Photography: Artist vs technician - Page 10

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:10:47 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> I'm am aware that Italian Renaissance art is spectacular. I have been
> to Florence and have seen it first-hand. Nonetheless, at the time this
> stuff was being made, it was not worshipped...it was quotidian...
Again you show your lack of understanding, almost all of this art would
have taken much longer than a day to produce and therefore was not
quotidian.

--
neil
delete delete to reply

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

On 22 Jun 2005 08:02:24 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>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'Salon photography' is my choice, but it sounds a bit outdated.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.

So, according to your own writing, as above, "art" and "Fine art" are
not the same thing, as "Mammal" and "dog" are not the same.
Thank you.
>
>See:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1024&q=fine+art+photography+&btnG=Search

This seems to directly counter your idea that photography can not be
art. Why did you post this link?
>
>
>But see this entry in Webster's Third New International:
>
>Main Entry:2art

<snip long definition that does not define "art" and "fine art" as
being te same thing>
>
>
>> 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.

So? Does the definition of "Fine art" or "art" now depend on what all
sorts of people say? If so, you are one of those sorts, but certainly
of no more import than all those other sorts. Which means that by your
own words, you show that you say is no more important than what anyone
else says.
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1024&q=fine+art+photography+&btnG=Search
>
>
>http://www.radekaphotography.com/links.htm
>
>
>>
>> --
>> 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?)

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:35:14 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> I can plop myself on a stool with brushes, paint, and canvas, before
> Queen Elizabeth, and paint a picture....of a dog.
Self portrait.
>
> There is NO causal connection between the art-work and the existence of
> some object. NONE!
Rubbish.
>
> 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?
You are the cretin and are proving more and more as this thread continues.


--
neil
delete delete to reply

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

On 22 Jun 2005 06:40:53 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com 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.

You like Google search, try this one:

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

Keep on redefining words. It's your world.
>
>
>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

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

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

On 22 Jun 2005 06:42:02 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>Skip M wrote:
>
>> >
>> > No. It's a negative print.
>> Very wrong
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Or this? (nude)
>> >> http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44139885
>> >
>> > No, not even close.
>> Why not? It's not a representatin of anyone living or dead.
>> >
>
>Those are PHOTOGRAPHS, not 'art'.

That's the debate, isn't it?
Simply stating your position does not add anything.
Or do you consider yourself somehow beyond the "all sorts of people"
you earlier said define art?

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

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

On 22 Jun 2005 08:10:47 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>I'm am aware that Italian Renaissance art is spectacular. I have been
>to Florence and have seen it first-hand. Nonetheless, at the time this
>stuff was being made, it was not worshipped...it was quotidian...

Sure it was.
That's why the work was commissioned; because a rich patron wanted a
pedestrian doodling on his walls.

You're getting to be better than preddy!

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

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:15:28 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
>news:curib1p2tt1cbsa5fjj08vi9hgbijdo8he@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:53:07 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
>> <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can understand that.
>>>> Because I think art is an attempt at communication.
>>>> The communication attempted is that of the artist to communicate what
>>>> he saw.
>>>
>>>No. If it's an attempt to convey the photographer's feelings for/reaction
>>>to
>>>the scene, then it's art. If it's an attempt to communicate "what he saw",
>>>it's a snapshot.
>>
>> In my poor fashion, that's what I'm trying to say.
>
>Ah. Good.
>
>> I have little "art" in me, so I'm probably not communicating my
>> definition of "art" quite right. But yes, indeed, that communication
>> is about what the artist felt, as well.
>
>If you are at all interested in art in photography, I strongly recommend a
>subscription to Lenswork, and maybe their two books (I've just started
>reading them, so can't comment yet, thus the maybe) "On Being a
>Photographer" and "Letting Go of the Camera". I wasn't expecting much from
>"On Being a Photographer", since it's by a photojournalist type, but it's
>coughing up lots of "much" so far. In particular that "convey the
>photographer's feelings for/reaction to" is from that book.

Thanks for the recommendations; I'll look into them. Maybe a library
has them.
But no, as I said, I have little art in me. I don't aspire to elevate
my photography to the level of art.
Instead, I use photography as a documentary of things we've seen,
places we've been.
I've been to art appreciation classes. Unfortunately, I just do not
see things in a way that lends itself to the common ideas of "art".
I'm a 'form follows function' person.
Example:
I was recently at the National Museum of the United States Air Force,
near Dayton.
While many people there commented on the "artfulness" of many planes,
in whole or part, I was looking at the same planes, and thinking, "Why
did the designer do that?" In aircraft, especially those in the
military, the designer is little concerned with "art", and instead is
concerned with "function." That fillet isn't there to makek the wing
look nicer, it's there to improve air flow. Looks is not even a
secondary consideration, it simply follows the functional.
To me, does an F-16 look 'nice'? Indeed, it does. But not because of
it's lines, or because of a flow of anything, but because it does a
job very well.
Maybe that's art, after all.

>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>

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

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

These are the sorts of posts that try my patience.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2005 08:02:24 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >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.
>
> So, according to your own writing, as above, "art" and "Fine art" are
> not the same thing, as "Mammal" and "dog" are not the same.
> Thank you.

No, not at all. What I meant was that some uses of the word 'art' refer
to a body of knowledge or set of skills, whereas other uses of the word
'art' refer to 'fine art'. An 'art gallery' is a place where fine art
is on display, not products of the 'mechanical arts'.

> >
> >See:
> >
> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1024&q=fine+art+photography+&btnG=Search
>
> This seems to directly counter your idea that photography can not be
> art. Why did you post this link?

The point was that people are indeed using this term, but that THIS
USAGE IS INCORRECT!

> >
> >
> >But see this entry in Webster's Third New International:
> >
> >Main Entry:2art
>
> <snip long definition that does not define "art" and "fine art" as
> being te same thing>

I repeat the relevant part of what you cut:

"ART"
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

This clearly shows what you said is false. Note especially definition
7a and 7e.


> >> 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.
>
> So? Does the definition of "Fine art" or "art" now depend on what all
> sorts of people say?

No, and you make my point for me. All these people calling their work
'fine-art photography' are idiots.

> If so, you are one of those sorts, but certainly
> of no more import than all those other sorts. Which means that by your
> own words, you show that you say is no more important than what anyone
> else says.

Numbers mean nothing. The dictionary, and the history of the terms mean
a lot more. My arguments mean more. 1,000,000 morons calling their
photography 'fine art' means nothing.

> >
> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1024&q=fine+art+photography+&btnG=Search
> >
> >
> >http://www.radekaphotography.com/links.htm
> >
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bill Funk
> >> replace "g" with "a"
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

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

> In article <1119465383.449519.71140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >'Paintings made with light' are not photographs. Are you usually this
> >****ing stupid, or is this a special effort on your part? You CANNOT,
> >UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, make a photograph of what does not exist.

Are you sure you aren't Vince Lamb in drag?
There is a strong resemblance of him in your
tenacity and lack of creativity. It's also
his vacation season where he trolls in non-
academic circles.

photograph (noun 1839) a picture or likeness obtained by photography
(Merriam-Webster)

You CAN in fact make a picture or likeness of what does not exist, and
it can be done with a still camera if one chooses to do so.

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

Your attempt at an intelligible reply is noted, and rejected out of
hand.

Paul H. wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119451269.894590.213190@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Good point: No causal connection to anything other than the artist,
> > would be more accurate.
>
> Unless painting is restricted to finger painting, all pigments are derived
> from bodily excretions, and the only canvas is human skin, ALL painting is
> inherently dependent upon technologies that are external to the artist and
> yet absolutely necessary to the creation of the artist's work. Thus, all of
> this dubious philosophizing about causal connection and art vs. technology
> is utter nonsense: Art is to be found in the artist's intent and execution
> and not in bystanders' quibbling over inanities. Reading much of this
> thread has been like witnessing some idiot in a museum pointing and shouting
> at a painting, "That's not art! There are TREES in that picture and trees
> are not a product of the so-called artist's imagination! It isn't art if
> there's a traceable connection to anything real!"
>
> "Art" exists within an artist's mind, but what we call "art" is the physical
> manifestion of an artist's idea expressed through media and technology which
> are under the creative control and direction of the artist. Since a
> photographer can imagine a photograph and can also control the subject
> matter (the concrete representation of the idea), the lighting, the
> orientation, exposure, processing and printing of the photograph, he or she
> is just as much an artist as the person who chisels marble or puts brush to
> canvas; more to the point, the work so produced is undoubtedly art.
>
> I fully understand that art "purists" may disagree with this assessment, but
> on the other hand, geography "purists" still think the earth is flat.

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

On 22 Jun 2005 14:19:49 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com, despite
being handicapped by a severe lack of vision, wrote:

> In the STRICT sense, (dumbass!) an IMAGE is produced
> only by an optical system.

What kind of optics are used when images of stars, nebulae or
galaxies are produced by radio telescopes?

What kind of optics are used when fetus images are produced by
ultrasound?

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

Salvador Dali - 1904 - 1989

A "surrealist".....

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119453047.096206.108830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I'm am aware that Italian Renaissance art is spectacular. I have been
> to Florence and have seen it first-hand. Nonetheless, at the time this
> stuff was being made, it was not worshipped...it was quotidian...
>
> William Graham wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119389852.778022.126090@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > 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. 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!
>>
>> The next time you are in San Francisco, go to the Palace of the Legion of
>> Honor, and ask where Dali's "Last Supper" hangs. Go there, and spend 10
>> or
>> 15 minutes looking at the tablecloth folds, wine glass and its shadow,
>> and
>> the broken loaf of bread. Try to imagine how much skill it took to create
>> those three things with nothing but a brush and paint........
>

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

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119447441.003930.158770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Skip M wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119362217.872575.318760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Skip M wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dr. Scruton has no effect on the world of art, whatsoever.
>> >
>> > The meaning of this escapes me. He's a philosopher. He influences
>> > aesthetic theory (through argument). How many books have you read on
>> > aesthetic theory? Zero, right?
>
>> One, in college, found it dense, arcane and irrelevant. How many books
>> on
>> art history, and particularly, the history of photography have you read?
>
> A number. I have a large libarary of photographic reference books.
>
>
>> (not that I expect an honest answer.) Because, if you had, you would see
>> that your hero/philosopher is basing his arguments on concepts that are
>> discredited in both the art and photographic worlds...
>> >
>> >> And there is a
>> >> causal link between -some- paintings and the real world, that's pretty
>> >> apparent.
>> >
>> > No, never.
>> >
>> Often, there has to be. If there weren't, all art would be abstract.
>
> Nonsense. It is quite apparent that you have not the FAINTEST notion of
> what a CAUSAL connection is.

>
Look up "abstract" in the dictionary, bright eyes...
In your usage of "causal," only a photogram, not a photograph, has a causal
connection between the subject and the image.

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

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

On 22 Jun 2005 14:22:05 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>"2 : the philosophy or science of art; specifically : the science
>whose subject matter is the description and explanation of the arts,
>artistic phenomena, and aesthetic experience and includes the
>psychology, sociology, ethnology, and history of the arts and
>essentially related aspects"
>
>You were saying....?

I was saying that aesthetics does not define art.
Thak you for demonstrating that I am right.
Read what you quoted above. A description of something is not the same
as defining that thing.
I can describe a dog. I do not get to define what a dog is.
Aesthetics studies (and yes, even describes) art. It does not define
art.
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On 22 Jun 2005 06:45:25 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> Aesthetics is the *STUDY* of beauty and taste, not the *DEFINITION* of
>> art, nor any theory of art.
>> Look it up. You claim to know how to use a dictionary.
>> >
>> >> 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"
>>
>> --
>> 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?)

On 22 Jun 2005 13:40:18 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>These are the sorts of posts that try my patience.
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On 22 Jun 2005 08:02:24 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> So, according to your own writing, as above, "art" and "Fine art" are
>> not the same thing, as "Mammal" and "dog" are not the same.
>> Thank you.
>
>No, not at all. What I meant was that some uses of the word 'art' refer
>to a body of knowledge or set of skills, whereas other uses of the word
>'art' refer to 'fine art'. An 'art gallery' is a place where fine art
>is on display, not products of the 'mechanical arts'.

It's a pity that this is nowhere near what you said above, isn't it?
Like I said earlier, if you can't say what you mean, how can we tell
what you mean?
>
>> >
>> >See:
>> >
>> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1024&q=fine+art+photography+&btnG=Search
>>
>> This seems to directly counter your idea that photography can not be
>> art. Why did you post this link?
>
>The point was that people are indeed using this term, but that THIS
>USAGE IS INCORRECT!

Ah, so. Of course.
Another of your attempts to redefine words to match your ideas.
Tell me, does 2+2 equal 4 in your world, or have you redefined math,
too?
>
>> >
>> >
>> >But see this entry in Webster's Third New International:
>> >
>> >Main Entry:2art
>>
>> <snip long definition that does not define "art" and "fine art" as
>> being te same thing>
>
>I repeat the relevant part of what you cut:
>
>"ART"
>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
>
>This clearly shows what you said is false. Note especially definition
>7a and 7e.

No, it shows that you must search and pick and choose what definitions
you will accept, and reject the others as superfluous.
>
>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> So? Does the definition of "Fine art" or "art" now depend on what all
>> sorts of people say?
>
>No, and you make my point for me. All these people calling their work
>'fine-art photography' are idiots.

No, it's you who make that point, and poorly at that.
Why do you think you get to make these distinctions?
>
>> If so, you are one of those sorts, but certainly
>> of no more import than all those other sorts. Which means that by your
>> own words, you show that you say is no more important than what anyone
>> else says.
>
>Numbers mean nothing. The dictionary, and the history of the terms mean
>a lot more. My arguments mean more. 1,000,000 morons calling their
>photography 'fine art' means nothing.

And one moron saying that photography can't be art means more?
Can you find a hat to fit?
>
>> >
>> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1024&q=fine+art+photography+&btnG=Search
>> >
>> >
>> >http://www.radekaphotography.com/links.htm
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Bill Funk
>> >> replace "g" with "a"
>>
>> --
>> 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?)

On 22 Jun 2005 14:23:41 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>Your attempt at an intelligible reply is noted, and rejected out of
>hand.

Of course; it's superfluous.
Becasue it conflicts with your ideas.
>
>Paul H. wrote:
>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119451269.894590.213190@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Good point: No causal connection to anything other than the artist,
>> > would be more accurate.
>>
>> Unless painting is restricted to finger painting, all pigments are derived
>> from bodily excretions, and the only canvas is human skin, ALL painting is
>> inherently dependent upon technologies that are external to the artist and
>> yet absolutely necessary to the creation of the artist's work. Thus, all of
>> this dubious philosophizing about causal connection and art vs. technology
>> is utter nonsense: Art is to be found in the artist's intent and execution
>> and not in bystanders' quibbling over inanities. Reading much of this
>> thread has been like witnessing some idiot in a museum pointing and shouting
>> at a painting, "That's not art! There are TREES in that picture and trees
>> are not a product of the so-called artist's imagination! It isn't art if
>> there's a traceable connection to anything real!"
>>
>> "Art" exists within an artist's mind, but what we call "art" is the physical
>> manifestion of an artist's idea expressed through media and technology which
>> are under the creative control and direction of the artist. Since a
>> photographer can imagine a photograph and can also control the subject
>> matter (the concrete representation of the idea), the lighting, the
>> orientation, exposure, processing and printing of the photograph, he or she
>> is just as much an artist as the person who chisels marble or puts brush to
>> canvas; more to the point, the work so produced is undoubtedly art.
>>
>> I fully understand that art "purists" may disagree with this assessment, but
>> on the other hand, geography "purists" still think the earth is flat.

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

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:45:16 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On 22 Jun 2005 14:19:49 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com, despite
>being handicapped by a severe lack of vision, wrote:
>
>> In the STRICT sense, (dumbass!) an IMAGE is produced
>> only by an optical system.
>
> What kind of optics are used when images of stars, nebulae or
>galaxies are produced by radio telescopes?
>
> What kind of optics are used when fetus images are produced by
>ultrasound?

Sorry, you're superfluous.

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

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:53:33 -0700, Skip M wrote:

> I think the bigger problem is that he doesn't know what he thinks, or means,
> until he says it, than spends an immense amount of verbiage trying to
> convince all and sundry that it really was what he meant to say.
I believe that he has just read the book, doesn't understand it becuase of
all the unclear ideas in it and is trying to convert others to the fog.

--
neil
delete delete to reply

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:37:12 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

> Are you saying that UC secretly wants to honor his hero by
> assuming the alter ego of Dr. Scrotum? I thought it was so obvious
> that it didn't warrant saying, given that his purpose here seems to
> be solely to get off on what amounts to little more than mental
> masturbation.
By playing with his 'Scrotum'.
--
neil
delete delete to reply

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2005 14:22:05 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >"2 : the philosophy or science of art; specifically : the science
> >whose subject matter is the description and explanation of the arts,
> >artistic phenomena, and aesthetic experience and includes the
> >psychology, sociology, ethnology, and history of the arts and
> >essentially related aspects"
> >
> >You were saying....?
>
> I was saying that aesthetics does not define art.

'Define'? What do you mean by 'aesthetics does not define art'. Your
expression is so vague as to be meaningless.

> Thak you for demonstrating that I am right.
> Read what you quoted above. A description of something is not the same
> as defining that thing.
> I can describe a dog. I do not get to define what a dog is.
> Aesthetics studies (and yes, even describes) art. It does not define
> art.
> >
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On 22 Jun 2005 06:45:25 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> Aesthetics is the *STUDY* of beauty and taste, not the *DEFINITION* of
> >> art, nor any theory of art.
> >> Look it up. You claim to know how to use a dictionary.
> >> >
> >> >> 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"
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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?)

Bill Funk wrote:

> >> >But see this entry in Webster's Third New International:
> >> >
> >> >Main Entry:2art
> >>
> >> <snip long definition that does not define "art" and "fine art" as
> >> being te same thing>
> >
> >I repeat the relevant part of what you cut:
> >
> >"ART"
> >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
> >
> >This clearly shows what you said is false. Note especially definition
> >7a and 7e.
>
> No, it shows that you must search and pick and choose what definitions
> you will accept, and reject the others as superfluous.

But what you said contradicted this. You're a damned liar! This is the
common, everyday sense of 'art' and you know it!

(Snipped incomprehensible bullshit)

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

On 23 Jun 2005 08:12:26 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>How, sir, does successive illumination of parts of an object render it
>non-existent?

Where did this come from?
I want to know because I am interested in how people manage to make
such strange comments or questions that have nothiong to do with the
converstaion.
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On 22 Jun 2005 14:10:45 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >'Painting with light' can mean different things. The sense I took it
>> >was spraying film with light beams. Another sense is passing a beam of
>> >light over a stationary object, illuminating the various parts of it in
>> >sequence. This is done when the object cannot be conveniently
>> >illuminated all at once. I don't see how the latter is 'photographing
>> >something that does not exist'.
>>
>> I know you don't see it. You continue to say so.
>> Your ignorance does not define photoraphy, nor dioes it define art.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

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

On 23 Jun 2005 08:19:50 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On 22 Jun 2005 14:19:49 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >In the STRICT sense, (dumbass!) an IMAGE is produced only by an optical
>> >system.
>> >
>> >Paintings do not contain images but rather representations.
>>
>> Agauin, you redefine words, but you can't produce a body of evidence
>> to back it up.
>
>How's this, bubba?......
>
>
>>From Webster's Third New International Dictionary:
>
>IMAGE:
>"2 : a thing actually or seemingly reproducing another: as a (1) : the
>optical counterpart of an object produced by a lens, mirror, or other
>optical system and being the geometric figure made up of the foci
>corresponding to the points of the object - see REAL IMAGE, VIRTUAL
>IMAGE(2) : an analogous phenomenon in some field other than optics *an
>acoustic image* *an electric image* b : any likeness of an object
>produced on a photographic material"
>
>This is EXACTLY what I mean by 'image'. OK? Paintings do not contain
>'images' except in the extended sense, the metaphorical sense. The
>TECHNICAL sense, the STRICT sense is what I care about, and that sense
>is given above.
>

<sigh>
So all other definitions are wrong, becasue you say only *this* one is
right?
Well? Are you really that delusional? Do you really think you get to
define all words for the rest of us? Are all dictionaries you own cut
up, deleting those definitions you don't agree with?

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

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

Paul H. wrote:

> > Fairies, ghosts, Satan, my memory of 'last summer': these cannot be
> > photographed.
>
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and many other spirtualists of the early 20th century
> (incorrectly) believed absolutely they had seen photographs of the first two
> things in your list, though obviously (and not surprisingly) you didn't
> realize this.

Ha! I am well aware of the episode.

> And if you were placed in a fMRI machine and thought about
> 'last summer', the memory could indeed be photographed, since there's a
> one-to-one correspondence between your brain's electrical activity map and
> the particular memory being activated when the map is made.

No. 'My memory of last summer' cannot be photographed as such, although
the lectrical impulses that are part of it may well be recordable. They
are not the same thing.

> You're correct
> about Satan, though, since he's only a delusionary construct in virtual
> control of what passes for your mental processes, at least the ones
> connected to your typing finger [sic].

Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

> Relatedly, I've been observing your part in this thread for quite some time
> and have noticed several things:
>
> 1) you have little knowledge of art

More than most peole who call themselves 'artists'.

> 2) you have little knowledge of philosophy

Not even close.

> 3) you have little knowledge of science

Wrong, again....

> 4) you have little understanding of technology
Depends on what you mean, bubba...I cannot fix a car, but I know how it
works...I also know how thermonuclear weapons work...

> 5) you seem to think you have both vast knowledge and complete understanding
> of all of the above.

No, not vast, but far in excess of that demonstrated by the denizens of
this pathetic nesgroup.

> In short, you are a pompous, ignorant blow-hard who thinks contrariness is
> synonymous with debating skill. I'm not dismissing you out-of-hand, mind--
> you have supplied ample evidence of you irrelevancy and incompetence
> regarding the subject under discussion.

Pathetic, just pathetic...is this the best you can do?

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

"Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote in message
news:ieidnRkTr473YCffRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>

>
> Relatedly, I've been observing your part in this thread for quite some
> time
> and have noticed several things:
>
> 1) you have little knowledge of art
> 2) you have little knowledge of philosophy
> 3) you have little knowledge of science
> 4) you have little understanding of technology
> 5) you seem to think you have both vast knowledge and complete
> understanding
> of all of the above.

You forgot "little understanding of grammar." I.e. "stupider," a word which
he repeats, so there's no doubt he is under the impression this is correct.
>
> In short, you are a pompous, ignorant blow-hard who thinks contrariness is
> synonymous with debating skill. I'm not dismissing you out-of-hand,
> mind--
> you have supplied ample evidence of you irrelevancy and incompetence
> regarding the subject under discussion.
>
>
He has done one useful thing, call my attention to the idea that there are
actually people (Scroton) who still hold concepts as outdated at that one,
and make money selling books expounding their misguided point of view.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com