Photography: Artist vs technician - Page 9

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

uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> Phlogiston, epicycles, vital force, Lamarckian genetics, and on and on.
>
> Those are not 'concepts' but hypotheses.

Equivocation.

> You are the STOOOOOOOPID one, my dear....

Non sequitur.

Your ability to think is dropping with each posting. Therefore, you
are a proven negative intelligence.

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:20:29 -0500, "Dick R." <dickr@visi.com> 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.


Let's learn how not to read postings in which others may still
be interested.

Google "killfile" and "delete key" if you're still stumped.

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:26:01 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
>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.

Stop renaming the threads.

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

Nice try. Do you have an argument, perchance?

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

On 21 Jun 2005 14:37:32 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com, whose
first utterance as an infant is more likely to have been "Dada" than
"mama" unstably emitted these linguistic particles:

> The trouble, as I see it, is that the words 'art' and 'artist' carries
> more prestige than they merit. To 'be' an artist is somehow viewed (by
> non-artists, especially) as conferring some sort of sainthood.

Thanks for displaying yet another bit from the depths of your
convoluted fantasy world. Only someone having an inordinate amount
of contempt for artists and photographers (evident in several of
your other replies) would make such a foolish statement. Most
people care little about artists and the arts, considering it (by
their actions if not by their words) as an ignorable subset of the
world of entertainment.


thus also sprach UC:
> After ding an Internet search, I found that Dr. Scruton, an expert in
> the field of aesthetics, has made many of the same arguments that I
> did. His arguments are far more elaborate and detailed than mine, but
> depend essentially on the same premises and observations. I suggest
> that you read the relavnt chapter in his book. The first few pages of
> the chapter present arguments almost identical to mine. Later, he goes
> into other, more abstract arguments that require a fairly detailed
> knowledge of aesthetics.
>
> Although I had heard of Dr. Scruton before (I am a philosophy major,
> after all) I had no idea that he had written on this topic at all.

More misguided, and more foolish by far are those impressionable
students that confer sainthood on, and attempt to emulate failed
philosophers and aesthetes. They at least had the good sense to
present their theories in more appropriate forums, where the
occasional acolyte might be seduced. If you cared about being taken
seriously, you'd at least present the appearance of being a
disinterested observer. But instead, your supercilious attitude and
obvious contempt for virtually all "art" show that your presence
here is for no such purpose. You're here instead to agitate, to
poke a stick into an ant hill as it were, and bask in the reactions
your trolling produces.

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

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119361696.597875.315110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >
>>
>> "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.
>
> 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.
>
>>
Mikey, I know you've taken the occasional photograph, so I know you don't
actually believe what you just wrote, above. If a photograph appeared out
of thin air, with no input from the photographer, you'd have a point. But
you know very well, that doesn't happen, even with your photographs.
If you do believe what you wrote, above, that does explain a few things,
though, about you and your photography...

--
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:1119361464.403975.193860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> 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.)
>

The only reasons for them not to be the same would be a) if the image were
of Queen Elizabeth I rather than II, or b) admitting that there was a link
would put your argument out to grass. Hmmm, I wonder which it is. There is
a causal link, in the identity of the subject and in the reason for making
the image, whether it is a photograph, painting ,sculpture or paper doll.
QEII did not "cause" the photograph, therefore the relation is indeed
intentional.

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

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

In article <3hrkqqFi7ilrU3@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>McLeod wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:26:01 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Stop renaming the threads.
>
> Sorry, I didn't think any newsreader today would "unthread" doing this.. I
>sure thought agent was smart enough to not do that...

Mine tracks the threads (at least as long as the previous
newsreader has been smart enough to maintain the "References: " header.
But -- it makes threads which I have killfiled reappear.

Enjoy,
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 21 Jun 2005 11:23:32 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > Concepts don't go 'out of date'.
>>
>> Phlogiston, epicycles, vital force, Lamarckian genetics, and on and on.
>
>Those are not 'concepts' but hypotheses.

You need to pull out whatever dictionary supports that, and quote.
Then be prepared to have that definition countered.

>
>You are the STOOOOOOOPID one, my dear....
>>
>> > Philosophy deal with intangibles.
>>
>> This is exactly why it is so useless.
>>
>> > Perhaps you are unfamiliar with that mode of thought.
>>
>> You are stoooopid beyond description.

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

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:06:36 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>> "Fine art" isn't part of UC's argument.
>
>Yes,that is understood.

It would seem that Colin doesn't understand it.

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

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

On 21 Jun 2005 07:00:52 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>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.

You and Colin seem to be the only ones trying to connect photography
with "fine art".
Care to let us in on the difference between "art" and "fine art"?
And tell us how long you'll make this distinction, while you're at it,
so we'll know when to expect the next change in definitions.

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

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

On 21 Jun 2005 06:44:24 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com 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.)

And yet, the photographer *intended* to take the photo of the Queen.
>
>Skip M wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119306886.182577.317270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > 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...
>> >
>>
>> A painting of Queen Elizabeth would be impossible with out Queen
>> Elizabeth...
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

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

On 21 Jun 2005 14:37:32 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>The trouble, as I see it, is that the words 'art' and 'artist' carries
>more prestige than they merit. To 'be' an artist is somehow viewed (by
>non-artists, especially) as conferring some sort of sainthood.

I am sure that there are some people who do this.
That does not make them the arbiters of anything.
>Go to
>your loacl arts festival sometime and look at what these paople make.
>For a while I dated an artist. She made little glass thingies. I was
>never in awe of her abilities, or of any artist's work, except Bernini.
>I visited an art museum in Toronto a few years back. There I saw a bust
>of some pope, made by Bernini, I believe. It was a thrill to stand
>before this piece of rock, which looked as though it were alive!

So? Why are you elevating Bernini to the level of a saint?
Oh, never mind, I see it now.

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

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

On 21 Jun 2005 07:15:32 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>> On 17 Jun 2005 13:57:51 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >'Art' is not better than 'non-art'. A really good photograph is no
>> >closer to being art than a bad one. A really bad painting is art.
>>
>> Even if it's nothing but a bucket of paint kicked over on a
>> canvas? By accident?
>
>Yes.
>
>>
>> Is the floor of a paint factory art? Or is intent the key?
>> As in photography?
>
>No. Intent is irrelevant.

Ah, you're a scam artist, then.
If intent is irrelevant to art, how can one tell good art from bad
art?
In fact, how can one tell art from anything else?

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

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

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:vsehb1hacoe3jl9cc83gbce4npbc83obmf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 04:57:57 GMT, 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.
>
> I'm wondering if UC and preddy aren't one ad the same, because both
> are wont to define words in ways that support their ideas, with no
> recognition that those words already have definitions.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

No, I've seen photographs taken by Michael Scarpitti (UC) and Steve
Giavanola (Preddy) and they're most definitely not the same person. Plus UC
revels in his perception that he's the most hated person on the 'net, (he
ain't) while Preddy can't understand why no one likes him or agrees with
him.

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

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:22:00 -0700, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
>news:vsehb1hacoe3jl9cc83gbce4npbc83obmf@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 04:57:57 GMT, 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.
>>
>> I'm wondering if UC and preddy aren't one ad the same, because both
>> are wont to define words in ways that support their ideas, with no
>> recognition that those words already have definitions.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> replace "g" with "a"
>
>No, I've seen photographs taken by Michael Scarpitti (UC) and Steve
>Giavanola (Preddy) and they're most definitely not the same person. Plus UC
>revels in his perception that he's the most hated person on the 'net, (he
>ain't) while Preddy can't understand why no one likes him or agrees with
>him.

OK.
I haven't had much experience with UC, but I can certainly sense an
extremely good self-image there. :-)

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

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

Bill Funk wrote:
>
> On 21 Jun 2005 07:00:52 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> You and Colin seem to be the only ones trying to connect photography
> with "fine art".
> Care to let us in on the difference between "art" and "fine art"?
> And tell us how long you'll make this distinction, while you're at it,
> so we'll know when to expect the next change in definitions.
>
No, Bill, I am not trying to do that at all. I have said I can see UG's
point of view re 'causal' vs 'non-causal', but I think it is too narrow
a point on which to declare that photography is 'non-art'. But, since
UG has stated that photography can be 'better than art', then perhaps
photogs would be better to embrace the difference, and not align
photography with art at all, hence an alternative name other than 'fine
art' for exhibition-type images.

Art as in paintings never satisfies me like a good photographic
landscape can. I am always dissatisfied with paintings of real scenes -
or even imagined scenes purporting to show the subject. The detailed
realism of good photographic images is more fulfilling to me. I would
be happy to view photographic works as 'non-fine art', if an alternative
appellation can be devised.

YMMV

Colin

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> 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.
>

It's interesting how people (myself included) can find something in print
somewhere that backs up any POV you could ever dream up.
--

Stacey

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

I can plop myself on a stool with brushes, paint, and canvas, before
Queen Elizabeth, and paint a picture....of a dog.

There is NO causal connection between the art-work and the existence of
some object. NONE!

I CANNOT take a photograph of Queen Elizabeth if there is no Queen
Elizabeth, and unless she is within view of my lens at the moment I
desire to make a photograph.

Is this clear enough for you, cretin?

Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119361696.597875.315110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> "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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >>
> Mikey, I know you've taken the occasional photograph, so I know you don't
> actually believe what you just wrote, above. If a photograph appeared out
> of thin air, with no input from the photographer, you'd have a point. But
> you know very well, that doesn't happen, even with your photographs.
> If you do believe what you wrote, above, that does explain a few things,
> though, about you and your photography...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

'Images' are made by lenses only. What appears in a picture (a
painting) is not an 'image' at all. It is a 'representation'. A
'representation' is not a copy. The snake in many Christian religious
painings represents Satan. It is a SYMBOL. A representation is a
symbol, not an image.

Only lenses or the like can produce images. Images are connected
causally to some object by collecting photons.


Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119361464.403975.193860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > 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.)
> >
>
> The only reasons for them not to be the same would be a) if the image were
> of Queen Elizabeth I rather than II, or b) admitting that there was a link
> would put your argument out to grass. Hmmm, I wonder which it is. There is
> a causal link, in the identity of the subject and in the reason for making
> the image, whether it is a photograph, painting ,sculpture or paper doll.
> QEII did not "cause" the photograph, therefore the relation is indeed
> intentional.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2005 07:19:34 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Concepts don't go 'out of date'. Philosophy deal with intangibles.
> >Perhaps you are unfamiliar with that mode of thought.
>
> Philosophy does not rule art.

Utter rubbish. Aesthetics is the theory of art. Aesthetics is a
sub-discipline that falls under philosophy.

> Therefore, your attempts to declare what is art, and what isn't, by
> using philosophy as a rule, fails.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

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

Good point: No causal connection to anything other than the artist,
would be more accurate.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2005 07:17:21 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Not at all. A painting based on a projected image is still a painting,
> >which has no direct causal connection to anything else.
>
> These paintings just appear?
> From nowhere?
> >
> >Neil Ellwood wrote:
> >> 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
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2005 14:37:32 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >The trouble, as I see it, is that the words 'art' and 'artist' carries
> >more prestige than they merit. To 'be' an artist is somehow viewed (by
> >non-artists, especially) as conferring some sort of sainthood.
>
> I am sure that there are some people who do this.
> That does not make them the arbiters of anything.
> >Go to
> >your loacl arts festival sometime and look at what these paople make.
> >For a while I dated an artist. She made little glass thingies. I was
> >never in awe of her abilities, or of any artist's work, except Bernini.
> >I visited an art museum in Toronto a few years back. There I saw a bust
> >of some pope, made by Bernini, I believe. It was a thrill to stand
> >before this piece of rock, which looked as though it were alive!
>
> So? Why are you elevating Bernini to the level of a saint?

I don't. I was simply thrilled, that's all. It's all just a trick, you
know. A high degree of skill.


> Oh, never mind, I see it now.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2005 07:00:52 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> You and Colin seem to be the only ones trying to connect photography
> with "fine art".

> Care to let us in on the difference between "art" and "fine art"?

'Art' has many meanings. 'The Arts' are (in part)

Literary Arts (poetry, fiction, etc)
Fine Arts (painting, sculpture, etc)
Healing Arts (medicine, etc)
Military Arts (warfare, strategy, etc)
Mechanical Arts (design of machines, etc)
Agricultural Arts (farming, etc)

When photographers call their work 'art', they mean as equivalent to
one of the 'fine arts'. This is clear.

See:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en [...] tnG=Search


But see this entry in Webster's Third New International:

Main Entry:2art
Pronunciation:**rt, **t, usu -d.+V
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Usageften attributive
Etymology:Middle English, from Old French, from Latin art-, ars * more
at ARM

1 a : the power of performing certain actions especially as acquired by
experience, study, or observation : SKILL, DEXTERITY *there's an art to
tightrope walking* b (1) : skill in the adaptation of things in the
natural world to the uses of human life : human contrivance or
ingenuity *are these chipped stones the product of art*(2) obsolete :
technical skill often as though aided by magic
2 : a branch of learning: a : one of the humanities traditionally
including history, philosophy, literature, languages, and the fine arts
*the College of Arts and Sciences* b arts plural : the liberal arts
*bachelor of arts* c archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
3 a : an occupation or business requiring knowledge or skill : CRAFT b
: an organization of men practicing a craft or trade *the art of Wool,
that is, T the corporation of the dealers in wool- C.E.Norton* c :
the general principles of any branch of learning or of any developed
craft : a system of rules or of organized modes of operation serving to
facilitate the performance of certain actions *the art of building*
*the art of engraving* *the art of navigation* d : systematic
application of knowledge or skill in effecting a desired result
4 a : application of skill and taste to production according to
aesthetic principles : the conscious use of skill, taste, and creative
imagination in the practical definition or production of beauty b :
the product of skill and taste applied according to aesthetic
principles : expression of beauty : works of art *an art gallery*
5 a archaic : a skillful plan or device *employed every art to soothe
the discontented- T.B.Macaulay* b : CUNNING, ARTIFICE *I swear I use
no art at all- Shakespeare* *she owes her wavy hair to art rather
than to nature* c : artificial and studied behavior *arts that allure,
the magic nod and wink- Robert Browning*
6 a : the craft of the artist; specifically : the technical devices
used by a painter regarded especially as a subject of study b : a
method or device that produces an artistic effect or is used for
decorative purposes *art needlework*
7 a : FINE ARTS b : one of the fine arts c : a plastic art d : a
graphic art e : PAINTING
8 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter as
distinguished from the text or other parts printed from standard
alphabetic types; especially : the illustrative material of a
newspaper or periodical
synonyms SKILL, CUNNING, ARTIFICE, CRAFT, ART can mean, in common, the
faculty, usually expert, of performing or executing what is planned or
devised. SKILL stresses technical knowledge, proficiency, or expertness
*a first-rate specimen of the composer's art, the interpreter's skill
and the engineer's craft- Herbert Weinstock* *dentistry as a skill
alone is limited at present largely to repair and restoration-
J.B.Conant* *varying skill and thoroughness in the detection of
crime- Havelock Ellis* *a skilled toolmaker* CUNNING may emphasize
special, often tricky, inventive or creative power *the cunning and
consummate artistry by which he has achieved certain effects-
J.D.Adams* *his unerring eye and his incomparable cunning of hand T a
most able painter- Laurence Binyon* *a scout whose cunning exceeded
that of the Indian- American Guide Series: Arizona* ARTIFICE can
stress skill or intelligence in contriving or devising, but usually
stresses at the same time a certain lack of true creative power, a
certain artificiality *what amazing artifice is found under that
apparently straightforward tale- A.T.Quiller-Couch* *no matter what
skill is displayed toward objectifying fiction, the omniscience of the
author is naturally assumed T but such is artifice that it attempts to
conceal this basic convention- Robert Humphrey* *he heightened the
artifice of this style * its inversions, its verbal encrustation, its
complexity of syntax, yet combined it with the natural speech rhythms
and homely idioms- C.D.Lewis* CRAFT can suggest ingenuity and
subtlety in workmanship or trickery or guile; applied to a skilled
pursuit or vocation, it may suggest a lower type of skill or inventive
power joined with mastery of materials and technique but lacking true
creative force or quality *professional writers who take their craft
seriously- M.D.Geismar* *small teams of dressmakers, each of them a
mistress of her craft- Choice of Careers: Dressmaking* *no great
artist but a master of his craft* ART is the most variable of these
words in meaning, often interchangeable with, often contrasting with,
the others: its significant weight can fall upon recondite, inventive,
or creative power *the rare art of the alchemist or witch doctor* It
can, like SKILL, suggest proficiency or expertness *the shoemaker's
art* *arts such as medicine, husbandry- Benjamin Farrington* or, like
CRAFT, or, rarely, like ARTIFICE, can point to skill, ingenuity, and
inventiveness in contriving even though the act or result lacks any
true creative force or quality *handmade tools, utensils, and furniture
of the premachine age, T are interesting as art because of skillful
handling of materials- American Guide Series: Michigan* *practicing
their arts as masons, brickmakers, carpenters, leather dressers-
American Guide Series: Maryland* *to gain an end by one art or another*
But more frequently and in its most distinct sense ART contrasts with
SKILL, ARTIFICE, and CRAFT in putting stress upon something more, in
implying a personal, unanalyzable creative force that transmits and
raises the art or product beyond a skill, artifice, or craft though it
may involve the essential elements of all of these *to turn from the
mere skill of figurine making to the art of sculpture* *most of the
symbolic details are examples of artifice rather than of art-
R.M.Kain* *so much English acting which is very fine T is so
satisfactory as craft and so limited as art- H.E.Clurman*


> And tell us how long you'll make this distinction, while you're at it,
> so we'll know when to expect the next change in definitions.


All sorts of landscape and nude photographers are calling their work
'fine art photography' or 'fine art nature photography' or 'fine art
nudes', etc.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en [...] tnG=Search


http://www.radekaphotography.com/links.htm


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

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:40:53 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> 'Images' are made by lenses only. What appears in a picture (a
> painting) is not an 'image' at all. It is a 'representation'. A
> 'representation' is not a copy. The snake in many Christian religious
> painings represents Satan. It is a SYMBOL. A representation is a
> symbol, not an image.
>
> Only lenses or the like can produce images. Images are connected
> causally to some object by collecting photons.
>
This is even worse claptrap than you usually spout. Please learn and
connect properly with the subjects.



--
neil
delete delete to reply