 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / December 2004MFA?
There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on every post. He obviously knows nothing about logic, optics, physics, or chemistry. Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for incompetence. Hey, look, U.C., let's stay civil in this group, OK? You don't need to hurl insults, and clearly none of us needs to see them. Photography is a mellow and intriguing profession for some and hobby for the rest of us. We can share knowledge, views, and opinions without vindictiveness or passing judgment on one another, can't we? If you need to indulge in such--as you have here--please find another space. > There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on > every post. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for > incompetence. >There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on every >post. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for >incompetence. What ever happen to "You push the button and let Kodak do the rest". Larryp > What ever happen to "You push the button and let Kodak do the rest". They downsized that option, to pursue the digital photo market.  SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on > every post. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for > incompetence. Why would you need to know any of the above four disciplines for a Masters in Fine Art? Aren't you one of those who profess Photography isn't "Art"? Something should be shutdown due to incompetence, but methinks it's your computer! >>There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on >>every post. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Something should be shutdown due to incompetence, but methinks it's your > computer! Unfair to criticise an inanimate object for the shortcomings of its operator. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 11:45:00 up 1 day, 14:26, 3 users, load average: 4.11, 4.14, 4.12 > Unfair to criticise an inanimate object for the shortcomings of its > operator. My Apologies ;~) : > There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on : > every post. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : > Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for : > incompetence. : Why would you need to know any of the above four disciplines for a Masters : in Fine Art? : Aren't you one of those who profess Photography isn't "Art"? : Something should be shutdown due to incompetence, but methinks it's your : computer! This newsgroup is far more informational when we all ignore him. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > > There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on > > every post. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Aren't you one of those who profess Photography isn't "Art"? Photography not only ISN'T art, it CANNOT BE art. >>>There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on >>>every post. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Photography not only ISN'T art, it CANNOT BE art. If it cannot be art, how is it that some photographs are better than others? That some can cause a deeply moving experience for the viewer? That a very few can touch one's very soul? Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 21:15:00 up 1 day, 23:56, 3 users, load average: 4.03, 4.17, 4.14 On 12/4/2004 6:19 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus: >>>> There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on >>>> every post. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > others? That some can cause a deeply moving experience for the viewer? > That a very few can touch one's very soul? Lemme jump in here, being one of the few folks (on the planet, I'm guessing) who actually somewhat shares MS's view of photography/art (though I'm not quite so absolutist about it): The fact that something moves the viewer doesn't make it art: art requires other attributes in order to be art. Lots of things can cause "deeply moving experience[s]", but not all of them are art. However, even if photographs aren't art (as I believe they are not), there are certainly many aspects of a photograph that can make one better than another. Some of these things are fairly well agreed upon by those who take, view and criticize photographs, while others are, let's say, a lot more subjective. Which brings me to an issue I've been wanting to raise with regard to this whole "is photography art?" thing, or more properly, the subject you broached, the relative merit of photographs. That is a pretty subjective matter, but I find it interesting that this isn't true certain artforms, particularly music. In music, there are actually pretty objective standards by which you can measure ability and competence, which is what happens, for instance, when one auditions for a position in an orchestra. The judges can pretty well tell who's "better" than who. (Of course, there are lots of other aspects of music that are lots more subjective.) I think it's harder, though, to tell whether one photograph is better than another. SignatureDon't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom. > On 12/4/2004 6:19 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Lemme jump in here, No. <snip > Which brings me to an issue I've been wanting to raise with regard to this > whole "is photography art?" thing, or more properly, the subject you broached, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that are lots more subjective.) I think it's harder, though, to tell whether > one photograph is better than another. I don't think so. I think it's quite easy. But the picks that judges make in photo contests often astound me. > On 12/4/2004 6:19 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > that are lots more subjective.) I think it's harder, though, to tell whether > one photograph is better than another. You are obviously trolling here, but just in case you are not I want to enlighten you. I am not going to claim to be an expert in art history or critisism, just point to some who are. The whole "is photography art" debate is as old as the medium itself. You are stuck in the early part of the last century in your thinking. People who have the view that photography cannot be art are the same people who walk into the Abstract Expressionism wing at MoMA and say "I could paint that!" [SNIP] >> Which brings me to an issue I've been wanting to raise with regard to >> this [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > walk into the Abstract Expressionism wing at MoMA and say "I could > paint that!" First, Jef, I agree with you. I believe the question has been answered, however, there are many who do not accept the answer. I don't believe David is trolling. Second, David, Using your analogy of music. Do you believe a musician is an artist if he/she only sings cover versions? I do as they have performed their own interpretation of the music. The means to measure and judge their abilities (of which you spoke) are simply verifying their technical skills and not their artistic renderings. If you agree, then why is a photographer any less of an artist as they have done nothing less or more? He/she has interpreted the scene and created an image of the scene as they view it using competent skills. Not much different from the cover singer. Regardless of text books and teachings (they are not always correct as they are not always current), I believe the definition of art is made by the viewing population at large. Casual photography at the family reunion is not art, on this we'll almost all agree. However, photography as a medium can be art as the population at large has accepted photographs to be art. Placing photographs in an art museum is one means to prove this test. Whether or not my pictures are art, that decision is not mine, except in my own personal point of view (and sadly, not every one of them is:~). I cannot believe photography, as a medium, is any less of a form of art than the Bozo who squirt paint out of his anus onto a canvas and calls it a painting and it is therefore immediately considered art. Third, All, I did not wish to start the "photography, is it art" question. I am truly sorry it has degenerated into that topic. Too many emotions and firmly held beliefs there. Worse than religion or politics. Anyway, what I was trying to say to UC is that a person with a MFA is more likely to understand the aesthetics of photography than someone who's major claim to fame in life is working in a camera store. Jim > Regardless of text books and teachings (they are not always correct as > they are not always current), I believe the definition of art is made by the > viewing population at large. Casual photography at the family reunion is > not art, on this we'll almost all agree. However, photography as a medium > can be art as the population at large has accepted photographs to be art. > Placing photographs in an art museum is one means to prove this test. Oh, please! That is no 'test'! Photographs need to be maintained, especially after the photographer has passed away. Who's going to take care of them? Photographs are made to be looked at. Where are you going to put photography so people can see it? An 'art' museum is a convenient place for exhibiting and preserving photographs. Many photographs that are simply records of the past (with no pretentions of artistry) are kept by museums too, simply because museums have the facilities to keep them in good condition and provide access to them when demanded. Not every community can support an historical museum, a natural history museum, and an art museum: so it is not uncommon for a given facility to serve all these needs. > Third, All, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > understand the aesthetics of photography than someone who's major claim to > fame in life is working in a camera store. I have a BA in Philosophy. I have published at the Ph.D. level. Have you? I put myself through college working in a camera store. So what? Some Ph.D.'s end up as truck drivers. > Jim > I have a BA in Philosophy. I have published at the Ph.D. level. Have > you? > > I put myself through college working in a camera store. So what? Some > Ph.D.'s end up as truck drivers. You know nothing about me. Who, what, my background, my education level, nothing. I like it that way and intend on keeping it so. You judged others based on irrational measures and I did the same to you. Don't like it? Then don't do it! : You know nothing about me. Who, what, my background, my education level, : nothing. I like it that way and intend on keeping it so. You judged others : based on irrational measures and I did the same to you. Don't like it? : Then don't do it! Ignore him. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com "Uranium Committee" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:9c532379.0412051232.6adcba5f@posting.google.com... > > I have a BA in Philosophy. I have published at the Ph.D. level. PSHAW! "Published at the Ph.D. level" means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, especially from the claimant. How so? Have you done that? Have you torn to shreds the poor work of major scholars? On 12/5/2004 7:51 AM Jim Phelps spake thus: > First, Jef, > > I agree with you. I believe the question has been answered, however, > there are many who do not accept the answer. I don't believe David is > trolling. Thanks for that. > Second, David, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > interpreted the scene and created an image of the scene as they view it > using competent skills. Not much different from the cover singer. I didn't mean to incite a new round of arguments along the lines of "is music art?" (though that is certainly an open question, I think, regarding certain forms of music). I just wanted to point out that in music, there are fairly objective standards against which performance can be measured: intonation, tone quality, clarity, etc. As opposed to photography, which doesn't have such clear-cut benchmarks for judging quality. Which is surprising to me, since I would think that music would be the more impermanent, therefore harder-to-judge, medium. > Third, All, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > understand the aesthetics of photography than someone who's major claim to > fame in life is working in a camera store. Fair enough, but consider this: consider the possibility for a moment that photography *isn't* art. (I'm not trying to convince you, just using this as a thought experiment to make another point.) So what? Does it matter? As MS has said, rightly I believe, photography is sui generis. Therefore, it's worthy of respect and admiration regardless of whether it's "art" or not. Doesn't degrade it one bit. SignatureDon't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom. > On 12/5/2004 7:51 AM Jim Phelps spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks for that. If not what you do often mimics a troll about as closely as one can mimick... > > Second, David, > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > -- > Don't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom. > If not what you do often mimics a troll about as closely > as one can mimick... Like only showing up when there's trouble to start, I must concur. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 "Anyway, what I was trying to say to UC is that a person with a MFA is more likely to understand the aesthetics of photography than someone who's major claim to fame in life is working in a camera store." Hardly. I have a degree in philosophy, as I said. Part iof my studies included aesthetic theory. From Plato to Kant and beyond. Not that I agree with any one of them, the fact is that aesthetics is the province of philosophers above all. There are sound philosophical reasons why photography cannot be 'art'. I doubt seriously whether in an MFA program the rigor typical of a philosophical approach is even attempted. > Regardless of text books and teachings (they are not always correct as > they are not always current), I believe the definition of art is made by > the viewing population at large. [...] If the public defines what is art, then the marketplace is the rule, and if that is true then the plethora of calendar images, Elvis-on-Velvet, and Sponge Bob Square Pants is high art. See how foolish that is? 'Art', for better or worse, is determined by scholars, curators, critics (real critics, not popular opinion spewers), and historians. > If the public defines what is art, then the marketplace is the rule, and > if that is true then the plethora of calendar images, Elvis-on-Velvet, and > Sponge Bob Square Pants is high art. > > See how foolish that is? I disagree that is a valid test. With the exception of in an Arkansas trailer park, Elvis on anything is not art and the same goes for dogs playing poker. I clearly stated the population at large, or in other word, the majority of the population must agree it's art. Nine year olds do not judge what is art, but lets face it, the renderer of those cartoons are considered to be artist, are they not? If the public does not decide what is art or what isn't, then who does? I sincerely hope you will not suggest some Government body or MS! > If the public does not decide what is art or what isn't, then who does? I > sincerely hope you will not suggest some Government body or MS! I wrote to answer that. Read it. >> If the public does not decide what is art or what isn't, then who does? >> I sincerely hope you will not suggest some Government body or MS! > > I wrote to answer that. Read it. Missed it. Sorry, I thought the post was over with the short line. Then, if a curator exhibits Ansel Adams' photos in his art museum, and subsequently the exhibit travels to other art museums, then this would be a strong suggestion the art establishment has accepted photos to be artistic? If so, this has happened many times over with many different 'artists'. IMHO this would be an indication that photography can, as a medium, be an art form and has been accepted by the art establishment as a form of art. Not to say every photo is a work of art just like every painting/sculpture/"add your favorite genre here" is not as well. And that's what I've been saying all along. The same argument applies to critics and historians. Quite possibly scholars as well, I just cannot cite an example of one. If I'm wrong, please educate me. I am trying to learn the truth (and not according to the casual isotope). No, it isn't. as I said, 'art' museums are used to exhibit many things. There is often no other venue. No, it isn't. As I said, 'art' museums are used to exhibit many things. There is often no other venue. No, it isn't. As I said, 'art' museums are used to exhibit many things. There is often no other venue. > >> If the public does not decide what is art or what isn't, then who does? > >> I sincerely hope you will not suggest some Government body or MS! [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If I'm wrong, please educate me. I am trying to learn the truth (and not > according to the casual isotope). Your "not" wrong, and it does "not" take a PhD to figure it out. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Your "not" wrong, and it does "not" take a PhD to figure it out. Thank you. I've always felt that art to me may not be art to another. It's a personal thing. So to come out and so absolutely say photography can't be art is like saying 70 degree Fahrenheit water can't be wet (trying to be specific for all the pickers of nits). We cannot have a situation where 'what's art to me may not be art to another'. The criteria used must be 'philosophical', and cannot be based on a survey or on public opinion. What makes art 'art' is that it is: 1) Representational (more or less) 2) Not causally linked to anything else for its subject matter By criterion 1, a fossil could be art because it is representational (that is, it is a 'likeness' of something, such as a sea-shell. By criterion 2, a fossil cannot be 'art' because it is causally linked to the existence of something else. So, fossils are not 'art'. A man-made object torned out on a lathe or whittled that looked exactly like a fossil would be art. One could imagine someone who is gifted enough to be able to turn out very good pieces that look exactly like fossils. He sculpts raw materials by hand. Is that art? Yes. Why? Because there is no causal connection between the existence of the fossil and the artwork. No, let us consider someone who makes copies of fossils (through molding or a similar process) and mass-produces them. Is that art? No. Why? Because there is a causal connection between the existence of the fossil and the reproduction. > We cannot have a situation where 'what's art to me may not be > art to another'. > > The criteria used must be 'philosophical', and cannot be based > on a survey or on public opinion. What makes art 'art' is that > it is: Wakey wakey -- art relates to our culture. There is not /one/ definition of art. There are different cultures around the world and they are constantly changing. Still... we have to be able to talk about art. Let us do that. Many art institutions of today are /not/ interested in the art itself but on its impact on society. What about your art definition then? > 1) Representational (more or less) > > 2) Not causally linked to anything else for its subject matter Sorry... It does not say anything about the impact on society. What does it say? That a child's painting is art but Cindy Sherman's photographs are not art? That definition does not interest me. So? What do I care what interests you? I supplied a philosophical criterion of what can be art. Photography CANNOT be art. It doesn't meet the criteria. Photography is exactly like a fossil, and a fossil cannot be art. > So? What do I care what interests you? > > I supplied a philosophical criterion of what can be art. Photography > CANNOT be art. It doesn't meet the criteria. Photography is exactly > like a fossil, and a fossil cannot be art. Photography is not the only thing that is exactly like a fossil, I suppose. ;-) Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 09:35:00 up 4 days, 12:16, 3 users, load average: 4.44, 4.29, 4.27 No, of course it isn't. Why bring that up? uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote: >> I supplied a philosophical criterion of what can be art. Photography >> CANNOT be art. It doesn't meet the criteria. Photography is exactly >> like a fossil, and a fossil cannot be art. Please look to Man Ray for photographs that speak to the art world. I am certain that will just ruin your day. On 12/7/2004 8:49 AM jjs spake thus: > uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Please look to Man Ray for photographs that speak to the art world. I am > certain that will just ruin your day. Um, are you referring to his photographs or his photo*grams*? Two different animals, one art, one not. SignatureDon't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom. > On 12/7/2004 8:49 AM jjs spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Um, are you referring to his photographs or his photo*grams*? Two different > animals, one art, one not. Photograms _ARE_ photographs. No difference. Just as there's no difference between you and a trolling crossposter... > -- > Don't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom. No, they're not. Photographs are made by a lens. On 12/7/2004 9:44 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: >> On 12/7/2004 8:49 AM jjs spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Photograms _ARE_ photographs. No difference. My advice is, don't flaunt your ignorance; learn to live with it. It's not becoming. SignatureDon't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom. > On 12/7/2004 9:44 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > My advice is, don't flaunt your ignorance; learn to live with it. It's not > becoming. From someone who apparently has neither photographs or photograms worth showing. Stop yaking about art and put up or shut up. All you do is trash other people continually. So, let's see your work, see if your art matches your mouth... > From someone who apparently has neither photographs or > photograms worth showing. Stop yaking about art and > put up or shut up. All you do is trash other people > continually. So, let's see your work, see if your > art matches your mouth... I seriously doubt the brother of Michael Scarpetti has any talent what so ever. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > From someone who apparently has neither photographs or > > photograms worth showing. Stop yaking about art and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I seriously doubt the brother of Michael Scarpetti has any talent > what so ever. Oh, but I want to find out! Steve Simmons must see a lot of good work come across his publishing desk. So I propose we send Nebezahl's work there for a real critique. Come on, Steve will fair despite Davy being his nsg nemesis and harasser. We could have a juried nsg show, see who is a real photographer vs who's just a troll :) > -- > LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable > to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Oh, but I want to find out! Steve Simmons must see > a lot of good work come across his publishing desk. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > show, see who is a real photographer vs who's just a > troll :) I think its a good, idea. I can think of less involved parties in this; respected judges though. Why do do you think people like "them harassers" have the attitude they do, publishing is very difficult even for people like you and I who actually have talent ;-) Must be a bitter pill to be completely devoid of imagination. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > Oh, but I want to find out! Steve Simmons must see > > a lot of good work come across his publishing desk. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Must be a bitter pill to be completely devoid of imagination. Well, I can't toot my own talent, in all humility ;) Rick Rosen suggested in largeformat the nsg posters have a show. I suggested this also (if only to weed out the photogs from the trolls.) I'd contribute 3-4, 5 prints. I'd like to see some work by long time posters. Maybe Simmons would help organize. > LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank > > "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, > or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, > is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable > to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> > Oh, but I want to find out! Steve Simmons must see >> > a lot of good work come across his publishing desk. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >5 prints. I'd like to see some work by long time posters. >Maybe Simmons would help organize. AMazing! After all these posts and flamewars, you guys actually cmae up with a good idea. Congrats, Robert Vervoordt, MFA > >> > Oh, but I want to find out! Steve Simmons must see > >> > a lot of good work come across his publishing desk. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > After all these posts and flamewars, you guys actually cmae up with a > good idea. Not quite so new :) I've thought about it before. Could be a good idea and possibly a good exhibit. And NM might be an ideal place. Hey, a rec.photo.darkroom/.equipment. largeformat show sponsered by View Camera? > Congrats, > > Robert Vervoordt, MFA No photography meets the necessary criteria for 'art'. There are necessary conditions and sufficient conditions for something to be 'art'. Photography doesn't meet either. A crayon drawing by a 3-year old meets the necessary conditions, but not the sufficient conditions. It is therefore not 'art'. > > We cannot have a situation where 'what's art to me may not be > > art to another'. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Sherman's photographs are not art? That definition does not > interest me. How true, look at what historians classify as art (artifacts)..common vessels found on the sea floor used to transport goods, from Greece, Rome - etc. These were things that effected culture and were taken for granted during the time they were used. Just because one does not deem something to have a philosophical value to oneself, does not for all time declassify it as art. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 These were not 'works of art' than and they aren't now. The vases were just vases and are still vases. They are cultural artifacts, that's why they are valuable. "Just because one does not deem something to have a philosophical value to oneself, does not for all time declassify it as art." You misunderstand. To say whether something is 'art' or not one must have some reasonable criteria. Agreed? 'Yes', you say. OK then, why do we not call a fossil 'art'? 1. Because it's natural, not man-made. 2. Because it has no 'subject matter'. 3. Because it depends on the existence of something else (the bones of a dead creature) to be created. It is linked causally to the bones of the dead creature. It forms around them. 1. Art is man-made, not natural. 2. Art has 'subject matter'/ 3. Art does not depend on the existence of something else to be created. It is not linked causally to the existence of anything else for its content. One can paint a unicorn or other fabulous creature. One will not find a fossil of a unicorn. Ignore him, please. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com >> 1) Representational (more or less) >> >> 2) Not causally linked to anything else for its subject matter > > Sorry... It does not say anything about the impact on society. > [...] At first glance you seem to be saying that art must conform to some political neccessity. Can you elaborate and tell us what photographs fulfill your requisites? > At first glance you seem to be saying that art must conform > to some political neccessity. I was not trying to say that. > Can you elaborate and tell us what photographs fulfill your > requisites? It was not my requisites. Put it this way. Postmodernism thinks ''interesting'' art has an interesting relationship to a group of ''consumers''. >> At first glance you seem to be saying that art must conform >> to some political neccessity. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Put it this way. Postmodernism thinks ''interesting'' art has an > interesting relationship to a group of ''consumers''. Postmodernism is a self-serving mess that yields easily to lightweight scholarship. It's a dark corner of mad yackings in the halls of discourse analysis. I will guess that you are referring to the idea that western art is defined by an elite to serve themselves, and to that I would largely agree. I posted earlier that art was largely determined by historians, curators and critics. But that's only a guess. It is up to you to be more specific. > I will guess that you are referring to the idea that western > art is defined by an elite to serve themselves, I was not referring to that idea. >> I will guess that you are referring to the idea that western >> art is defined by an elite to serve themselves, > > I was not referring to that idea. Well, if you are only going to elude the discussion, why did you even get into it? It is up to you to be specific. This is not a guessing game. > Well, if you are only going to elude the discussion, why did > you even get into it? It is up to you to be specific. This is > not a guessing game. You have stated your view. MS/UC has stated his. I have tried to state a simplified postmodern view. Yes... simplified; not specified. This is /not/ an art group and I don't think there is a need to be more specific to answer the question whatever photographs are art or not. A dialog about different views would be nice but I don't feel as if the current atmosphere allows it. What more is there to do? To persuade each other? To prove that one view is better than the other? To discredit other views as you did in your previous post? Sorry but I don't think there is a right or wrong in this question and I don't have time to play games. On 12/8/2004 8:11 AM Jörgen Persson spake thus: >> Well, if you are only going to elude the discussion, why did >> you even get into it? It is up to you to be specific. This is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > post? Sorry but I don't think there is a right or wrong in this > question and I don't have time to play games. Fair enough. I do have some interest in one assertion here (MS's) concerning what is art and what is not. After cogitating on that assertion a bit, it makes sense to me--that it's only art if it meets the criteria he stated (that it be manmade, have "subject matter" and not be causally linked to anything else). Those seem like reasonable criteria. HOWEVER--and this is a big caveat--I wonder just who, besides MS, actually subscribes to this thesis? If it's his and his alone, then, well, we can pretty well just reject it out of hand. I honestly am not well read enough about art to know the answers to this. Maybe it's time to pick up a copy of Berger or someone and read up. SignatureDon't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom. > On 12/8/2004 8:11 AM Jörgen Persson spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > have "subject matter" and not be causally linked to anything else). Those seem > like reasonable criteria. Nonsense. > HOWEVER--and this is a big caveat--I wonder just who, besides MS, actually > subscribes to this thesis? If it's his and his alone, then, well, we can > pretty well just reject it out of hand. > > I honestly am not well read enough about art to know the answers to this. > Maybe it's time to pick up a copy of Berger or someone and read up. HANS Berger? give me a break... try taking a few art history classes. I don't know who does or doesn't, but these seem reasonable criteria. Perhaps no-one has ever spelled them out in such a way. We don't call what we find along the seashore (shells, rocks, etc.) or inside clams (pearls) 'art'. They may be beautiful (at least most people find pearls beautiful), but there has to be some underlying reason why people don't consider pearls, or fossils, or sea-shells 'art'. the fact that people don't consider such things 'art' is a given. the question is 'why?'. I believe it's because pearls, sea-shells and fossils don't satisfy the criteria of being manmade, having "subject matter" and not being causally linked to anything else. > > Well, if you are only going to elude the discussion, why did > > you even get into it? It is up to you to be specific. This is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't think there is a need to be more specific to answer the > question whatever photographs are art or not. Of course not. Because they are and that was decided long before any of us were born. Witness Stieglitz... > A dialog about different views would be nice but I don't feel as > if the current atmosphere allows it. What more is there to do? > To persuade each other? To prove that one view is better than > the other? To discredit other views as you did in your previous > post? Sorry but I don't think there is a right or wrong in this > question and I don't have time to play games. ah, but John S. loves games... >> Yes... simplified; not specified. This is /not/ an art group >> and I don't think there is a need to be more specific to >> answer the question whatever photographs are art or not. > > Of course not. Because they are and that was decided long > before any of us were born. Witness Stieglitz... Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! This was an open question among art critics for a long time because it is a hard question. Today most of them agree photography is art. You can read much more about it in ''Trace and Transformation'' by Joel Eisinger. Sincerely, Jörgen > >> Yes... simplified; not specified. This is /not/ an art group > >> and I don't think there is a need to be more specific to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > This was an open question among art critics for a long time > because it is a hard question. If I may say without offending, it's also a stupid retreaded question. >Today most of them agree > photography is art. You can read much more about it in ''Trace > and Transformation'' by Joel Eisinger. I am well aware of the history and [lame] controversy regarding photography as art. It was dreamed up by a bunch of aristocratic art critics and <gasp> painters who had a fear photography was about to take away their livelihoods. Snobs, in otherwords. Fortunately photography was so massively popular it overcame both that and the silly idiots (pictorialists) who then insisted a photograph could not be "art" unless it looked like something other than a photograph. Photographers who paid attention to this "controversy" typically made horrid, pretentious photographs denying the very medium they were using and which are now, IMO, only a historical curiousity, not examples of great "art." Photographers who paid no attention to it simply accepted the limitations of the medium and went about the business of making photographs. When people talk about great 19th century photographers the names that are most often mentioned today in conjunction with photography as art are those who simply made photographs (such as Timothy O'Sullivan), and those photographs are considered some of the best examples in history of photography as art. > Fortunately photography was so massively popular it overcame > both that and the silly idiots (pictorialists) who then > insisted a photograph could not be "art" unless it looked like > something other than a photograph. ...and the reason to my reaction -- Stieglitz started out as a pictorialist. Yes it is a lame question from todays perspective. Maybe it was a conspiracy, maybe it was not. It still was a controversy and I try to respect that heritage. Besides... this question has learnt me a great deal about photography and art theory. Sincerely, Jörgen > > Fortunately photography was so massively popular it overcame > > both that and the silly idiots (pictorialists) who then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ...and the reason to my reaction -- Stieglitz started out as a > pictorialist. But he didn't remain one and rather religiously rejected it. > Yes it is a lame question from todays perspective. Maybe it was > a conspiracy, maybe it was not. It still was a controversy and > I try to respect that heritage. Besides... this question has > learnt me a great deal about photography and art theory. Yes it is photography's heritage and there are useful things to be learned from it. I just don't think the "is it art or not" argument to be relevant anymore. > Sincerely, > Jörgen Adams is a pictorialist. Rather than messing with focus and difffusion, he messed with tones. It's the same thing. > Adams is a pictorialist. Rather than messing with focus and difffusion, > he messed with tones. It's the same thing. Pictorialism wasn't simply about soft focus. In fact, when Henry Peach Robinson heard negative and print tonality were sensitometerictly related to exposure and could be so controlled, he rejected photography all together as too scientific. Zone system is basic sensitometry, not pictorialism. > > Adams is a pictorialist. Rather than messing with focus and difffusion, > > he messed with tones. It's the same thing. At least he knew it could be art. > Pictorialism wasn't simply about soft focus. In > fact, when Henry Peach Robinson heard negative and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Zone system is basic sensitometry, not pictorialism. Right you are!! Ironic someone so concerned about whether others practice a working knowledge of chemistry, physics and philosophy is so against someone who actually did the math, knew the chemistry, and had a working philosophy that others appreciated. "Jealousy"? I smell a rat <Fink>. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Where did Adams say that photography was 'art'? Adams was actually quite ignorant of some aspects of photo chemistry. He was demonstrably wrong about a great deal of it. Where did I say anything about ZS being pictorialistic? I said ADAMS was a pictorialist, and he WAS. Pictorialism evolved parallel to painting. > Where did I say anything about ZS being pictorialistic? I said ADAMS > was a pictorialist, and he WAS. Pictorialism evolved parallel to > painting. troll dribble. And just where is the guy who started this thread? Could Nebenzahl and MS be one in the same? I don't think that's even possible! On 12/10/2004 6:47 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: >> Where did I say anything about ZS being pictorialistic? I said ADAMS >> was a pictorialist, and he WAS. Pictorialism evolved parallel to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Could Nebenzahl and MS be one in the same? Please don't confuse me with that schmo. I may be many things, but a Bush-supporting Republican ain't one of them. SignatureDon't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom. > On 12/10/2004 6:47 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I may be many things, but a Bush-supporting Republican ain't one of them. oh now, let's not define a schmo by his politics, even if it fits ;) I happen to like _some_ republicans. Some of my best friends are D_________. There's always hope for them.... : > I may be many things, but a Bush-supporting Republican ain't one of them. : oh now, let's not define a schmo by his politics, even if it fits ;) : I happen to like _some_ republicans. Do you like me? :-) SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > I may be many things, but a Bush-supporting Republican ain't one of them. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do you like me? :-) Oh sure frank, but don't expect me not to admonish you :) Let me qualify that. The republican party is wildly out of balance. It's become a partisan hate factory churing out self rightous moralists bent on governmental and constitutional iconoclasm. A faux religous state is their preference. I happen to believe in our government, they believe in the supremecy of right wing talk radio. It isn't a matter of liking someone personally; one of my best friends is the republican party chair in his county. It's a matter of an elected official's political standards (i.e., difference between true conservatives and overzealous right wing buffoons.) There's a movement in my state by moderate republicans to "take back our party" from the extremists who think right wing political views are the same thing as their religious views. More power to them. > > Do you like me? :-) > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > More power to them. Pretty much sums it up, I've been a Rep since 18. I didn't vote GWB 1 or two. I've been toying with going Independent, but that means here in MD I can not vote in the Primary,....and I do like to have some say at that level of the election process. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > > Do you like me? :-) > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > MD I can not vote in the Primary,....and I do like to have some say > at that level of the election process. Increasingly OT but I think a major problem with our political/election system (aside from the odious fact that we've painted ourselves into a partisan corner through a two-party system), is the caucus system, whereby a few overzealous paticipants pick the candidates we then have no choice but to vote for. As I told my friend (I am an independent...) "you guys need to come up with better candidates than Bush." Completely open primaries where everyone can vote on any candidate would solve this. Course both Dems and Repubs are against any such political openness and fairness. >Completely open primaries where everyone can vote >on any candidate would solve this. Course both Dems >and Repubs are against any such political openness >and fairness. Three words that strike fear into every partizan politico's heart : Campaign Finance Reform Pull the plug on their funding and see how fast a half-dozen little parties are formed. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email > >Completely open primaries where everyone can vote > >on any candidate would solve this. Course both Dems [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Pull the plug on their funding and see how fast a half-dozen > little parties are formed. And what? Actually _practice_ democracy instead of pay lip service to it? :^) You might get accused of being anti-american. Money is "free speech," you know. Scalia says so. >> >Completely open primaries where everyone can vote >> >on any candidate would solve this. Course both Dems [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >And what? Actually _practice_ democracy instead of >pay lip service to it? :^) It would be interesting wouldn't it ? A government by the people and for the people ? Gads ! Anarchy ! >You might get accused of being anti-american. And I admit that in her current state I am. >Money is "free speech," you know. Scalia says so. Yep. He's something. I'm not sure what. Supposed to be a conservative. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email > >> >Completely open primaries where everyone can vote > >> >on any candidate would solve this. Course both Dems [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Yep. He's something. I'm not sure what. Supposed to be a > conservative. Dubya's hunting buddy and corporate lackey? : > : > I may be many things, but a Bush-supporting Republican ain't one of them. : > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : > : > Do you like me? :-) : Oh sure frank, but don't expect me not to admonish you :) That's fine. You may have noticed that I don't mind a good debate. :-) : Let me qualify that. The republican party is wildly out : of balance. It's become a partisan hate factory churing : out self rightous moralists bent on governmental and : constitutional iconoclasm. A faux religous state is their : preference. I happen to believe in our government, they : believe in the supremecy of right wing talk radio. You're confusing the Republicans with the democrats. You've also confused right wing talk radio with mainstream old media. : It isn't a matter of liking someone personally; one of my : best friends is the republican party chair in his county. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : extremists who think right wing political views are the : same thing as their religious views. It's good to be a member of a party that allows dissention by its members. The dems would do better if they did the same. Since this is way off topic here you can have the last word in this since it's my last post. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com Way ta go, Frankie! You know I have no respect for you at all photographically, but politically you're OK in my book! > : > : > I may be many things, but a Bush-supporting Republican ain't one of them. > : > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You're confusing the Republicans with the democrats. You've also > confused right wing talk radio with mainstream old media. Hardly. I rarely egt those differences confused. > : It isn't a matter of liking someone personally; one of my > : best friends is the republican party chair in his county. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's good to be a member of a party that allows dissention by its > members. The dems would do better if they did the same. In the current version of the republican party, it's tow the party line on social conservative issue or you're not on God's side. Just look how they attack and ridicule (_especially_ RW talk radio) any moderate republican like Arlen Specter who dares admit the plurality of our nation should be taken into consideration by the republican party... > Since this is way off topic here you can have the last word in this > since it's my last post. mine also. > It's good to be a member of a party that allows dissention by its > members. The dems would do better if they did the same. It is a fine line between ultra-liberal politics and facisim. Hard-core Republicans are right up front with their declarations of belief, while an ultra-liberal will hide his agenda (if he even knows what the hell it is) in rules and expects the same of others so that they all live in denial. I have a few good friends who are D________. There's still hope for them. But never confuse me with a pro-labor, pinko, wimpy, F_____-loving , tree-hugging piece of crap! >I may be many things, but a Bush-supporting Republican ain't one of them. I guess there's hope for you yet then. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email If we all ignored the troll he and his posts will go away. Please ignore him. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com Photographs are not 'art' and CANNOT be 'art'. >> Well, if you are only going to elude the discussion, why did >> you even get into it? It is up to you to be specific. This is >> not a guessing game. > > You have stated your view. MS/UC has stated his. I have tried to > state a simplified postmodern view. You stated nothing at all but a very short nonsequtor! >[...] Sorry but I don't think there is a right or wrong in this > question Post-modern to be sure, and typical relativist. Nonsense. > and I don't have time to play games. You have enough time to make wordy, but empty posts. > >> Well, if you are only going to elude the discussion, why did > >> you even get into it? It is up to you to be specific. This is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You stated nothing at all but a very short nonsequtor! ah um, it's "non sequitur." > You have enough time to make wordy, but empty posts. A bit like Stafford's photo/art knowledge... The criteria used must be 'philosophical', and cannot be based on a survey or public opinion. What makes art 'art' is that it is: 1) Representational (more or less) 2) Not causally linked to anything else for its subject matter By criterion 1, a fossil could be art because it is representational (that is, it is a 'likeness' of something, such as a sea-shell. By criterion 2, a fossil cannot be 'art' because it is causally linked to the existence of something else. So, fossils are not 'art'. A man-made object torned out on a lathe or whittled that looked exactly like a fossil would be art. One could imagine someone who is gifted enough to be able to turn out very good pieces that look exactly like fossils. He sculpts raw materials by hand. Is that art? Yes. Why? Because there is no causal connection between the existence of the fossil and the artwork. No, let us consider someone who makes copies of fossils (through molding or a similar process) and mass-produces them. Is that art? No. Why? Because there is a causal connection between the existence of the fossil and the reproduction. >People who >have the view that photography cannot be art are the same people who >walk into the Abstract Expressionism wing at MoMA and say "I could >paint that!" Um, I could paint that. SignaturePete McCutchen > Which brings me to an issue I've been wanting to raise with regard to this > whole "is photography art?" thing, or more properly, the subject you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it's harder, though, to tell whether one photograph is better than > another. Agreed. There is a profound difference between judging the performance of a craft from the outcome of the performance. A musical piece is given the muscian and she is asked to play it, and not neccessarily (indeed, rarely) to interpret it. A similar judging kind of circumstance might be to give a photographer a still-life setup and ask him to photograph it to certain outcomes. Then there is the separate issue of listening to the outcome (recording) of a musician's work and viewing a photograph. Many, many "musicians" of some popularity were just the worst damned craftsmen but due to certain factors became popular, albeit temporarily. I'm sure many can point to these terrible examples of music/art. >> If it cannot be art, how is it that some photographs are better than >> others? That some can cause a deeply moving experience for the viewer? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >who actually somewhat shares MS's view of photography/art (though I'm not >quite so absolutist about it): I think you're philosophically confused here. In particular, words have meanings because of social conventions. If everybody else uses the term "art" to include photography, then that's what the word means. As Wittgenstein put it, "the meaning of a word is its use in language." Words mean things because there's a social consensus about their meaning. We call a "chicken" a "chicken" not because it has some Platonic chickenality; we call it that because we have social conventions about what the word "chicken" means. If you said "everybody else thinks that this type of bird is a chicken, except for me," people would think you mad. And they'd be right. The fact that they call it a chicken is what makes it so. Likewise, art. I observe that ther |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message