 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006Photographers-Do you think outside the box?
Photographers, Do You Think Outside The Box? This week I have tried for something some of my readers may or may not find a little controversial, perhaps even offensive, especially those among who consider themselves to be true artists. Never mind, a little lively debate, and even name-calling, always makes for interesting reading. So, here we go: The creative possibilities of photography are limitless. But rarely do any of us really exploit those possibilities to the fullest. That's because most of us take the easy road, the path of least resistance. What I mean is, many photographers who should know better tend to shoot the same old stereotyped images that have been shot over and over to a point where they have become boring. Let me ask you a question: How many versions of the same shot, same viewpoint, same weather conditions, have you seen of the famous Ansel Adams image, "Yosemite Valley from Inspiration Point?" I, personally have seen it done so many times that even the original holds no interest for me now, and that's saying something. So, what to do? Well, you need to start thinking CREATIVELY. What you have just read is just the beginning of an article for photographers in the latest issue of CreativePhoto Newsletter. You can get it at my website. Blair www.blairhoward.com > Photographers, Do You Think Outside The Box? > ... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So, what to do? Well, you need to start thinking CREATIVELY. Fine artists often do very repetitive work for some period of time to perfect that idea. Often based on someone elses work. I think the repetition actually helps develop some uniqueness and depth. It's a way of really learning a particular approach rather than glossing over things & bouncing around haphazardly. > Photographers, Do You Think Outside The Box? > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Blair > www.blairhoward.com I get so very tired of the "creative" word being used with photography. I'll never believe that point and clicking (and workflowing with a computer) will ever come anywhere near the creativity shown by artists and musicians who create the whole thing with their talent and hands. Mostly "creative" is used to sell more gear to photographers. Make the pictures you enjoy; sometimes others will enjoy them as well - if not, so what ? And as for outside-the-box, what a tired concept (or is that now just another paradigm?). > I get so very tired of the "creative" word being used with photography. > I'll never believe that point and clicking (and workflowing with a > computer) will ever come anywhere near the creativity shown by artists and > musicians > who create the whole thing with their talent and hands. Maybe "creative" is the wrong word? I think of it as the "vision" to previsualize what the final result will be, see it as an interesting image and have the skill set to recreate it. I saw a lot of people taking pictures of this fountain but didn't see anyone there after dark except a couple shapshooting with their flash blazing from this viewpoint to capture it like this. http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/dolphin.jpg I don't see how painting this would be any better than producing this image was and I hope someone viewing this image would get the same feel I had when I was there. Isn't that the whole point? I do agree with the OP, if I see another shot of a recreated AA photograph or God forbid delicate arch at sunset, I'll puke.  SignatureStacey > > I get so very tired of the "creative" word being used with photography. > > I'll never believe that point and clicking (and workflowing with a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe "creative" is the wrong word? I think of it as the "vision" to > previsualize what the final result will be, For landscape and nature photography I'd say "vision" is apt. But for still lifes, portraits, abstracts, etc, where you control lighting, backdrops, set, etc, then "creative" is more than appropriate. Greg >> > I get so very tired of the "creative" word being used with photography. >> > I'll never believe that point and clicking (and workflowing with a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Greg Without exception, the use of the word "creative" is to appeal to something in you to get you to buy some gear or in this case visit an advertising supported web site and get on a newsletter mailing list. We all want to be recognised as a talented creative person that is thinking outside the box and I suppose we will buy whatever it takes to get there. >>> > I get so very tired of the "creative" word being used with photography. >>> > I'll never believe that point and clicking (and workflowing with a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > recognised as a talented creative person that is thinking outside the box > and I suppose we will buy whatever it takes to get there. Heh, in my book both the word/usage of creative and outside the box are instant yawns, boring, archaic, and cheap. When someone uses the word creative in photography to me it means they changed it to a water color, pastel, or oil and then usually with gross distortions. I don't tire of too many people imitating good shots of scenery, poses, whatever. Seems no one stands and shoots from the same spot anyhow, they never do get the lighting exact, and it just might show a little of their perspective of the world. If shots like that were so damn boring I would never revisit places I've been. OTH, repetitive pictures of paint flaking on an old wall, well..... :) Thank goodness the lying old adage of, "you've seen one boob you've seen them all" is just that, a lie, and that's outside the box. ;) > If shots like that were so damn boring I would > never revisit places I've been. I think that might be a personal thing. Some people seem to enjoy say going to the same place for vacation year after year, other people, like me, feel like once I've seen some place, I've seen it and want to do something different next time. Neither is right or wrong, just what makes people different. Sure some minute detail of each photograph of half dome in B&W is different but most aren't enough different to warant reshooting it or viewing it again. Just my opinion. SignatureStacey >> If shots like that were so damn boring I would >> never revisit places I've been. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is different but most aren't enough different to warant reshooting it or > viewing it again. Just my opinion. Ayup! Someone's thing of beauty is another's trash. Good thing too. Else we all be robotron's. >> If shots like that were so damn boring I would >> never revisit places I've been. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in B&W is different but most aren't enough different to warant reshooting > it or viewing it again. Just my opinion. The reason to reshoot it is not to have the image, it's to learn the technique. If all you do is shoot and say you're done then there's not much point unless it's exploding or something at the time. Now, if you take that image and compare it to Ansel Adams' from the same viewpoint and ask yourself what's different about yours and figure out what you did differently and go back and try it again and get closer, you're learning things that will likely be useful later. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> Photographers, Do You Think Outside The Box? >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > is used to sell more gear to photographers. Make the pictures you enjoy; > sometimes others will enjoy them as well - if not, so what ? While I don't disagree on the overuse of "creative" (are you old enough to remember Mamiya-Sekor ads for 35mm SLRs with "the creative switch", which switched from spot to average metering?), still working within constraints takes a different kind of creativity. I mean the painter starts with a blank canvas and puts whatever he wants there, the photographer starts with a filled but changing canvas and his creativity is exhibited by controlling the viewpoint and lighting and exposure and focus and shooting at the time when that changing canvas shows the image that he wants to record. After all any kid with a Boy Scout camera can take a picture of Half Dome. Does it look like one by Ansel Adams? > And as for outside-the-box, what a tired concept (or is that now just > another paradigm?). Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>> Photographers, Do You Think Outside The Box? >>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > the viewpoint and lighting and exposure and focus and shooting at the time > when that changing canvas shows the image that he wants to record. But that isn't being "creative," it's being *selective*. You could as well say that a statue in a museum looks especially fine when viewed from a certain position at a certain time of day, with the window light falling on it just so. Does viewing it in that way make the viewer an artist? No. Then neither does photographing it from that angle at that time of day; the photographer is being selective, and that is in fact his skill. But it isn't art and it isn't creative. > After > all any kid with a Boy Scout camera can take a picture of Half Dome. Does > it look like one by Ansel Adams? No. Ansel Adams was a superb *technician*, and that is something not to be sniffed at. Also he wasn't using a "Boy Scout camera," whatever that is. > But that isn't being "creative," it's being *selective*. > > You could as well say that a statue in a museum looks especially fine when > viewed from a certain position at a certain time of day, with the window > light falling on it just so. Does viewing it in that way make the viewer > an artist? No. I agree. Just as if a painter was looking at the same thing getting an idea for his next work. > Then neither does photographing it from that angle at that > time of day; the photographer is being selective, and that is in fact his > skill. But it isn't art and it isn't creative. The act of viewing the statue isn't being an artist but being able to translate the feeling someone had while viewing the statue at that point in time IMHO -is- an art form. I don't think the medium (paint vs film) changes this fact. Both painting and photographing things are a skill set needed to transmit your feelings into something that can be shared with other people. Of course YMMV on that point. Some people feel that only certain skill sets can be used to create art? I find that there are just as many painters that aren't artists as there are photographers that aren't. Interesting that oil painting vs water colors hasn't degraded to this same point of negativity towards different mediums. SignatureStacey >> But that isn't being "creative," it's being *selective*. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > in > time IMHO -is- an art form. What's this "translate the feeling"? No offense, but that just sounds like gibberish to me. > I don't think the medium (paint vs film) > changes this fact. Both painting and photographing things are a skill set > needed to transmit your feelings into something that can be shared with > other people. There you go with the "feelings" again. I would sure like to know how you "transmit your feelings" with a photograph. You find an appealing subject. You have certain feelings about that subject, viewed in that way. You photograph it. Someone else who views your photograph may or may not have the same feelings about it that you did, but in either case how is that "transmitting YOUR feelings"? (emphasis added) Certain subjects may, and often do, elicit similar feelings in different people. That is hardly "transmitting [their] feelings" from person to person, and it seems to me the height of arrogance for any photographer to presume that that's what he's doing. > Of course YMMV on that point. Some people feel that only > certain skill sets can be used to create art? The point is not that "certain skill sets" qualify as art while others do not; the point is that art is done by an artist, not by a recording device. > I find that there are just as > many painters that aren't artists as there are photographers that aren't. I think you are confusing art with something else. There are indeed many painters who are very poor artists, but they are artists all the same, no matter how inferior the quality of their work. Art is not necessarily beautiful, appealing, good, interesting or even competent. Contrariwise, a photograph is not art just because it's beautiful or appealing, or even evokes "feelings" in the viewer. Many kinds of recordings evoke feelings. Recordings of songs often do, to take the obvious example. The singer may have been an artist but the person making the recording was a technician, not an artist, even if he made a much better recording than someone else might have. Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be much more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone lacking those skills. It's not a trivial thing to be an expert technician, and no reason for an accomplished technician to imagine he's an artist. Why some photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious fact, I do not know. John, You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned how to use their instruments: throats and lungs. >>> But that isn't being "creative," it's being *selective*. >>> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > Why some photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious > fact, I do not know. > John, > You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned how > to use their instruments: throats and lungs. But he or she is doing it himself or herself. A machine isn't doing it for him or her. Of course, *any* artists have to "use their instruments," whether natural or otherwise, and use them competently or otherwise. >> John, >> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Of course, *any* artists have to "use their instruments," whether natural > or otherwise, and use them competently or otherwise. So a singer is "creative" but a pianist isn't? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>> John, >>> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So a singer is "creative" but a pianist isn't? With a camera, I doubt either one is. >> John, >> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned >> how to use their instruments: throats and lungs. > > But he or she is doing it himself or herself. A machine isn't doing it for > him or her. So what about the brush a painter uses? Or an electric guitar? > Of course, *any* artists have to "use their instruments," whether natural > or otherwise, and use them competently or otherwise. So why is a camera excluded as being a "instrument"? SignatureStacey >>> John, >>> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what about the brush a painter uses? The brush is a tool. It decides nothing, designs nothing, creates nothing. > Or an electric guitar? > >> Of course, *any* artists have to "use their instruments," whether natural >> or otherwise, and use them competently or otherwise. > > So why is a camera excluded as being a "instrument"? It's not. There are all sorts of instruments for all sorts of purposes. An oil-pressure gauge isn't generally used creatively either. >>>> John, >>>> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The brush is a tool. It decides nothing, designs nothing, creates nothing. Neither does a camera unless a human is interfacing with it. You're confusing a snap shooter (with everything on full auto with no idea of what they are doing) with a photographer. The people who put ZERO thought into what they are doing. They are like a person who uses a paint by numbers set, they aren't an artist IMHO either. > creates nothing. Actually it is what is used to create a painting, just like a musical instrument is used to create music. >> Or an electric guitar? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's not. There are all sorts of instruments for all sorts of purposes. An > oil-pressure gauge isn't generally used creatively either. But an oil pressure gauge doesn't require any human interface for it to work, it's just like that statue you used in an earlier post. It's for viewing only as it doesn't create anything with it's use. SignatureStacey >>>>> John, >>>>> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > work, it's just like that statue you used in an earlier post. It's for > viewing only as it doesn't create anything with it's use. With less than a lap to go and noting that the oil pressure is exceedingly high indicating imminent failure of something or other that is likely to spill much oil on the track, the race driver maneuvers frantically to maintain position in front of his arch rival, hoping that when the part blows his rival will spin out in the resulting oil slick, causing a multicar pileup that takes out the rest of the pack, allowing him to coast across the finish line on inertia in solitary splendor. Even an oil pressure gage can be used "creatively". Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>> John, >>>>>> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Even an oil pressure gage can be used "creatively". Love it! :-) You created a wreck! SignatureStacey >>>>> John, >>>>> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Neither does a camera unless a human is interfacing with it. Not true at all. Most of today's cameras decide quite a lot on their own, and as already mentioned many cameras take loads of photos without human intervention. Are such photos "art" if they happen to look exactly like photos taken by live photographers? > You're > confusing a snap shooter (with everything on full auto with no idea of > what > they are doing) with a photographer. The people who put ZERO thought into > what they are doing. They are like a person who uses a paint by numbers > set, they aren't an artist IMHO either. But I'm not speaking of such people. I am assuming a thoughtful, skilled technician. >> creates nothing. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > work, it's just like that statue you used in an earlier post. It's for > viewing only as it doesn't create anything with it's use. Just so. > Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be much > more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone lacking those > skills. It's not a trivial thing to be an expert technician, and no reason > for an accomplished technician to imagine he's an artist. Why some > photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious fact, I do not > know. If you want to just be a technician that's fine. Clearly you're too ignorant to see where the artistry enters the image. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >> Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be >> much more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you want to just be a technician that's fine. Clearly you're too > ignorant to see where the artistry enters the image. Oooh, another technician who thinks he's an artist, and has tender, easily injured feelings about it too. >>> Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be >>> much more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Oooh, another technician who thinks he's an artist, and has tender, easily > injured feelings about it too. Well, I was assuming that you weren't trolling, but comments such as those deserve only one response: "<plonk>" Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be >>>> much more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Well, I was assuming that you weren't trolling, but comments such as those > deserve only one response: "<plonk>" Your departure is of course a tragic and crushing event, but I will try to bear up under it somehow. > > Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be much > > more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone lacking those > > skills. It's not a trivial thing to be an expert technician, and no reason > > for an accomplished technician to imagine he's an artist. Why some > > photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious fact, I do not > > know. > If you want to just be a technician that's fine. Clearly you're too > ignorant to see where the artistry enters the image. But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to some very limited extent manipulate what's there with artificial lighting, or by using various filters, but that's about it If you define true art as de novo creation - which is perfectly reasonable - then literature, painting, composing and improvising are art, but most photography isn't art at all - some photography may be something highly worthy but completely different from art, such as, for instance, journalism or documentation - and studio photography and musical interpretation are art only in a very limited and narrow sense, and are both fundamentally about being a good technician. OTOH, one can observe empirically that the type of talent that predisposes for being a good painter to some extent correlates with the type predisposing for being a good photographer. But this doesn't necessarily tell us that photigraphy is art. Only that a good eye for mages is needed both in artistic painting and in photography. Jan Böhme >> > Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be >> > much more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > musical interpretation are art only in a very limited and narrow sense, > and are both fundamentally about being a good technician. Well, that's fine, but you've eliminated quite a lot of the examples used in art history courses by that definition. > OTOH, one can observe empirically that the type of talent that > predisposes for being a good painter to some extent correlates with the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a good eye for mages is needed both in artistic painting and in > photography. Or that your definition of "art" is flawed. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) J. Clarke skrev: > > If you define true art as de novo creation - which is perfectly > > reasonable - then literature, painting, composing and improvising are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Well, that's fine, but you've eliminated quite a lot of the examples used in > art history courses by that definition. Umm, yes. Not necessarliy the best yardstick to abide by, though. Would you trust an academic to decide what is art? I certainly wouldn't, and then I'm a university professor myself. > > OTOH, one can observe empirically that the type of talent that > > predisposes for being a good painter to some extent correlates with the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Or that your definition of "art" is flawed. Although I'm sure that one can find definitions, for instance of "art", that are truly flawed, any definition that doesn't conform to the expectations of certain people isn't by necessity flawed. It is entirely possible to have several definitions of concepts like "art" that are mutually exclusive, but still good and useful for their purpose. Jan Böhme > J. Clarke skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you trust an academic to decide what is art? I certainly wouldn't, and > then I'm a university professor myself. By that logic we should discard your definition as well. >> > OTOH, one can observe empirically that the type of talent that >> > predisposes for being a good painter to some extent correlates with the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that are mutually exclusive, but still good and useful for their > purpose. Which means that there is no general agreement on the definition of the word, which makes any discussion of whether a particular artifact is or is not "art" a matter of politics rather than reason. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) J. Clarke skrev: > > J. Clarke skrev: > >> Well, that's fine, but you've eliminated quite a lot of the examples used > >> in art history courses by that definition. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > By that logic we should discard your definition as well. Well, first off, I stated that I didn't think it was particularly useful in a practical sense. But second, at least I don't think that I gave my definition _in my capacity as_ an academic. I am a professor of molecular biology who has happend to be heavily involved in music - first and foremost as an interpreter, but also as a composer and arranger, and who also is an amataur photographer. I leave it to you to evaluate which experience is most relevant for coming up with a notion (rather than a strict definition, really) of what is art. > > Although I'm sure that one can find definitions, for instance of "art", > > that are truly flawed, any definition that doesn't conform to the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > word, which makes any discussion of whether a particular artifact is or is > not "art" a matter of politics rather than reason. It still doesn't make a discussion of whether a particular artifact is art _pointless_, for one thing. And I'm also not certain that "politics" and "reason" ar the only two relevant categories. But I wrote as I did to point out that there may well be multiple useful and valid definitions of art to a poster who seemed singularly locked into a very narrow definition. I don't really bother with defining art. My only beef is with people who think that they can themselves, and using very simplistic criteria, to boot. Jan Böhme > J. Clarke skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > defining art. My only beef is with people who think that they can > themselves, and using very simplistic criteria, to boot. In that case I think we are in agreement. > Jan Böhme Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > I don't really bother with > defining art. My only beef is with people who think that they can > themselves, and using very simplistic criteria, to boot. Notice no one else brought up that photography was art until John walked up and proclaimed -no photograph could ever be considered art-.. It went downhill from there. Why you didn't respond to that original slam is beyond my comprehention and instead you jumped in to defend his POV on the subject. So yes you did "define art" by saying photography isn't art even though you now say you never do that? SignatureStacey >> I don't really bother with >> defining art. My only beef is with people who think that they can [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "define art" by saying photography isn't art even though you now say you > never do that? Have an alternative insight (which may be the word to use in some of these posts rather than "creativity") to this thread. For discussion sake only, perhaps the definition of art (if there is a definitive answer) is not one of the skill of the creator of the work nor what medium is use for their expression. Possibly the definition is more pragmatic -- a piece of work (painting, photograph, sculpture, a close line on a canvas, etc.) becomes "art" if some one buys the work and considers it as such? Andy Warhol's "Campbell Tomato Soup" painting comes to mind -- whether one views it as a painting or (because of it's realism) as a photograph doesn't matter -- it wasn't really "art" until some one bought it. Warhol certainly thought it was art. Critics thought it was art. But it didn't actually become art until a person defined it as such with their dollars. Anecdotal evidence: Several years ago a local zoo sold some "paintings" done by a chimpanzee. It was considered "art" by the purchaser, critics, and several art institutions -- no one knew or cared whether the chimp thought it was art.....:) Mike >>> I don't really bother with >>> defining art. My only beef is with people who think that they can [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > it > as such with their dollars. I agree with Andy his own self: he is reputed to have said the "art" in those pieces lay in the artifice with which he perpetrated a good-natured fraud on the purchasers, and by your logic, the world of art. Hooray for Andy Warhol, a man who knew how to use a dipstick on fellow occupants of the world. SignatureFrank ess >> I don't really bother with >> defining art. My only beef is with people who think that they can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > up > and proclaimed -no photograph could ever be considered art-.. Yet another straw man. I made no such proclamation. This is what, the fourth or fifth time you've claimed I said something I never said? Is there some reason you can't just tell the truth? Do you find that too limiting? This particular thread actually originated with LoLo's comment: > I get so very tired of the "creative" word being used with photography. > I'll never believe that point and clicking (and workflowing with a > computer) will ever come anywhere near the creativity shown by artists and > musicians > who create the whole thing with their talent and hands. LoLo was and is correct. > It went > downhill from there. On the contrary, from there it went to an interesting discussion on the nature of art. It only "went downhill" for people who have pretensions of art which they cannot support with logical argument. >>> I don't really bother with >>> defining art. My only beef is with people who think that they can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yet another straw man. I made no such proclamation. "Then neither does photographing it from that angle at that time of day; the photographer is being selective, and that is in fact his skill. But it isn't art and it isn't creative." So are you going to deny you posted this statement? > This is what, the > fourth or fifth time you've claimed I said something I never said? OK one more time John, did you not post "But it isn't art and it isn't creative."? > Is there some reason you can't just tell the truth? Do you find that too > limiting? See above. > This particular thread actually originated with LoLo's comment: >> I get so very tired of the "creative" word being used with photography. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LoLo was and is correct. He never said the medium could never be used in an artistic manner. And again, his skill with this tool if probably why he feels limited in it's creative use. Most people have only used fully automated auto focus (auto magic?) cameras and have no idea how to use a camera outside of P mode. >> It went >> downhill from there. > > On the contrary, from there it went to an interesting discussion on the > nature of art. It only "went downhill" for people who have pretensions of > art which they cannot support with logical argument. When you started with the personal insults is where it went downhill, do I need to quote those for you as well? SignatureStacey >>>> I don't really bother with >>>> defining art. My only beef is with people who think that they can [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So are you going to deny you posted this statement? I did make the statement and of course I stand by it, in the context which you have omitted. What has that to do with your claim that I "proclaimed -no photograph could ever be considered art-"? That is a falsehood. >> This is what, the >> fourth or fifth time you've claimed I said something I never said? > > OK one more time John, did you not post "But it isn't art and it isn't > creative."? Asked and answered. >> Is there some reason you can't just tell the truth? Do you find that too >> limiting? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > He never said the medium could never be used in an artistic manner. Neither did I. But "used in an artistic manner" is so broad as to be of no relevance here. You can flip hamburgers "in an artistic manner." That doesn't make hamburgers an art form. > And > again, his skill with this tool if probably why he feels limited in it's > creative use. Most people have only used fully automated auto focus (auto > magic?) cameras and have no idea how to use a camera outside of P mode. Irrelevant. Some technicians are more knowledgeable than others; this does not make them artists. >>> It went >>> downhill from there. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > When you started with the personal insults is where it went downhill, do I > need to quote those for you as well? Sure, if it brings you pleasure, go ahead. The fact is that you find "insults" where there are none. You are apparently "insulted" by the observation that simply recording images is not art -- absent the pretensions, you would feel no need to be "insulted." >>>Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be much >>>more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone lacking those [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies > in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. But 'what's there' includes everything from all possible angles at all times of day or night, all possible focal lengths and perspectives, all possible depths of field at all possible points of focus and shutter speeds, ISO, contrasts & saturations, color, B&W, manipulated, all of it. All people in all their moods and dress, posture & motion. Everything in nature & science. Anything that bounces or absorbs light. > You may to some > very limited extent manipulate what's there with artificial lighting, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a good eye for mages is needed both in artistic painting and in > photography. >>>>Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be >>>>much [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > All people in all their moods and dress, posture & motion. Everything in > nature & science. Anything that bounces or absorbs light. Sure. That's the great thing about three-dimensional stuff: you can photograph it from any direction, and in a variety of ways. ;-) >> You may to some >> very limited extent manipulate what's there with artificial lighting, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> a good eye for mages is needed both in artistic painting and in >> photography. Paul Furman skrev: > > But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies > > in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it. All people in all their moods and dress, posture & motion. > Everything in nature & science. Anything that bounces or absorbs light. True. You an easily argue that there is an infinity of possible photographic images. But the set of possible images painted with artistic imagination is an infinity of greater power. I mean it more as a metaphor than as exact set theory math, but you can easily imagine that while there are aleph-0 different possible photographs, there are at least aleph-1 possible different paintings. Jan Böhme > Paul Furman skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that while there are aleph-0 different possible photographs, there are > at least aleph-1 possible different paintings. By that logic drawings can't be art because for every drawing there is an infinity of possible paintings. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> Paul Furman skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >By that logic drawings can't be art because for every drawing there is an >infinity of possible paintings. Even worse, assuming that the painting is meant for a human viewer with an unaided eye, with a limited resolution, there are that only a finite number of paintings that can be seen as different. Every print that is made of a photograph is different in the physical sense, but we consider them all the same because we can't really tell them apart. Applying that same thing to paintings gives you a finite number of possible paintings. (At first I wanted to argue about the different kinds of infinities, but the 'technician' inside me took over from the 'mathematician' and discarded the infinity.) SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > In article <e5io3a1tuc@news3.newsguy.com>, > >By that logic drawings can't be art because for every drawing there is an > >infinity of possible paintings. > > Even worse, Philip, _you_ should have spotted the fallacy in John's logic above, shouldn't you? Aleph-0 by aleph-0 (or, perhaps better, omega by omega) is still the same number, right? > assuming that the painting is meant for a human viewer with an > unaided eye, with a limited resolution, there are that only a finite number > of paintings that can be seen as different. Yes, of course. Just as we can calculate the upper limit of the number of different images that can be taken a given digital camera. Pixel number by number of intensity channels by number of colour channels, have I forgotten anything? So no, we're not dealing in true set theory infinities in either case. It is entirely a metaphor. And maybe it is more elucidating to phrase the difference in terms of accessibility: All the theoretically possible paintings are accessible to an imaginative artist, whereas a great many of the theoretically possible photographs are very inacessible indeed to any given photographer, no matter how imaginative they are. Thus, while the theoretical repertoire of the artist and the photographer might seem about equally large, the available repertoire is much greater for the painter - to borrow nomenclature from my day job of molecular immunology. Jan Böhme >> In article <e5io3a1tuc@news3.newsguy.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >shouldn't you? Aleph-0 by aleph-0 (or, perhaps better, omega by omega) >is still the same number, right? Yes, that is what I was thinking about. Is it possible that there is a larger infinity for paintings than there is for drawings. >So no, we're not dealing in true set theory infinities in either case. >It is entirely a metaphor. Possible, but have to be careful, and I think you take a wrong turn below: >And maybe it is more elucidating to phrase the difference in terms of >accessibility: All the theoretically possible paintings are accessible >to an imaginative artist, whereas a great many of the theoretically >possible photographs are very inacessible indeed to any given >photographer, no matter how imaginative they are. First of all, painting requires skill. I can imagine all kinds of great paintings, but it doesn't mean that I can actually create them. >Thus, while the theoretical repertoire of the artist and the >photographer might seem about equally large, the available repertoire >is much greater for the painter - to borrow nomenclature from my day >job of molecular immunology. I don't see how you can compare one very large finite set with another in this way. Yes, a painter has access to all possible subjects without leaving his room. But there is no way that you argue from that, that in practice a photographer is more constrained than a painter. (Of course a landscape photographer is more constrained than a painter, but there is more to photography than landscapes). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency Philip Homburg skrev: > >And maybe it is more elucidating to phrase the difference in terms of > >accessibility: All the theoretically possible paintings are accessible [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > First of all, painting requires skill. I can imagine all kinds of great > paintings, but it doesn't mean that I can actually create them. Ah yes. But this is what we immunologists would call the actual repertoire, as opposed to the available one. > >Thus, while the theoretical repertoire of the artist and the > >photographer might seem about equally large, the available repertoire > >is much greater for the painter - to borrow nomenclature from my day > >job of molecular immunology. > I don't see how you can compare one very large finite set with another > in this way. This is precisely what immunologists do on a routine basis. The terms "theoretical repertoire", "available repertoire" and "actual repertoire" were coined to describe different sets of antibody molecules - the set that can be formed in the lymphocyte, the set that actually works and can be selected, and the set actually present in any given individual at any given time, respectively. > Yes, a painter has access to all possible subjects without leaving his > room. > But there is no way that you argue from that, that in practice a photographer > is more constrained than a painter. I suppose that one really has to also ask a painter about this, and not contend with photographer's views of the possibilities of painting as an artistic medium. Jan Böhme > Philip Homburg skrev: >> But there is no way that you argue from that, that in practice a photographer >> is more constrained than a painter. > > I suppose that one really has to also ask a painter about this, and not > contend with photographer's views of the possibilities of painting as > an artistic medium. Then let us rely only on photographers' views as to the nature and extent of "art" in photography? ....didn't think so. Signaturelsmft >> Philip Homburg skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Then let us rely only on photographers' views as to the nature and > extent of "art" in photography? ....didn't think so. Exactly, again he and John need to make themselves feel superior by proclaiming THEIR chosen amedium is a true art form. It's actuially quite sad when you think about it.. SignatureStacey >I suppose that one really has to also ask a painter about this, and not >contend with photographer's views of the possibilities of painting as >an artistic medium. Why? I'm no more interested in all the paintings a painter just imagined than I am interested in compositions that were never written down. There are enough paintings that the body of art can be used to study the behavior of painters. As an observer, I see no significant difference between painters and photographers. I may even go as far as I say that painter may even be more constrained in some ways than photographers. It is easy to imagine (for somebody with some training in math) an infinite series of ideas, concepts, numbers, etc. But in practice, people are very limited. Most people cannot simply come up with thousands of different subjects for paintings, movie or book plots, etc. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >I suppose that one really has to also ask a painter about this, and not > >contend with photographer's views of the possibilities of painting as > >an artistic medium. > > Why? Avoiding observer bias, for instance. There are lots of parameters for setting up a controlled experiment that have become conditioned reflexes in me, also out of the lab. Professional injury.simply didn't seem comparable a photographer's assessment of the available repertoire of paintings. > I'm no more interested in all the paintings a painter just imagined than I am > interested in compositions that were never written down. I'd say this is very intresting, but very difficult to study, so best left alone for that reason. > There are enough paintings that the body of art can be used to study the > behavior of painters. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I may even go as far as I say that painter may even be more constrained in > some ways than photographers. A painter can make far fewer pictures in his lifetime, for one thing. Perhaps three orders of magnitude less, on the average - depending a little on his sketching practice, and how you count sketches. Of course this is a constraint. But it is a constraint of the actual repertoire, not of the available one. > It is easy to imagine (for somebody with some training in math) an infinite > series of ideas, concepts, numbers, etc. > > But in practice, people are very limited. Most people cannot simply come up > with thousands of different subjects for paintings, movie or book plots, etc. This is very true. Also, the art market tends by itself to drive painters into repetition. The public wants "typical" works of any painter, and has always wanted. But as long as different artists choose different subjects and differnt manners, this isn't really a constraint for the total body of paintings as such. Jan Böhme >> I may even go as far as I say that painter may even be more constrained >> in some ways than photographers. > > A painter can make far fewer pictures in his lifetime, for one thing. We go back to the "snapshooter" mentality here. I've spend a whole day in the field with my 4X5 and only ending up exposing a couple of negatives of a single scene out of many I studied. I guess some people in the same period of time might have burned off 200-300 frame in hopes of maybe capturing something by mistake? That's the difference between a photographer and a snap shooter. I've seen painters rip through a painting in less than a half an hour so to say a painter will produce less work than a photographer in the same period of time is again using an awfully wide brush. SignatureStacey >>> I may even go as far as I say that painter may even be more constrained >>> in some ways than photographers. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > say a painter will produce less work than a photographer in the same period > of time is again using an awfully wide brush. Ahhh! You are really stooping now, Stacey....! The idea of calmly stating real world experiences that bear directly on the subject matter- well, that's just not fair! <hic insertum smilie> Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>>> I may even go as far as I say that painter may even be more constrained >>>> in some ways than photographers. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > <hic insertum smilie> Allow me to stoop down even further. It appears that the debate here is if photography can be called "art". So far nobody has attempted to find a definition for the word "art" that excludes photography yet the Encyclopedia Britannica article (see below) does include photography in it's definition in a grouping which includes painting, sculpture,..etc.. Another definition points out that the word "art" comes from the Latin "ars" meaning craft or skill. I don't think that this excludes photography from the "art" even though one could argue a case that *some* photographic processes do not fit this definition. One could also ague that there are some paintings and sculpture that do not fit this definition. Can someone please post some reference where photography is *explicitly* excluded from any or all art form definitions? ----------------------------- art Encyclopedia Britannica Article Page 1 of 1 also called visual art a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination. The term art encompasses diverse media such as painting, sculpture, printmaking, drawing, decorative arts, photography, and installation. The various visual arts exist within a continuum that ranges from purely aesthetic purposes at one end to purely utilitarian. ----------------------------- Don > > You an easily argue that there is an infinity of possible > > photographic images. But the set of possible images painted with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > By that logic drawings can't be art because for every drawing there is an > infinity of possible paintings. Well, no. At least if I remember my set theory right, (been a long time since, I have to admit) aleph-0 times aleph-0 is still aleph-0. For instance, for every integer, there is an infinite number of rational mumbers before the next integer. Still, both total number of integers and the total number of rational numbers is aleph-0 Philip is of course right that my metaphor - I pointed out that I intended it as no more - is highly suspect. But if you go with it, as you seem to do, I'm still consistent. Already without pointing out that I did not in any way claim to _define_ art with my metaphor of cardinalities. Just to make a very specific argument. Jan Böhme >> > You an easily argue that there is an infinity of possible >> > photographic images. But the set of possible images painted with [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > _define_ art with my metaphor of cardinalities. Just to make a very > specific argument. If you are going to be picky, you have asserted that the set of paintings is an infinity of greater power, you have not proven it. But I'm not sure that the order of infinity applicable to the set of possible results has anything to do with something being "art". Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) J. Clarke skrev: > > Already without pointing out that I did not in any way claim to > > _define_ art with my metaphor of cardinalities. Just to make a very > > specific argument. > > If you are going to be picky, you have asserted that the set of paintings is > an infinity of greater power, you have not proven it. Of course not. Worse, I can't prove it. Worse still, it can even be proven that the set of different paintings that the human eye actually can discriminate between is a finite number. What enabled my riposte was solely tha fact that you started "By that logic..." > But I'm not sure that the order of infinity applicable to the set of > possible results has anything to do with something being "art". No. I used it as a metaphor, ant not necessarily a particularly apt one at that. (At least I tried to think "out of the box" ;-) See my discussion with Philip for more of my views on the subject. Jan Böhme "But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to some very limited extent manipulate what's there with artificial lighting, or by using various filters, but that's about it" The extent to which you can change the lighting on a set, arrange the parts of a still life, change your perspective, change composition, etc, are pretty limitless. If one simply pushes a button as on a copy machine then I wouldn't consider the results very artful (unless someone had manipulated the copy machine thereby introducing creativity), but once you start introducing aspects that can be changed and you manipulate those aspects creatively then you are creating art. Greg Signature"What have you got in that paper bag? Is it a dose of Vitamin C? Ain't got no time for Western medicine I am Damo Suzuki" - Mark E Smith > But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies > in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to some > very limited extent manipulate what's there with artificial lighting, > or by using various filters, but that's about it You demonstrate a considerable lack of understanding via the above "definition". SignatureJohn McWilliams >> But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies >> in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You demonstrate a considerable lack of understanding via the above > "definition". The word "Snapshooter" comes to mind! :-) SignatureStacey > The word "Snapshooter" comes to mind! :-) Stacey, it isn't supposed to be within the competence of a photographer to judge the quality of another photog's work by what type of arguments he uses in a discussion about the essence of art. From what I write, I might be all crap, I might be great, you can't know. (And I don't really bother what I am, since I don't do photograpy either for a living or even primarily to get appreciation from other people. However, one thing I do know is that I make way too few snapshots. For the very reason "John Falstaff" outlined, this despised, lowly form of photography very often is the kind that is most appreciated with time. So I should do more, much more. Only problem is that I don't think taking snapshots particularly fun - and I do this for the fun of it.) OTOH, _my_ employer demands of _me_ that I am able adequately to judge the intellectual merits of an argument or a reasoning. I have so far voluntarily desisted from making more extensive use of my professional competence in this area here... Jan Böhme > OTOH, _my_ employer demands of _me_ that I am able adequately to judge > the intellectual merits of an argument or a reasoning. > > I have so far voluntarily desisted from making more extensive use of my > professional competence in this area here... To what area do you refer? Defining what tools a photographer can and cannot use? What is "art"? Do feel free to use the totality of your competence to explain to the great unwashed whatever the hell your points are. Signaturejohn mcwilliams John McWilliams skrev: > > OTOH, _my_ employer demands of _me_ that I am able adequately to judge > > the intellectual merits of an argument or a reasoning. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > To what area do you refer? Defining what tools a photographer can and > cannot use? What is "art"? Obviously I didn't make myself sufficiently clear for the entire newsgroup. "This area" refers to the latest previously mentioned competence, i. e. capacity to judge the intellectual merits of an argument - any argument. In other words, whether an argument holds water from a purely logical viewpoint. Not all postings in this thread are equally impressive in that respect. > Do feel free to use the totality of your competence to explain to the > great unwashed whatever the hell your points are. I was only trying to be a wee bit subtle. If subtlety passes over you at 20 000 ft, don't worry. Missing the point won't hurt you, nor will it have other harmful consequences. Jan Böhme > John McWilliams skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > logical viewpoint. Not all postings in this thread are equally > impressive in that respect. D'Oh! >> Do feel free to use the totality of your competence to explain to the >> great unwashed whatever the hell your points are. > > I was only trying to be a wee bit subtle. If subtlety passes over you > at 20 000 ft, don't worry. Missing the point won't hurt you, nor will > it have other harmful consequences. Ja, Jan. You failed in subtlety, but suceeded in chutzpah and arrogance. Yet, since you participate to hone your English skills and argue almost any point, there's nothing you can teach here. Have you worn out your welcome in many Swedish language groups? SignatureJohn McWilliams > > John McWilliams skrev: > Ja, Jan. You failed in subtlety, but suceeded in chutzpah and arrogance. I'm sorry if I can't attain the breathtaking heights of subtlety and humility that you embodied in your monosyllabic "D'Oh". But I'm working on it Jan Böhme >> John McWilliams skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Ja, Jan. You failed in subtlety, but suceeded in chutzpah and arrogance. Could you point me to the "arrogant" parts of what he said? I seem to have missed them, though I've read every post in this thread. >>> John McWilliams skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Could you point me to the "arrogant" parts of what he said? I seem to have > missed them, though I've read every post in this thread. Nah. If you guys want to date, that's fine by me. Signaturelsmft >>>> John McWilliams skrev: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Nah. If you guys want to date, that's fine by me. Talking through your hat, in other words. > "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message >> Nah. If you guys want to date, that's fine by me. > > Talking through your hat, in other words. Not at all, Shakespeare! Do you really need for it to be spelled out? Hint: it's a metaphor, unless of course you boys are actually already literally in bed together. Signaturelsmft >> The word "Snapshooter" comes to mind! :-) > > Stacey, it isn't supposed to be within the competence of a photographer > to judge the quality of another photog's work by what type of arguments > he uses in a discussion about the essence of art. From what I write, I > might be all crap, I might be great, you can't know. From what you wrote, if you think filters are about the limit for self expression with a camera, I doubt I'd be impressed with your work. You've already convinced yourself this is a substandard medium, how would your work "shine" given how negatively you feel towards this medium? SignatureStacey > > But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies > > in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You demonstrate a considerable lack of understanding via the above > "definition". If you want to criticise my lack of understanding, it might be convenient to do so in generally understandable English, if you want me to have a chance to improve this deplorably faulty understanding of whatever it now is that I demonstrate considerable lack of understanding about. What on earth does "lack of understanding via the above definition" mean? I can understand what lack of understanding _of_ a definition means. But I'm damned if I can understand what lack of understanding _via_ a definition is. If you instead mean to say, for instance, "You haven't understood this and this and that, which is surprising bearing mind the definition you used", why can't you say so? Jan Böhme >> > But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies >> > in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to some [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > What on earth does "lack of understanding via the above definition" > mean? What he and I both meant, if you really believe that filters and maybe some artificial light is the limit of the control a photographer has over the final product, you don't understand much about photography. I can also see why you feel limited by it! SignatureStacey >>> > But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies >>> > in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > final product, you don't understand much about photography. I can also see > why you feel limited by it! He never said, hinted, suggested or implied that he "[felt] limited by it." He said that photography itself has certain limitations, and it does -- relative to the more creative varieties of image making. Again: photography is a useful, worthwhile and even fascinating thing to do, in and of itself. The capable photographer need not pretend his photographs are "art," and one wonders why he would feel the need to do so -- or why he would insist on being "insulted" by any more realistic appraisal. >>>> > But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element >>>> > lies in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > He never said, hinted, suggested or implied that he "[felt] limited by > it." Well given what he posted he believes are the limits, he IS limited by his lack of skill. Ignorance is bliss? > He said that photography itself has certain limitations, and it does > -- relative to the more creative varieties of image making. > > Again: photography is a useful, worthwhile and even fascinating thing to > do, in and of itself. What you don't seem to be able to comprehend is there are DIFFERENT kinds of photography. This for example is nothing more than a recording of what my newest dog looks like to show a friend. http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/BLACKIE.jpg Here's some stuff I sold on ebay, another basic recording even though I did some work to get the lighting right. http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/clock.jpg And even though I found this wasp interesting, it's still just a snapshot to me. http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/wasp.jpg > The capable photographer need not pretend his > photographs are "art," Again you don't seem to be able to comprehend that not all photographs are made using the same thought process or lack thereof. It's like a paint brush can be used to create an artistic painting or paint the trim in your kitchen. Why =YOU= feel this need to proclaim/argue there is no way any photograph could even have been taken in a creative way for artistic purposes is definitely beyond my comprehension! Again I'd love to see what you consider is some of your good photography to understand why you feel this way. I'm not holding my breath. SignatureStacey > What he and I both meant, if you really believe that filters and maybe some > artificial light is the limit of the control a photographer has over the > final product, you don't understand much about photography. But I never said that! What I said was that those were the only elements that were "creative" in "John Falstaff"'s sense of the word - i had it within quotation marks, mind you - as all other excercise of control can be thought of as selection of what's already there. You can argue about directing a model or arranging a still life both ways, so it isn't completely clearcut, but it is obvious that the completely dominating control element in photography is one of selection out of the available. This isn't bad or unartistic as such - it just is photography, as opposed to other expression forms with a creative element. > I can also see why you feel limited by it! I don't feel limited by it at all. There is much more out there to select that I would like to select than I could possibly ever manage to undertake. So - no real limitation at all. I went with "John Falstaff"'s definitions of "art" and "creativity" because I thought that they had some merit, not that they were universal absolutes. Just as the reception notion put forth in this thread by Mike Rooney - art is everything that actually can successfully be sold as such - has some merit - although the to definitions of art are entirely mutually exclusive. The only thing that hasn't merit, in my view, are rigid cocksure statements of an absolute and exclusive definition of art. In particular if the only thing one does is to sheepishly repeat the exact words one was taught in this or the other photogra |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message