.
>
> The world around us doesn't have a bounding frame, depth of field,
> perspective distorion, is not effected by focal length, film choice or
> color settings by itself. There are infinite views, lighting conditions
> and moments in time available for any given scene and it's up to the
> photographer to chose the precise combination to convey their intent.
> That's where the causal chain is broken. Those choices are the way the
> photographer tells a story, just like a writer tells a story. But, maybe
> this theory would say that literature is not art if it's about the real
> world; only poetry if sufficiently abstract?
>
> --
> Paul Furman
> http://www.edgehill.net/1
> san francisco native plants

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

You can find my arguments dating back several years scattered about the
internet, and I did not get Scruton's book or read it until last month.
He puts forward much of the same argument, but with a great deal more
detail and a different emphasis.

Alan Browne wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I have formulated my arguments regarding this quite some time ago,
> > quite independently of Dr. Scruton. That he makes virtually the same
> > arguments is telling...
>
> As in "The degree to which a man is intelligent depends on how much he
> agrees with you?"
>
> Try thinking for yourself. You're clearly not doing so now.
>
> --
> -- 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.

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

Scruton makes the same argument, essentially. You don't understand. The
fact that you don't understand in no way makes me wrong.

G.T. wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118938544.002167.123410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Photographs are non-fiction. Art is fiction.
> >
>
> That is the biggest piece of BS you've contributed to this thread yet.
>
> Greg

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> Scruton makes the same argument, essentially. You don't understand. The
> fact that you don't understand in no way makes me wrong.

The fact that you believe your ill founded notion and/or that of Scruton
does not make either of you right.

--
-- 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.

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

Not the same thing. 'Lie' and 'truth' are not the same dichotomy as
'fiction' and 'non'fiction'.


Paul Furman wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Photographs are non-fiction. Art is fiction.
>
>
>
> I can lie with a camera.

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

After ding an Internet search, I found that Dr. Scruton, an expert in
the field of aesthetics, has made many of the same arguments that I
did. His arguments are far more elaborate and detailed than mine, but
depend essentially on the same premises and observations. I suggest
that you read the relavnt chapter in his book. The first few pages of
the chapter present arguments almost identical to mine. Later, he goes
into other, more abstract arguments that require a fairly detailed
knowledge of aesthetics.

Although I had heard of Dr. Scruton before (I am a philosophy major,
after all) I had no idea that he had written on this topic at all.

The arguments are well-contsructed and rely on public knowledge, as all
good arguments do. In other words, he is not guilty of special pleading
(making up definitions to suit one's arguments).


Alan Browne wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > You can find my arguments dating back several years scattered about the
> > internet, and I did not get Scruton's book or read it until last month.
> > He puts forward much of the same argument, but with a great deal more
> > detail and a different emphasis.
>
> Just because you may find a pool of argument on the internet or in a
> book or three in favour does not make it the truth. You can try
> actively searching out books with the opposing view as well and
> challenge yourself, instead of seeking idealogical supports.
>
> There are books and internet arguments that "factually" document
> extraterrestrial intelligence visiting earth and taking people off for
> "probing". That doesn't make those arguments any more true than yours
> or Mr. Scruton's.
>
> 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.

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> After ding an Internet search, I found that Dr. Scruton, an expert in
> the field of aesthetics, has made many of the same arguments that I

"An expert in the field of aesthetics"? How many of those do you
suppose there are in the world?

Same arguments?

How many do you suppose have differing views?

THINK Mikey, THINK. You can't grow a mind on eating pablum thought.

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.

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

Paul Furman wrote:
> To me, the more important aspect in a definition of art is whether it
> communicates some thoughtful emotional idea.

That has nothing to do with what makes something 'art'. This is some
vague generalization that says nothing substantive.

> Non-fiction is just as
> capable of being creative and evocative as fiction.

True, and irrelevant. It does not make them the same thing.

> I would agree that on a scale between documentation & abstract art,
> photography tends to be way over on the fossil side but it is a gradual
> scale and not a hard line.

No, wrong. It is a hard line.

> Most 'art' like paintings and sculpture are representational, using the
> given, known shapes of people and landscapes so those are really
> somewhere in the middle of the scale. If the criteria for art was that
> it be pure individual thought, that would only include abstract work,
> right? Music would be way over on the pure art end of things even though
> it has more to do with the body than the brain like pattern in a
> painting or photograph that just looks good without necessarily having
> any emotional or intellectual content. Then why is music so emotional?
>
> Bah, I'm done with this discussion, we are getting way off topic <g>.

Part of Scruton's argument, 'Photography and Representation'.

>From his book 'The Aesthetic Understanding: Essays in the Philosophy of
Art and Culture'

"---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.

By an 'ideal' I mean a logical ideal. The ideal of photography is not
an ideal at which photography aims or ought to aim. On the contrary, it
is a logical fiction, designed merely to capture what is distinctive in
the photographic relation and in our interest in it. It will be clear
from this discussion that there need be no such thing as an ideal
photograph in my sense, and the reader should not be deterred if I
begin by describing photography in terms that seem to be exaggerated or
false.

The ideal painting stands in a certain 'intentional' relation to a
subject.[2] In other words, if a painting represents a subject, it does
not follow that the subject exists nor, if it does exist, that the
painting represents the subject as it is. Moreover, if x is a painting
of a man, it does not follow that there is some particular man of which
x is the painting. Furthermore, the painting stands in this intentional
relation to its subject because of a representational act, the artist's
act, and in characterizing the relation between a painting and its
subject we are also describing the artist's intention. The successful
realization of that intention lies in the creation of an appearance, an
appearance which in some way leads the spectator to recognize the
subject.

----------------------------------------------------------------
[2] See Franz Clemens Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical
Standpoint, ed. Linda McAlister (London and New York, 1973); Roderick
M. Chis- holm, Perceiving (London and Ithaca, N.Y., 1957), chapter 11;
and G. E. M. Anscombe, 'The Intentionality of Sensation', in R. J.
Butler (ed.), Ana- lyticql Philosophy, Second Series (Oxford, 1965).

-----------------------------

The ideal photograph also stands in a certain relation to a subject. a
photograph is a photograph of something. But the relation is here
causal and not intentional.[3] In other words, if a photograph is a
photograph of a subject, it follows that the subject exists, and if x
is a photograph of a man, there is a particular man of whom x is the
photograph. It also follows, though for different reasons, that the
subject is, roughly, as it appears in the photograph. In characterizing
the relation between the ideal photograph and its subject, one is
characterizing not an intention but a causal process, and while there
is, as a rule, an intentional act involved, this is not an essential
part of the photographic relation. The ideal photograph also yields an
appearance, but the appearance is not interesting as the realization of
an intention but rather as a record of how an actual object looked.

Since the end point of the two processes is, or can be, so similar, it
is tempting to think that the intentionality of the one relation and
the causality of the other are quite iuelevant to the standing of the
finished product. In both cases, it seems, the important part of
representation lies in the fact that the spectator can see the subject
in the picture. The appreciation of photographs and the appreciation of
paintings both involve the exercise of the capacity to 'see as', in the
quite special sense in which one may see x as y without believing or
being tempted to believe that x is y.

---2---
Now, it would be a simple matter to define 'representation' so that 'x
represents y' is true only if x expresses a thought about y, or if x is
designed to remind one of y, or whatever, in which case a relation that
was merely causal (a relation that was not characterized in terms of
any thought, intention, or other mental act) would never be sufficient
for representation. We need to be clear, however, why we should wish to
define representation in one way rather than in another. What hangs on
the decision? In particular, why should it matter that the relation
between a painting and its subject is an intentional relation while the
photographic relation is merely causal? I shall therefore begin
by....."

(end of quote.....)

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

Employment IN philosophy is tough to find. Many philo majors end up in
the computer industry and as writers.

I was thinking about bringing out a line of philosopher action
figures...

....but all I could think of was:

The Kant action figure: watch take a walk at 3pm precisely!
Watch him go to bed and take off his hat!

Or, the Plato action figure:

Watch Plato play with the 'handsome youths' of Athens!

How about the Socrates action figure:

See Socrates get drunk....



Paul Bielec wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
> > uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> I am a philosophy major, after all
> >
> >
> > Wow!
> >
> > Here most philosophy majors end up being artists for the government.
> >
> > They draw unemployment!
>
> ROTFL
> Back at university, in one issue of the student paper there was a map of
> the campus. Philosophy was named "unemployment factory"...
> Yes, philosophy is nice, but making your living out of it...I wouldn't try.
> On the other hand, fine arts academies teach photography.

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:


> How about the Socrates action figure:
>
> See Socrates get drunk....


Didn't take any marketing classes either, did you?



--
-- 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.

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> It was joke, son, a joke....


Like all of your posts?

--
-- 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.

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com quoted:

"and while there
is, as a rule, an intentional act involved, this is not an essential
part of the photographic relation. The ideal photograph also yields an
appearance, but the appearance is not interesting as the realization of
an intention but rather as a record of how an actual object looked."


People do (sometimes) take pictures with an idea in mind, not even
knowing what the object behind the lens will be from the outset of the
project. The driving force behind these pictures is to capture an idea,
a feeling, not to represent some particular physical object behind the lens.

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

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The 'newness' is not an issue. It has to do with unbroken causation (a
> photograph is formed in an unbroken causal chain starting with something
> that aleardy exists). If one were to make a new kind of painting (say,
> electronic) that had no kind of causal relationship to some object, then
> it would be art. Paintings of this kind created in electronic form would
> qualify as art, sure. A photograph, however, is a always a photograph OF
> something (else). It derives from something else. It is derivative. Art is
> not, and cannot be, something derivative....if it's art, it's not
> derivative..if it's derivative, it's not art...

In my view, art is a process, and the objects left behind, the
paintings, photographs, writings, whatever... those are artifacts. Not
art itself, but art droppings. The techniques and crafts by which those
artifacts were created are incidental to the process of art.

If you can drum up the pretense to call yourself an artist, then that's
what you are. However, being an artist, in and of itself, doesn't get
you anything. It doesn't mean that much. Arguing over whether
photographers are artists or not amounts to a turf war over a manhole
cover.

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

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:52:48 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Wow!
>
>Here most philosophy majors end up being artists for the government.
>
>They draw unemployment!

I think Scarpitti has a real job. Last I heard he was a janitor at
the university so at least he works for a living.

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

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The 'newness' is not an issue. It has to do with unbroken causation
>> (a photograph is formed in an unbroken causal chain starting with
>> something that aleardy exists). If one were to make a new kind of
>> painting (say, electronic) that had no kind of causal relationship
>> to some object, then it would be art. Paintings of this kind
>> created
>> in electronic form would qualify as art, sure. A photograph,
>> however, is a always a photograph OF something (else). It derives
>> from something else. It is derivative. Art is not, and cannot be,
>> something derivative....if it's art, it's not derivative..if it's
>> derivative, it's not art...
>
> In my view, art is a process, and the objects left behind, the
> paintings, photographs, writings, whatever... those are artifacts.
> Not
> art itself, but art droppings. The techniques and crafts by which
> those artifacts were created are incidental to the process of art.
>

I tell 'em that, and I tell 'em that and all they do is drool on my
shoes.

Good luck ...


> If you can drum up the pretense to call yourself an artist, then
> that's what you are. However, being an artist, in and of itself,
> doesn't get you anything. It doesn't mean that much. Arguing over
> whether photographers are artists or not amounts to a turf war over
> a
> manhole cover.

Or maybe a circle drawn in the path of an incoming tide.

--
Frank ess

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

> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118938544.002167.123410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Photographs are non-fiction. Art is fiction.

Van Eyke didn't paint fiction......

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

William Graham wrote:


> In Scotland, they call physics majors, "Natural Philosophers", so it can
> have a different meaning.....

Given the many difficulties with string theory, to which many physicists
are now dedicating their time, the word "philosopher" is very apt. Much
of what counts in string theory cannot be stimulated in experiment or
observed in nature (with the technology we have). So some physicists
(notably Weinberg) have labled string theory: "philosophy, not physics".

Even the bits predicted by string theory, such as supersymmetry are also
predicted in the standard model of quantum mechanics, so the upcoming
(assumed) observation of supersymmetry at CERN (Large Hadron Colider)
will not confirm string theory. Nor will the absence of a supersymmetry
particle kill string theory as that will just say, "the experiment
failed to detect supersymmetry confirming particles."

To be fair, many of the physicists who labeled string theory as quackery
in the 80's have made cautious revisions to their opinions ...

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.

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

Yes, but only as incorporating some other art form into it. That's
called motion pictures, for instance. It's an art form because it
incorporates an art form into it. The story and drama are the art form.
The rest is just photography.

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Not the same thing. 'Lie' and 'truth' are not the same dichotomy as
> > 'fiction' and 'non'fiction'.
>
> If it could be shown that photography could tell a story of its own
> creation, would you admit that it can be an art form?

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

No, you don't understand. The photograph of something proves that it
exists. Thae painting does not. Photographs can be used as evidence in
court. Painting cannot. Do you understand now? Paibtings have no
<<causal connection>> to anything. Photographs do.

Stacey wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Stacey wrote:
> >> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > It's not my responsibility to teach you the history of art.
> >>
> >> Ah so there can be no NEW formulas/forms of art allowed? When exactly was
> >> the official cut off date for this "history"?
> >
> > The 'newness' is not an issue. It has to do with unbroken causation (a
> > photograph is formed in an unbroken causal chain starting with
> > something that aleardy exists).
>
> So for a painting to be "art", the artist can't be painting something that
> exists? I fail to see how someone sketching a scene and then later painting
> it in to create the feelings they had is any different from someone
> photographing the same scene and then manipulating it to create the feeling
> they had at that same point in time.
>
> --
>
> Stacey

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

Huh? What point are you ineptly trying to make?

Alan Browne wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Yes, but only as incorporating some other art form into it. That's
> > called motion pictures, for instance. It's an art form because it
> > incorporates an art form into it. The story and drama are the art form.
> > The rest is just photography.
>
> http://www.aliasimages.com/images/PICT2036SM.jpg
>
> This photo is one of a series of strobe lit subjects.
>
> The scene only existed for a brief moment of time (less than 1
> millisecond). There was no modeling light. No way for a person to see
> the work. The work was created to be recorded on film / digital.
>
> Only the camera can be the canvas for this image.
>
> It is only art, nothing else.
>
> 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.