Photography: Artist vs technician - Page 11

Last message on previous page:
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actually people (Scroton) who still hold concepts as outdated at that one,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

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

>From Webster 3rd New Int'l:

Main Entry: stupid
Function:adjective
Inflected Form:-er/-est

Skip M wrote:
> "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

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.

Translation -- urinalcommittee doesn't grasp the points
raised.

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

On 21 Jun 2005 14:37:32 -0700, urinarycommittee@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. 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.

Aren't you the special child. You finally found _one_ who met
your lofty ideal. How sterile your life is.

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:27:48 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> No, you're psychotic if you believe this. It violates causality.
> Photographs' content can only be 'caused', unlike paintings, whose
> content can be created out of nothing but the artist's imagination...
You are just spouting RUBBISH. Paintings are 'caused' by the artists
imagination in just the same way as photographs are caused by the
photographers imagination.
Please try to think.

--
neil
delete delete to reply

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 05:19:55 +0000 (UTC), Neil Ellwood wrote:

> Paintings are 'caused' by the artists imagination in just the same way as
> photographs are caused by the photographers imagination.

Someone a while back, possibly in this thread, mentioned something
about "painting with light". I came across an interesting short
article dealing with a slightly different take on this that clearly
shows photographers thinking and using their camera in ways that
artists would. If only UC could understand. If he could, a handle
upgrade from UC to IC would be warranted. But I doubt that he'll
ever truly "see", or admit to it if he does. If you care to see:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ [...] lash.shtml

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

Photographs are not 'works of art'. Period. What the 'rest of the
world' (your term) thinks is of no significance whatsoever.

kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2005 15:06:54 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >I agree, sadly. Photographs are not works of art. If everyone would
> >simply accpt that we could move on...
>
> Arrogant POS -- the rest of the world has already moved on,
> leaving you well behind.
>
>
>
> >Gig A. Hertzu wrote:
> >> In article <11be5lbf6aljq74@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "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.
> >>
> >> It always amuses me when someone posts this
> >> kind of message; why don't you just ignore it if you don't
> >> like the thread, or kill file it.
> >> --
> >> I am a Fly in your oinkment, I am the one with real squeal appeal.

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

One and MANY two-syllable words are inflected by 'er', 'est',
especially when ending in 'y'.

Common, commoner, commonest...

Happy, happier, happiest...

Clever, cleverer, cleverest.

Stupid, stupider, stupidest...

Silly, sillier, silliest...

See:

http://www.edu.pe.ca/vrcs/studentw [...] rative.htm


Skip M wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119561103.147742.103480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >From Webster 3rd New Int'l:
> >
> > Main Entry: stupid
> > Function:adjective
> > Inflected Form:-er/-est
> >
>
> Interesting. I was always taught that not to use the inflection on words of
> more than one syllable, and I still feel, despite the evidence, that in this
> case particularly, "more stupid" sounds less stupid than "stupider." BTW,
> thanks so much for your erudite little email of yesterday, I feel so much
> more complete now. Sheesh, what's the matter, Mikey, not getting enough?


How dare you criticize my knowledge of English, and when confronted
with authoritative support, refuse to acknowledge it?

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

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:08:28 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> One and MANY two-syllable words are inflected by 'er', 'est',
> especially when ending in 'y'.
>
> Common, commoner, commonest...
>
> Happy, happier, happiest...
>
> Clever, cleverer, cleverest.
>
> Stupid, stupider, stupidest...
>
> Silly, sillier, silliest...
>
> See:
>
> http://www.edu.pe.ca/vrcs/studentw [...] rative.htm
This is of course another proof that you do not know what you are talking
about. The word you made up (stupider) does not come in the list and
couldn't as it doesn't exist. Look up the rules of grammar to see when to
use the others and with a bit of luck you might start talking sense which
would be a first.

--
neil
delete delete to reply

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

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:48:27 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>
> > The point is existence' and 'giving off photons'. Imagined things are
> > neither existent nor do the give off photons. Clear enough for your
> > miserable excuse for a brain?
> That proves my point, you've lost the argument

No, I have not. The other side has not even mounted an argument. They
don't even understand the concept of an argument to begin with....

> and so turn to abuse.

Abuse? ...What does one do in the face of such utter stupidity?

> Please learn to use usenet properly if your brain cell can cope with it.
> --
> neil
> delete delete to reply

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

Look, dumbass, under "Inflected Form":

Main Entry: stupid
Pronunciation:*st(y)*p*d
Function:adjective
>>>Inflected Form:-er/-est
Etymology:Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stup*re to
be benumbed, be astonished, be stupefied; akin to Greek typtein to
beat, strike * more at TYPE

1 a : slow of mind : UNIMAGINATIVE, OBTUSE, INSENSITIVE *came to regard
them as stupid, sensual, veritable children of Adam- V.L.Parrington*
*will defy the most phlegmatic and stupid spectator to behold it
without admiration- Tobias Smollett* *bellowed into his ear as if he
were deaf instead of stupid- Anthony Trollope* b : given to
unintelligent decisions or acts : UNTHINKING, IRRATIONAL *while he may
be wrong T he is never stupid- G.W.Johnson* *consider myself at least
stupid for not having profited from many opportunities- Emery Neff*
*reality is right under your stupid nose- Lionel Trilling* c :
lacking intelligence or reasoning power : BRUTISH *getting the better
of stupider beasts- G.A.Morgan*
2 a : dulled in feeling or sensation : being in a state of stupor :
TORPID *stupid with drink- Sherwood Anderson* *stupid with the lust
of gain and the sloth of slavery- Van Wyck Brooks* *let fall the
stupid inanimate limbs of the gone wretch- George Meredith* b :
incapable of feeling or sensation : INANIMATE *nothing is quite so
stupid as a fact- A.L.Gu*rard* *the stupid rain came down in
buckets- J.W.Ellison b.1929*
3 : marked by or resulting from dullness or unintelligent thinking :
SENSELESS *a stupid refusal to be realistic- W.F.Hambly* *appalling
capacity of collective man for stupid, blind, self-destructive
behavior- H.J.Muller* *takes everything seriously in a stupid and
unimaginative fashion- K.T.Bluth* *it is stupid to wait until a
probable enemy has gained a foothold from which to attack-
F.D.Roosevelt*
4 : lacking interest or point : DREARY, BORING *went to an awfully
stupid evening T Monday night- Rachel Henning* *would not have minded
his going to this stupid lunch- A.J.Cronin* *a really stupid
performance*
5 dialect England : OBSTINATE, MULISH
synonyms DULL, DENSE, CRASS, DUMB: STUPID applies to a sluggish,
slow-witted want of intelligence or comprehension, often congenital or
accustomed; it may apply to a senseless, benumbed, or dazed condition
*so stupid and so obstinate that it was impossible to get him to do or
understand anything- Anthony Trollope* *stupid with liquor and unable
to understand that the ambulance had already gone- Scott Fitzgerald*
*sleepy and stupid after a broken night and a hard day's work-
Dorothy Sayers* DULL strongly implies sluggish labored slowness of
mind, with utter lack of quickness, brightness, or liveliness *a dull,
ambitionless, vegetating individual- J.A.Brussel* *with its impotent
ruling classes and its dull and puritanical middle classes- Edward
Shils* DENSE applies to a blockheaded thick imperviousness or
insensitive obtuseness *she never offered to take me over the house,
though I gave her the broadest hints * she's very dense- Clive Arden*
CRASS suggests a fatheaded grossness precluding delicacy,
discrimination, or refinement *in deep disgust at the farrier's crass
incompetence to apprehend the conditions of ghostly phenomena- George
Eliot* *a crass bonehead capable of sneering at the progress of the
human race- Don Marquis* DUMB may apply to an imperceptive vexatious
obtuseness *that the nutmegs were easily sold and eagerly bought is
beside the story; the wonder is that we Southerners were so dumb, we
did not know the difference- Erskine Caldwell* *I guess I was pretty
dumb that morning, but a fellow in love never sees beyond his own
nose- Vicki Baum*


Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:08:28 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>
> > One and MANY two-syllable words are inflected by 'er', 'est',
> > especially when ending in 'y'.
> >
> > Common, commoner, commonest...
> >
> > Happy, happier, happiest...
> >
> > Clever, cleverer, cleverest.
> >
> > Stupid, stupider, stupidest...
> >
> > Silly, sillier, silliest...
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.edu.pe.ca/vrcs/studentw [...] rative.htm
> This is of course another proof that you do not know what you are talking
> about. The word you made up (stupider) does not come in the list and
> couldn't as it doesn't exist. Look up the rules of grammar to see when to
> use the others and with a bit of luck you might start talking sense which
> would be a first.
>
> --
> neil
> delete delete to reply

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

On 24 Jun 2005 14:16:39 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:


>
>'Art' REQUIRES the participation of the artist. There is NO unbroken
>causal chain between the subject and the painting or scupture. The only
>causal connection is between the ARTIST and the WORK. I can sit right
>in front of Queen Elizabeth and make a painting of a dog....one who
>never even existed...a dog with five legs and two heads...

... which you would then feel qualified to claim that it is
art. Wunnerful.

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

Almost ALL one-sylallable words and most two-syllable words form the
comparative and superlative by inflection.

Skip M wrote:
> --<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119622108.822377.315510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > One and MANY two-syllable words are inflected by 'er', 'est',
> > especially when ending in 'y'.
> >
> > Common, commoner, commonest...
> >
> > Happy, happier, happiest...
> >
> > Clever, cleverer, cleverest.
> >
> > Stupid, stupider, stupidest...
> >
> > Silly, sillier, silliest...
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.edu.pe.ca/vrcs/studentw [...] rative.htm
> >
> To quote from the very link you posted:
> "You can form most comparisons by adding either -er or -est or by using more
> or most with it. For one-syllable words, add -er or -est; others require
> more or most or less ore least. For three-syllable or longer words, use
> more/most or less/least."
> Thanks for finding tht for me, I couldn't find. And thank you for making my
> point about "stupider" for me, too...
>
> >
> >> >
> >> > Main Entry: stupid
> >> > Function:adjective
> >> > Inflected Form:-er/-est
> >> >
> >>
> >> Interesting. I was always taught that not to use the inflection on words
> >> of
> >> more than one syllable, and I still feel, despite the evidence, that in
> >> this
> >> case particularly, "more stupid" sounds less stupid than "stupider."
> >> BTW,
> >> thanks so much for your erudite little email of yesterday, I feel so much
> >> more complete now. Sheesh, what's the matter, Mikey, not getting enough?
> >
> >
> > How dare you criticize my knowledge of English, and when confronted
> > with authoritative support, refuse to acknowledge it?
> >
> > Pig!
> What the heck do you thing the above was??? Have you completely lost your
> ability to read??? But the link you posted refutes what you said, anyway,
> so the point is moot.


You're even stupider than it is possible for a human being to be.
You're now approaching slug-stupidity.

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

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

>> Tony top-posts:
>>
>>> Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
>>> an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers.
>>
>> I don't need a room full of art kooks^H^H^H critics to tell me what is
>> or is not good. Do you?
>
> I often find interesting new perspectives in the prose of
> people who have dedicated lots of time to thinking and learning
> about art.

Well, I'm saying it all reads like noise to me. But then again, I was
so disappointed in what passes for "school" in these parts when
"English" was revealed not to be a study in the structure of the
language (ie, linguistics), but warmed over psycho-analysis of
characters that don't even exist.

> I don't defer to their judgement nor abandon my own. But I want
> to hear what they have to say.

A position I respect. I was ranting mainly about "Tony's" "anti-art"
nonsense. I suspect he is confusing "anti-art critic" or "anti-art
writer" or "anti-content free prose" with "anti-art".

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:30:28 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think so. It's because you're a photographer. If you were a
> painter, you'd probably feel just the opposite. I know plenty of people
> who want to hang photographs in their houses; I am not one of them, and
> none of them is a photographer.

Hm. I don't have anyone else's photographs on my wall, but I
wouldn't rule it out. Last time I went to the Met, they had a
Kertész poster for sale that I very nearly bought.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:33:12 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> If you want to be a 24/7 artist, then you better make it palatable to
> the public so they buy it.

I don't think you've thought this through, Alan.

There are many "publics". Most of them don't buy art. I can't
read minds, so maybe those who say that a "Voice Of Fire" is made
out of contempt for the buying public are right. But I don't think
so. I think works like that are made with a different buying public
in mind, the gatekeepers: the gallery owners and critics and
curators, etc.

The flap over "Voice Of Fire" is not so much a fight between the
artist and the public as it is between the general public and the
art gatekeepers.

Of course the gatekeeping classes are not unitary either -- what
wins friends at New York's Museum of Modern Art may fall flat on
the Lower East Side, and vice versa. And different groups/cliques/
movements gain and lose power over time. I don't follow the art
world, but just from brushing against it on occasion, I can tell
that it's full of politics which look VERY petty to an outsider.

Finally, don't forget that a lot of the art world's funding comes
from a few very rich families, through philanthropic foundations.
So don't assume that in the absence of government participation,
artists would be forced to appeal to the masses. It doesn't work
that way and it never has.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

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

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Blanket pronouncements such as that are always flawed.
>

As is this! But you also make a good point.

--
John McWilliams

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

On 16 Jun 2005 10:05:30 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com
<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> After ding an Internet search, I found that Dr. Scruton, an expert in
> the field of aesthetics,

Are his photographs any good?

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

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

Matt Clara wrote:

>> Well, I'm saying it all reads like noise to me. But then again, I was
>> so disappointed in what passes for "school" in these parts when
>> "English" was revealed not to be a study in the structure of the
>> language (ie, linguistics), but warmed over psycho-analysis of
>> characters that don't even exist.
>
> There's a difference between the study of English Literature and the study
> of English Grammar.

Linguistics is much more rich than knuckle-whacking control freaks who
bitch about people who end sentences with prepositions.

> Most elementary schools focus on the later, with middle
> and some high schools focusing on both, and if the high school is big
> enough, then it becomes like college where you can elect to take either a
> literature or a grammar course. And "warmed over psycho-analysis of
> characters that don't even exist," as you put it, is akin to discussing what
> a photograph is about. You know, what's the story there, or the metaphor,
> that impacts the viewer. I may be biased, with two degrees in English
> Language and Literature, but I think it's a worthwhile effort.

Yeah, you are biased. As am I: I tend to favour the external reality
of the real world over the fictitious worlds created by humans with
limited imaginations. Shall we psycho-analyze the poet's true
intentions about his descriptions of a cup of coffee, or shall we just
drink the coffee and move on to more important matters?

> If nothing
> else, it teaches a person to be analytic and forces them to make sense of
> abstract ideas.

Piffle. Mathematics does a better job of this than any so-called
"English" class ever will.

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

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

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

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