Photography: Artist vs technician - Page 7

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

On 19 Jun 2005 11:18:05 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On 18 Jun 2005 09:23:49 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >Absolutely correct. All 'art' is 'artificial'. Note the root of the
>> >word!
>>
>> This is hilarious! As a comedian, you're an artist!
>
>You obviously are a complete moron. What is 'artificial' is the
>product of 'art' (made by man). See the definition in Webster's Third
>new International Dictionary:
>
>"1 : contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes
>detached from human agency : relating to human direction or effect in
>contrast to nature: a : formed or established by man's efforts, not by
>nature *the people do not resort to artificial irrigation-
>J.G.Frazer* "
>>
>> Do you know how to use a dictionary?
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> replace "g" with "a"

And here, you demonstrate that you really don't know how to use a
dictionary.

Let's see...
You said, "All 'art' is 'artificial'. Note the root of the word!"
I said you don't know how to use a dictionary.
You countered with the above, which says nothing about the "root" of
the word, artificial.
Here's how the Online Etymology Doctionary has it:

For "artificial":
c.1382, "made by man" (opposite of natural), from O.Fr. artificial,
from L. artificialis "of or belonging to art," from artificium (see
artifice). Another early use was in the phrase artificial day "part of
the day from sunrise to sunset" (c.1386). Artificial intelligence
first attested 1956.

For "art":
c.1225, "skill as a result of learning or practice," from O.Fr. art,
from L. artem, (nom. ars) "art, skill, craft," from PIE *ar-ti- (cf.
Skt. rtih "manner, mode;" Gk. arti "just," artios "complete;" Armenian
arnam "make," Ger. art "manner, mode" ), from base *ar- "fit together,
join" (see arm (1)). In M.E. usually with sense of "skill in
scholarship and learning" (c.1305), especially in the seven sciences,
or liberal arts (divided into the trivium -- grammar, logic, rhetoric
-- and the quadrivium --arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy). This
sense remains in Bachelor of Arts, etc. Meaning "human workmanship"
(as opposed to nature) is from 1386. Sense of "cunning and trickery"
first attested c.1600. Meaning "skill in creative arts" is first
recorded 1620; esp. of painting, sculpture, etc., from 1668. Broader
sense of the word remains in artless (1589). As an adj. meaning
"produced with conscious artistry (as opposed to popular or folk) it
is attested from 1890, possibly from infl. of Ger. kunstlied "art
song" (cf. art film, 1960; art rock, c.1970). Fine arts, "those which
appeal to the mind and the imagination" first recorded 1767. Art brut
"art done by prisoners, lunatics, etc.," is 1955, from Fr., lit. "raw
art." Artsy "pretentiously artistic" is from 1902. Expression art for
art's sake (1836) translates Fr. l'art pour l'art. First record of art
critic is from 1865. Arts and crafts "decorative design and handcraft"
first attested in the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, founded in
London, 1888.

Now, if "art" is from "artificial", maybe you could point out that
connection in the above.
Please?

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

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

On 19 Jun 2005 11:23:11 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Proves? I don't have to 'prove' anything. This distinction already
>exists. All I have to do is show you that you're using the word 'art'
>incorrectly. It amuses me that photographers want to call their work
>'art' when that ('art') is of lesser value and importance than good
>photogrraphy.

So far, you have only claimed it, not shown it.

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

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> A photograph is evidence that something exists, more or less(!) as
> depicted in the photograph.

A print sure isn't, again it's way to easy to "doctor" it so it no longer is
representative of what actually existed. Now that this arguement has been
shown to be faulty, what's the next reason it can't be art?
--

Stacey

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:1119204833.334553.182290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > William Graham wrote:
> >
> >> > --
> >> > Frank ess
> >> I would say that photography can be art.
> >
> > No, photographs cannot be works of art.
> >
> >
> >> That is, a photographer can use the
> >> medium to create artistic works.
> >
> > No, he cannot.
>
> Obviously, we have different definitions of, "art". To me, anything a human
> being does with care, and the desire to do it as best he/she can, is "art".

That definition is incorrect. Unless by 'art' you mean 'set of skills'
such as 'the art of pitching' (baseball), 'the art of cooking', etc.

> I make no distinction between painting, sculpting, woodworking, and
> photography.

There is a distinction. Photographs are different: they are produced by
the subject matter themselves. Paintings, etc., have no causal
connection to anything else existing in the world.

> - Or, for that matter any craft or business.

That's a different sense from 'work of art'. You're talking about
'products of art', as in 'bountiful crops are the products of the
farmer's art'. 'Art' in that sense means 'set of skills', which is a
completely different sense.

> Even accounting
> can be carefully and well done. If one labors to do whatever they do better
> than anyone else, and stands back afterward, contemplates the results of
> their labor with the pride of personal accomplishment, then what they do is,
> to me, "art". I don't have to wonder why the work of a painter is art, but
> the work of the guy at the Saturday market who makes little polished boxes
> out of exotic wood is not. I know that the definition is purely arbitrary,
> and on planet X in some other galaxy, making little boxes out of exotic
> woods is real art, and painting with oils on canvas is just a craft that
> doesn't qualify. Why? - Because the definition is purely arbitrary, and
> there is no intrinsic reason why one would call one labor of love an art,
> and not apply the same term to some other labor of love. IOW, you can change
> the definition of the word if you desire, but the process is the same, just
> as the country in Africa doesn't change just because a different dictator
> takes over and calls it "Jonesland" instead of "Smithland". (Which is why I
> care about Geology, but could care less about Geography)
> So, I refuse to take part in your discussion of what is real art.

'Work of art' is different from 'product of art'. Understand?
Photograps are not 'works of art' but are 'products of art' where 'art'
is understood as'set of skills'.

> I
> don't care what the definition is.

Then my calling your car a poodle will draw no objection from you? You
do not see the importance of using languge with precision? Is it OK to
call Plus-X, Tri-X?

> I have my own definition. Anything I like
> to do, and work at doing well, is art.

Your definition is too vague to be of any significance.

> Why should I give up my hobbies and
> take up some other hobby just so people will call me an, "artist", instead
> of a "craftsperson"?

You missed my point above: 'art' is NOT 'better than' photography. You
must have a real inferiority complex if you believe that calling your
photography 'art' makes it more important. 'Art' IS NOT 'better' or
'more important' than photography. Poodles are not 'better' or 'more
important' than tigers.

> I don't care what they call me. I will continue to do
> what I like to do, and when I do it well enough, I will look at it and know
> that I have created a work of art.

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Mikey: Stop making up comparisons that nobody has uttered to attempt to
> defend your fallacious argument. Further, we're not discussing whether
> a particular photograph is a better image than a particular painting or
> sculpture.
>
> If the intent of the artist is that the photograph is art, than that is
> what it is regardless of anything else.

Nonsense. What qualifies as 'art' has long been established.

>
>
>
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Proves? I don't have to 'prove' anything. This distinction already
> > exists. All I have to do is show you that you're using the word 'art'
> > incorrectly. It amuses me that photographers want to call their work
> > 'art' when that ('art') is of lesser value and importance than good
> > photogrraphy.
> >
> > It's like bragging that your Porsche is a poodle. It's indescribably
> > stupid.
>
>
>
> --
> -- 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?)

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.

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.....)


Stacey wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > A photograph is evidence that something exists, more or less(!) as
> > depicted in the photograph.
>
> A print sure isn't, again it's way to easy to "doctor" it so it no longer is
> representative of what actually existed. Now that this arguement has been
> shown to be faulty, what's the next reason it can't be art?
> --
>
> Stacey

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

The term 'representation' has many senses, obviously. In the sense of
'representation' used here, photographs are NOT representations but
paintings are. You really need to know more about aesthetics.

Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119274731.156889.292360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Skip M wrote:
> >> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1119204453.793871.158410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > In the Oxford (1928) and Shorter Oxford (4th edition, 1974) English
> >> > Dictionary, the usage is mentioned as applying to paintings or
> >> > sketches. Photographs are NOT mentioned in those editions. More recent
> >> > editions of the SOED do mention photographs, as usage has become less
> >> > distinct. Traditionally, however, the word 'picture' refers properly to
> >> > paintings and the like (a photograph is not 'the like').
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why don't you quote it?
> >
> > I don't have a scanner at home.
> >
> >> "Picture" in the sense you're using here is a verb,
> >
> > No, noun.
> >
> >> and, yes, the Oxford does not mention photography specifically, it does
> >> say,
> >> "pictorial representation." It's also interesting to note that most of
> >> the
> >> usages noted in the "Oxford Universal Dictionary" (Third Edition, 1933)
> >> are
> >> from the 19th century or earlier.
> >
> > Correct. My point is that the word 'picture' was historically connected
> > to painting.
> >
> >> Except for the usage connoting motion
> >> pictures, or, in other words, serial photographs. One of the definitions
> >> given is, "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." Now, a photograph is certainly a "representation on a surface, of
> >> an
> >> object or objects."
> >
> > A photograph is NOT a 'representation'. Again, I quote from Scruton:
>
> Quote all you want, here's one, from the very same Oxford Universal
> Dictionary," Representation: 2. An image, likeness, or reproduction in some
> manner of a thing. ME"
> >
>
> >
> > "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.
>
> That is an opinion, not a definition.
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

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"

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2005 11:07:33 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On 18 Jun 2005 09:34:02 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >RichA wrote:
> >> >> 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?
> >> >
> >> >No, because they could chose to follow the projected image or not...the
> >> >painting is not an 'image'. An 'image' is causally related to something
> >> >else.
> >>
> >> >A 'picture' (the technical term for a painting)
> >>
> >> Can you please show a site that supports this definition of a
> >> painting? I can't seem to find one.
> >
> >Oh, try the Oxford English Dictionary, for instance. The word 'picture'
> >is most closely related to painting, though it is sometimes used
> >(sloppily) to refer to photographs.
> >
> >> >is NOT causally
> >> >related to anything. Photographs should not really be called 'pictures'
> >> >for that reason.
> >>
> >> See above.
> >>
> >> I can't seem to find any support for your contention that a photo
> >> isn't a picture. In fact, when I ask Google to define "picture"
> >> (define: picture), photographs are specifically included as
> >> "pictures".
> >> A clarification of why everyone else is wrong would be appreciated.
> >
> >In the Oxford (1928) and Shorter Oxford (4th edition, 1974) English
> >Dictionary, the usage is mentioned as applying to paintings or
> >sketches. Photographs are NOT mentioned in those editions. More recent
> >editions of the SOED do mention photographs, as usage has become less
> >distinct. Traditionally, however, the word 'picture' refers properly to
> >paintings and the like (a photograph is not 'the like').
>
> IOW, you're wrong.
> Unless you want to live in the past.
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bill Funk
> >> replace "g" with "a"
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

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

Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119274731.156889.292360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Skip M wrote:
> >> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1119204453.793871.158410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > In the Oxford (1928) and Shorter Oxford (4th edition, 1974) English
> >> > Dictionary, the usage is mentioned as applying to paintings or
> >> > sketches. Photographs are NOT mentioned in those editions. More recent
> >> > editions of the SOED do mention photographs, as usage has become less
> >> > distinct. Traditionally, however, the word 'picture' refers properly to
> >> > paintings and the like (a photograph is not 'the like').
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why don't you quote it?

I don't have the dictionary at work, where my internet connection is.

> >
> > I don't have a scanner at home.
> You don't have to scan it, just quote what it says...
> >
> >> "Picture" in the sense you're using here is a verb,
> >
> > No, noun.
>
> The one place that painting and drawing are mentioned in connection with the
> definition is with the first one, "The action or process of painting or
> drawing, the fact of being painted or pictorially represented."
> The only other place the two are mentioned are also in conjunction with the
> phrase "represented on a surface."

Do you have a copy of the third edition handy? It was edited in the
1920's Photography had been around for almost 100 years, but recorded
usage did not change appreciably during that time.

> >> and, yes, the Oxford does not mention photography specifically, it does
> >> say,
> >> "pictorial representation." It's also interesting to note that most of
> >> the
> >> usages noted in the "Oxford Universal Dictionary" (Third Edition, 1933)
> >> are
> >> from the 19th century or earlier.
> >
> > Correct. My point is that the word 'picture' was historically connected
> > to painting.
>
> That point would be made, before the invention of photography. That would
> be not unlike saying a car does not move, since the term was applied to
> horse drawn carriages.

The connection was already made before photography came along. That was
my point. The usage continued and strictly speaking should continue in
the same way.

> >
> >> Except for the usage connoting motion
> >> pictures, or, in other words, serial photographs. One of the definitions
> >> given is, "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." Now, a photograph is certainly a "representation on a surface, of
> >> an
> >> object or objects."
> >
> > A photograph is NOT a 'representation'. Again, I quote from Scruton:
>
> By the way, what book of Scruton's are you quoting from?

The Aesthetic Understanding

http://www.rogerscruton.com/books/aesthetic_under.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ [...] s&n=507846

http://www.rogerscruton.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.
>
> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> By that logic, a painting of GeorgeIII is not a picture of that person, if a
> photograph of, say, Queen Elizabeth isn't.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

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.



Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119274731.156889.292360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Skip M wrote:
> >> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1119204453.793871.158410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > In the Oxford (1928) and Shorter Oxford (4th edition, 1974) English
> >> > Dictionary, the usage is mentioned as applying to paintings or
> >> > sketches. Photographs are NOT mentioned in those editions. More recent
> >> > editions of the SOED do mention photographs, as usage has become less
> >> > distinct. Traditionally, however, the word 'picture' refers properly to
> >> > paintings and the like (a photograph is not 'the like').
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why don't you quote it?
> >
> > I don't have a scanner at home.
> You don't have to scan it, just quote what it says...
> >
> >> "Picture" in the sense you're using here is a verb,
> >
> > No, noun.
>
> The one place that painting and drawing are mentioned in connection with the
> definition is with the first one, "The action or process of painting or
> drawing, the fact of being painted or pictorially represented."
> The only other place the two are mentioned are also in conjunction with the
> phrase "represented on a surface."
> >
> >> and, yes, the Oxford does not mention photography specifically, it does
> >> say,
> >> "pictorial representation." It's also interesting to note that most of
> >> the
> >> usages noted in the "Oxford Universal Dictionary" (Third Edition, 1933)
> >> are
> >> from the 19th century or earlier.
> >
> > Correct. My point is that the word 'picture' was historically connected
> > to painting.
>
> That point would be made, before the invention of photography. That would
> be not unlike saying a car does not move, since the term was applied to
> horse drawn carriages.
> >
> >> Except for the usage connoting motion
> >> pictures, or, in other words, serial photographs. One of the definitions
> >> given is, "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." Now, a photograph is certainly a "representation on a surface, of
> >> an
> >> object or objects."
> >
> > A photograph is NOT a 'representation'. Again, I quote from Scruton:
>
> By the way, what book of Scruton's are you quoting from?
>
> >
> >
> > "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.
>
> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> By that logic, a painting of GeorgeIII is not a picture of that person, if a
> photograph of, say, Queen Elizabeth isn't.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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.

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.

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.

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> 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.

HUH? What are you talking about?

> 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.

Who says it has to? It said 'more or less', right?

> 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.

Photographs are not and cannot be works of art, BECAUSE art is NOT
causally connected to anything or dependent upon the existence of
anything else, whereas photographs are causally connected to something
else and dependent upon the existence of something else.

That IS the difference bewteen photographs and art. A photograph is
ALWAYS a photograph "OF" something else (meaning causally related). A
painting or other work of art is not 'OF' something else (i.e., not
causally related).

Photographs are derivative. Art is not derivative. That's what makes it
'art'.

Can you read or not?

> 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.

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

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?

Paul Furman 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.
>
>
> 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.

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

<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?

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.

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

The distinction between 'art' and 'non-art' is evidently beyond the
understanding of photographers. Even worse, photographers think that
calling their work 'art' makes it more important.

Dick R. 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.

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.

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:20:29 -0500, Dick R. 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!

There are a few reasonably interesting subthreads, easily
identified by UC's absence. Normally I say that those playing the
fool, as UC does, should be ignored. But those that rise to his
bait, knowing full well that he's nothing more than a troll that
can't be reasoned with, probably deserve to be strung along ad
infinitum, ad nauseam. On the other hand, maybe they're really
stringing UC along, trolling the troll. It certainly helps keep him
isolated in a small number of recognizable and easily ignored
threads. Once was the time that UC could be counted upon to
regularly drop his "Leica solves all" non-sequitur stools.

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!

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!

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

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

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

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

Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119288326.235802.77430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > Photographs are not and cannot be works of art, BECAUSE art is NOT
> > causally connected to anything or dependent upon the existence of
> > anything else, whereas photographs are causally connected to something
> > else and dependent upon the existence of something else.
> >
> > That IS the difference bewteen photographs and art. A photograph is
> > ALWAYS a photograph "OF" something else (meaning causally related). A
> > painting or other work of art is not 'OF' something else (i.e., not
> > causally related).
> >
>
> By that reasoning, if a painting is of a certain tree, person, building,
> etc, it cannot be art, "BECAUSE art is NOT causally connected to anything or
> dependent upon the existence of
> anything else,." You're argument is starting to look even sillier...

A painting CANNOT be 'OF' a certain tree, person, building, etc., at
least not in the same sense as the photograph is 'OF'. In the case of a
photograph, the 'OF' is causal...in the case of a painting, the 'OF' is
intentional. The 'OF-ness' is quite different, and THEREIN lies the
whole difference between art and photography...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com