Photography: Artist vs technician - Page 5

Last message on previous page:
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.

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> Huh? What point are you ineptly trying to make?


I'm very eptly making the point that there are photographs that are
solely art. That was the only purpose of the image.

--
-- 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?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:56:46 -0700, "William Graham"
<weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>> <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......
>

All painting is fiction.



******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> Nope. No photograph is a work of art, that one included.

Your statement above is noise. There is no 'truth' in it, as
established. You're fighting for a polarized viewpoint which is simply
not supportable by the facts.

Photographs can be 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.

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:
> >
> > > 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?
>
> 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.

So then you'd say that, while a series of still images shown at 24
frames per second can be art by telling a tale, a single still image
shown in a frame can't possibly be a work of art even though it can also
tell a tale.

Is that right?

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> Aesthetics is the conceptual analysis of the structure and nature of
> art, much like Linguistics is study of the structure and nature of
> languages. Just because you can form a sentence does not make you an
> expert in liguistics. The same goes here. These are ADVANCED concepts.
> Photographers (by nature classed as idiots) are not fit to discuss the
> subject.


You're an advanced idiot not fit to discuss anything, Mikey. Idiots, by
definition, are not thinkers. You've proven the point very clearly.


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:

> Aesthetics is the conceptual analysis of the structure and nature of
> art,

You mis-spelled "a heap of cow manure". Are you officially licensed to
discuss this subject?

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> You're an advanced idiot not fit to discuss anything, Mikey. Idiots, by
> definition, are not thinkers. You've proven the point very clearly.

Alan... why are you arguing with this wanker?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>You're an advanced idiot not fit to discuss anything, Mikey. Idiots, by
>>definition, are not thinkers. You've proven the point very clearly.
>
>
> Alan... why are you arguing with this wanker?

An excellent question, when I figure out the answer I'll give you a
call. I guess since "art" is one of the most difficult things to define
in any respect, Mikey's absolute exclusion of photography on
pseudo-intellectual grounds is just too insulting to not reply to.

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?)

No matter how good a dog is, it cannot be a cat.

No matter how good a photograph is, it is not a work of art.

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com top-posts like the fruitcake he is:
>
> > [... blah blah blah missing the point blah blah blah ...]
>
> Whether or not any of your idiot drivel is true, it still doesn't
> change the fact that the stench of the output of the "unnatural
> philosophers" is indistinguishable from that of a hog waste lagoon on a
> hot August afternoon.
>
> Id est and to wit: you have the brains of a gerbil.

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

I am the most-hated man on the Interent, because I am among the most
brilliant people on the planet.

Gerbil wrote:
> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Id est and to wit: you have the brains of a gerbil.
>
> Please do not insult us Gerbils that way. We're not only more
> intelligent than Michael Scarpiti, we're better looking too.
>
> Regards,
> I. M. A. Gerbil.

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> 'Art' is not better than 'non-art'. A really good photograph is no
> closer to being art than a bad one.

We're not at all talking about whether a "good" or "bad" photograph is
art; we're taling about whether some photographs are art. (Stop moving
your lips when you read, it's irritating)

Here is some alternate reading material for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_arts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographer (go to any link with the word
"art" in the side description. Many links are also to artist
photographers even if not stated as "art" in that list).

--
-- 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?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news8uirr$7eq$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> 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

Yes. Well, given the cost of the experimental machines necessary to verify
their, "philosophies", HEP is destined to become more and more philosophical
and less and less verifiable as time progresses. It's gotten to the point
today that most University advisors in physics are counseling their students
to avoid high energy experimental physics altogether.

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> I agree they can be classified as means of transportation, but (of
> course) you ignore the point that they are not the same thing. A horse
> and an automobile are essentially different, even if they are both
> pleasurable to ride.
>
> Photographs and art can both be pleasurable to look at, but that does
> not mean that the one falls under the same class as the other. 'Art' is
> not a broader classification that includes 'photography' and
> 'painting', although 'means of transportation' can include 'horse' and
> 'automobile'. 'Automobile' belongs to the class of 'machines'
> primarily. Horses belong to the class of animals principally. That they
> can be used for similar purposes is of no importance in their
> classifications.

While it's amusing to watch you bury yourself this way, the more you
try, the more you highlight your total lack of any grasp of art.



--
-- 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?)

Again, you're referring to material that is impressive in its verbiage
and empty of truth.

Art is first off an intention. If the artistic intention was to make a
photographic print, then that print visual is the art from the artist.

In the first paragraph from your hero below, he immediately states a
separation where none necessarilly exists for all photographs.

You REALLY must begin thinking for YOURSELF Mikey. Quoting some
dickhead who impresses you, makes us despise you more than we despise
the dickhead. The dickhead put his convictions to paper, right or wrong
and is likely prepared to defend them, right or wrong. All you can do
in your drooling idiocy is quote from a dickhead for the only reason
that you're impressed with him.

Pitiful.

Cheers,
Alan


uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> No matter what you do in producing a photograph, it cannot be a work of
> art while remaining a photograph. If you take a dog and perform surgery
> on it, you cannot make it a cat. The difference betwen 'art' and
> 'non-art' is not a matter of degree, but of kind. The gulf is infinite.
> 'Bad' art is still art. 'Good' photography (whatever you want to
> consider that to be) is not art, no matter how 'good' it may be, and
> regardless of ther intentions of the photographer...
>
> The difference between 'art' and photography is a technical one. In
> other words, it is not a matter of 'quality'. It rests on the defining
> characters of the two.
>
> As Scruton also argues:
>
> Part of Scruton's argument:
>
> "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.

<snipped>


--
-- 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?)

William Graham wrote:

> and less and less verifiable as time progresses. It's gotten to the point
> today that most University advisors in physics are counseling their students
> to avoid high energy experimental physics altogether.

That might be the reply for those students who want a science education
and to be able to make a living afterwards... a summer student who
worked with me many years ago stated his intention to do his M.Sc in
physics and I asked what he'd do for work or where he'd do his doctorate

... blank stare. I understand that his parents are quite well off
so I suppose he was in little danger of starving...

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 in message
news:1119045446.225056.176990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 'Beauty'? Who said anything about 'beauty'? That has nothing to do with
> it.

Well, if "art" isn't an attempt to create beauty, or that which is
beautiful, then just what do you think it is?

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

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119042202.956812.269380@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am the most-hated man on the Interent, because I am among the most
> brilliant people on the planet.

for someone of such brilliance you are a lousy speller. Try making
grandiose statements without any smelling pistakes next time and we might
take you seriously. ;P

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

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f4m6b19al4vhe8402e7vdorqj8qc0ee9ja@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:44:44 -0700, "William Graham"
> <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>><uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1119045446.225056.176990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> 'Beauty'? Who said anything about 'beauty'? That has nothing to do with
>>> it.
>>
>>Well, if "art" isn't an attempt to create beauty, or that which is
>>beautiful, then just what do you think it is?
>>
>
> Not all "art" is an attempt to create beauty. Have you looked Goya's
> "Disaster of War". Very great art but not beauty.
>
But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are those who call something
beautiful for the brush technique....This is why I like Dali.....Many of his
paintings are ugly, but the craftsmanship, or his use of the brush is
fantastic, and it makes the whole thing for me. The subject matter is almost
completely unimportant. There is little I find beautiful about a female
breast that is 10 meters long, but if such a thing existed, Dali would
capture it to perfection........

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

William Graham wrote:
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:f4m6b19al4vhe8402e7vdorqj8qc0ee9ja@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:44:44 -0700, "William Graham"
>> <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1119045446.225056.176990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> 'Beauty'? Who said anything about 'beauty'? That has nothing to
>>>> do
>>>> with it.
>>>
>>> Well, if "art" isn't an attempt to create beauty, or that which is
>>> beautiful, then just what do you think it is?
>>>
>>
>> Not all "art" is an attempt to create beauty. Have you looked
>> Goya's
>> "Disaster of War". Very great art but not beauty.
>>
> But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are those who call
> something beautiful for the brush technique....This is why I like
> Dali.....Many of his paintings are ugly, but the craftsmanship, or
> his use of the brush is fantastic, and it makes the whole thing for
> me. The subject matter is almost completely unimportant. There is
> little I find beautiful about a female breast that is 10 meters
> long,
> but if such a thing existed, Dali would capture it to
> perfection........

My favorite aspect of Dalí's work is his masterfully crafted
dissimulation.


--
Frank ess

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> 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.

Excuse my butting in here. I've been reading the thread, but now I
would like some clarification on a point implied by your post.

Going on your 'causal' definition, this appears to be the sole
distinction you are making between painting and photography - that one
is 'causal', i.e. derived from reality, whereas a painting need not be
derived from reality.

Does it not strike you that that division is rather artificial?
Painting, sculpture, whatever, and photography all exist to produce a
visual statement receivable by the viewer. Each can provide an image
that may evoke pleasure, revulsion, shock, joy, sympathy, pity, rapture
- the whole gamut of human emotion.

So, your position is, despite the overwhelming global similarity between
mediums, the sole fact that one is 'causal' and one is not is the
criterion on which photography is deemed to be not art?

My question is, why does such a seemingly unimportant, technical
distinction have to exclude the entire world collection of photographs
from being considered as art? If your statement that 'any' painting,
good or bad, is art, then that applies to photographs as well.

In the real world, there is an unwritten standard that applies when
considering whether a particular image is worthy of being called art, as
used by galleries, collectors, etc. A similar standard applies to
photographic images as well, so Joe's snapshots would not seriously be
considered as art, specially as no such thought was in his mind when he
pressed the button.

The power of a photograph to move people's emotions cannot be denied,
and is probably greater than most paintings, because of the very fact
that the image *is* causal. Photography has motivated people to
completely change career, to volunteer assistance, even overseas to
needy situations, often to their own cost. Paintings do not have that
power, because they are not 'causal'. I see no reason to exclude the
photograph from being 'art' simply because of that distinction.

Colin

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

Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:

> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
> > 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.
>
> So then you'd say that, while a series of still images shown at 24 frames
> per second can be art by telling a tale, a single still image shown in a
> frame can't possibly be a work of art even though it can also tell a tale.
>
> Is that right?

<crickets>

I win. Everybody can go home. Thanks for playing.

:-)

--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.

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

On 17 Jun 2005 13:53:21 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> Why? Is an automobile a horse? What if you insist on calling it a
> horse? I can point out to you that a horse is an animal and an
> automible is a machine, but if you scream in my face: "What difference
> does THAT make, you idiot? You ride from place to place with them", I'm
> afraid any discussion with you on the matter is impossible.

At least you're aware of your own limitations. Now don't go away
mad. Drive away in style, in a Mustang (or Colt, Pinto, even Fury).

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3hhvv3Fh9eofU2@individual.net...
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> No, you don't understand. The photograph of something proves that it
>> exists.
>
> Not after you take the clone brush to it..
>
>> Thae painting does not. Photographs can be used as evidence in
>> court.
>
> Maybe if you have the RAW file/negative. A print sure can't be in an
> important case.
> --
>
> Stacey

In the 1430's a realistic painter like Jan Van Eyck could use his paintings
as court testimony as long as he was there to assert that things were as he
painted them to be....Today, photographs can be used in court as long as the
photographer is there to provide the same testimony. And the reason is the
same in both cases. Just as a painting can be altered, so can a photograph
be altered......

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

William Graham wrote:

> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119045446.225056.176990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>'Beauty'? Who said anything about 'beauty'? That has nothing to do with
>>it.
>
>
> Well, if "art" isn't an attempt to create beauty, or that which is
> beautiful, then just what do you think it is?

There is no requiement that art be beautiful.

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

On 17 Jun 2005 13:48:44 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>No matter how good a dog is, it cannot be a cat.
>
>No matter how good a photograph is, it is not a work of art.

How about the theory that some artists (Da Vinci, for instance)
used camera obscura to assist them? Does the projected image
they used as a template mean their art isn't art?