Someone fetch the tablets

Discussion in 'Photography' started by \(not quite so\) Fat Sam, Oct 3, 2007.

  1. I see UC has forgotten to take his medication again.
     
    \(not quite so\) Fat Sam, Oct 3, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    ggomezphoto Guest

    The real definition of art: sourcing the right medication.

    Gerry
     
    ggomezphoto, Oct 3, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. He makes me laugh - he's so angry it can't be real surely! I think
    he's a make believe character!!
     
    gingerprincess, Oct 3, 2007
    #3
  4. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Cats Guest

    Is he really angry (or arrogant/stupid/trolling etc.) or simply living
    in a personal bubble, remote from the rest of us?
     
    Cats, Oct 3, 2007
    #4
  5. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Koekje Guest

    Cats enlightened us with:
    Probably both :)

    Koekje
     
    Koekje, Oct 3, 2007
    #5
  6. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    UC Guest

    UC, Oct 3, 2007
    #6
  7. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Frank Arthur Guest

    Well then. If you used upper case letters it MUST be the "TRUTH"!
     
    Frank Arthur, Oct 3, 2007
    #7
  8. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    UC Guest

    I have to emphasize certain things.
     
    UC, Oct 3, 2007
    #8
  9. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Pat Guest

    Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that photography can't be art?
    How do you define "art"? Just for the heck of it, how do you define
    "photography" if you're excluding it from the realm of art?
     
    Pat, Oct 3, 2007
    #9
  10. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    UC Guest

    I suggest you look at the arguments of the philosopher Roger Scruton.
    He makes many of the same arguments that I do, though I have some of
    my own. You must understand that this is a philosophical issue, not a
    photographic one. I have had heated arguments with several
    photographers who claim their work is art, even if not all photography
    is. I try to tell them that no matter what they do in the making of a
    photograph, a photograph is by its nature is a not a work of art but a
    product of a natural process, much like a fossil, or else it is not a
    photograph. You can't have it both ways. Something can be EITHER a
    photograph OR a work of art, but never both.

    http://www.roger-scruton.com/

    http://www.roger-scruton.com/rs-books.html

    He devotes a chapter to this issue in his book: "The Aesthetic
    Understanding". Some of it may be technical to grasp at first reading,
    but the arguments are sound.
     
    UC, Oct 3, 2007
    #10
  11. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    dadiOH Guest

    What natural process might that be? Something like paint drying?
    A fossil? A *Fossil*?? hehehehe


    --

    dadiOH
    ____________________________

    dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
    ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
    LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
    Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
     
    dadiOH, Oct 3, 2007
    #11
  12. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    UC Guest

    The natural processes of focussing light on film and the reaction of
    film to light...
     
    UC, Oct 3, 2007
    #12
  13. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    dadiOH Guest

    Oh, THAT...like eyes focusing on something and the reaction of the
    hand in drawing what is seen.

    --

    dadiOH
    ____________________________

    dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
    ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
    LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
    Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
     
    dadiOH, Oct 3, 2007
    #13
  14. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    UC Guest

    Nope. There is no causal chain there. You stand before Queen Elizabeth
    and paint...a dog.
     
    UC, Oct 3, 2007
    #14
  15. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Pat Guest

    Thanks for the link. There's some interesting reading about him, but
    obviously I haven't gotten a book this quickly. However, from what I
    have found out, you are very, very WRONG on your understanding of him
    and photography:
    -------------------------
    Roger Scruton told us that he was merely talking about photography as
    the purely 'logical' opposite of painting. Nevertheless, it comes as a
    big surprise when we suddenly read the following sentence about 'real'
    photography: 'The history of the art of photography is the history of
    successive attempts to break the causal chain by which the
    photographer is imprisoned, to impose a human intention between
    subject and appearance, so that the subject can be both defined by
    that intention and seen in terms of it '(p. 118). In that case, the
    photograph becomes 'representational', just like a painting - and that
    is precisely what we always have known. But our feeling of being back
    home again is immediately spoiled in that we get to hear that we are
    no longer dealing here with 'photography', but with 'painting': ''When
    the photographer strives toward representational art, he inevitably
    seems to move away from that ideal of photography toward the ideal of
    painting' (p.118)

    Our pleasure is all the more spoilt, since Roger Scruton had nearly
    convinced us through pointing to the fact that the photographer has no
    overall control over the image that he is producing:' The causal
    process of which the photographer is a victim puts almost every detail
    outside of his control' (p. 117). We immediately thought of the
    sovereign command of the painter over all the dimensions of the image,
    form, colour, tone. But, it turns out that Roger Scruton is talking
    about rather futile details: ''There will be an infinite number of
    things that lie outside his control: Dust on a sleeve, freckles on a
    face, wrinkles on a hand' (p. 117). For such futile details,
    photographers have from the beginning found equally banal solutions,
    as also Roger Scruton knows: ''(The photographer) can proceed to paint
    things out or in, to touch up, alter or pasticher as he pleases' (p.
    117). And it is, of all things these banal proceedings, that inspire
    Roger Scruton to make his 'salto mortale' from 'logical photography'
    to real photography that turns out to be painting: 'But of course he
    has now become a painter, precisely through taking representation
    seriously' (p. 117). When banal interventions as retouche suffice to
    turn a photo into a representation, of which photography Roger Scruton
    has been talking then all the time? Or, to put it the other way round:
    does it really suffice to retouch a documentary photo to transform it
    in a 'representation' that is enjoyed as such? Does it suffice to
    remove the fly from our photograph of the ice-cream to turn it into a
    'painting' and to have my 'interest' in ice-cream disappear?
     
    Pat, Oct 4, 2007
    #15
  16. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    ggomezphoto Guest

    Bullshit!

    Art has nothing to do with how an artifact (painting, sculpture, or
    photograph) is obtained (paint, chisel or camera) but rather is a
    function of seeing, a function of the brain.

    "We're all see creatures, under the skin
    Images appear before us, but we see them within

    Horses, and apples, and sunlight on glass
    Mattresses, cactuses, and airplanes all pass

    Phantasms evoked for our pleasure and terror
    Collected in secret, then projected on mirrors

    Without them we'd perish, we'd cease to be
    For we see to live and we live to see

    We're all see creatures, under the skin
    Images appear before us, but we see them within."

    from David Levi Strauss: Between The Eyes: Essays on Photography and
    Politics

    UC, you know this is true. Otherwise you wouldn't be so fucking
    defensive about YOUR work, and go on ad nauseam in its defense. If
    photography is not art, if it is like a fossil, then why are you
    defending your artifact and so critical of other artifacts? One isn't
    more important than any other, right?

    I think it is because You see ART in YOUR WORK, and only in YOUR
    WORK. (I have to emphasize certain things). I guess you "see them
    from within." That must be a fucking scary place.

    Gerry
     
    ggomezphoto, Oct 4, 2007
    #16
  17. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Not4wood Guest

    Hehe, Pat. Really nicely done.

    Truthfully though, this argument has been around for a very long time and
    wont go away. A lot of people will just argue for arguments sake to the
    point whether they actually believe it or not is immaterial.

    For some reason I think a lot of people if they be a true fan of the
    classical arts are threatened by Photography for some reason as the greats
    might or will be replaced which is far from true. Everything has its place,
    just like a lot of people thought Rock Music isn't a true art form, that it
    was the Devils work.

    Bottom line is if you put a Paint Brush, a Chisel, charcoal, pen and ink etc
    into anybodies hands you probably wont get a work of art. Because its there
    doesn't mean the results will be a work of art. Because anybody can pick up
    a camera, sit at a piano, play a sax doesn't make that art either. Trust me
    on this, you don't want me to try and play an instrument. LOL

    Art, being able to see in the minds eye (Previsualization) and then creating
    it using any form of media to the point that its exactly what the artist
    intended. Playing with light and shadows is nature. Mixing pigments for
    paint is nature. The nature argument doesn't mean squat against
    Photography. The history of Photography as its been passed around was
    created in the Middle East. Someone was in there Tent/Shelter and getting
    away from the Mid Day heat and saw a shadow on the wall. It came from a Pin
    Hole in the other side of the tent, so he looked thru the hole and saw a
    caravan crossing a sand dune a long distance off. He picked up a piece of
    charcoal that he had and sketched what he saw on the side of the tent. AKA,
    the First Pin Hole Camera a natural process.

    Again, the main argument. Picking up a brush doesn't make one an Artist nor
    does anybody picking up a camera make them an artist either.

    How bout this one, picking up a hammer doesn't make one a carpenter. But,
    look at some works in museums of antique furniture and tell me if its not
    art?

    Not4wood
     
    Not4wood, Oct 4, 2007
    #17
  18. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    May Guest

    Point well taken. To ME photography is another media in which I can
    create art. I can & do draw, paint & sew creations of art. I don't see
    a real difference in using a camera to create art or using a torch to
    create a sculpture. ART is truly in the eye of the beholder.
     
    May, Oct 4, 2007
    #18
  19. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Cats Guest

    And that is the crux of the matter, along with what it implies about
    the definition of art.
     
    Cats, Oct 4, 2007
    #19
  20. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Pat Guest

    The real problem with the simplistic argument that painting is art and
    photography is not is that it mean that Ansel Adams is not and artist
    but Thomas Kinkade is.
     
    Pat, Oct 4, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.