Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / February 2006
Musings about Photography as an Art
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Mike - 10 Feb 2006 22:42 GMT I have not yet decided whether or not I consider photography an "art".
Consider this: There is much skill and creativity that goes into journalism. For example, I consider many of the writers at Sports Illustrated, National Geographic, etc as top-notch who are very creative. They write and interpret everyday life around them. Yet I don't consider them "artists". Margaret Mitchell (Gone with the Wind) might be an artist, but not Peter King (Sports Illustrated).
Hmmm...yet when I see a beautiful "photograph" in a museum, I often see it as a "work of art".
Speaking of photographs, I certainly consider my framed prints, created with my lab's local LightJet printer, as "photographs" regardless whether the input was created by scanning film or by scanning the charges generated by a CCD device. Apparently others in this group think these things hanging on my wall cannot be "photographs" if any part of the process is digital. They are only "images". LOL!
UC - 10 Feb 2006 23:02 GMT The word 'Picture' is etymologically related to painting.
Middle English, from Latin pictura, from pictus (past participle of pingere to paint) + -ura -ure * more at PAINT
Photographs are not 'pictures'.
'Pictures' (paintings) hanging in a gallery are works of art. Painting, sculptures, etc., are 'fine arts' (as opposed to the decorative arts, like wallpaper, woodwork, ornaments on houses, etc.).
"1 : of or relating to decoration : serving to decorate: as a : having a purely ornamental function *its buildings were utilitarian rather than decorative- Green Peyton* b of a work of art : producing immediate sensory satisfaction without regard to meaning *to demand that all art be decorative is a limitation of the material of art- John Dewey* c : suitable for decorating or embellishing : enhancing in attractiveness *his delight in the use of decorative high-sounding words- Alvin Redman
Photographs have their own name (which is not to be confused with 'pictures'). A photograph can be made digitally or chemically, but in neither case is it remotely one of the fine arts.
> I have not yet decided whether or not I consider photography an "art". > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > things hanging on my wall cannot be "photographs" if any part of the > process is digital. They are only "images". LOL! John - 10 Feb 2006 23:56 GMT >Speaking of photographs, I certainly consider my framed prints, created >with my lab's local LightJet printer, as "photographs" regardless whether >the input was created by scanning film or by scanning the charges >generated by a CCD device. Interesting. Then perhaps I should call my childrens coloring books "albums" ;>)
It ain't analog -> it ain't photography. See ? I can be just as illiterate !
== John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net
UC - 11 Feb 2006 00:00 GMT The grains of film 'sample' the image in just the same way as sensors do.
The image of a DSLR is recorded digitally, but it does not have to be. The capture itself is not digital at all. It's electrical. Analogue video tape could be used, or it could be output to film.
> >Speaking of photographs, I certainly consider my framed prints, created > >with my lab's local LightJet printer, as "photographs" regardless whether [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > John - Photographer & Webmaster > www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net G- Blank - 11 Feb 2006 00:15 GMT > I have not yet decided whether or not I consider photography an "art". > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > things hanging on my wall cannot be "photographs" if any part of the > process is digital. They are only "images". LOL! Well digital ones are not silver based photographs, but they can be fart.
And as far as fart goes, a true fart and the fartist are separate.
One can apply what makes a fart to any media the perception of how accomplished one is -a matter of practice.
 Signature "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
greg_____photo(dot)com
Nicholas O. Lindan - 11 Feb 2006 00:20 GMT > I consider many of the writers at Sports > Illustrated, National Geographic, etc as top-notch ... Yet I don't consider > them "artists". Anything, if it is done well enough, is art.
 Signature Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
John - 11 Feb 2006 01:01 GMT >> I consider many of the writers at Sports >> Illustrated, National Geographic, etc as top-notch ... Yet I don't consider >> them "artists". > >Anything, if it is done well enough, is art. I certainly agree but I would add that it takes significant inspiration to drive beyond normal expectations and to achieve that degree of skill.
Note that I would certainly consider some of the works in Nat. Geo. as works of art just as I would W.E.Smiths photos as well as many other photojournalists. IMO, many of their works are much more expressive than many of the landscapes and still-lifes I've seen.
== John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net
UC - 11 Feb 2006 01:17 GMT > >> I consider many of the writers at Sports > >> Illustrated, National Geographic, etc as top-notch ... Yet I don't consider > >> them "artists". > > > >Anything, if it is done well enough, is art. Stuff 'n' nonsense.
Art has specific criteria. Such sloppy use of language is characteristic of the morons who are attracted in such numbers to photography.
> I certainly agree but I would add that it takes significant > inspiration to drive beyond normal expectations and to achieve that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > John - Photographer & Webmaster > www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net Ken Smith - 13 Feb 2006 02:40 GMT Language is always changing. At least a living language such as English is always changing to mirror the times. The inexplicable term art has been worn out to meaninglessness . The fact that art also has to transcend accepted meaning to qualify as the real McCoy is likely too much to handle for most rational, utilitarian minded people.
Besides it certainly shouldn't be considered a positive compliment to be considered an artist, if you also consider the degree of shock, shlock, and outright market driven nonsense that is produced to convince the buyers/dealers that something new is happening when it isn't, or at least isn't anything but "new".
"New" being the Holy Grail of the art world, persists despite the general lack of anything elevating about it. New isn't enough for ART, but it sells, and that's what really matters.
Painting and similar fine arts shattered and exploded into myriad directions and lost touch with it's history, it's public, and relavence altogether. True art today thrives in a folk tradition, i.e. in the individual more so than the culture itself. The experience of knowing thyself is the greatest aspect of making art, and it has been driven underground by a fantastically powerful mass media that focuses on externals, trivia, and lust; essentially pornography, i.e. you are inspired to desire something you dont have as opposed to discovering something you do have.
Photography, according to Robert Adams anyway, has remained true to its history. Though most people prefer traditional work, the medium is still evolving in a fairly straight line. It is changing with the times, and has not imploded with a self-consciousness yeilding a dead end. It is still a Mars Rover. Still a viable tool for discovering, despite massive repetitiousness.
No medium is art. Painting is no more art than sculpture, photography, or underwater ballet, until an artist reaches into it and breaths new life. Meaningful, inspiring, relevant life.
Art is what an artist makes. And many artists have used photography to make it. That is taken as fact by far too many serious, capable figures in this medium to dispute intelligently. It is an accepted cultural fact agreed upon all over the world that some artists use photography, and to hear over and over this refuted with rationalized language points is less than convincing. Nor is the false modesty from those who insist that they are not artists. They probably aren't. My work probably does not make the grade of art, despite great care and quality, because I have not developed a unique style or statement. Nor have I broken thru influences and discovered a meaning I didn't anticipate.
There are so many great ideas to discuss regarding art. Is it or isn't it can't really be argued without those more essential questions.
UC - 13 Feb 2006 03:36 GMT The problem with the term 'art' is that people use it as a term of praise.
Thus, you said:
"My work probably does not make the grade of art, despite great care and quality, because I have not developed a unique style or statement."
'Art' has nothing to do with 'grade' and never will. Photographs CANNOT be art, no matter what 'grade' they are, no matter how beautfiul they may be. 'Art' a technical term, not a value term. Painting and sculpture are art. Photography is not and never will be.
To be 'art' does not imply a higher standard of 'x'. To be an artist means you work with paint and canvas, or marble and chisel. That's ALL it means.
> Language is always changing. At least a living language such as English > is always changing to mirror the times. The inexplicable term art has [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > There are so many great ideas to discuss regarding art. Is it or isn't > it can't really be argued without those more essential questions. 41 - 13 Feb 2006 04:55 GMT > 'Art' has nothing to do with 'grade' and never will. Photographs CANNOT > be art, no matter what 'grade' they are, no matter how beautfiul they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > means you work with paint and canvas, or marble and chisel. That's ALL > it means. Ah. Now I understand. That is why there are no recording artists, and the Academy of Recording Artists, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, do not exist; why theatre is not an art and why there are no dramatic artists; why there are no performance artists, why there is no folk art; why ballet and music are not art and never will be; and why I don't have some degree or other that ends in "of Arts". It was all so confusing to me before.
Of course there are two central senses of art, which overlap some. The first and part of the second is famously well-described as follows:
"Science knows, art does; science is a body of connected facts, an art is a set of directions... the directions of art vary with the artist and the task. But, as there is much traffic between science and art, and, especially, art is often based on science, the distinction is not always clear; the art of self-defence, and the boxer's science- are they the same, or different?"
The second sense, of course, is simply the following: anything that is consciously made to represent, convey, or inspire an aesthetic impression, sensibility, or feeling- these being things that have to be understood on their own terms, just like e.g. the sense of smell or the sense of equilibrium.
The part about being consciously made explains why in general, photography is LESS of an art than e.g. musical composition, painting or sculpture: a large portion of the construction is automatically made, by machine (camera), rather than by the artist, who manipulates instead relatively few aspects of the final work.
>From a certain well-regarded dictionary: ART 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. 2. a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. b. The study of these activities. c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. 3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value. 4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature. 5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts. 6. a. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building. b. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer. 7. a. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art. b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: "Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice" (Joyce Carol Oates). 8. a. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks. b. Artful contrivance; cunning. 9. Printing. Illustrative material.
While one should never confuse derivation with meaning, the following is nevertheless useful:
ART c.1225, "skill as a result of learning or practice," from O.Fr. art, from L. artem, (nom. ars) "art, skill, craft," from PIE *ar-ti- (cf. Skt. rtih "manner, mode;" Gk. arti "just," artios "complete;" Armenian arnam "make," Ger. art "manner, mode"), from base *ar- "fit together, join" (see arm (1)). In M.E. usually with sense of "skill in scholarship and learning" (c.1305), especially in the seven sciences, or liberal arts (divided into the trivium -- grammar, logic, rhetoric -- and the quadrivium --arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy). This sense remains in Bachelor of Arts, etc. Meaning "human workmanship" (as opposed to nature) is from 1386. Sense of "cunning and trickery" first attested c.1600. Meaning "skill in creative arts" is first recorded 1620; esp. of painting, sculpture, etc., from 1668. Broader sense of the word remains in artless (1589). As an adj. meaning "produced with conscious artistry (as opposed to popular or folk) it is attested from 1890, possibly from infl. of Ger. kunstlied "art song" (cf. art film, 1960; art rock, c.1970). Fine arts, "those which appeal to the mind and the imagination" first recorded 1767. Art brut "art done by prisoners, lunatics, etc.," is 1955, from Fr., lit. "raw art." Artsy "pretentiously artistic" is from 1902. Expression art for art's sake (1836) translates Fr. l'art pour l'art. First record of art critic is from 1865. Arts and crafts "decorative design and handcraft" first attested in the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, founded in London, 1888.
And while we're at it:
PICTURE [Middle English, from Latin pict´ra, from pictus, painted, past participle of pingere, to paint.]
noun
1. A visual representation or image painted, drawn, photographed, or otherwise rendered on a flat surface. 2. A visible image, especially one on a flat surface or screen: the picture reflected in the lake; focused the picture on the movie screen. 3. a. A vivid or realistic verbal description: a Shakespearean picture of guilt. b. A vivid mental image. 4. A person or object bearing a marked resemblance to another: She's the picture of her mother. 5. A person, object, or scene that typifies or embodies an emotion, state of mind, or mood: Your face was the very picture of horror. 6. The chief circumstances of an event or time; a situation. 7. A movie. 8. A tableau vivant.
IN SHORT: Photography must be considered, albeit as one of the greater technologies, as one of the lesser arts, which nevertheless SOMETIMES RISES TO GREATNESS..
UC - 13 Feb 2006 04:21 GMT It is usually considered good manners for those who wish to discuss philosophical matters to make themselves familiar with the terminology and concepts used in the field. It is not uncommon today, however, for this simple courtesy not to be observed.
Aesthetics is the discipline that is concerned with 'art'. Aesthetics belongs to the field of philosophy. Since so very few photographers are educated in this field, it is very, very, very difficult to discuss this matter with them. They literally have no idea what they're talking about. They use the language of aesthetics, while having no training beyond what they have picked up from other equally uneducated photographers.
Many photographers would like to consider themselves 'artists' because they understand that term to be one of praise. It certainly is no such thing. Artists, throughout history, have been considered among the lower ranks of society. In the 18th and 19th century, artists, actors and actresses were considered to be among the lowest classes. Even among the Greeks, the artist was considered merely a sort of tradesman. Why someone should want to be considered an artist is beyond comprehension. To be an artist is not something ennobling at all. It is merely someone who works with paint and canvas, or with marble and chisel. Being an artist does not make you any better or more important than anyone else. Being a very, very good photographer does not make you an 'artist'. It merely makes you a very, very good photographer. Being a very, very good auto mechanic does not make you an artist, either.
I suggest some readings in aesthetics. You may want to consider starting here:
The Aesthetic Understanding by Roger Scruton
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1890318027/qid=1139802770/sr=8-1/ref=sr _8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-8024923-7049417
Without some understanding of these matters, discussion is unlikely to be fruitful.
> Language is always changing. At least a living language such as English > is always changing to mirror the times. The inexplicable term art has [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > There are so many great ideas to discuss regarding art. Is it or isn't > it can't really be argued without those more essential questions. 41 - 13 Feb 2006 07:03 GMT > Aesthetics is the discipline that is concerned with 'art'. Aesthetics > belongs to the field of philosophy. At one time, logic, physics, and psychology were considered to belong to the field of philosophy. Now philosophy can only contribute to their foundations, not to the disciplines themselves, although there is a little overlap between the two.
The situation is much the same with aesthetics, which when mature will be more a branch of psychology than of philosophy. Philosophy has very li ttle more to contribute to the subject, while the scientific study of aesthetics is advancing.
> Artists, throughout history, have been considered among the > lower ranks of society. In the 18th and 19th century, artists, actors > and actresses were cons idered to be among the lowest classes. Even > among the Greeks, the artist was considered merely a sort of tradesman. This is simply false. You are confusing the two senses of art. From a vast selection of possibilities, consider the following sample acr oss the ages, including both the 18th and 19th centuries, and the ancient Greeks:
PRAXITELES (b Athens, ?c. 400 BC; d Athens, c. 330 BC). Greek sculptor. His career spanned the 370s to the 340s BC. He was the foremost Attic sculptor of the Late Classical period (see also GREECE, ANCIENT, §III, 2(iii)(c)), son (or possibly son-in-law or brother) and pupil of the sculptor KEPHISODOTOS and father of the sculptors Kephisodotos the younger and Timarchos (see §2 below). Praxiteles' affluence is attested by his practice of fashioning models for statues without having to depend on commissions and by his expensive gifts to his favourite model, the courtesan Phryne. An exceptional amount of information is imparted by the ancient sources on his private life. His elevated social position may well be representative of the status of great artists in Classical Athens. He seems to have had some freedom in choosing his own subjects, of which the Eleusinian deities, Dionysos and his companions, Aphrodite, and Apollo wi th Artemis and Leto predominate. He produced cult and votive statues as well as private portraits for sanctuaries in Attica, Boiotia, the Peloponnese, Ephesos, Knidos and Kos. The lack of Macedonian commissions suggests that his career had ended before Ph ilip II's conquest of southern Greece in 338 BC. His statues were particularly admired by the Romans and many were removed to Rome. Praxiteles' career is comparatively well documented in the literary sources.
VIRGIL Virgil was born on October 15, 70 B.C.E., in Northern Italy in a small village near Mantua - probably but not certainly the modern Pietole. Virgil was no Roman but a Gaul - the village was situated in what was then called Gallia Cisalpina - Gaul this side of the Alps. Publius Vergilius Maro, or Virgil, grew up to be hailed as the greatest Roman poet. And although his work has influenced Western literature for two millennia, little is known about the man himself. His father was a prosperous landowner, described variously as a "potter" and a "courier", who could afford a thorough education for the future poet. This Virgil received. He attended school at Cremona and Mediolanum (Milan), then went to Rome, where he studied mathematics, medicine and rhetoric, and finally completed his studies in N aples. He entered literary circles as an "Alexandrian," the name given to a group of poets who sought inspiration in the sophisticated work of third-century Greek poets, also known as Alexandrians. In 49 BC Virgil became a Roman citizen. Lucretius influen ced his way of thinking, but his early poems were written in the tradition of Theocritus.
After the battle of Philippi in 42 B.C.E., Virgil's property in Cisalpine Gaul, or else his father's, was confiscated for veterans. "I leave my father's fields an d my sweet ploughlands, / an exile from my native soil," wrote Virgil later in ECLOGUES. According to some sources the property was afterwards restored at the command of Octavian (later styled Augustus). In the following years Virgil spent most of his tim e in Campania and Sicily, but he also had a house in Rome. During the reign of emperor Augustus, Virgil became a member of his court circle and was advanced by a minister, Maecenas, patron of the arts and close friend to the poet Horace. Maecenas was twic e left in virtual control of Rome when the emperor was away. He gave Virgil a house near Naples.
In 31 B.C.E. Octavian won the Battle of Actium against his former ally Mark Anthony, who had a liaison with the Egyptian queen Cleopatra, and by 29 the way to power was open to him. In 27 BC he was given the title of Augustus ('venerable'). He pressed his poet to write of the glory of Rome under his rule. "I found Rome brick and I left it marble," he said according to Suetonius. Thus the rest of his life, f rom 30 to 19 B.C., Virgil devoted to The Aeneid, the national epic of Rome, and the glory of the Empire. Although ambitious, Virgil was never really happy about the task. Moreover, he was a perfectionist, who knew the importance of his work, and did not w ant to hurry with his lines. A contemporary poet, Propertius, acknowledged this - perhaps ironically - with the lines: "Make way, Greek and Roman writers! Something greater than the Iliad is being born."
DANTE Italian poet, born at Florence, 1265; died a t Ravenna, Italy, 14 September, 1321. His own statement in the "Paradiso" (xxii, 112-117) that he was born when the sun was in Gemini, fixes his birthday between 18 May and 17 June.
He was the son of Alighiero di Bellincione Alighieri, a notary belongi ng to an ancient but decadent Guelph family, by his first wife, Bella, who was possibly a daughter of Durante di Scolaio Abati, a Ghibelline noble. A few months after the poet's birth, the victory of Charles of Anjou over King Manfred at Benevento (26 Feb ruary, 1266) ended the power of the empire in Italy, placed a French dynasty upon the throne of Naples, and secured the predominance of the Guelphs in Tuscany. Dante thus grew up amidst the triumphs of the Florentine democracy, in which he took some share fighting in the front rank of the Guelph cavalry at the battle of Campaldino (11 June, 1289), when the Tuscan Ghibellines were defeated by the forces of the Guelph league, of which Florence was the head. This victory was followed by a reformation of the Florentine constitution, associated with the name of Giano della Bella, a great-hearted noble who had joined the people. By the Ordinances of Justice (1293) all nobles and magnates were more strictly excluded from the government, and subjected to severe p enalties for offences against plebeians. To take any part in public life, it was necessary to be enrolled in one or other of the "Arts" (the guilds in which the burghers and artisans were banded together), and accordingly Dante matriculated in the guild o f physicians and apothecaries. On 6 July, 1295, he spoke in the General Council of the Commune in favour of some modification in the Ordinances of Justice after which his name is frequently found recorded as speaking or voting in the various councils of t he republic.
Already Dante had written his first book, the "Vita Nuova", or "New Life", an exquisite medley of lyrical verse and poetic prose, telling the story of his love for Beatrice, whom he had first seen at the end of his ninth year. Beatrice, wh o was probably the daughter of Folco Portinari, and wife of Simone de' Bardi, died in June, 1290, and the "Vita Nuova" was completed about the year 1294. Dante's love for her was purely spiritual and mystical, the amor amicitiae defined by St. Thomas Aqui nas: "That which is loved in love of friendship is loved simply and for its own sake". Its resemblance to the chivalrous worship that the troubadours offered to married women is merely superficial. The book is dedicated to the Florentine poet, Guido Caval canti, whom Dante calls "the first of my friends", and ends with the promise of writing concerning Beatrice "what has never before been written of any woman".
LEONARDO Florentine painter, sculptor, architect, engineer, and scholar, and one of the greates t minds of the Renaissance; born at Vinci, near Florence, in 1452; died at Cloux, near Amboise, France, 2 May, 1519, natural son of Ser Piero, a notary, and a peasant woman. [...] At an early age, doubtless about his fifteenth year, Leonardo entered Verrocchio's studio which about 1465 was the foremost in the city. [...] Under these conditions young Leonardo acquired the technique of his craft, all the progress attained by the Florentine School about the middle of the fifteenth century, but he gave to it a new value and incomparable beauty. As Verrocchio's collaborator in all branches of art he assisted in the preliminary studies and the preparatory researches for the famous equestrian statue of the condottiere Colleone. He was also admitted to the cel ebrated garden of the Medicis, where they had gathered a collection of antiquities, then the foremost in the world, and which they had, moreover, made a museum and a school, or academy, of fine arts. [...] Leonardo was at this time thirty years of age a nd very handsome. He was an accomplished gentleman, and had a keen mind for the invention of fables. His contemporaries, for example the storyteller Bandello, relate the charms of his conversation. He was a musician, being given to improvising verses whil e accompanying himself on a lute of his own invention, shaped like a bucranium and possessing wonderful sonorousness. For the fêtes, ballets, and amusements, and interludes of which the Renaissance was so fond, Leonardo was unequalled. At the time of Loui s XII's entry into Milan a mechanical lion crossed the banquet hall, halted before him a shower of lilies. This machine Leonardo had invented. [...] Then he began see-sawing between Florence and Milan, finally taking up his residence in the latter city w here he was called by a law-suit concerning the property left by his father. In 1514 we find him at Rome, but at the end of the year he returned to Florence; in 1515 came journeys to Pavia, Bologna, and a last stay for some months at Milan. Finally in 151 6 he accepted the invitation of King Francis I to come to France and left Italy, never to return.
MARLOWE Marlowe was born in Canterbury in 1564 of a family that originated in Ospringe, today part of Faversham. His father, John, was a cobbler. Christopher went to King's School, and was awarded a Matthew Parker scholarship which enabled him to study at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, from late 1580 until 1587, when he was awarded his MA.
Like other brilliant students and writers he was recruited by Sir Francis Walsingham as a part-time secret service agent. His literary career, spent, as far as we know, mainly in London, lasted for only six years from 1587 to 1593. Lord Burghley, Queen Elizabeth's chief minister who, together with her Secretary of S tate, Sir Francis Walsingham, was said to rule the land with the Queen as the Head of all, was also Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. As such he used the University as his recruiting ground to enlist bright, patriotic young men to serve as secret agents. Evidently Marlowe was picked out for this service, which was vitally important, in this age of of Catholic versus Protestant political intrigue, an age of political assassinations, directed against the Heads of States.
The Catholic plots agains t Queen Elizabeth were ceaseless, but all were uncovered one after another by the English Secret Service, skilfully built up under the direction of Sir Francis Walsingham to become the greatest and most successful espionage network of the time, with agent s placed as far away as Turkey to cover every exigency. It was entirely thanks to the efficiency and dedication of Walsingham's Secret Service that Queen Elizabeth led such a charmed life and escaped assassination.
Marlowe's first important assignment a s a secret agent was evidently in 1584, when he had 'proved' himself by successfully gaining his BA (a hurdle many students evaded or failed), when his normally constant residence at his college was suddenly interrupted by lengthy absences. We have the in valuable records of the college buttery and audit books to confirm this. The weekly one shilling stipend for the purchase of extra food and drink at the buttery bar was not collected, and the Audit book records all presences and absences term by term, cov ering also the vacations, for the students were required to remain at college all year except for the summer vacation.
The Babington Plot
Contemporaneous with Marlowe's absences was the plotting of the most dangerous conspiracy yet hatched, the Babin gton Plot, which was conceived at the Catholic Seminary at Rheims run by Cardinal Allen. Students who were not Catholics were also admitted there, probably in the hope of converting them, and the rumour spread at Cambridge that Christopher Marlowe had gon e to Rheims as a Catholic convert. When this reached the ears of the Cambridge authorities they decided to withhold permission for him to receive his MA degree. In dismay it is evident that Marlowe appealed to the Privy Council to intervene to clear his n ame, which they did at once, and handsomely, in the following letter dated 29th June 1587.
Whereas it was reported that Christopher Marlowe was determined to have gone beyond the seas to Rheims, and there to remain, their Lordships thought good to certi fy that he had no such intent, but that in all his actions he had behaved himself orderly and discreetly, whereby he had done Her Majesty good service, & deserved to be rewarded for his faithful dealing. Their Lordships' request was that the rumour thereof should be allayed by all possible means, and that he should be furthered in the degree he was to take this next Commencement, because it was not Her Majesty's pleasure that anyone employed, as he had been, in matters touching the benefit of his country, should be defamed by those that are ignorant in th' affairs he went about.
The letter is signed by:-
The Archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift. The Lord Treasurer, Lord Burghley. The Chancellor, Sir Christopher Hatton. The Lord Chamberlain, Henry Carey, 1st Lord Hunsdon. Mr. Comptroller, Sir William Knollys.
The Queen is mentioned twice, citing her personal interest in this young man's attainment of his MA without hindrance from the authorities who are 'ignorant of th' affairs he went about,' (quite a slap in the eye for the Cambridge top brass!) and testifies that he had done good service and 'deserved to be rewarded for his faithful dealing'. This letter is unique in the annals of Elizabethan espionage records.
TIEPOLO Born in Venice in 169 6; died at Madrid, 27 March, 1770. The son of a sea-captain and marine merchant, who left behind him a considerable fortune, Tiepolo married, in 1721, Cecilia, the sister of the painter Guardi, by whom he had nine children. His earliest master was Lazzeri ni, but his artistic career was derived from a careful study of the works of Titian, Piazzeta, Ricci, and especially Veronese. Up to 1750 he worked in Venice and various places in the north of Italy, painting some remarkable works at Milan, in Brescia, an d in one or two villages near Venice. He then, accompanied by his son, travelled to Wrzburg, where he resided for three years, executing some magnificent ceiling paintings in the palace of the archbishop. He was back again in Venice in 1753, full of comm issions, elected President of the Academy of Padua, and holding high distinction in his native town. In 1761 he accepted the invitation of Charles III, King of Spain, to come to that country to decorate the royal palace of Madrid. Unfortunately, during hi s residence there he incurred the jealousy and the bitter opposition of Raphael Mengs. He is the last of the great Venetian painters; his works are magnificent in force, brilliance, and skill. As a draughtsman and colourist, few have approached him; as an etcher, he took a high position.
van EYCKEN Painter, born at Brussels, Belgium, 16 September, 1809; died at Schaerbeek, 19 December, 1853. He was the son of Corneille van Eycken and Elise Cordemans, and as a boy was employed in commercial pursuits, b ut from 1829, when his father died, he gave himself over entirely to the study of art. In 1830 he became a member of the Academy of Belgium, in 1835 gained an important prize with high distinctions, and four years afterwards was appointed professor of dra wing and painting. In 1838 he went to Italy, returning in 1839 and resuming his professorship. In that year he exhibited his great picture of "Divine Pity", which was warmly received and brought him a gold medal and a high position in the Société des Beau x Arts de France. He married in 1840 Julie Noël, who died 11 February, 1843. Two of his most important pictures were those representing "Captive Christians" and "St. Boniface", for the church of La Chapelle; but for the same building he carried out no les s than fourteen pictures representing the Passion of Christ and these were exhibited in 1847 and gained for him the Order of Leopold. His best-known picture perhaps is entitled "L'Abondance", a replica of which the artist was employed to make for the Prin ce Consort of England, according to the instructions of Louise Marie, Queen of the Belgians. He was intensely interested in the subject of mural decoration, and studied every variety of it very closely, preparing a long essay on the subject and a series of paintings representing the Beatitudes, in order to exemplify his ideas in this direction. He also gave some attention to sculpture and to designing medallions.
BASTA.
Matt Clara - 13 Feb 2006 19:36 GMT > It is usually considered good manners for those who wish to discuss > philosophical matters to make themselves familiar with the terminology [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > The Aesthetic Understanding by Roger Scruton http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1890318027/qid=1139802770/sr=8-1/ref=sr _8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-8024923-7049417
> Without some understanding of these matters, discussion is unlikely to > be fruitful. I have a degree in philosophy, including two classes in aesthetics, one of which was graduate level, I read the ultra conservative Scruton who writes right up your alley, and I've read his detractors, with whom I agree. No where in my studies of aesthetics was it written or did anyone say, including Scruton, that only drawing, painting, sculpture were "art". No where.
-- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com
UC - 13 Feb 2006 20:16 GMT It says it in Webster:
Main Entry:fine art Pronunciation:**|* Function:noun Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French beaux-arts
2 : any art (as painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture, music, ceramics, or landscape architecture) for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost - usually used in plural
> > It is usually considered good manners for those who wish to discuss > > philosophical matters to make themselves familiar with the terminology [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Matt Clara > www.mattclara.com UC - 13 Feb 2006 20:18 GMT http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1890318027/qid=1139802770/sr=8-1/ref=sr _8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-8024923-7049417
> > Without some understanding of these matters, discussion is unlikely to > > be fruitful. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > including Scruton, that only drawing, painting, sculpture were "art". No > where. Scruton:
In order to understand what I mean by saying that photography is not a representational art, it is important to separate painting and photography as much as possible, so as to discuss not actual painting and actual photography but an ideal form of each, an ideal which represents the essential differences between them. Ideal photography differs from actual photography as indeed ideal painting differs from actual painting. Actual photography is the result of the attempt by photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and methods of painting.
By an 'ideal' I mean a logical ideal. The ideal of photography is not an ideal at which photography aims or ought to aim. On the contrary, it is a logical fiction, designed merely to capture what is distinctive in the photographic relation and in our interest in it. It will be clear from this discussion that there need be no such thing as an ideal photograph in my sense, and the reader should not be deterred if I begin by describing photography in terms that seem to be exaggerated or false.
The ideal painting stands in a certain 'intentional' relation to a subject.[2] In other words, if a painting represents a subject, it does not follow that the subject exists nor, if it does exist, that the painting represents the subject as it is. Moreover, if x is a painting of a man, it does not follow that there is some particular man of which x is the painting. Furthermore, the painting stands in this intentional relation to its subject because of a representational act, the artist's act, and in characterizing the relation between a painting and its subject we are also describing the artist's intention. The successful realization of that intention lies in the creation of an appearance, an appearance which in some way leads the spectator to recognize the subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------- [2] See Franz Clemens Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, ed. Linda McAlister (London and New York, 1973); Roderick M. Chis- holm, Perceiving (London and Ithaca, N.Y., 1957), chapter 11; and G. E. M. Anscombe, 'The Intentionality of Sensation', in R. J. Butler (ed.), Ana- lyticql Philosophy, Second Series (Oxford, 1965).
-----------------------------
The ideal photograph also stands in a certain relation to a subject. a photograph is a photograph of something. But the relation is here causal and not intentional.[3] In other words, if a photograph is a photograph of a subject, it follows that the subject exists, and if x is a photograph of a man, there is a particular man of whom x is the photograph. It also follows, though for different reasons, that the subject is, roughly, as it appears in the photograph. In characterizing the relation between the ideal photograph and its subject, one is characterizing not an intention but a causal process, and while there is, as a rule, an intentional act involved, this is not an essential part of the photographic relation. The ideal photograph also yields an appearance, but the appearance is not interesting as the realization of an intention but rather as a record of how an actual object looked.
Since the end point of the two processes is, or can be, so similar, it is tempting to think that the intentionality of the one relation and the causality of the other are quite irrelevant to the standing of the finished product. In both cases, it seems, the important part of representation lies in the fact that the spectator can see the subject in the picture. The appreciation of photographs and the appreciation of paintings both involve the exercise of the capacity to 'see as', in the quite special sense in which one may see x as y without believing or being tempted to believe that x is y.
---2--- Now, it would be a simple matter to define 'representation' so that 'x represents y' is true only if x expresses a thought about y, or if x is designed to remind one of y, or whatever, in which case a relation that was merely causal (a relation that was not characterized in terms of any thought, intention, or other mental act) would never be sufficient for representation. We need to be clear, however, why we should wish to define representation in one way rather than in another. What hangs on the decision? In particular, why should it matter that the relation between a painting and its subject is an intentional relation while the photographic relation is merely causal? I shall therefore begin by....."
(end of quote.....)
> -- > Regards, > Matt Clara > www.mattclara.com Matt Clara - 13 Feb 2006 20:39 GMT No need to quote all that--oddly enough, I perused that exact article just this morning. However, he doesn't say that only the handful of art forms comprise all art as you claimed earlier, he's specifically comparing photography to painting. If I'm mistaken, please quote the exact sentence(s) where he makes such a claim (as opposed to large portions of an article), and I'll eat my hat, so to speak.
More importantly, you've selected a single author who supports your particular point of view, though there are just as many who say differently. A little convenient, don't you think?
UC - 13 Feb 2006 20:50 GMT I found him by doing a search using the string 'photography is not art' in Google.
The quote you want is the first line of the passage:
"In order to understand what I mean by saying that photography is not a representational art,...."
You must understand that what he means by 'representational art' what are called the fine arts. A 'representation' is not an image. A bull may represent strength or courage, and that makes the bull 'representational'. A photograph of a bull is not a representation, because what is mean by 'representation' is symbolism. A photograph cannot stand in a symbolic relation to anything. Its relation is always causal, not symbolic. The symbolic relation is necessary for something to be art. The statue of Venus represents Venus symbolically, not iconically. Photographs are non-fiction. Art is fiction.
> No need to quote all that--oddly enough, I perused that exact article just > this morning. However, he doesn't say that only the handful of art forms [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > particular point of view, though there are just as many who say differently. > A little convenient, don't you think? 41 - 13 Feb 2006 22:07 GMT >Photographs are non-fiction. <http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-b/doisneau-1.jpg>
>Art is fiction. No, fiction is (usually) art of one type. Fictions of other sorts, such as your claims about what is and is not art, are not art.
What is fictional about a musical composition??
UC - 13 Feb 2006 22:12 GMT > >Photographs are non-fiction. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What is fictional about a musical composition?? You've got a point. But, what is non-fictional about it?
Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to painting/photography.
41 - 13 Feb 2006 23:05 GMT > > <http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-b/doisneau-1.jpg>
> Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to > painting/photography. Rather imperfectly, as for example the above link shows.
Consider also a hand-coloured photograph. Is it a photo, or a painting? If a painting, how little may I colour it that it remains a photo? If a photo, how much do I have to colour it before it becomes a painting? Then consider a painting by Robert Bateman. Is it a hand-coloured photograph? What about a picture made using camera lucida?
Then consider a photograph on ancient Tri-X developed in Rodinal, with grain the size of golf balls. What kind of non-fiction is that?
Photography surely is a greater technology and a lesser art, as I explained more carefully previously, so much so that it can on occasion be a non-art (automated photography); but enough of an art that it can on other occasions be great art, and the photographer, a great artist.
Much of the time though, it's as much art as jet-plane art.* Not zero, but working on it.
*Jet-plane art: set up monumental canvas behind a 747 or other impressive jet plane. Start engines. Throw cans of paint into intake grills; produce works of art suitable for any corporate entrance lobby or palatial living room
UC - 13 Feb 2006 23:14 GMT I did not rule ot borderline cases.
The point being that a 'normal' unmzanipulated photograph is not a work of art.
> > > <http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-b/doisneau-1.jpg> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > grills; produce works of art suitable for any corporate entrance lobby > or palatial living room Matt Clara - 14 Feb 2006 00:57 GMT >> >Photographs are non-fiction. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to > painting/photography. No, following your and Scruton's logic, the fiction is the fact that the arrangement of notes is wholly invented, it's not "just" a literal rendering of what's happening in the world. Putting aside Scruton's claim of an ideal photograph, real photographs utilize depth of field, exposure, time lapse, artificial lighting, double exposure, etc., etc., to capture images in a representational manner--the resulting image isn't what the world looks like, it's what the world looks like through an artist's eyes. Adams saw a half-dome much more dramatic than what was really there, so he used a wratten 25 and various dark room techniques to create something unlike reality--a fiction, if you will. Scruton wants to argue that because each image must start with real objects it can't be representational, but he disregards the finer nuances of the art of photography because it suits his argument to do so.
 Signature Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com
Ken Smith - 14 Feb 2006 01:24 GMT What is the aim of any art? If it's acheived, why the headache over the means?
UC - 14 Feb 2006 01:46 GMT > > Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to > > painting/photography. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > artificial lighting, double exposure, etc., etc., to capture images in a > representational manner No, photographs are iconic, not representative.
--the resulting image isn't what the world looks
> like, it's what the world looks like through an artist's eyes. No, it's not. All those things are merely different possible views of what is. Art creates what is not. Art is genuinely creative, and not dependent upon something else. I can sit in front of Queen Victoria with a brush and easel, and paint a dog. A camera CANNOT photograph a dog when Queen Victoria is before the lens.
> Adams saw a > half-dome much more dramatic than what was really there, so he used a > wratten 25 and various dark room techniques to create something unlike > reality--a fiction, if you will. No, merely a mateer of emphasis.
> Scruton wants to argue that because each > image must start with real objects it can't be representational, Pictures are paintings. Photographs are not 'pictures', but images. They have a direct causal and geometric relationship to something else that exists and MUST exist. A photograph is always of something else. Art is not art of something else. A sculpture is not a sculpture of something else, even when it is a copy. A sculptured Venus is a representation of Venus, not an image of Venus. Venus does not exist.You cannot photograph Venus. Art is its own object. It has no refrence outside itself. Photographs refer outside themselves, and must do so.
> but he > disregards the finer nuances of the art of photography because it suits his > argument to do so. The nuances are irrelevant to his argument, and to mine. Only when the photograph is distorted beyond recognition (when it ceases to be a photograph) can it become a work of art. Take your photographic print and do a watercolor on the back.
Painting, sculpture, sketching, watercolor, music, and landscape architecture all are indendent of reality for their content.
Matt Clara - 14 Feb 2006 11:25 GMT >> > Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to >> > painting/photography. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > No, photographs are iconic, not representative. Your use of "iconic" is unlike any I've encountered before. Icons are pictures. The word comes from Latin "to resemble". In Scruton's terms, that sounds more like a painting than a photo.
> --the resulting image isn't what the world looks >> like, it's what the world looks like through an artist's eyes. > > No, it's not. All those things are merely different possible views of > what is. That's a great way to describe any art.
>Art creates what is not. I agree, until one takes a photo, it was not. And, perhaps more importantly, says who, and why?
>Art is genuinely creative, and not > dependent upon something else. I can sit in front of Queen Victoria > with a brush and easel, and paint a dog. A camera CANNOT photograph a > dog when Queen Victoria is before the lens. Sounds more like dogma than real thought. By accepting Scruton's reasoning, you've hemmed your understanding into a little corner. Besides, nothing is genuinely creative, not the way you mean it--everything we can imagine has a basis in this reality.
>> Adams saw a >> half-dome much more dramatic than what was really there, so he used a >> wratten 25 and various dark room techniques to create something unlike >> reality--a fiction, if you will. > > No, merely a mateer of emphasis. Semantics.
>> Scruton wants to argue that because each >> image must start with real objects it can't be representational, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that exists and MUST exist. A photograph is always of something else. > Art is not art of something else. Why? Who says? Give me a logical reason to believe that.
>A sculpture is not a sculpture of > something else, even when it is a copy. A sculptured Venus is a > representation of Venus, not an image of Venus. Venus does not > exist.You cannot photograph Venus. Art is its own object. It has no > refrence outside itself. Again says who?
>Photographs refer outside themselves, and must > do so. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Painting, sculpture, sketching, watercolor, music, and landscape > architecture all are indendent of reality for their content. I beg to differ--all of them are dependent on the artist's experiences. There is no thought without experience. Art is the expression of life through the filter of one's experiences. A photograph can be that.
Besides, the fact that it does touch outside the artist in its creation and continued existence would only mean it isn't art if a person chose to see it that way, like you. Why can't that be art? Think of it this way: The ideal photo could be taken by a machine, and I mean, a Dell computer could do it, not some futuristic sentient machine--it's just a facimile, after all, a direct image of some real thing. Now, speaking of the act of creation, as opposed to automated replication, an original photograph of artistic merit cannot be created by a machine except by luck, any more than could a machine create an original statue equalling David, or a painting such as the Mona Lisa. What is that missing factor, if not art? It's as good a word for it as any, at any rate.
Finally, if scientists were to study brain waves and find that a master painter in the act of painting creates the same kind of brain storm (same parts of the brain experiencing heightened activity of comparable degree) a master photographer composing a photograph does, would you continue to argue this line of reaonsing, that the photographer was looking at something concrete and the painter wasn't, therefore the one thing's art and the other isn't? If so, I suggest you're more interested in semantics than real understanding.
-- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com
UC - 14 Feb 2006 14:09 GMT ., to capture images in a
> >> representational manner > > > > No, photographs are iconic, not representative. > > Your use of "iconic" is unlike any I've encountered before. Icons are > pictures. Likenesses.
> The word comes from Latin "to resemble". Correct. Art represents, it does not resemble. Photographs resemble. If they don't, they're not photographs. A painting of a bull can represent courage or strength. A photograph cannot do that.
> In Scruton's terms, > that sounds more like a painting than a photo. Not so.
> > --the resulting image isn't what the world looks > >> like, it's what the world looks like through an artist's eyes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's a great way to describe any art. No, see above.
> >Art creates what is not. > > I agree, until one takes a photo, it was not. And, perhaps more > importantly, says who, and why? No, it was before the photo was taken.
> >Art is genuinely creative, and not > > dependent upon something else. I can sit in front of Queen Victoria [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > genuinely creative, not the way you mean it--everything we can imagine has a > basis in this reality. Not the same thing at all.
> >> Adams saw a > >> half-dome much more dramatic than what was really there, so he used a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Semantics. What words mean matters. The difference between 'Yes' and 'No' is semantics.
> >> Scruton wants to argue that because each > >> image must start with real objects it can't be representational, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why? Who says? Give me a logical reason to believe that. Photographs are always 'of' something else. A photgraph of a tree means that that tree exsted. A pianting of a 'tree' has no such causal link. One can paint an imaginary tree, and even if one paints a real tree, there is no causal relationship. The real tree is just like the imaginary one, then.
> >A sculpture is not a sculpture of > > something else, even when it is a copy. A sculptured Venus is a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Again says who? I do. Show me otherwise. Show me a scultpture that has a causal relationship to anything..
> >Photographs refer outside themselves, and must > > do so. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I beg to differ--all of them are dependent on the artist's experiences. The paintings, etc., are not causally dependent on the existence of anything. Period. All the objects in the universe except the painter and his canvas could be wiped out, and the painter could still paint, but the photographer is now out of luck.
> There is no thought without experience. Art is the expression of life > through the filter of one's experiences. HUH? What on Earth are you talking about?
A photograph can be that.
> Besides, the fact that it does touch outside the artist in its creation and > continued existence would only mean it isn't art if a person chose to see it > that way, like you. Why can't that be art? Things do not become art because of the lack of something preventing it. Art does not just pop into being in the absence of something that prevents it from happening. Art has to be MADE. It does not HAPPEN. Photographs HAPPEN. There is in principle no way to tell whether a photograph was taken accidentally, but no Mona Lisa happens by accident. It is impossible to tell whether a given photograph was taken when the camera fell off the couch.
> Think of it this way: The ideal > photo could be taken by a machine, and I mean, a Dell computer could do it, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > isn't? If so, I suggest you're more interested in semantics than real > understanding. The call against semantics obscures the fact that we are discussing concepts that have names. Whether something qualifies as 'art' is in part a discussion of the history of the usage of this word and the concept it represents.
> -- > Regards, > Matt Clara > www.mattclara.com Matt Clara - 14 Feb 2006 14:30 GMT You're full of sh.t like a christmas goose. Everything is derivative. Period. And a photo of a bull can have all the symbolic strength of a painting of a bull. If you don't understand that, you don't understand symbolism. You're really more interested in splitting metaphysical hairs than having a true understanding of the creative process behind the creation of what is art.
UC - 14 Feb 2006 14:49 GMT Goldblatt and Brown:
Aesthetics: A reader in philosophy of the arts. 1997
Of relevance:
'Why Photography is not Art' (Scruton) Transparent Pictures (Walton) What's Special About Photography? (Cohen) Photographs and Contexts (Barrett)
You are invited to read these essays and then get back to me. Failing that, I have no more to say.
> You're full of sh.t like a christmas goose. Everything is derivative. > Period. And a photo of a bull can have all the symbolic strength of a > painting of a bull. If you don't understand that, you don't understand > symbolism. You're really more interested in splitting metaphysical hairs > than having a true understanding of the creative process behind the creation > of what is art. UC - 14 Feb 2006 14:52 GMT I might add that Cohen disagrees with Scruton and me, and that Walton agrees with Scruton and me. The problem is that Cohen does not give very good arguments. His argument boils down to 'what prevents photography from being art'? Duh. Things are not art in the absence of somethingpreventing it. Art is art because it something makes it so. The 'default' is non-art.
> Goldblatt and Brown: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > than having a true understanding of the creative process behind the creation > > of what is art. G- Blank - 14 Feb 2006 18:00 GMT > You're full of sh.t like a christmas goose. Everything is derivative. > Period. And a photo of a bull can have all the symbolic strength of a > painting of a bull. If you don't understand that, you don't understand > symbolism. You're really more interested in splitting metaphysical hairs > than having a true understanding of the creative process behind the creation > of what is art. Hey Matt;
Just goes to show you:
_____________________ /| /| | | ||__|| | Please do not | / O O\__ | feed the | / \ | Trolls | / \ \|_____________________| / _ \ \ || / |\____\ \ || / | | | |\____/ || / \|_|_|/ | _|| / / \ |____| || / | | | --| | | | |____ --| * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/ *-- _--\ _ \ | || / _ \\ | / `' * / \_ /- | | | * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
 Signature "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
greg_____photo(dot)com
UC - 14 Feb 2006 18:47 GMT I can scan some esaays and articles for you to read. This is obviously pointless. Anybody know a free site where I could place them?
The problem is, many photographers won't understand the arguments.
> > You're full of sh.t like a christmas goose. Everything is derivative. > > Period. And a photo of a bull can have all the symbolic strength of a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > greg_____photo(dot)com David Nebenzahl - 14 Feb 2006 19:30 GMT UC spake thus:
> I can scan some esaays and articles for you to read. This is obviously > pointless. Anybody know a free site where I could place them? Ever heard of a little company called "Yahoo"? Just register a user ID and use the web space they give you. (Hint: you want to use something called the "File Manager".)
 Signature If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought.
- Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_
UC - 14 Feb 2006 20:08 GMT I use Yahoo, but I know nothing about this feature.
> UC spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ UC - 14 Feb 2006 20:33 GMT I can send you the files. I don't have time for this.
> UC spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ UC - 14 Feb 2006 21:03 GMT Can you show me? I can't find it.
> UC spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ David Nebenzahl - 14 Feb 2006 21:40 GMT UC spake thus:
> Can you show me? I can't find it. Hmm; it appears that Yahoo no longer offers free web space. At least I couldn't find it anywhere. They used to give you a small amount (15 MB, I believe) of web space when you signed up for a free Yahoo mail account. No more, apparently. Too bad.
>>UC spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>and use the web space they give you. (Hint: you want to use something >>called the "File Manager".)
 Signature If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought.
- Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_
UC - 14 Feb 2006 21:42 GMT I just sent you the first one. Two more to go.
> UC spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ UC - 14 Feb 2006 21:55 GMT Your e-mail bounced. Please send me a message at uraniumcommittee --------------- @ -------------------- yahoo ----------------------- .com
> I just sent you the first one. Two more to go. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > > - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ Matt Clara - 14 Feb 2006 00:49 GMT >I found him by doing a search using the string 'photography is not art' > in Google. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to be art. The statue of Venus represents Venus symbolically, not > iconically. Photographs are non-fiction. Art is fiction. Either you're inventing your terms now, or I'm afraid you need to study up on symbolism. I suggest Man and His Symbols, edited by Carl Jung. Your assertion that nobody here should bother talking to you about your claims as to what is and is not art because they don't understand the fundaments of the language is pure poppycock. Look at Scruton, carefully establishing his definitions right from the get go--there is no common parlance in philosophy, except perhaps on a basic level. Every philosopher wants to tell you how they interpret the language, and thus meaning constantly evolves.
 Signature Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com
UC - 14 Feb 2006 20:50 GMT Here's the book that I am scanning.
http://www.pearsoned.co.nz/highered/titleDetails.asp?isbn=0134375912&DisciplineI D=HP&DisciplineName=Philosophy
> >I found him by doing a search using the string 'photography is not art' > > in Google. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > tell you how they interpret the language, and thus meaning constantly > evolves. UC - 13 Feb 2006 21:03 GMT > No need to quote all that--oddly enough, I perused that exact article just > this morning. However, he doesn't say that only the handful of art forms [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > particular point of view, though there are just as many who say differently. > A little convenient, don't you think? What 'many'? Do you photographers or philosophers? Photogrpahers don't count.
UC - 13 Feb 2006 21:04 GMT > No need to quote all that--oddly enough, I perused that exact article just > this morning. However, he doesn't say that only the handful of art forms [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > particular point of view, though there are just as many who say differently. > A little convenient, don't you think? What 'many'? Do you mean photographers or philosophers? Photographers don't count.
G- Blank - 11 Feb 2006 01:02 GMT > > I consider many of the writers at Sports > > Illustrated, National Geographic, etc as top-notch ... Yet I don't consider > > them "artists". > > Anything, if it is done well enough, is art. And somethings that aren't too!
 Signature "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
greg_____photo(dot)com
|
|
|