Re: just joined this group
SteveB
"ggomezphoto" <ggome...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189476214.6...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>i post photos several times a week (old and new)
>
> check it out: www.gerrygomez.blogspot.com
>
Uh, you might want to ask a question or make a statement about depth of
field, macro focusing, or even which mode is right for a multi mode camera
before advertising your website.
This is a discussion group, in case it eluded you. There are binary groups
where photos are regarded over discussion. If your photos are so great,
take them there for kudos. Otherwise, try to just follow the conversation.
Steve
SteveB
> On Sep 10, 9:02 pm, "SteveB" <deserttrave...@hi-speed.us> wrote:
>> "ggomezphoto" <ggomezph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry I responded in kind. Butting into a discussion groups wailing, "COME
SEE MY PHOTOS, COME SEE MY PHOTOS, COME SEE MY PHOTOS" with no other
comments justifies it.
Post to alt binaries if you want to show off your pictures.
Steve
UC
> i post photos several times a week (old and new)
>
> check it out: www.gerrygomez.blogspot.com
Get the fuck out of here. There are 8 billion assholes with digital
cameras, we don't need to look at your shit or their shit.
UC
> i post photos several times a week (old and new)
>
> check it out: www.gerrygomez.blogspot.com
Not only that, your photos suck.
UC
> the group before i joined--so it was clearly my mistake. but i was
> taken aback by the hostility out there. i will look to see if i can
> delete that post. i don't know if it is possible, but i am out of the
> group.
Yes, in google groups you can delete your posts. Have a nice day, sir.
Do you realize that if every asshole who took photos posted them on
the web the world would come to an end? We don't want to see 'em, we
don't want to hear about 'em, we don't want to talk about them. 800
billion images are made every day, and every dumb motherfucker wants a
'critique' of his images. We don't have time and we don't care. Take a
photography course.
You will be overjoyed to see the 10,000 images of butterflies and
sunsets. Get in line with yours.
SteveB
> the group before i joined--so it was clearly my mistake. but i was
> taken aback by the hostility out there. i will look to see if i can
> delete that post. i don't know if it is possible, but i am out of the
> group.
>
Please do not go. Post information and questions about photography instead
of using us for your private sign board. Lots to be learned here and lots
of nice people.
Steve
UC
> "ggomezphoto" <ggomezph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm nice people, but I dodn't want to look at photos.
Gomez wrote to me:
"i am 75 years old, and i just got a computer about a year ago. i like
to take pictures, that is all. i have clicked and clicked and found
the link to remove. i am sorry i bothered you and now i will remove.
again, i am sorry. "
I replied:
I'm 57. So what? It's just that you're the 100,000,000th person to
come to such groups to say "HEY, look at my photos". Basically, we
don't want to look at them. There are way too many people clamoring
for attention. It's become ridiculous. You're welcome to stay and talk
about photography, but we don't want to look at people's photos there.
If you go to photosig.com, you'll see how many photos people submit
for 'critique', and most of them are the same thing over and over:
flowers, sunsets, butterflies, babies. There are tens of thousands.
Who has the time for this?
Producing photos and getting them on the internet has become almost
effortless, so everybody is doing it. Give us a break!
Robert Coe
Now *there's* the pot calling the kettle black. The fact is that many (most?)
of your posts over the past several weeks have been arrogant, insulting, and
almost content-free. (How many times do we have to be told that you "choose"
not to photograph weddings and that those who do are fools?)
In case you're under some sort of delusion, nobody made you moderator of this
newsgroup. If somebody posts a link to pictures and you don't want to see
them, just don't follow the link. If Gomez sticks with the group, he'll find
that a) he's not the only one who thinks you're behaving like a prick, and b)
most of us try to be civil to other posters, including newcomers.
Bob
Not4wood
I can't believe all the hostility in and around something thats supposed to
be a creative art form. LOL
Yeah, used to be a photographer a long time ago and just started to get the
urge again. I'm just starting out looking around to see what the usual is
in terms of gear and puters. Kind of overwhelming with all of the choices.
I have been backing up my shots on CD/DVD but I've been reading about
external Hard Drives. Are they worth it and what are the advantages over a
safer CD/DVD compared to a working hard drive that might get an operating
system maybe XP/Vista and the next operating system comes out and your stuck
with an old HD?? Pictures you want to stay forever, but Operating Systems
do change. Doesn't make sense.
I have an old version 7 of Photoshop, that I've had for a long time but
never got around to using till now. Still gets the job done, and all the
tutorials that I've seen still work in this older workhorse.
Camera, I got a Canon Elph with a 5 megapixel simple point and shoot
version. Takes good pics, but I'm already pushing what it can do and I'm
frustrated that the camera cant keep up with me. I'm looking at all of the
choices for DSLR's and can't get over the prices.
With all of the people hanging out in here, has anybody had any luck with
used equipment on Ebay?? I looked at it this afternoon and saw some
supposedly new stuff by Vendors and not private people. Do you think there
really reliable or rip offs??
I wasn't prepared to even think of spending a couple of thousand for a
camera, sounds more like a vacation instead. My question is, my little
Canon Elph 5 mp doesn't cut it anymore and I can't afford to go with a
couple of thousand dollars for equipment. What choices are there so I can
be more creative and still be able to grow later? I'm not going back into
the business, this is just for fun and creativity. Been there, done that.
It has taken me almost twenty years to get my mind on taking pictures again.
It can really burn you out if your in it on the Professional Level. LOL
Thanks in advance.
Mark G
Not4wood
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:mljne3limcvtbcpnp...@4ax.com...
Paul Furman
> I just ran across this group and checked it out for the first time.
>
> I can't believe all the hostility in and around something thats supposed to
> be a creative art form. LOL
It's an internet thing, ignore it :-)
> Yeah, used to be a photographer a long time ago and just started to get the
> urge again. I'm just starting out looking around to see what the usual is
> in terms of gear and puters. Kind of overwhelming with all of the choices.
> I have been backing up my shots on CD/DVD but I've been reading about
> external Hard Drives. Are they worth it and what are the advantages over a
> safer CD/DVD compared to a working hard drive that might get an operating
> system maybe XP/Vista and the next operating system comes out and your stuck
> with an old HD?? Pictures you want to stay forever, but Operating Systems
> do change. Doesn't make sense.
Hard drives don't have operating systems, but the hard drive approach is
to copy your files every so many years. An external HD is a heck of a
lot faster than burning CDs or DVDs and a hack of a lot more storage
space. It's probably wise to budget at least twice the storage space for
a HD & copy all the files as a duplicate in case there is some virus or
something... not that you'd necessarily notice without opening the old
files. This also offers some protection against accidental deletes when
moving files around, rearranging.
> I have an old version 7 of Photoshop, that I've had for a long time but
> never got around to using till now. Still gets the job done, and all the
> tutorials that I've seen still work in this older workhorse.
You might need to upgrade to get support for newer camera raw formats.
> Camera, I got a Canon Elph with a 5 megapixel simple point and shoot
> version. Takes good pics, but I'm already pushing what it can do and I'm
> frustrated that the camera cant keep up with me. I'm looking at all of the
> choices for DSLR's and can't get over the prices.
Be sure to figure in general inflation rates.
> With all of the people hanging out in here, has anybody had any luck with
> used equipment on Ebay?? I looked at it this afternoon and saw some
> supposedly new stuff by Vendors and not private people. Do you think there
> really reliable or rip offs??
Ebay is rarely a bargain. It takes a lot of work to learn to spot and
take advantage of bargains there, or anywhere for that matter. Places
like B&H & Adorama are as good as it gets without spending LOTS of time
learning the tricks.
> I wasn't prepared to even think of spending a couple of thousand for a
> camera, sounds more like a vacation instead. My question is, my little
> Canon Elph 5 mp doesn't cut it anymore and I can't afford to go with a
> couple of thousand dollars for equipment. What choices are there so I can
> be more creative and still be able to grow later? I'm not going back into
> the business, this is just for fun and creativity. Been there, done that.
> It has taken me almost twenty years to get my mind on taking pictures again.
> It can really burn you out if your in it on the Professional Level. LOL
You might look into Pentax/Samsung if willing to put up with old manual
lenses and interested in cutting budget. Minolta/Sony also though the
newer stuff is expensive. Really there is no free lunch, Nikon will let
you meter with old lenses on an expensive body, Canons have usually
better low light performance and will mount lots of old lenses but only
in full manual and they have more affordable lenses but not as good
quality. The late$t Nikon models coming up compete for low light but not
cheap. The best advice is to see what feels good in your hands and try
to define as much as possible what you want from a camera system.
The change from P&S to DSLR is a big one but the image quality really
does go up. Decide how large or small a body you want and what lenses
you want... if you are willing to fiddle around with changing lenses &
manual focus or manual metering, how important low light performance is,
if you will use a tripod, etc. Do you like wide angle for scenic
landscapes? Will you be shooting groups of people in low light?
Architecture? Wildlife & sports? Are you willing to upgrade your
computer? Will you be doing large prints? Spending much time on the
computer? How important is the optical viewfinder?
--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com
Cats
UC, tHe guy has apologised and *still* you are rude. Just what is
your problem?
Cats
> I just ran across this group and checked it out for the first time.
>
> I can't believe all the hostility in and around something thats supposed to
> be a creative art form. LOL
Me neither. Either I've missed something or there's a really nasty
outbreak here. Ignore the posts from the hostile folks - better still
kill-file them.
>
> Yeah, used to be a photographer a long time ago and just started to get the
> urge again. I'm just starting out looking around to see what the usual is
> in terms of gear and puters. Kind of overwhelming with all of the choices.
> I have been backing up my shots on CD/DVD but I've been reading about
> external Hard Drives. Are they worth it and what are the advantages over a
> safer CD/DVD compared to a working hard drive that might get an operating
> system maybe XP/Vista and the next operating system comes out and your stuck
> with an old HD?? Pictures you want to stay forever, but Operating Systems
> do change. Doesn't make sense.
Changing operating systems and photo formats can also render CD/DVD
useless, and in terms of permanance they are well behind hard disks.
If you want to use them, make more than one copy, use good quality
blanks and be prepared to recopy them every couple of years or so.
<snip>
>
> With all of the people hanging out in here, has anybody had any luck with
> used equipment on Ebay?? I looked at it this afternoon and saw some
> supposedly new stuff by Vendors and not private people. Do you think there
> really reliable or rip offs??
I have for a couple of Pentax ME Supers - but (as I expect you know)
they are old-fashioned 35mm SLRs! However when the time comes that I
get a DSLR I'll be very careful about where I brought it from - for
one thing I want to know that if there's a problem I can go back to
the vendor.
>
> I wasn't prepared to even think of spending a couple of thousand for a
> camera, sounds more like a vacation instead. My question is, my little
> Canon Elph 5 mp doesn't cut it anymore and I can't afford to go with a
> couple of thousand dollars for equipment. What choices are there so I can
> be more creative and still be able to grow later? I'm not going back into
> the business, this is just for fun and creativity. Been there, done that.
> It has taken me almost twenty years to get my mind on taking pictures again.
> It can really burn you out if your in it on the Professional Level. LOL
To a degree you get what you pay for. More money = better lenses and
sensors = wider range of conditions the camera can operate well in,
plus better optical quality images. However if I found the right
model, your camera is a basic P&S - no control over exposure in any
way. There are lots of excellent compact digital cameras which do
offer a lot more control. Have a hunt round the review sites
(www.dpreview.com and www.steves-digicams.com are both worth a look),
and also go to shops where you can feel the cameras in your hand
before buying - and try the viewfinder, if using it matters to you.
That's another way the shops score over Ebay etc. - they provide an
element of 'try before you buy'. BTW two common problems with cheaper
digital cameras are sensor noise especially on higher ISO settings,
and 'purple fringing' at longer focal lengths. Also, more mega-pixels
doesn't necessarily mean a better quality image. If the optics and/or
sensor are poor, the image will be.
Not4wood
I've also seen the Pentax name lately as a cheaper alternative to the
expensive Canon, Nikon offerings. Are the Pentax Digital SLR worth it and
how do they hold up to the standards that have come about for quality in
sensors, noise levels, raw imaging and memory chips.
Not4wood
"Cats" <ramw...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:1190618311.5...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
UC
> I just ran across this group and checked it out for the first time.
>
> I can't believe all the hostility in and around something thats supposed to
> be a creative art form. LOL
Photography is not art and cannot be art.
Get some nice used Leicaflex equipment and enjoy.
SteveB
>> to
>> be a creative art form.
Welcome to the real world. Learn how to use your delete keys, filters, or
just learn to pass over posts. Reading unwanted stuff and complaining is
like eating a steak at a restaurant and sending back the empty plate with a
complaint.
Steve
Cats
I know what you are saying Steve, and kill-files are king for this
sort of thing, but don't you think the guy has a point? Why do the
folks that do nothing except tell other people how wrong they are, how
stupid they are etc. ever bother? I'm sure lots of us have/had
mothers/grandmothers/aunts who told us that if we only has nasty
things to say to keep them to ourselves, and I reckon they have a
point.
Unknown
<no_mgottes@spam_verizon.net> wrote:
>Thanks all.
>
>I've also seen the Pentax name lately as a cheaper alternative to the
>expensive Canon, Nikon offerings. Are the Pentax Digital SLR worth it and
>how do they hold up to the standards that have come about for quality in
>sensors, noise levels, raw imaging and memory chips.
>
>Not4wood
I recently purchased the pentax k10d.. First really good digital
camera for me.. Previous olympus was a 1.2 megapixel.. this pentax is
better than my old 35MM minolta film camera..
I like it..only had it for about 4 weeks now.. Anything that stands
still.. or moves.. is fair game to be photographed.. Approaching 800
pictures..
Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.
If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.
John Wayne 1907-1979
Chuck (in SC)
Not4wood
Trolls and Spammers are the lowest forms of life on the net. We see them
all the time, and some do really rate for the Killfile pile.
Trolls usually like to start arguments to just stir it up. I guess there
lonely and they want someone to argue with them. Its safe, no one knows
where they are and there real name. LOL I am an aviation fan, and we have
a couple of them over in those newsgroups. One in particular is probably
the funniest of all the Trolls I've ever seen. He seems to think he's the
expert on any subject in his limited knowledge and then goes and argues a
point to someone who actually really is an expert. Then he turns around and
gives advice to someone who asks a legitimate question as only a Newbie
would. Trouble is then the newbie turns around and thinks he has a real
answer to solve that problem What I'm trying to say is that the Trolls go
and try to discourage Newbie's with insults and sarcasm. Why, who knows.
Maybe they dont want the competition. Anyway, it takes a couple of real
knowledgeable people to try and sort them out. Killfile them and you wont
see the damage they are trying to do. Sometimes it takes a lot of energy to
get past this, but there is always an argument to either Killfile them or
just to keep warning the others or newbie's that a Troll is present.
Mark G
Not4wood
"SteveB" <old...@flatulence.com> wrote in message
news:1LTJi.126957$Mu5....@newsfe15.phx...
>
> "Cats" <ramw...@uk2.net> wrote
>>
>> I know what you are saying Steve, and kill-files are king for this
>> sort of thing, but don't you think the guy has a point? Why do the
>> folks that do nothing except tell other people how wrong they are, how
>> stupid they are etc. ever bother? I'm sure lots of us have/had
>> mothers/grandmothers/aunts who told us that if we only has nasty
>> things to say to keep them to ourselves, and I reckon they have a
>> point.
>>
>
> People do that for many reasons. They're angry. They're bored. They're
> tired. They're sick. They're social rejects who finally have a captive
> audience to vent on. Lots of reasons.
>
> It takes two to have a conversation, and just like in real time, if
> someone spoke to you, you'd probably just walk away and not join. There
> are some who would give an attitude adjustment before walking away.
>
> The old saying is that people can't make you feel bad. I don't quite
> agree with that 100%, but when you're hearing spew from someone you don't
> know, never met, will never meet, or who has no influence in your life,
> you can't take it personally, or you will be a trainwreck.
>
> So, just ignore, reply in kind, killfile, or realize they're just a person
> with an empty life and a keyboard.
>
> HTH
>
> Steve
>
Not4wood
I've been seeing the Pentex name a lot lately and the price seems right. I
know somebody that swears by the name Pentex but there mostly for film
cameras and I am not sure if they switched over to digital. I am interested
to find out more of whats available and the information about this. I am a
little familiar with the old Minolta's, please explain why you feel that the
Digital Pentex is better. What features are you comparing? I will check
out the K10d and see if it falls into my willing to spend the money. LOL
Thanks,
Not4wood
<Chuck (in SC)> wrote in message
news:c2off3tjuqurt63rc...@4ax.com...
Unknown
<no_mgottes@spam_verizon.net> wrote:
>Chuck,
>
>I've been seeing the Pentex name a lot lately and the price seems right. I
>know somebody that swears by the name Pentex but there mostly for film
>cameras and I am not sure if they switched over to digital. I am interested
>to find out more of whats available and the information about this. I am a
>little familiar with the old Minolta's, please explain why you feel that the
>Digital Pentex is better. What features are you comparing? I will check
>out the K10d and see if it falls into my willing to spend the money. LOL
>
>Thanks,
>
>Not4wood
I just took the advice of someone on the aviation photography
newsgroup.. who's pictures I liked.. It was a crapshoot for me.. and
I think I won.. I don't think I could have bought a camera that I
liked any MORE than the one I bought (pentax k10).. I might have saved
a dollar or two on a different model.. or there may be an option on
mine that I will never use.. I'm a tightwad.. but I think I got value
for my money ... Having a blast taking pictures .. Using automatic
mostly and learning how to do manual shots.. Manual is harder for me
to figure than it was on the old minolta.. I pull out a owner's manual
and my eyelids get heavy..
Cats
<snip>
> Manual is harder for me
> to figure than it was on the old minolta.. I pull out a owner's manual
> and my eyelids get heavy..
I like downloaded PDF manuals - I can search them with Adobe Reader,
much easier than trying to find something that's not clear in a
minimalist index.
(not quite so) Fat Sam
> On Sep 23, 10:49 pm, "Not4wood" <no_mgottes@spam_verizon.net> wrote:
>> I just ran across this group and checked it out for the first time.
>>
>> I can't believe all the hostility in and around something thats
>> supposed to be a creative art form. LOL
>
> Photography is not art and cannot be art.
define art.
UC
Something made with the hand of man...photographs are works of nature,
not works of art. there is in principle no difference between a fossil
and a photograph.
(not quite so) Fat Sam
That's the biggest load of uneducated and poorly-opinionated rubbish it ias
ever been my amusement to read.
Thank you for such a good laugh.
Walter R.
humans. It is helpful to distinguish between fine art, folk art, junk art,
modern art, etc.
For the prerequisites of "Fine Art" try this site:
http://www.rationality.net/art.htm
--
Walter
www.rationality.net
-
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote in
message news:vZGdnUaGScKCCJ_a...@giganews.com...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Not4wood
A Philosophy point of view. "Art is anything that can create an emotional
response". A class I took in College was called Aesthetics, "Philosophy of
Art" and I had this discussion with the instructor many times. LOL
Doesn't mention the media. Music is an art form, listening to something
might create any kind of emotional reaction. But remember, any kind doesn't
necessarily mean good. Andy Warhol created Art. I didn't think anything he
did was Art but who am I to say since his work is all over the place and
makes people happy, Go Figure. Also, since I do not appreciate his work
doesn't mean it isn't Art to someone else. Its a very personal thing.
Steichen, Steiglitz, Margaret Bourke White all created Art. Why is a
Rembrandt Portrait Art and not a Portrait of the Masters of Photography that
I just mentioned??? Taking a picture of a Tree?? Maybe, might not be to
me. Ever see anything by Ansel Adams?? Ever hear of a Photographer called
"Weegee"? Was not a great photography and what he created was definitely
not Art, but one of the best News Photographers that has ever lived. His
works had created such an emotional reaction that you couldn't turn away.
Many years ago, I apprenticed with a Portrait Photographer and worked in the
Studio during the Week and we did Weddings on the Weekends. His work is
still hanging on Peoples Walls. His Son's work was/is published in
Magazines, has had some shows and has written articles for publications.
Photography is a way to create a work of art. Might not be Art to me or
you, but it might be a subject of Art for somebody. It is a Media, doesn't
restrict it to Film or Digital. A pencil, ink and wash, water color,
charcoal doesn't make it a work of Art but put this media in the correct
hands and you might. Some one taking a picture might not create Art, but
doesn't stop them from trying. One day they might succeed.
Images in Newspapers, Magazines or every day posters on Billboards doesn't
make it Art. But there is a difference. If Rembrandt who was a Master of
the Portrait had a Camera, do you think he would have stopped creating
Portraits??? As someone who worked in a Portrait Studio, studied lighting
and posing and had discussions about emotional reactions to changes in both.
I feel all the hard work and learning experience pointed me to the way of
possibly trying to create Art. I have been published, I have had people ask
for my work on consignment so they can hang it in there homes. I made them
happy, by my work. That to me is creating Art.
Photography can be an Art Form, doesn't mean anybody that can pick up a
camera just like anybody can pick up a brush doesn't make them an Artist
either.
This of course is my own opinion.
Mark G
Not4wood
"Walter R." <we...@example.com> wrote in message
news:4702cc7f$0$26362$8826...@free.teranews.com...
Not4wood
I've never found a Photograph or Chemicals/trays/enlargers/retouching colors
or brushes in nature or anywhere inside a Forest or by the beach. By the
hand of man has done.
Not4wood
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191354466....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
UC
Oh, really? You're ignorant.
UC
> Art (from the Latin ars, artis) designates anything that is created by
> humans. It is helpful to distinguish between fine art, folk art, junk art,
> modern art, etc.
Right. That's PRECISELY why photographs are not 'art'. They're created
by machines, not by man.
>
> For the prerequisites of "Fine Art" try this site:http://www.rationality.net/art.htm
>
> --
> Walterwww.rationality.net
> -
> "(not quite so) Fat Sam" <samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote in
> messagenews:vZGdnUaGScKCCJ_a...@giganews.com...
Ken Hart
> On Oct 2, 7:47 pm, "Walter R." <we...@example.com> wrote:
>> Art (from the Latin ars, artis) designates anything that is created by
>> humans. It is helpful to distinguish between fine art, folk art, junk
>> art,
>> modern art, etc.
>
> Right. That's PRECISELY why photographs are not 'art'. They're created
> by machines, not by man.
>>
Using that arguement, most paintings are not art, because they were created
by a brush (a "machine"), not by man. The only paintings that can be art
would be finger paintings. Your response to that will be that a painter's
brush is not a machine, but a 'tool' that the painter uses to create a 'work
of art'. My response to that is that my camera is a 'tool' that I use to
create art. (Granted, I'm not always successful at creating a "work of art",
but I keep trying!)
Paul Furman
>>>Photography is not art and cannot be art.
>>
>>define art.
>
> Something made with the hand of man...photographs are works of nature,
> not works of art. there is in principle no difference between a fossil
> and a photograph.
People frame the view and time and choose the exposure. Studio
photography can be completely unnatural. Send a monkey out into the
world with a camera & see what he gets.
UC
> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191416707.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 2, 7:47 pm, "Walter R." <we...@example.com> wrote:
> >> Art (from the Latin ars, artis) designates anything that is created by
> >> humans. It is helpful to distinguish between fine art, folk art, junk
> >> art,
> >> modern art, etc.
>
> > Right. That's PRECISELY why photographs are not 'art'. They're created
> > by machines, not by man.
>
> Using that arguement, most paintings are not art, because they were created
> by a brush (a "machine"), not by man.
No, a brush is not a machine. It is an extension of the human hand. A
camera is not.
A painting is not an 'image', it is representational, not iconic. A
photograph is iconic, not representational.
> The only paintings that can be art
> would be finger paintings.
Nope.
>Your response to that will be that a painter's
> brush is not a machine, but a 'tool' that the painter uses to create a 'work
> of art'. My response to that is that my camera is a 'tool' that I use to
> create art.
No, it isn't.
> (Granted, I'm not always successful at creating a "work of art",
> but I keep trying!)
You cannot produce art with a camera and lens. You could use the
camera like a brush to apply paint, but then it would not be a
photograph.
UC
> UC wrote:
> >>>Photography is not art and cannot be art.
>
> >>define art.
>
> > Something made with the hand of man...photographs are works of nature,
> > not works of art. there is in principle no difference between a fossil
> > and a photograph.
>
> People frame the view and time and choose the exposure.
Yes...and so what?
> Studio
> photography can be completely unnatural.
???
> Send a monkey out into the
> world with a camera & see what he gets.
A photograph...
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>>UC wrote:
>>
>>>>>Photography is not art and cannot be art.
>>
>>>>define art.
>>
>>>Something made with the hand of man...photographs are works of nature,
>>>not works of art. there is in principle no difference between a fossil
>>>and a photograph.
>>
>>People frame the view and time and choose the exposure.
>
> Yes...and so what?
That's the art part.
>>Studio photography can be completely unnatural.
>
> ???
It can be completely staged. A total fabrication.
>>Send a monkey out into the world with a camera & see what he gets.
>
> A photograph...
A meaningless photograph.
UC
> UC wrote:
> > Paul Furman wrote:
> >>UC wrote:
>
> >>>>>Photography is not art and cannot be art.
>
> >>>>define art.
>
> >>>Something made with the hand of man...photographs are works of nature,
> >>>not works of art. there is in principle no difference between a fossil
> >>>and a photograph.
>
> >>People frame the view and time and choose the exposure.
>
> > Yes...and so what?
>
> That's the art part.
No, it isn't. Look up 'art'. It's a Latin root.
> >>Studio photography can be completely unnatural.
>
> > ???
>
> It can be completely staged. A total fabrication.
Yeah, so? It's not the PHOTOGRAPH that is the 'art' then; it's just a
record of the 'art'.
>
> >>Send a monkey out into the world with a camera & see what he gets.
>
> > A photograph...
>
> A meaningless photograph.
A photograph.
Paul Furman
>>>>>>>Photography is not art and cannot be art.
>>
>>>>>>define art.
>>
>>>>>Something made with the hand of man...photographs are works of nature,
>>>>>not works of art. there is in principle no difference between a fossil
>>>>>and a photograph.
>>
>>>>People frame the view and time and choose the exposure.
>>
>>>Yes...and so what?
>>
>>That's the art part.
>
> No, it isn't. Look up 'art'. It's a Latin root.
"craft, skill"
The fine art part is communicating some meaningful human stuff. That can
be done by chosing the framing, lighting, timing, etc.
>>>>Studio photography can be completely unnatural.
>>
>>>???
>>
>>It can be completely staged. A total fabrication.
>
> Yeah, so? It's not the PHOTOGRAPH that is the 'art' then; it's just a
> record of the 'art'.
No, the framing, lighting, timing, etc. is part of it.
>>>>Send a monkey out into the world with a camera & see what he gets.
>>
>>>A photograph...
>>
>>A meaningless photograph.
>
> A photograph.
Meaningless/Meaningful
Random versus beautiful, clever, provocative...
UC
> UC wrote:
> >>>>>>>Photography is not art and cannot be art.
>
> >>>>>>define art.
>
> >>>>>Something made with the hand of man...photographs are works of nature,
> >>>>>not works of art. there is in principle no difference between a fossil
> >>>>>and a photograph.
>
> >>>>People frame the view and time and choose the exposure.
>
> >>>Yes...and so what?
>
> >>That's the art part.
>
> > No, it isn't. Look up 'art'. It's a Latin root.
>
> "craft, skill"
>
> The fine art part is communicating some meaningful human stuff.
No, it isn't. Do you understand the difference between art and
science?
> That can
> be done by chosing the framing, lighting, timing, etc.
No, that is not 'art'.
>
> >>>>Studio photography can be completely unnatural.
>
> >>>???
>
> >>It can be completely staged. A total fabrication.
>
> > Yeah, so? It's not the PHOTOGRAPH that is the 'art' then; it's just a
> > record of the 'art'.
>
> No, the framing, lighting, timing, etc. is part of it.
No, it isn't.
>
> >>>>Send a monkey out into the world with a camera & see what he gets.
>
> >>>A photograph...
>
> >>A meaningless photograph.
>
> > A photograph.
>
> Meaningless/Meaningful
> Random versus beautiful, clever, provocative...
A photograph nonetheless.
Paul Furman
> No, it isn't.
Is so.
Ken Hart
> On Oct 3, 3:30 pm, "Ken Hart" <kwh...@aec.nu> wrote:
>> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1191416707.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Oct 2, 7:47 pm, "Walter R." <we...@example.com> wrote:
>> >> Art (from the Latin ars, artis) designates anything that is created by
>> >> humans. It is helpful to distinguish between fine art, folk art, junk
>> >> art,
>> >> modern art, etc.
>>
>> > Right. That's PRECISELY why photographs are not 'art'. They're created
>> > by machines, not by man.
Photographs are not created BY machines, they are created by MAN, with the
aid of a machine, completely under his control. (I don't own an auto-
anything camera!)
>>
>> Using that arguement, most paintings are not art, because they were
>> created
>> by a brush (a "machine"), not by man.
>
> No, a brush is not a machine. It is an extension of the human hand. A
> camera is not.
>
How is a paint brush an extension of the artist's hand and a camera is not
such an extension?
True that the way you handle each one is different, but there is a certain
skill required to use either 'extension'. If the brain controlling the hand
has that skill, then either tool, the paint brush or the camera, can be used
to create a work of art.
It may be easier for the artist to put his personal 'spin' on a painting
than a photographer, but the photographer, through the use of light, focus,
framing, etc., can make the photograph look the way he wants it to look. Two
photographers can stand side by side, looking in the same direction, and
while their photos _may_ be similar, the photos do not have to be identical.
And both photos can be 'art'; that is, they may evoke an emotion in the
viewer.
I bet you go to all the school board meetings and make sure they spend all
their money on math and science...
UC
> Since you asked;
>
> A Philosophy point of view. "Art is anything that can create an emotional
> response".
False. Witnessing a train wreck can cause an emotional response, can't
it?
> A class I took in College was called Aesthetics, "Philosophy of
> Art" and I had this discussion with the instructor many times. LOL
>
> Doesn't mention the media. Music is an art form,
Yes.
> listening to something
> might create any kind of emotional reaction. But remember, any kind doesn't
> necessarily mean good.
Right.
> Andy Warhol created Art. I didn't think anything he
> did was Art but who am I to say since his work is all over the place and
> makes people happy, Go Figure. Also, since I do not appreciate his work
> doesn't mean it isn't Art to someone else. Its a very personal thing.
>
> Steichen, Steiglitz, Margaret Bourke White all created Art.
Not with photographs.
>Why is a
> Rembrandt Portrait Art and not a Portrait of the Masters of Photography that
> I just mentioned???
Because the photograph is made with a lens and film.
> Taking a picture of a Tree?? Maybe, might not be to
> me. Ever see anything by Ansel Adams?? Ever hear of a Photographer called
> "Weegee"? Was not a great photography and what he created was definitely
> not Art, but one of the best News Photographers that has ever lived. His
> works had created such an emotional reaction that you couldn't turn away.
>
> Many years ago, I apprenticed with a Portrait Photographer and worked in the
> Studio during the Week and we did Weddings on the Weekends. His work is
> still hanging on Peoples Walls. His Son's work was/is published in
> Magazines, has had some shows and has written articles for publications.
>
> Photography is a way to create a work of art.
Nope. Impossible.
> Might not be Art to me or
> you, but it might be a subject of Art for somebody. It is a Media,
'Medium'
> doesn't
> restrict it to Film or Digital. A pencil, ink and wash, water color,
> charcoal doesn't make it a work of Art but put this media in the correct
> hands and you might. Some one taking a picture might not create Art, but
> doesn't stop them from trying. One day they might succeed.
>
> Images in Newspapers, Magazines or every day posters on Billboards doesn't
> make it Art. But there is a difference. If Rembrandt who was a Master of
> the Portrait had a Camera, do you think he would have stopped creating
> Portraits??? As someone who worked in a Portrait Studio, studied lighting
> and posing and had discussions about emotional reactions to changes in both.
> I feel all the hard work and learning experience pointed me to the way of
> possibly trying to create Art. I have been published, I have had people ask
> for my work on consignment so they can hang it in there homes. I made them
> happy, by my work. That to me is creating Art.
>
> Photography can be an Art Form, doesn't mean anybody that can pick up a
> camera just like anybody can pick up a brush doesn't make them an Artist
> either.
> This of course is my own opinion.
>
> Mark G
> Not4wood
Your post is mostly incoherent.
Pat
Within UC rather limited definition of the world, photography is not
an art form because it is a chemical (or electronic) process of
collecting light -- nothing more. Bang, the image is copied and
photography is done.
However UC's answer is only half the story. She fails to take into
account that the image is nothing without printing it. When you print
it -- or post-process it on the way to printing -- you make many
decisions and have lots of intents. So even under UC's limited
definition, the art is obtained "in the darkroom" where you manipulate
the image just like the sculpture manipulated sheets of metal.
So in UC's weird little world, making the image is like making the
metal. It is a technical process and nothing more. However, by
extension, it is the use of those raw materials where "art" is created
through manipulation and intent. So somehow, photographers are
technicals and print-makers and photoshoppers are artists. It sure
seems like splitting hairs to me.
UC
> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191441436....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 3, 3:30 pm, "Ken Hart" <kwh...@aec.nu> wrote:
> >> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1191416707.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 2, 7:47 pm, "Walter R." <we...@example.com> wrote:
> >> >> Art (from the Latin ars, artis) designates anything that is created by
> >> >> humans. It is helpful to distinguish between fine art, folk art, junk
> >> >> art,
> >> >> modern art, etc.
>
> >> > Right. That's PRECISELY why photographs are not 'art'. They're created
> >> > by machines, not by man.
>
> Photographs are not created BY machines, they are created by MAN,
False.
> with the
> aid of a machine,
False.
completely under his control. (I don't own an auto-
> anything camera!)
Ever hear of red-light cameras?
>
>
>
> >> Using that arguement, most paintings are not art, because they were
> >> created
> >> by a brush (a "machine"), not by man.
>
> > No, a brush is not a machine. It is an extension of the human hand. A
> > camera is not.
>
> How is a paint brush an extension of the artist's hand and a camera is not
> such an extension?
Easy. A brush is not a lens that bends light to form an image. No
brush ever made an image, ever. A painting is NOT an image. It is a
representation. An image is NOT a representation, but an icon.
> True that the way you handle each one is different, but there is a certain
> skill required to use either 'extension'.
Skill doesn't enter into it. You need skill to drive a car too.
> If the brain controlling the hand
> has that skill, then either tool, the paint brush or the camera, can be used
> to create a work of art.
Nope.
>
> It may be easier for the artist to put his personal 'spin' on a painting
> than a photographer, but the photographer, through the use of light, focus,
> framing, etc., can make the photograph look the way he wants it to look.
Correct, but that does not make it 'art'.
>Two
> photographers can stand side by side, looking in the same direction, and
> while their photos _may_ be similar, the photos do not have to be identical.
> And both photos can be 'art'; that is, they may evoke an emotion in the
> viewer.
>
> I bet you go to all the school board meetings and make sure they spend all
> their money on math and science...
Nope. Photographs are not art and cannot be art, but they can in fact
be more significant than art. To call something 'art' is not to say it
is important or valuable. It is not (when correctly used) a term or
praise or approval. It is a technical term. It means "painting or
sculpture (or similar products of the human hand)".
Is a fossil a work of art? If not, why not?
UC
I can't help it if it seems arbitrary, but that's the way the word
works. 'Art' refers to the hand of man.
">G< ©"
UC
I am aware of the label "fine-art photography" which makes as much
sense as "fine-art surgery".
The term 'fine-art' as an adjective (properly used) applies to
materials used in the production of fine art, such as paint brushes,
canvas, oils, etc.
http://www.trekell.com/art_brushes/fine_art_artist_brushes/index.html
UC
UC
My message to Ken Rockwell:
Regarding:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/art.htm
<<I spent about fifteen years from 1986 until about 2001 looking for a
definition of art. Sculptor Henry Moore said "Art is the expression of
imagination, not the duplication of reality.">>
Try using a dictionary. The fine arts are painting, sculpture, wood-
carving, etc. Photography cannot be considered one of the "fine arts"
because there is nothing made directly or indirectly by hand.
Photographs are the product of natural processes and are iconic.
Photographs are images; paintings are NOT images, not even "photo-
realistic" paintings. Paintings are representations; photographs are
not representations.
<<Many laypeople and most people before the 1850s considered art as a
way to document what was around them. The definition above is a far
more intellectual definition understood by those who create art.>>
An artist in ancient Greece was considered on the same level as a
tradesman (carpenter, etc.).
<<Art has nothing to do with its medium. Creative writing is art. The
shape of your car's tail lights or TV remote control are industrial
design, which is art. The improvisational singing of a song and
composing music is art. Poetry is art. The patina applied to a brass
instrument is art. An Apple computer's case is art. Furniture is art.
The font used to make printed letters is art.>>
You need to use a dictionary to disambiguate the various usages of the
word 'art'.
<<If you insist on a more structured definition, know that all the
people who design these items have long resumés and have attended many
art schools like Art Center.>>
Relevance?
<<Art is a world more than oil on canvas.>>
The primary meaning of 'artist' is 'painter'; another common meaning
is 'singer' or 'musician'.
<<I'm shocked how some otherwise competent artists fall into this rut
and fail to consider their own work as art just because it's some
other medium than oil on canvas.>>
Why are you shocked that people have a better understanding of the
English vocabulary than you do? Maybe they know how to use a
dictionary.
<<Many of these stuck in this rut are photographers, and astound me at
their self-denigrating use of the phrase "real art" to mean oil on
canvas and not their own work.>>
Photographs are not works of art and cannot be works of art, not
because they not significant, beautiful, or memorable, but because of
what the word 'art' means.
<<If your art expresses yourself, it's art. Real art. Period.>>
False. Period.
<<Million dollar checks and legally binding contracts may still be
written on toilet paper.>>
Non sequitur.
<<If the business world ignores the medium in favor of the message,
certainly the art world accepts anything as art, regardless of its
medium.>>
What does 'the art world' mean?
<<Must art be beautiful?>>
HUH? Art is what is made by hand. See comment above about ancient
Greek sculptors.
<<Here's where the discussion will digress and I'll step aside. Ansel
Adams chose to make art that he felt was. Others don't. I prefer art I
find pleasant.>>
Ansel Adams was a photographer. I don't know if was also an artist
(painter, sculptor).
<<To each their own.>>
HIS own.
<<What makes good art or a good photo?>>
Irrelevant to the discussion. You must be an American.
<<Do you like it? That's the definition.>>
You must be an American. Pity, that.
<<This in entirely subjective. Attempts to put numerical scales and
grades on art or photos fail.>>
Non sequitur.
<<Rating images encourages people to follow a formula and make crap.
Follow your heart.>>
Non sequitur.
<<Feeling Smart?>>
<<Here's a test of your art gauging skills>>
Non sequitur.
UC
Worth examining, perhaps.
UC
> On Oct 3, 8:39 pm, ggomezphoto <ggomezph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Worth examining, perhaps.
UC
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If you have ever seen Ansel Adams' "Moon Rise Over Hernandez", a
> straight print, and then the final print that all of us are familiar
> with (I have seen both prints, not in books, but the actual prints),
> and observed the printing process in the darkroom (which I have also
> seen first hand), you would know that the "hand of that man" was very
> much actively engaged-- over a long period of time-- in the final
> outcome.
>
> Gerry
Yes, that's skill or craft. It has nothing to do with "fine art". The
latter is a technical term that refers to sculpture, painting,
architecture, etc. I have made prints that required very complex work,
too.
--------------------------
Another message to Ken Rockwell:
Ken:
I guess I'd like to ask you why you think it is important that
photography be considered on the same 'plane' as 'art', and that
photographers be concerned about calling themselves 'artists'. It
leads to a basic imitation of paintings, whether by the Pictorialist
school of the late 19th C or by the modern B&W photographers such as
John Sexton. It seems that photographers who want to be called
'artists' (or who call themselves 'artists' and call their work "fine-
art photography") end up doing stuff that is somewhat similar to
landscape painting. The curious thing, though, is that what the camera
(especially the portable camera) can do best (capturing a unique
moment, as in reportage photography) is not often called 'art
photography'. Now, if photographers want to be considered 'artists' in
their OWN field, why imitate painting? To me it seems that this is
frankly an admission that photography is NOT 'art', at least not
unless it is very similar to a painting. So-called "fine-art"
photographers often look down their noses at photographers who work in
35mm and who do reportage, preferring to work with large format
cameras mounted on tripods (curiously like a painter's easel). The
"fine-art" photographer works slowly, ritually, often figuring
exposure and development according to the zone system for good
measure, which is a way of mythologizing and mystifying the
photographic endeavor. Painters have their special paints, brushes,
and strokes, so "fine-art" photographers, not to be outdone, have to
have their 'zone system'.
I submit to you that photography is sui generis, unique, and no form
of 'fine art' at all. That neither diminishes photography nor
aggrandizes true 'fine art'. Photographers have no reason to hide
behind the black focussing cloth, cowering in fear of being called
merely 'photographers' whilst their brethren who work in oil or stone
are called 'artists'. Being an artist is an occupation, not a term of
praise. To call a bit of work 'art' is not praising it. Sculpture and
painting, etc., are the fine arts; photography is not among them, but
it is diminished by that by no means.
UC
> On Oct 4, 9:09 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If you have ever seen Ansel Adams' "Moon Rise Over Hernandez", a
> straight print, and then the final print that all of us are familiar
> with (I have seen both prints, not in books, but the actual prints),
> and observed the printing process in the darkroom (which I have also
> seen first hand), you would know that the "hand of that man" was very
> much actively engaged-- over a long period of time-- in the final
> outcome.
>
> Gerry
The IMAGE is formed by the lens and film. There is NO image in a
painting. It is a representation (a symbol); a photograph is an IMAGE
not a symbol or representation. 'Art' deals in symbols; photography
deals in images.
UC
Paul Furman
> I guess I'd like to ask you why you think it is important that
> photography be considered on the same 'plane' as 'art', and that
> photographers be concerned about calling themselves 'artists'. It
> leads to a basic imitation of paintings
If photography had been invented earlier, painters would have imitated
photographic styles.
>, whether by the Pictorialist
> school of the late 19th C or by the modern B&W photographers such as
> John Sexton. It seems that photographers who want to be called
> 'artists' (or who call themselves 'artists' and call their work "fine-
> art photography") end up doing stuff that is somewhat similar to
> landscape painting.
Not all fine art photography is not landscape by a long shot.
> The curious thing, though, is that what the camera
> (especially the portable camera) can do best (capturing a unique
> moment, as in reportage photography) is not often called 'art
> photography'. Now, if photographers want to be considered 'artists' in
> their OWN field, why imitate painting?
It's not necessarily imitating painting. What makes photography art is
the descisions made. Sometimes painterly, sometimes stark and realistic.
The variety of approaches to any given subject are limitless.
> To me it seems that this is
> frankly an admission that photography is NOT 'art', at least not
> unless it is very similar to a painting. So-called "fine-art"
> photographers often look down their noses at photographers who work in
> 35mm and who do reportage, preferring to work with large format
> cameras mounted on tripods (curiously like a painter's easel). The
> "fine-art" photographer works slowly, ritually, often figuring
> exposure and development according to the zone system for good
> measure, which is a way of mythologizing and mystifying the
> photographic endeavor. Painters have their special paints, brushes,
> and strokes, so "fine-art" photographers, not to be outdone, have to
> have their 'zone system'.
>
> I submit to you that photography is sui generis, unique, and no form
> of 'fine art' at all. That neither diminishes photography nor
> aggrandizes true 'fine art'.
OK so it can be no less 'artistic' than what you call 'Art' with a
capital A. Then the only distinction is that arts are handicrafts... but
handicrafts aren't necessarily Art, though they are art. Right? But
doesn't photography require craftsmanship? Is it because photography
doesn't require physical gracefulness like guiding a brush over canvas?
> Photographers have no reason to hide
> behind the black focussing cloth, cowering in fear of being called
> merely 'photographers' whilst their brethren who work in oil or stone
> are called 'artists'. Being an artist is an occupation, not a term of
> praise. To call a bit of work 'art' is not praising it. Sculpture and
> painting, etc., are the fine arts; photography is not among them, but
> it is diminished by that by no means.
I think you need a different word to make this distinction. It's an
essentially meaningless distinction anyways. What use in the distinction?
> The IMAGE is formed by the lens and film. There is NO image in a
> painting. It is a representation (a symbol); a photograph is an IMAGE
> not a symbol or representation. 'Art' deals in symbols; photography
> deals in images.
Is there no such thing as 'symbolic photography'?
What's my definition of art?
Art has positive meaning, usually emotion but it can be intellectual or
scientific. Art is always interesting.* Art was only fairly recently
separated from science, that's why I like the 'interesting' qualifier.
Some science is boring but some brilliant science is art and some art
relies on scientific revelation as it's main 'point', not always emotion.
* footnote 'Art is always interesting.'
...except maybe when it's aim is to be soothing :-) If that soothing has
negative intentions of distracting and numbing, that's not art. Lies are
not art. Scam artists are not artists.
Art has positive intentions. Some definitions say anything that evokes
feeling is art but horrible things evoke emotion too. Some art evokes
horrible feelings but if the intention is the understanding of the human
condition with good intentions, that's art. If it is simply debasing,
that's not art.
Art conveys how the artist sees the world (certainly photography does
that) and good art carries the strength of that vision, the clarity of
the vision but even bad art from a beginner which nobody appreciates is
art. Art is a process as well as a product. Life can be art. For an
artist, all the world becomes art. Even the most debasing events reveal
themselves to the artist's mind as interesting, emotional and offering
understanding about the world which can be interpreted to improve the
human condition.
Can amateur family & vacation snapshots be art? If they were taken with
good intentions yes but that doesn't mean they are good art. If the kid
is forced into an unnatural pose for presentation to relatives, that's
not art, that's a lie.
Scientific (and reportage) photography probably should not include any
manipulative trickery if it's for research purposes. There are still so
many ways to frame a shot though, it's inevitable that a certain amount
of artistry will be at play. Other types of scientific themed
photography can feel free to show emotional emphasis. Nature photography
is much more effective if the artist knows the science behind what they
are shooting and displays those truths. There isn't much human emotion
that can be applied to nature so that's usually relying on pure physical
beauty and fascination in wonder of the complex world that surrounds us.
That is art too.
UC
> UC wrote:
> > I guess I'd like to ask you why you think it is important that
> > photography be considered on the same 'plane' as 'art', and that
> > photographers be concerned about calling themselves 'artists'. It
> > leads to a basic imitation of paintings
>
> If photography had been invented earlier, painters would have imitated
> photographic styles.
Perhaps, but I doubt it.
>
> >, whether by the Pictorialist
> > school of the late 19th C or by the modern B&W photographers such as
> > John Sexton. It seems that photographers who want to be called
> > 'artists' (or who call themselves 'artists' and call their work "fine-
> > art photography") end up doing stuff that is somewhat similar to
> > landscape painting.
>
> Not all fine art photography is not landscape by a long shot.
Yes, but it is the most 'representative' of the genre.
>
> > The curious thing, though, is that what the camera
> > (especially the portable camera) can do best (capturing a unique
> > moment, as in reportage photography) is not often called 'art
> > photography'. Now, if photographers want to be considered 'artists' in
> > their OWN field, why imitate painting?
>
> It's not necessarily imitating painting. What makes photography art is
> the decisions made. Sometimes painterly, sometimes stark and realistic.
> The variety of approaches to any given subject are limitless.
Yes, but that does not make it 'art'.
>
>
>
> > To me it seems that this is
> > frankly an admission that photography is NOT 'art', at least not
> > unless it is very similar to a painting. So-called "fine-art"
> > photographers often look down their noses at photographers who work in
> > 35mm and who do reportage, preferring to work with large format
> > cameras mounted on tripods (curiously like a painter's easel). The
> > "fine-art" photographer works slowly, ritually, often figuring
> > exposure and development according to the zone system for good
> > measure, which is a way of mythologizing and mystifying the
> > photographic endeavor. Painters have their special paints, brushes,
> > and strokes, so "fine-art" photographers, not to be outdone, have to
> > have their 'zone system'.
>
> > I submit to you that photography is sui generis, unique, and no form
> > of 'fine art' at all. That neither diminishes photography nor
> > aggrandizes true 'fine art'.
>
> OK so it can be no less 'artistic' than what you call 'Art' with a
> capital A.
Don't call it 'artistic', instead use the word 'aesthetic'.
> Then the only distinction is that arts are handicrafts...
Essentially, but not trivially.
> but
> handicrafts aren't necessarily Art, though they are art.
> Right?
You're getting a handle on it. Glass blown into the form of a vase
that is used as a vase is not 'art', but glass blown into something
that is useless except for its beauty is 'art'.
> But
> doesn't photography require craftsmanship?
Of course, but many other things that are not art also require
craftsmanship.
> Is it because photography
> doesn't require physical gracefulness like guiding a brush over canvas?
No. They're utterly different.
>
> > Photographers have no reason to hide
> > behind the black focussing cloth, cowering in fear of being called
> > merely 'photographers' whilst their brethren who work in oil or stone
> > are called 'artists'. Being an artist is an occupation, not a term of
> > praise. To call a bit of work 'art' is not praising it. Sculpture and
> > painting, etc., are the fine arts; photography is not among them, but
> > it is diminished by that by no means.
>
> I think you need a different word to make this distinction. It's an
> essentially meaningless distinction anyways. What use in the distinction?
What use is the distinction between any distinct things for we have
different names? Cats are not dogs. Why not just call them all 'cats'?
>
> > The IMAGE is formed by the lens and film. There is NO image in a
> > painting. It is a representation (a symbol); a photograph is an IMAGE
> > not a symbol or representation. 'Art' deals in symbols; photography
> > deals in images.
>
> Is there no such thing as 'symbolic photography'?
No. It's impossible. Photography is all non-fiction. ALL art is
fictional.
UC
You would be shocked, shocked I say, if you knew that artists use
hundreds or thousands of little "mini-techniques" they have acquired
over the years, each of which is merely a min-skill. When combined
intelligently and skillfully, they can produce great works of art. But
the amassing and expert use of these thousands of little skills and
bits of knowledge takes time. The same sort of process happens with
photography. Really good photographers have spent hundreds of hours
analyzing and critiquing their mistakes. It is often some little trick
that is seen as 'artsy'; I read once where some 'art critic' went nuts
over some photographs that had simply been done on pushed Tri-X! To
the maker, it's just technique. to the audience, it's magic...and
'art'. Yes, even 'art' is not 'art'. It's all just technique. The
rubes call it 'art'.
May
Photoshop to look totally different? Would that be considered art?
">G< ©"
> Just curious, what do you consider photos that have been altered in
> Photoshop to look totally different? Would that be considered art?
>
Are you suggesting the software/computer is like brushes, paint and canvas?
--
>G< ©
Paul Furman
> On Oct 4, 5:11 pm, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>>UC wrote:
>>
>>>I guess I'd like to ask you why you think it is important that
>>>photography be considered on the same 'plane' as 'art', and that
>>>photographers be concerned about calling themselves 'artists'. It
>>>leads to a basic imitation of paintings
>>
>>If photography had been invented earlier, painters would have imitated
>>photographic styles.
>
> Perhaps, but I doubt it.
Photorealism painting.
>>It's not necessarily imitating painting. What makes photography art is
>>the decisions made. Sometimes painterly, sometimes stark and realistic.
>>The variety of approaches to any given subject are limitless.
>
> Yes, but that does not make it 'art'.
It offers the potential for the photographer make art.
>>>I submit to you that photography is sui generis, unique, and no form
>>>of 'fine art' at all. That neither diminishes photography nor
>>>aggrandizes true 'fine art'.
>>
>>OK so it can be no less 'artistic' than what you call 'Art' with a
>>capital A.
>
> Don't call it 'artistic', instead use the word 'aesthetic'.
Some applications of aesthetics are more the territory of Miss Manners
than art.
>>Then the only distinction is that arts are handicrafts...
>
> Essentially, but not trivially.
>
>>but handicrafts aren't necessarily Art, though they are art.
>>Right?
>
> You're getting a handle on it. Glass blown into the form of a vase
> that is used as a vase is not 'art', but glass blown into something
> that is useless except for its beauty is 'art'.
'Art' is usually not useful other than looking at it, but that is no
requirement by my definition. The vase is a perfect example. 'Heavy'
emotional subjects are pretty rare in useful objects, I'll grant you that.
>>But doesn't photography require craftsmanship?
>
> Of course, but many other things that are not art also require
> craftsmanship.
>
>>Is it because photography
>>doesn't require physical gracefulness like guiding a brush over canvas?
>
> No. They're utterly different.
You mean yes, that's the distinction?
>>>Photographers have no reason to hide
>>>behind the black focussing cloth, cowering in fear of being called
>>>merely 'photographers' whilst their brethren who work in oil or stone
>>>are called 'artists'. Being an artist is an occupation, not a term of
>>>praise. To call a bit of work 'art' is not praising it. Sculpture and
>>>painting, etc., are the fine arts; photography is not among them, but
>>>it is diminished by that by no means.
>>
>>I think you need a different word to make this distinction. It's an
>>essentially meaningless distinction anyways. What use in the distinction?
>
> What use is the distinction between any distinct things for we have
> different names? Cats are not dogs. Why not just call them all 'cats'?
Writing poems and composing music do not require physical gracefulness.
Are those not art? I suppose you could say those are poets and
composers, not artists, is that your point? I might accept that since I
can't think of a better word to make that distinction. Take acting as
another example. Or dance. There is certainly a definition of art which
includes all those.
>>>The IMAGE is formed by the lens and film. There is NO image in a
>>>painting. It is a representation (a symbol); a photograph is an IMAGE
>>>not a symbol or representation. 'Art' deals in symbols; photography
>>>deals in images.
>>
>>Is there no such thing as 'symbolic photography'?
>
> No. It's impossible. Photography is all non-fiction.
> ALL art is fictional.
Hogwash
:-)
Photography can be complete fiction just like acting. Much of the best
art is non-fiction, about personal experience, much of it is pure
imagination.
--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com
UC
Corel Draw or other drawing programs are equivalent to brush and ink
and oil and canvas.
UC
> UC wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 5:11 pm, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
> >>UC wrote:
>
> >>>I guess I'd like to ask you why you think it is important that
> >>>photography be considered on the same 'plane' as 'art', and that
> >>>photographers be concerned about calling themselves 'artists'. It
> >>>leads to a basic imitation of paintings
>
> >>If photography had been invented earlier, painters would have imitated
> >>photographic styles.
>
> > Perhaps, but I doubt it.
>
> Photorealism painting.
Perhaps.
>
> >>It's not necessarily imitating painting. What makes photography art is
> >>the decisions made. Sometimes painterly, sometimes stark and realistic.
> >>The variety of approaches to any given subject are limitless.
>
> > Yes, but that does not make it 'art'.
>
> It offers the potential for the photographer make art.
No, photographs are not works of art but works of craft.
>
> >>>I submit to you that photography is sui generis, unique, and no form
> >>>of 'fine art' at all. That neither diminishes photography nor
> >>>aggrandizes true 'fine art'.
>
> >>OK so it can be no less 'artistic' than what you call 'Art' with a
> >>capital A.
>
> > Don't call it 'artistic', instead use the word 'aesthetic'.
>
> Some applications of aesthetics are more the territory of Miss Manners
> than art.
HUH?
>
> >>Then the only distinction is that arts are handicrafts...
>
> > Essentially, but not trivially.
>
> >>but handicrafts aren't necessarily Art, though they are art.
> >>Right?
>
> > You're getting a handle on it. Glass blown into the form of a vase
> > that is used as a vase is not 'art', but glass blown into something
> > that is useless except for its beauty is 'art'.
>
> 'Art' is usually not useful other than looking at it, but that is no
> requirement by my definition.
It's essential. 'Fine art' is distinguished from 'decorative art'.
Neither is useful.
http://www.lightopera.com/gallery.cfm
> The vase is a perfect example. 'Heavy'
> emotional subjects are pretty rare in useful objects, I'll grant you that.
Yup.
http://www.lightopera.com/gallery.cfm
>
> >>But doesn't photography require craftsmanship?
>
> > Of course, but many other things that are not art also require
> > craftsmanship.
>
> >>Is it because photography
> >>doesn't require physical gracefulness like guiding a brush over canvas?
>
> > No. They're utterly different.
>
> You mean yes, that's the distinction?
No. Many things require grace and physical skill. But 'genius' can be
very ephemeral. A tennis player who looks like a genius ('artist') on
grass can look like a total dunce on clay. Nastae was called an
artist. But it's all just technique.
>
> >>>Photographers have no reason to hide
> >>>behind the black focussing cloth, cowering in fear of being called
> >>>merely 'photographers' whilst their brethren who work in oil or stone
> >>>are called 'artists'. Being an artist is an occupation, not a term of
> >>>praise. To call a bit of work 'art' is not praising it. Sculpture and
> >>>painting, etc., are the fine arts; photography is not among them, but
> >>>it is diminished by that by no means.
>
> >>I think you need a different word to make this distinction. It's an
> >>essentially meaningless distinction anyways. What use in the distinction?
>
> > What use is the distinction between any distinct things for we have
> > different names? Cats are not dogs. Why not just call them all 'cats'?
>
> Writing poems and composing music do not require physical gracefulness.
They're not plastic arts.
> Are those not art?
Yes, but they're not plastic arts.
> I suppose you could say those are poets and
> composers, not artists, is that your point?
No.
>I might accept that since I
> can't think of a better word to make that distinction. Take acting as
> another example. Or dance. There is certainly a definition of art which
> includes all those.
They're performance or non-plastic arts. You need to look in the OED.
>
> >>>The IMAGE is formed by the lens and film. There is NO image in a
> >>>painting. It is a representation (a symbol); a photograph is an IMAGE
> >>>not a symbol or representation. 'Art' deals in symbols; photography
> >>>deals in images.
>
> >>Is there no such thing as 'symbolic photography'?
>
> > No. It's impossible. Photography is all non-fiction.
> > ALL art is fictional.
>
> Hogwash
Try again.
>
> :-)
>
> Photography can be complete fiction just like acting.
Impossible. Every photograph is a photograph OF something real and
existent, even if the light is very old (i.e., fromdistant galaxies).
> Much of the best
> art is non-fiction, about personal experience, much of it is pure
> imagination.
Can you take a photo of a thought? NOPE!
>
> --
> Paul Furman Photographyhttp://edgehill.net
> Bay Natives Nurseryhttp://www.baynatives.com
UC
>
> "But many of the photographs I don't take are better than the ones
> some
> people do."
>
> So, you can take photos WITHOUT taking photos, right? So maybe Paul
> can take a photo of a thought.
>
> This is getting freaky.
>
> Gerry
No, what I meant is that photographs that I pass up and don't bother
taking are better than the ones many people actually do. I refrain
from doing work that is not good enough, not worth bothering with, and
this class of photograph is already better than what some people do.
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>>UC wrote:
>>>Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>>>If photography had been invented earlier, painters would have imitated
>>>>photographic styles.
>>
>>>Perhaps, but I doubt it.
>>
>>Photorealism painting.
>
> Perhaps.
Photorealism painting could not exist without photography. They work
from photos.
>>>>It's not necessarily imitating painting. What makes photography art is
>>>>the decisions made. Sometimes painterly, sometimes stark and realistic.
>>>>The variety of approaches to any given subject are limitless.
>>
>>>Yes, but that does not make it 'art'.
>>
>>It offers the potential for the photographer make art.
>
> No, photographs are not works of art but works of craft.
Well people have debated whether crafts are arts. There are two views on
that one. Anyways, the debate generally revolves around whether crafts
are meaningful enough, not whether they are abstract enough. Abstract
art is sometimes argued to not be art because it's too abstract.
>>>>>I submit to you that photography is sui generis, unique, and no form
>>>>>of 'fine art' at all. That neither diminishes photography nor
>>>>>aggrandizes true 'fine art'.
>>
>>>>OK so it can be no less 'artistic' than what you call 'Art' with a
>>>>capital A.
>>
>>>Don't call it 'artistic', instead use the word 'aesthetic'.
>>
>>Some applications of aesthetics are more the territory of Miss
>>Manners than art.
>
> HUH?
If it doesn't contribute to understanding of the human condition or
express a sincere feeling, it's not art by my definition. I suppose
manners are useful for people to get along to an extent but...
>>>>Then the only distinction is that arts are handicrafts...
>>
>>>Essentially, but not trivially.
>>
>>>>but handicrafts aren't necessarily Art, though they are art.
>>>>Right?
>>
>>>You're getting a handle on it. Glass blown into the form of a vase
>>>that is used as a vase is not 'art', but glass blown into something
>>>that is useless except for its beauty is 'art'.
>>
>>'Art' is usually not useful other than looking at it, but that is no
>>requirement by my definition.
>
> It's essential. 'Fine art' is distinguished from 'decorative art'.
> Neither is useful.
Decorative art is usually applied to useful things like arts & crafts
architecture, vases paperweights and quilts. Are 'decorative' gardens
art by your definition? Does a fine art painting cease to be art if it's
painted on a glazed tile & mortared to a wall?
>>>>Is it because photography
>>>>doesn't require physical gracefulness like guiding a brush over canvas?
>>
>>>No. They're utterly different.
>>
>>You mean yes, that's the distinction?
>
> No. Many things require grace and physical skill. But 'genius' can be
> very ephemeral. A tennis player who looks like a genius ('artist') on
> grass can look like a total dunce on clay. Nastae was called an
> artist. But it's all just technique.
Nothing wrong with technique.
>>>>I think you need a different word to make this distinction. It's an
>>>>essentially meaningless distinction anyways. What use in the distinction?
>>
>>>What use is the distinction between any distinct things for we have
>>>different names? Cats are not dogs. Why not just call them all 'cats'?
>>
>>Writing poems and composing music do not require physical gracefulness.
>
> They're not plastic arts.
OK photography isn't a 'plastic art', till you edit anyways. It is a
visual art though.
>>I might accept that since I
>>can't think of a better word to make that distinction. Take acting as
>>another example. Or dance. There is certainly a definition of art which
>>includes all those.
>
> They're performance or non-plastic arts. You need to look in the OED.
And photography is a visual art, grouped with painting and sculpture.
>>Photography can be complete fiction just like acting.
>
> Impossible. Every photograph is a photograph OF something real
Impossible for actors to perform fiction?
>>Much of the best
>>art is non-fiction, about personal experience, much of it is pure
>>imagination.
>
> Can you take a photo of a thought? NOPE!
I can certainly take a photo that expresses a thought.
Here's one: can you dream in anything but 'photographic' imagery?
Paul Furman
> Source web for Tesla's work on "thought camera"..........
Sounds possible, perhaps... the way REM works, people look around when
they dream. And those images are essentially photographic in style.
"In 1933, Dr. Tesla theorized about a device that could photograph
thoughts. "I expect to photograph thoughts... In 1893, while engaged in
certain investigations, I became convinced that a definite image formed
in thought, must by reflex action, produce a corresponding image on the
retina, which might be read by a suitable apparatus. This brought me to
my system of television which I announced at that time..."
Cats
In your opinion.
> I refrain
> from doing work that is not good enough, not worth bothering with, and
> this class of photograph is already better than what some people do
You are also well versed in humility.
UC
Why take another stupid fucking sunset? Please spare me...
UC
Are you familiar with ancient Greek statues? They're art...
Tell me about them.
>
>
>
> >>>>Then the only distinction is that arts are handicrafts...
>
> >>>Essentially, but not trivially.
>
> >>>>but handicrafts aren't necessarily Art, though they are art.
> >>>>Right?
>
> >>>You're getting a handle on it. Glass blown into the form of a vase
> >>>that is used as a vase is not 'art', but glass blown into something
> >>>that is useless except for its beauty is 'art'.
>
> >>'Art' is usually not useful other than looking at it, but that is no
> >>requirement by my definition.
>
> > It's essential. 'Fine art' is distinguished from 'decorative art'.
> > Neither is useful.
>
> Decorative art is usually applied to useful things like arts & crafts
> architecture, vases paperweights and quilts. Are 'decorative' gardens
> art by your definition? Does a fine art painting cease to be art if it's
> painted on a glazed tile & mortared to a wall?
I don't follow you. If it's functional, it's not 'art'. It is the
essence of art to be for aesthetic contemplation AND be hand-made.
>
> >>>>Is it because photography
> >>>>doesn't require physical gracefulness like guiding a brush over canvas?
>
> >>>No. They're utterly different.
>
> >>You mean yes, that's the distinction?
>
> > No. Many things require grace and physical skill. But 'genius' can be
> > very ephemeral. A tennis player who looks like a genius ('artist') on
> > grass can look like a total dunce on clay. Nastase was called an
> > artist. But it's all just technique.
>
> Nothing wrong with technique.
Right. It's ALL technique.
>
> >>>>I think you need a different word to make this distinction. It's an
> >>>>essentially meaningless distinction anyways. What use in the distinction?
>
> >>>What use is the distinction between any distinct things for we have
> >>>different names? Cats are not dogs. Why not just call them all 'cats'?
>
> >>Writing poems and composing music do not require physical gracefulness.
>
> > They're not plastic arts.
>
> OK photography isn't a 'plastic art', till you edit anyways. It is a
> visual art though.
No, it's NO 'art'.
>
> >>I might accept that since I
> >>can't think of a better word to make that distinction. Take acting as
> >>another example. Or dance. There is certainly a definition of art which
> >>includes all those.
>
> > They're performance or non-plastic arts. You need to look in the OED.
>
> And photography is a visual art, grouped with painting and sculpture.
Nope.
>
> >>Photography can be complete fiction just like acting.
>
> > Impossible. Every photograph is a photograph OF something real
>
> Impossible for actors to perform fiction?
What they perform is fiction, but THEY are real and reflecting
photons. You cannot photograph anything that does not reflect photons.
A photograph is always a photograph of something else that exists.A
photograph is dependent upon the existence of something else which
reflects photons.
>
> >>Much of the best
> >>art is non-fiction, about personal experience, much of it is pure
> >>imagination.
>
> > Can you take a photo of a thought? NOPE!
>
> I can certainly take a photo that expresses a thought.
>
> Here's one: can you dream in anything but 'photographic' imagery?
I don't know and it is irrelevant.
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>>UC wrote:
>>>Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>UC wrote:
>>>>>Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Then the only distinction is that arts are handicrafts...
>>
>>>>>Essentially, but not trivially.
>>
>>>>>>but handicrafts aren't necessarily Art, though they are art.
>>>>>>Right?
>>
>>>>>You're getting a handle on it. Glass blown into the form of a vase
>>>>>that is used as a vase is not 'art', but glass blown into something
>>>>>that is useless except for its beauty is 'art'.
>>
>>>>'Art' is usually not useful other than looking at it, but that is no
>>>>requirement by my definition.
>>
>>>It's essential. 'Fine art' is distinguished from 'decorative art'.
>>>Neither is useful.
>>
>>Decorative art is usually applied to useful things like arts & crafts
>>architecture, vases paperweights and quilts. Are 'decorative' gardens
>>art by your definition? Does a fine art painting cease to be art if it's
>>painted on a glazed tile & mortared to a wall?
>
> I don't follow you. If it's functional, it's not 'art'. It is the
> essence of art to be for aesthetic contemplation AND be hand-made.
An image hand painted on a tile... once the tile is put to use for
making a counter waterproof, it's not art, no matter the content? If the
tile is framed, then it's art?
>>Nothing wrong with technique.
>
> Right. It's ALL technique.
No, the expression is the important part. Good technique is necessary
but not the essense of art.
>>>>>>I think you need a different word to make this distinction. It's an
>>>>>>essentially meaningless distinction anyways. What use in the distinction?
>>
>>>>>What use is the distinction between any distinct things for we have
>>>>>different names? Cats are not dogs. Why not just call them all 'cats'?
>>
>>>>Writing poems and composing music do not require physical gracefulness.
>>
>>>They're not plastic arts.
>>
>>OK photography isn't a 'plastic art', till you edit anyways. It is a
>>visual art though.
>
> No, it's NO 'art'.
Define 'visual art'.
>>>>I might accept that since I
>>>>can't think of a better word to make that distinction. Take acting as
>>>>another example. Or dance. There is certainly a definition of art which
>>>>includes all those.
>>
>>>They're performance or non-plastic arts. You need to look in the OED.
>>
>>And photography is a visual art, grouped with painting and sculpture.
>
> Nope.
Define 'visual art'.
>>>>Photography can be complete fiction just like acting.
>>
>>>Impossible. Every photograph is a photograph OF something real
>>
>>Impossible for actors to perform fiction?
>
> What they perform is fiction, but THEY are real and reflecting
> photons. You cannot photograph anything that does not reflect photons.
> A photograph is always a photograph of something else that exists.A
> photograph is dependent upon the existence of something else which
> reflects photons.
>
>>>>Much of the best
>>>>art is non-fiction, about personal experience, much of it is pure
>>>>imagination.
>>
>>>Can you take a photo of a thought? NOPE!
>>
>>I can certainly take a photo that expresses a thought.
>>
>>Here's one: can you dream in anything but 'photographic' imagery?
>
> I don't know and it is irrelevant.
It's relevant. Our dreams are photographic. I think that's a pretty
powerful argument right there.
UC
Nonsense. Throughout art history, expression has had nothing
whatsoever to do with the essence of art.That is only a very recent
development and would be totally alien to Praxiteles or
Michelangelo...
> Good technique is necessary
> but not the essence of art.
I said it's all technique.
>
> >>>>>>I think you need a different word to make this distinction. It's an
> >>>>>>essentially meaningless distinction anyways. What use in the distinction?
>
> >>>>>What use is the distinction between any distinct things for we have
> >>>>>different names? Cats are not dogs. Why not just call them all 'cats'?
>
> >>>>Writing poems and composing music do not require physical gracefulness.
>
> >>>They're not plastic arts.
>
> >>OK photography isn't a 'plastic art', till you edit anyways. It is a
> >>visual art though.
>
> > No, it's NO 'art'.
>
> Define 'visual art'.
I have no idea what you mean. The fine arts are: painting, drawing,
architecture, sculpture (including whittling, carving, etc. ceramic
work, etc.), music, and landscape architecture.
I have no idea what you mean.
Paul Furman
OK well that must be our sticking point. I'm using modern definitions
not archaic definitions.
UC
They're not archaic, they're concepts associated with art. You need
to broaden your horizons.
"Art is therefore not a quality of things, but an activity of man.
Beautiful lines in a drawing, or beautiful colours in painting or
beautiful shapes in a piece of sculpture, are not at all ART. Art does
not imply good colours, lines and shapes, not do these make up Art."
Cats
What have sunsets got to do with it?
UC
What I am trying to say is that I have no use for trite subject
matter, no matter how 'well' it is done. John Sexton's waterfalls are
the same shit as everybody else's waterfalls. Time exposures of water
running over rocks...spare me! Here's some pathettic slobs idea of
helpful info on the topic, called "Moments of Light". Where do these
people think up these stupid fucking names? "Listen to the Trees",
"Quiet Light".
http://www.momentsoflight.com/home.php?page=themes_water
These old hippies make me gag...
http://www.planearium2.de/scripts-902.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Hippie,_Die
Goddamn Hippies!
They're not people, they're hippies!
[When asked by Chef why drugs are bad] I know. Drugs are bad because
if you do drugs, you're a hippie. And hippies suck.
I've kept this town free of hippies since I was five and a half.
Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do
is smoke pot and smell bad.
Naw dude, Independent films are those black and white hippy movies.
They're always about gay cowboys eating pudding.
Dolphins, eskimos, who cares? It's all a bunch of tree hugging hippie
crap.
Yea, hippie and a terrorist is the same thing.
San Francisco is the breeding ground of hippies!
Not4wood
"American organizations, such as the Aperture Foundation and the Museum of
Modern Art, have done much to keep photography at the forefront of the fine
arts."
This statement alone, by a lot of People who are involved in the Art World
try to get the regular people to enjoy the creations of Photographers as
Artists. Blah, Blah, Blah
This is the basis of the legitimacy of Photography as an Art. Maybe LOL.
Whether you believe ever word UC says, or feel as I do that Photography can
be Art
Getting beyond this, for some reason this also gets into my head as to why
To Not get involved in any way or form into Photography Contests. I dont
know, feels the same to me doesn't it?? Cheapens the thought.
Not4wood
Robert Coe
: On Oct 2, 7:47 pm, "Walter R." <we...@example.com> wrote:
: > Art (from the Latin ars, artis) designates anything that is created by
: > humans. It is helpful to distinguish between fine art, folk art, junk art,
: > modern art, etc.
:
: Right. That's PRECISELY why photographs are not 'art'. They're created
: by machines, not by man.
Is a paintbrush a machine? A mechanical pencil? A pen and a bottle of India
ink? A pizza wheel? (Some painters use them to produce ships's rigging and
other thin lines.) A hammer and chisel? Is an architectural drawing not art
because the architect used a compass and straightedge? Or a computer? Many of
the great masters (Leonardo da Vinci, for example) began their paintings as
perspective drawings with carefully measured angles. Are those paintings not
art? Gorillas and elephants have been known to produce paintings
indistinguishable from those produced by humans. Is their work art? Is a
beaver lodge art? Or a giant termite mound? Or a honeycomb with a cross
section of perfect hexagons? Where do you draw all those lines that define art
to your satisfaction? Or do you just know it when you see it? Are you sure you
can always tell a photograph from a painting? Even some fairly rudimentary
photo editors include special effects that blur that distinction.
Bob
UC
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:05:07 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : On Oct 2, 7:47 pm, "Walter R." <we...@example.com> wrote:
> : > Art (from the Latin ars, artis) designates anything that is created by
> : > humans. It is helpful to distinguish between fine art, folk art, junk art,
> : > modern art, etc.
> :
> : Right. That's PRECISELY why photographs are not 'art'. They're created
> : by machines, not by man.
>
> Is a paintbrush a machine?
No, not at all. It cannot make a painting.
> A mechanical pencil? A pen and a bottle of India
> ink? A pizza wheel? (Some painters use them to produce ships's rigging and
> other thin lines.) A hammer and chisel? Is an architectural drawing not art
> because the architect used a compass and straightedge? Or a computer? Many of
> the great masters (Leonardo da Vinci, for example) began their paintings as
> perspective drawings with carefully measured angles. Are those paintings not
> art? Gorillas and elephants have been known to produce paintings
> indistinguishable from those produced by humans. Is their work art?
Of course!
> Is a
> beaver lodge art? Or a giant termite mound?
No, those are functional.
> Or a honeycomb with a cross
> section of perfect hexagons? Where do you draw all those lines that define art
> to your satisfaction? Or do you just know it when you see it? Are you sure you
> can always tell a photograph from a painting?
No.
> Even some fairly rudimentary
> photo editors include special effects that blur that distinction.
Right.
Ken Hart
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191629941.4...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 5, 6:57 pm, Cats <ramwa...@uk2.net> wrote:
>>
>> What have sunsets got to do with it?
>
> What I am trying to say is that I have no use for trite subject
> matter, no matter how 'well' it is done. John Sexton's waterfalls are
> the same shit as everybody else's waterfalls. Time exposures of water
> running over rocks...spare me! Here's some pathettic slobs idea of
> helpful info on the topic, called "Moments of Light". Where do these
> people think up these stupid fucking names? "Listen to the Trees",
> "Quiet Light".
>
Once my sister was showing me snapshots from their trip to Alaska:
snowcapped mountains, sunsets over water, colorful forests; the type of
stuff you would see on any bank calendar (if your balance is six figures!).
I kept referring to photos as "pretty pictures" as in "that's a pretty
picture... there's another pretty picture..." Eventually, she caught on that
'pretty picture' is not exactly a compliment. I explained to her that for
public consumption, pretty pictures, just like a calendar, should be limited
to one a month!
I don't want to be surrounded by calendar photos, but on the other hand, I
don't want to be without a few of them! I have a 20x30 enlargement of a
sunset over the Gulf of Mexico that I shot from a cruise ship. It's
definately a 'pretty picture'! The subject matter is trite, the photo
quality is technically correct, the color balance is what we consider a
sunset to be. If it were horizontal, it would be a perfect bank calendar
shot, probably for August or September! And every now and then, when I'm
having a tough day, I look at it for a few minutes-- it's calming, it brings
back memories of the cruise, it evokes a pleasent emotion.
That's why we need a few trite pictures: waterfalls, sunsets, snowcaps,
autumm forests; to remind us that life can be more than the Hindenburg
bursting into flames, a fireman carrying a bleeding baby out of a building,
a plane flying into a skyscraper, and a myriad of disasters and human
cruelty captured by the hand of man on film-- life can be beautiful, and a
trained hand wielding a camera can capture it.
A bit of 'trite' can be good.
(UC: for you, I pray the Prayer of Saint Francis.)
Burt Johnson
> On Sep 10, 10:03 pm, ggomezphoto <ggomezph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > i post photos several times a week (old and new)
> >
> > check it out: www.gerrygomez.blogspot.com
>
>
> Get the fuck out of here. There are 8 billion assholes with digital
> cameras, we don't need to look at your shit or their shit.
Wow, I've only been in this group a few minutes and found my first
plonk!
What a complete jerk. I expect he would be just as big an asshole in
person, but I sometimes wonder if newsgroups bring out the worst in such
idiots...
--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
Burt Johnson
> this is the first group i ever joined, and i did not look closely at
> the group before i joined--so it was clearly my mistake. but i was
> taken aback by the hostility out there. i will look to see if i can
> delete that post. i don't know if it is possible, but i am out of the
> group.
Don't leave so quickly. Every group has their set of morons. just set a
killfile for them and ignore them.
I only joined tonight too. I am assuming this pervert is an exception,
as is true in most groups...
ggomezphoto
Oh, I still come here and read some of the posts. But I no longer
comment; the back and forth with some here (and I did try engage that
way for a bit) is just not worth the time and effort. I'd rather
spend my time taking pictures.
But thanks Burt!
Gerry
UC
I know more about photography than 99.999% of those here.
Burt Johnson
> I know more about photography than 99.999% of those here.
Too bad you know so little about being a human being though...
UC
> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I know more about photography than 99.999% of those here.
>
> Too bad you know so little about being a human being though...
Actually I am a fine, warm, tender human being, in person. I never
cook puppies or kitties and eat them. Well, not recently...
On line, however, I am aggressive....
erni...@skynet.be
Waaw, I'm impressed
SteveB
"Burt Johnson" <bu...@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote in message
news:1i5sq7o.azpequ1g5u8xeN%bu...@mindstorm-inc.com...
This is a slice of life, Burt, albeit a perverted one.
In this venue, people can anonymously shriek, swear, insult, and behave in a
juvenile manner, just as this person did. It's like throwing rocks from the
darkness, and takes about as much intellect. My guess is that he/she/it IS
a juvenile. In person in a face to face conversation, they wouldn't dare to
do such a thing, and if they did, they'd have to answer promptly.
There are lots of good helpful people here. There are also a lot of angry
lonely neurotic people with keyboards. They're like ten year olds running
around saying the f word over and over and over because they can. There are
the overeducated. There are those who think they're perfect, and their way
of doing things is the only CORRECT way. there are regular people.
Ever gone rock hunting? You have to look at a lot of ugly rocks to find the
good stuff. Don't give up because you found some of the ugly rocks. You
might never get to the real gems.
Learn to killfile and block sender, and you won't have to ever see this
person again. Of course, he'll morph, change names, and you will then
killfile that one. I have a one strike rule on certain behavior, and this
idiot is an example of the one strike rule. For others, I may give them
more strikes if they contribute useful things from time to time, and may
just be having a bad day when posting an abrasive post.
I have found that this newsgroup has one of the highest on topic ratios I
have seen. Others are consumed with petty bickering and politics. So much
that good decent on topic contributors simply give up and stop posting and
reading.
The best thing to do with a troll or a snot nosed egotistical rude teenager
is ignore them. They'll just go off and find another bridge to hide under.
Steve
SteveB
Sorry you missed the meeting. This is a discussion group, not a contest.
Steve
UC
> "Burt Johnson" <b...@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote in message
That's telling him! Whoever this person is, he deserves what he gets!
Burt Johnson
> This is a slice of life, Burt, albeit a perverted one.
'tis true. I've been to one or two other newsgroups with a pervert like
this uraniuum dense fool. Fortunately, not too many though. I guess I
have a hard time understanding people that are so lonely and inadequate
they have to try and become virtual bullies. Can't cut it in the real
world, so they kick their kicks being a bully in the virtual one.
> My guess is that he/she/it IS a juvenile.
Likely around 15, I'd guess. If any older, then they were unfortunate
enough to have their brain stop maturing at tha age anyway.
> Learn to killfile and block sender, and you won't have to ever see this
> person again.
I use and love MacSoup. It has the best newsgroup thread following
interface I have ever seen. Unfortunately, the killfile is problematic.
Most of the time it works fine, but every so often there is a name that
just won't be killed. Unfortunately, uranium seems to be one of those.
I put him in my killfile yesterday, yet his messages stilll pollute the
airways today. :-(
> The best thing to do with a troll or a snot nosed egotistical rude teenager
> is ignore them. They'll just go off and find another bridge to hide under.
I agree to ignoring being the best policy. To my surprise, the one
other group that has a uranium-like crackhead, that particular idiot is
still polluting the group after about 3 years. I find it simply amazing
anyone that young can stay indoors under a rock without taking a shower
that long...
UC
I am 57 years old and I have ZERO tolerance for stupidity. I am an
accomplished translator, tennis player, photographer, and editor.
What galls me is the incredible level of stupidity shown not only in
newsgroups, but even among so-called 'educators'.
Cats
<snip>
>
> I am 57 years old and I have ZERO tolerance for stupidity. I am an
> accomplished translator, tennis player, photographer, and editor.
None of that gives you the right to be the prize assh*le of a human
being you seem to revel in being here (and apparently other places on
Usenet). And it doesn't prevent you from displaying a staggering
level of stupidity.
> What galls me is the incredible level of stupidity shown not only in
> newsgroups, but even among so-called 'educators'.
Yes, your stupidity and rudness galls many people here. Sadly you
seem to call anyone who disagrees with you stupid. If only your
images that you have posted links to were something better than a
touch above average...
UC
> On Oct 12, 2:17 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > I am 57 years old and I have ZERO tolerance for stupidity. I am an
> > accomplished translator, tennis player, photographer, and editor.
>
> None of that gives you the right to be the prize assh*le of a human
> being you seem to revel in being here (and apparently other places on
> Usenet). And it doesn't prevent you from displaying a staggering
> level of stupidity.
>
> > What galls me is the incredible level of stupidity shown not only in
> > newsgroups, but even among so-called 'educators'.
>
> seem to call anyone who disagrees with you stupid. If only your
> images that you have posted links to were something better than a
> touch above average...
I have no interest in your opinion of my photographs, most of which
are not intended to be 'pretty pictures' but rather interesting
documents for posterity.
If you think that taking photographs of waterfalls and butterflies and
sunsets make you a good photographer, be my guest. But don't come
around here with crap like that saying "Look at my photos" because
I'll smite you!
You would not have not a clue how to make interesting photographs of
the stuff I have been working with for the last couple of year (the
old bridges, old factories, kids on bikes, etc.). That takes
considerable imagination and technical skill. Likewise with the sports
photography. I defy you to produce anything remotely as good.
But as I said, these were not made with the intent of impressing
anyone now. Have you never seen old photos of your city? Wouldn't it
have been nice for someone to document some of the details? Most
people photograph their family, friends, and places they visit. Those
photographs often are eventually discarded. They don't contain names
or identification in some cases that would be of value to anyone else.
This project that I have started is intended to create some
photographs of the last vestiges of the 'old' city. I don't have a
time machine to go back to 1911, but I can preserve what's around now
for the benefit of succeeding generations.
http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/ohiopix/places.cfm