Photography: Artist vs technician - Page 8

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

Skip M wrote:
>
>
> 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...

Further clarifcation:

The photograph is impossible without the tree. The photograph cannot be
taken of the tree as it was, or as it may become, but only as it IS.
Its existence is inextricably involved in the photograph...the
photograph is causally dependent on the tree's existence...it is proof
of its existence...


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

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>
> 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.

"Curious" is a rather extreme understatement here. He's an ultraconservative
reactionary nutcase who is in complete denial of the whole 20th century.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119282133.202649.51430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 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'.
>

By that definition, portrait paintings are not art, since they indeed
represent something that exists, or existed, as it exists or existed in that
moment of time, and is, indeed, part of a causal chain, as you put it. But,
on the other hand, manipulated photographs, whether digitally or darkroom,
will be art, since they are not part of the same chain.

Is this art?
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/45091293

Or this? (nude)
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44139885

Be careful, neither are representative of any person or thing in existence,
nor a moment in time...

--
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:1119306141.393936.231100@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The book's copyright is 1998. Only two chapters are devoted to
> photography; one to still photography, one to cinema. I quoted from the
> chapter on still photography.
>
> Skip M wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119278887.425596.71140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "1 ---
>> >> > In order to understand what I mean by saying that photography is not
>> >> > a
>> >> > representational art, it is important to separate painting and
>> >> > photography as much as possible, so as to discuss not actual
>> >> > painting
>> >> > and actual photography but an ideal form of each, an ideal which
>> >> > represents the essential differences between them. Ideal photography
>> >> > differs from actual photography as indeed ideal painting differs
>> >> > from
>> >> > actual painting. Actual photography is the result of the attempt by
>> >> > photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and
>> >> > methods of painting.
>> >>
>> Here's where Scruton goes astray. One, in order to buttress his
>> argument,
>> he tries to separate them by calling on the ideal. (Since I don't feel
>> like
>> wading through 462 pages or so of his work to see if you are quoting
>> selectively, though I feel you are, I'll take this quote at face value.)
>> It
>> is an artificial separation, first.
>
> No, it isn't. In philosophy, we have to examine the pure state of
> things, the essence, not what is accidental to things.

So, just what is the "ideal" photograph and the "ideal" painting?

>
>> Then, the goes on to say that "actual"
>> photography (as opposed to the ideal) is the "result of the attempt by
>> photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and
>> methods
>> of painting." That, by the time he wrote that, in 1974, was an outdated
>> concept, held by the "Pictorialists" of the late 19th and early 20th
>> century, discredited by Steichen and Steiglitz, and later by the members
>> of
>> the f64 group, Adams, Weston, et al. Also, that is an assumption he
>> makes
>> about the intent of an individual photographer that he is in no way in a
>> position to make.
>
> This is false on its face. Ever see Monte Zucker's work? Many
> photographers today want to call their work 'fine art'. They write
> 'artist's staements' and the like. (I think Dr. Scruton could have made
> himself clearer in the passage to which you refer, though.)
>

"Fine art" and "aims and methods of painting" are two different things. And
while not mutually exclusive, a desire to call something "fine art" does not
necessarily mean that the object is aping painting. Sculpture,
representative or abstract, does not use the aims or methods of painting,
and is considered a fine art.

--
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...

I think Mr Committee and perhaps his Source may need to make their use
of "causally" a little clearer for us non-philosophers. A painting of
a tree arrives at its paintingness through some or several
intermediaries, perhaps a painter's apprehension of a particular or
imagined object, a transfer process, in which his apprehension is
given substance.

The vibes come in through his eye, are processed in his "mind" and
transliterated into brush- or pen- or pencil-controlling movement, or
similar succeeding craft-like requirements, so there eventually you
have it: a picture of a tree.

How is that "causally" different from the causality inherent in vibes
through a photographer's eye, processed in his "mind" and
transliterated into camera-controlling movement and its succeeding
craft-like requirements, and there eventually you have it: a picture
of a tree?

Unless Scruton has passed on recently, perhaps Mr UC can ring him up
and have him drop by to settle this once and for a while?

Interpreters from "philosophy-speak" to "meaningful language" please
stand by for service.

--
Frank ess

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:xtGdnfIzxPmI0yrfRVn-tg@giganews.com...
> 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...
>
> I think Mr Committee and perhaps his Source may need to make their use of
> "causally" a little clearer for us non-philosophers. A painting of a tree
> arrives at its paintingness through some or several intermediaries,
> perhaps a painter's apprehension of a particular or imagined object, a
> transfer process, in which his apprehension is given substance.
>
> The vibes come in through his eye, are processed in his "mind" and
> transliterated into brush- or pen- or pencil-controlling movement, or
> similar succeeding craft-like requirements, so there eventually you have
> it: a picture of a tree.
>
> How is that "causally" different from the causality inherent in vibes
> through a photographer's eye, processed in his "mind" and transliterated
> into camera-controlling movement and its succeeding craft-like
> requirements, and there eventually you have it: a picture of a tree?
>
> Unless Scruton has passed on recently, perhaps Mr UC can ring him up and
> have him drop by to settle this once and for a while?
>
> Interpreters from "philosophy-speak" to "meaningful language" please stand
> by for service.
>
> --
> Frank ess

That's one of the problems I have with many philosophers of the late 20th
century. They either latch on to a narrow, obscure definition of words and
profess that to be the only meaning of them, or redefine words to suite
themselves, and sow confusion among the less well informed.
I see UC's point, and by extension, what he says is Scruton's, that a
photograph is a direct result of the reflected photons bouncing off of the
object and hitting the film or sensor, a painting is by usage only the
painter's translation of what he saw. But that is an artificially narrow
(see above) usage of the term "causal." Because, more often than not, a
painting is, indeed "OF something," even if it is "OF" the perception of the
subject.

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

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

No quotes here, sorry. {:-)

Some points I think are being missed both by UC and others, including
myself. The manner in which UC is preenting his arguments - statements
like 'photography is not art' imply that photography is not by
definition able to reach the lofty heights of 'real art', and is thereby
seen as apparently denigrating photography vs the antagonists who
collectively are arguing that photography can be art.

UC is actually saying, as he did to me in an earlier post, that he is
not comparing the relative level or worth of photography vis-a-vis art,
and there is no competitive comparison between the two mediums. He said
that photography can be 'better than art' in conveying information and
evoking reactions.

What we as photographers are reacting to is the implied denigration,
when that seems not to be UC's case; rather, by trying to call
photographs art, we are actually limiting the power of photographic
images.

Although I have had trouble deciding what UC is getting at, and he could
probably put his arguments better, I think I am beginning to understand
where he is coming from. In trying to call photographs 'fine art' we
are buying into a comparison with painting, etc., which is not really
valid. Perhaps we should find a new term for 'fine art' photographic
images and not borrow from the painting scene.

Any suggestions?

Colin

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

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
> No quotes here, sorry. {:-)
>
> Some points I think are being missed both by UC and others, including
> myself. The manner in which UC is preenting his arguments - statements
> like 'photography is not art' imply that photography is not by
> definition able to reach the lofty heights of 'real art', and is thereby
> seen as apparently denigrating photography vs the antagonists who
> collectively are arguing that photography can be art.

There are lots of people doing art with photography, and that's been the
case since photography was invented. Denying that is completely ridiculous.
Photography is just another technique for doing what artists had been doing
all along, namely expressing their personal vision of the world.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> 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.

Sounds like someone with a preformed bias looking for a way to prove his
point. Given there is no "ideal" painting, photography or art, seems like a
moot point to me.

Then again you came into this with your own preformed bias so trying to
discuss this with you also seems to be a moot point. :-) Given you've
dismissed my multiple examples showing the faults of your arguement, you
seem unwilling to learn anything or move from your stoic position. Enjoy
living in the past using other's words and thoughts rather than thinking
for yourself.
--

Stacey

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Sounds like someone with a preformed bias looking for a way to prove his
> point. Given there is no "ideal" painting, photography or art, seems like
> a
> moot point to me.

If you look up the guy, you'll find that he's part of the conservative
backlash against modern art in particular and just about everything after
the 19th century in general.

He really is a nutcase. Of course, if you subscribe to a conservative
fundamentalist Christian sort of point of view, you'll really like him.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

In article <3hp8laFhor4nU1@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

[ ... ]

>Sounds like someone with a preformed bias looking for a way to prove his
>point. Given there is no "ideal" painting, photography or art, seems like a
>moot point to me.

Could you *please* stop changing the "Subject: " header? You're
making it more difficult to keep this thread killfiled, and I may have
to killfile *you* in self defense.

Thanks,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

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

On 17 Jun 2005 06:29:08 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>You have no idea what you are talking about. Get out of here.
>

Your authority for issuing this command? Dr. Scruon, perhaps?

>Scott W wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>> > 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
>> >
>> You guys really know how to feed UC, so the guy is crack pot who wants
>> to try and define for all what art is and is not. Why should we care
>> what he thinks, I doubt that his views will carry much weight.
>>
>> Scott

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.

No matter how hard you try, your petty, self-confirming
definitions are hog waste.

>
>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?)

On 20 Jun 2005 08:06:21 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>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.
>
Having worked for many years for a railroad which built a
comuter system used by BR, I am fully aware that the common referent
for railway car, used by people over there in the industry, is
carriage. Do you expect that the Brits find it necessary to refer to
"horse carriages" to make the distinction? Are you really expecting
someone to present you with multi-ton monster on rails when he says,
"I'll send a car around for you"?



>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,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:14:39 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> No quotes here, sorry. {:-)
>>
>> Some points I think are being missed both by UC and others, including
>> myself. The manner in which UC is preenting his arguments - statements
>> like 'photography is not art' imply that photography is not by
>> definition able to reach the lofty heights of 'real art', and is thereby
>> seen as apparently denigrating photography vs the antagonists who
>> collectively are arguing that photography can be art.
>
>There are lots of people doing art with photography, and that's been the
>case since photography was invented. Denying that is completely ridiculous.
>Photography is just another technique for doing what artists had been doing
>all along, namely expressing their personal vision of the world.

Perhaps UC is one of those pathetic painters who never got
over the fact that photographers stole a march on them by attaining
near perfect representation of a subject without paying their
"artistic dues". So they prance off in a different direction, saying,
"That's not at all what we were trying to attain." Sour grapes, pure
and simple.

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

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:42B757EC.78B522A@killspam.127.0.0.1...
> No quotes here, sorry. {:-)
>
> Some points I think are being missed both by UC and others, including
> myself. The manner in which UC is preenting his arguments - statements
> like 'photography is not art' imply that photography is not by
> definition able to reach the lofty heights of 'real art', and is thereby
> seen as apparently denigrating photography vs the antagonists who
> collectively are arguing that photography can be art.
>
> UC is actually saying, as he did to me in an earlier post, that he is
> not comparing the relative level or worth of photography vis-a-vis art,
> and there is no competitive comparison between the two mediums. He said
> that photography can be 'better than art' in conveying information and
> evoking reactions.
>
> What we as photographers are reacting to is the implied denigration,
> when that seems not to be UC's case; rather, by trying to call
> photographs art, we are actually limiting the power of photographic
> images.
>
> Although I have had trouble deciding what UC is getting at, and he could
> probably put his arguments better, I think I am beginning to understand
> where he is coming from. In trying to call photographs 'fine art' we
> are buying into a comparison with painting, etc., which is not really
> valid. Perhaps we should find a new term for 'fine art' photographic
> images and not borrow from the painting scene.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Colin

No, I got that point, between the lines, but what I object to is the idea
that photography is somehow precluded from being art merely because of the
medium.

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

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

On 16 Jun 2005 09:37:15 -0700, 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.

Nor does his imputed lack of understanding make your effluvia
right.

>
>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,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

kashe@sonic.net wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:14:39 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
> <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>>No quotes here, sorry. {:-)
>>>
>>>Some points I think are being missed both by UC and others, including
>>>myself. The manner in which UC is preenting his arguments - statements
>>>like 'photography is not art' imply that photography is not by
>>>definition able to reach the lofty heights of 'real art', and is thereby
>>>seen as apparently denigrating photography vs the antagonists who
>>>collectively are arguing that photography can be art.
>>
>>There are lots of people doing art with photography, and that's been the
>>case since photography was invented. Denying that is completely ridiculous.
>>Photography is just another technique for doing what artists had been doing
>>all along, namely expressing their personal vision of the world.
>
>
> Perhaps UC is one of those pathetic painters who never got
> over the fact that photographers stole a march on them by attaining
> near perfect representation of a subject without paying their
> "artistic dues". So they prance off in a different direction, saying,
> "That's not at all what we were trying to attain." Sour grapes, pure
> and simple.

Well, I am amongst the incompetent art students. I turned to the
architectural end and ended up loving photo-graphy.

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:31:19 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> 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...
It's a pity you don't know what you are blathering on about.
Many artists used a camera obscura to help with their paintings. According
to your arguments this would deny them thright to be called art. Many
artists use models to copy from (go to any life class) and this would also
debar the result being called art.

--
neil
delete delete to reply

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:1119282133.202649.51430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > 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'.
> >
>
> By that definition, portrait paintings are not art, since they indeed
> represent something that exists, or existed, as it exists or existed in that
> moment of time, and is, indeed, part of a causal chain, as you put it.

No, not at all. There is no causal chain. None at all. No painting is
the same as a photograph.

> But,
> on the other hand, manipulated photographs, whether digitally or darkroom,
> will be art, since they are not part of the same chain.

Yes, manipulated photographs, if manipulated enough(!), can be
artworks. That's why such manipulated photographs have such low
standing in the world of photography. The manipulations must
severe.....

> Is this art?
> http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/45091293

No. It's a negative print.

>
> Or this? (nude)
> http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44139885

No, not even close.

>
> Be careful, neither are representative of any person or thing in existence,
> nor a moment in time...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

1) The photons do not come down the artist's sleeve, do they? In a
photograph we have a DIRECT PATH from object to film. Photons emitted
from the sun or other light source strike the object and are reflected
into space. Some of them are reflected back toward my lens and
collected by it. A photograph is of a given object at a given point in
time and space. I cannot photograph soemthing unless I can collected
its reflected rays.

None of this is true of paintings or sculptures. I can paint or sculpt
'unicorns'.

2) Why is a fossil not a work of art?

If you can answer #2, then you understand why photographs are not works
of art.

Frank ess wrote:
> 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...
>
> I think Mr Committee and perhaps his Source may need to make their use
> of "causally" a little clearer for us non-philosophers. A painting of
> a tree arrives at its paintingness through some or several
> intermediaries, perhaps a painter's apprehension of a particular or
> imagined object, a transfer process, in which his apprehension is
> given substance.
>
> The vibes come in through his eye, are processed in his "mind" and
> transliterated into brush- or pen- or pencil-controlling movement, or
> similar succeeding craft-like requirements, so there eventually you
> have it: a picture of a tree.
>
> How is that "causally" different from the causality inherent in vibes
> through a photographer's eye, processed in his "mind" and
> transliterated into camera-controlling movement and its succeeding
> craft-like requirements, and there eventually you have it: a picture
> of a tree?
>
> Unless Scruton has passed on recently, perhaps Mr UC can ring him up
> and have him drop by to settle this once and for a while?
>
> Interpreters from "philosophy-speak" to "meaningful language" please
> stand by for service.
>
> --
> Frank ess

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

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!

'Salon photography' is my choice, but it sounds a bit outdated. We
definitely need a better term than 'fine-art photography' which is
misleading and false.

Colin D wrote:
> No quotes here, sorry. {:-)
>
> Some points I think are being missed both by UC and others, including
> myself. The manner in which UC is preenting his arguments - statements
> like 'photography is not art' imply that photography is not by
> definition able to reach the lofty heights of 'real art', and is thereby
> seen as apparently denigrating photography vs the antagonists who
> collectively are arguing that photography can be art.
>
> UC is actually saying, as he did to me in an earlier post, that he is
> not comparing the relative level or worth of photography vis-a-vis art,
> and there is no competitive comparison between the two mediums. He said
> that photography can be 'better than art' in conveying information and
> evoking reactions.
>
> What we as photographers are reacting to is the implied denigration,
> when that seems not to be UC's case; rather, by trying to call
> photographs art, we are actually limiting the power of photographic
> images.
>
> Although I have had trouble deciding what UC is getting at, and he could
> probably put his arguments better, I think I am beginning to understand
> where he is coming from. In trying to call photographs 'fine art' we
> are buying into a comparison with painting, etc., which is not really
> valid. Perhaps we should find a new term for 'fine art' photographic
> images and not borrow from the painting scene.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Colin

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

Concepts don't go 'out of date'. Philosophy deal with intangibles.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with that mode of thought.

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:22:21 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>
> > The book's copyright is 1998. Only two chapters are devoted to
> > photography; one to still photography, one to cinema. I quoted from the
> > chapter on still photography.
> Why bother about a book that discusses ideas that are over a century out
> of date and that were ridiculed even then ( viz. Patience by Gilbert and
> Sullivan)
> >
> > No, it isn't. In philosophy, we have to examine the pure state of
> > things, the essence, not what is accidental to things.
> We don't have to do anything, this is the concept of free will.
> >
> >> Then, the goes on to say that "actual" photography (as opposed to the
> >> ideal) is the "result of the attempt by photographers to pollute the
> >> ideal of their craft with the aims and methods of painting." That, by
> >> the time he wrote that, in 1974, was an outdated concept, held by the
> >> "Pictorialists" of the late 19th and early 20th century, discredited by
> >> Steichen and Steiglitz, and later by the members of the f64 group,
> >> Adams, Weston, et al. Also, that is an assumption he makes about the
> >> intent of an individual photographer that he is in no way in a position
> >> to make.
> >
> > This is false on its face. Ever see Monte Zucker's work? Many
> > photographers today want to call their work 'fine art'. They write
> > 'artist's staements' and the like. (I think Dr. Scruton could have made
> > himself clearer in the passage to which you refer, though.)
> I have never heard any person in any discipline call their work 'fine
> art'.
>
> --
> neil
> delete delete to reply

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

kashe@sonic.net wrote:

> On 16 Jun 2005 09:37:15 -0700, 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.
>
> Nor does his imputed lack of understanding make your effluvia right.

effluvia - describes his "you don't understand" agrement perfectly.

This discussion has been quite funny to read. I killfiled him the
first time he put his hands on his hips and more or less said "I'm
right and everyone else is wrong". It's sad though, because he has a
strong desire to be creative and is going through the realization that
creativity cannot be learned.

Jeff

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:44:24 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> It is not a painting 'OF' Queen Elizabeth in the same sense of 'OF'
> that a photograph 'OF' Queen Elizabeth is 'OF' her. The relation in the
> latter case is CAUSAL, in the former, INTENTIONAL. (For your
> information, these relations are NOT the same.)
This is just arrogant nonsense.
--
neil
delete delete to reply

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:48:16 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

>
> Yes, but there is a common element among the fine arts: manual
> construction. A photograph is a natural, not artificial product. It is
> made in a <<causal>> chain beginning with photons reflected from the
> subject. Fine art is not. In fine art, there is no caisal chain, even
> though the artists may have looked at some object. The photons do not
> come down his sleeve, so to speak.
The photons that come from a painting are no different from those that are
used in photography.
The causal chain in a painting is the object that is depicted whether or
not it is recognisable in just the same way as in a photograph.
The photons do not go down his sleeve but into his eyes - even if yours do
not see.

--
neil
delete delete to reply