Someone fetch the tablets

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

  1. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Paul Furman Guest

    Right. The same way a photographer creates an evocative experience by
    framing a scene intentionally from countless possibilities, placing the
    subject in relation to the background, chosing the lighting to get the
    desired effect.
    Paul Furman, Oct 6, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Rob Morley Guest

    I'm not arguing that photography can't be art. ;^P
    Rob Morley, Oct 6, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    UC Guest

    No, the photgrapher is NOT a painter.
    No. There are Liberal Arts, Fine Arts, and Mechanical Arts.

    You are woefully ignorant about the history of the word 'art':
    http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb....nical Arts in the Middle Ages AVISTA 2003.htm

    I'm NOT. I'm saying people who call their photography "fine art
    photography" are idiots.
    UC, Oct 6, 2007
  4. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    UC Guest

    It is traditionally classified with the fine arts as opposed to the
    mechanical arts, in which carpentry could be classed.
    Yes, it's called decorative art.
    Yes, it's called decorative art.
    Right. It's a mechanical art. People who don't know it's all just
    technique call anything done with a high degree of manual skill 'art'.
    Tradition, and because it has design in it.
    UC, Oct 6, 2007
  5. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    UC Guest

    BINGO!!!! Good job, Rob!
    Decorative art, technically.
    UC, Oct 6, 2007
  6. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    UC Guest

    Those are merely choices; the lens forms the image.
    UC, Oct 6, 2007
  7. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    UC Guest

    Wrong. He creates none of these; he merely selects from possibilities
    already existing. A building or sculpture is a CREATION.
    UC, Oct 6, 2007
  8. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Paul Furman Guest

    And a writer selects words from a dictionary. OK yeah, the words aren't
    organized... music is rarely unique though. Paintings of real scenes are
    often attempts at photography, lacking a camera.

    Lots of buildings are little more than engineering. Mostly they are
    functional, rarely more than decorative, architecture as art is usually
    no more than creative problem solving & some decoration. The client
    needs so many rooms... make it fit on the site, in budget, make it
    pretty enough that the planning department approves it & the neighbor's
    aren't upset, make sure it doesn't collapse. What makes architecture
    different from craft?
    Paul Furman, Oct 7, 2007
  9. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Ken Hart Guest

    If it makes you happy, I'll consider your hospital building to be art (but
    only if you tell me what the hell a "tin knocker' is!).

    The architecture of the old church with it's ornate carvings might be
    considered a 'period' art (as in Gothic, Georgian, etc.,), while the stark
    appearence of the hospital or office building might be 'modern' art.

    There's 'good' art and 'bad' art, but taking a raw material, rather it be a
    chunk of wood, or a piece of granite, and making it into something else, is
    an 'art'
    Ken Hart, Oct 7, 2007
  10. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Not4wood Guest

    LOL, sorry.

    A Tin Knocker is someone who makes Ducts or pounds the metal into joints and
    assembles the Ducts together in the building for A/C. Almost like an old
    fashioned Black Smith who pounds the metal into shapes. If I was taking for
    granted that people knew some of the names of the trades, I forgot. Also,
    Brickies are Brick Layers.

    BTW, can you all see where I'm going with this??

    Now, UC with all the definitions so far for my question about Architecture.
    Aren't buildings also made by machine(s) manipulated by a humans hand??
    Dont tell me that machines aren't on a Job Site! LOL Also, extremely
    functional which in the past you stated that Art cant be functional.
    Especially in modern times with current technology. Then since I have seen
    some answers to my OP then this Hospital has been called Art. If this
    proposal to consider this basic Hospital is taken for granted as "Art".
    Then why for heavens sake cant a Photograph be considered Art?

    Paint Brush, Charcoal, well you get the idea. All manipulated by man to
    create Art. Going back into history with early basics of Photography. I
    had taken a printing class in early High School and we made a Pin Hole
    Camera out of the large round cardboard containers of Oatmeal. Without a
    lens, we inserted film and developed and eventually printed it. No Lens, no
    mechanical manipulations of any kind. Basic Pinhole Camera. Since you are
    hung up on a Lens interfering with your definition of Photography ever
    becoming Art what about this "Camera"? We had made this camera with our
    own hands, and I had taken several Photos with it. If I had taken a
    Portrait, lets say with good exposure, and everything else including
    lighting and composition. Would this then be considered Art???? All the
    old Masters who painted in Oils, where did they get there brushes from???
    Were they purchased from a Paint Store? Martins Paints or even Home
    Depot??? Did they make it themselves?? What about there paints?? Did they
    make it themselves? So the brushes were made, the paints were made and then
    the "Artist" used these things to create there work on a Note Book? Who
    made the Canvas that they painted on? All man made creations to create the
    "Art" that you say can't be "Art" because it has interference between the
    hand and the creations? Right????

    To UC:
    I cant find your question in the threads but my answer to your question
    about the name of the Photography School that I was making fun of was
    "Germain School of Photography" in New York City. Now I think its name is
    "School for Media Arts" or something on that line.

    Not4wood, Oct 7, 2007
  11. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    UC Guest

    Not necessarily. I any event, they created and designed. No photograph
    is ever created by a human being. It's made by a lens or else it's not
    a photograph.
    Architecture is an exception. Deal with it.
    No, the hospital is not art. Architecture is one of the fine arts.
    It isn't. Architecture is one of the fine arts.
    The pinhole is a lens for all purposes.
    Thanks for the info.
    UC, Oct 7, 2007
  12. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Not4wood Guest

    OK UC,

    First, the Pin Hole Camera has NO Glass to be called a lens. The small hole
    lets light thru, nothing in the way of the Hand of Man. Nothing, that means
    the direct link is the Pin Hole Camera as a direct tool as is a brush.
    According to your rules.

    Now, speaking of the "Hand of Man", I will quote for the group instead of
    posting a link from the "Alfred Stieglitz"
    Page. Just in case for proof Link here:

    Just as a point, there is a Pic on this page that has the name "Hand of Man"
    that Mr. Stieglitz wanted to prove without a shadow of a doubt to fulfill
    all of the requirements that you have pointed out that rules what a Work of
    Art is and that a Photograph can be Art. Between Mr Stieglitz and Mr
    Stiechen with a host of others they succeeded.

    Photography hasn't always been considered an art. In early days, photographs
    were considered an advance of science, not art. Cameras were machines, and
    everyone knew that machines didn't make art; people made art. But when
    Alfred Stieglitz made this picture he was leading a movement called
    Pictorialism, which promoted the photograph as art, the same kind of art as
    a drawing or painting. Stieglitz and other Pictorialists understood that a
    photograph was created when the camera was used as a tool, like a paintbrush
    was a tool. And they tried to show that they were a part of the art
    tradition by manipulating their photos in the darkroom, using tricks and
    techniques that were evidence of the human hand in the process.

    Given that history, the title of this photo has two meanings. The steam
    engine was a human invention that had huge impact - not all of it good - on
    the landscape and on people's lives. And this photograph was made by the
    hand of man, no mistake about it. The soft-focus effects and the romantic
    atmosphere were the results of handwork on the print after the film came out
    of the camera.

    There are other references to the world of art in this photograph. Stieglitz
    was very involved in the modern art scene and had closely followed the
    Impressionist movement in Europe. Impressionists were some of the first
    artists to look to the city as a worthy subject for their paintings, and it
    was a new city they looked at. Machines and all things modern in the city
    were desirable subjects. At the same time, Impressionists represented these
    modern scenes in stop-motion glimpses, with plenty of atmosphere. European
    painters chose the steam engine as a subject and a symbol of the modern
    city. Stieglitz would embrace the city as his subject too, but he would use
    photography as his medium.


    So, I am putting this out to the Posters as a Vote. Do you think
    Photography can be Art? Obviously by one of the very well established with
    very highly developed skills and on occasion someone of I would dare say at
    our level of Professionalism.

    If you don't even think or consider Photography can be Art in your personal
    opinion, then can you at least agree from the above information that it can
    at least exist for others? NO, I am not speaking about Hippies. LOL I
    also found in the Getty Museum a mention of a link to the gallery showing
    that had Stiechen's works is a link from Google. As you so blatantly
    mentioned where else are you going to show them? In an Art Gallery!! Eggs
    in the Fridge, Art in the Gallery..........


    Not necessarily. I any event, they created and designed. No photograph
    is ever created by a human being. It's made by a lens or else it's not
    a photograph.
    Architecture is an exception. Deal with it.
    No, the hospital is not art. Architecture is one of the fine arts.
    It isn't. Architecture is one of the fine arts.
    The pinhole is a lens for all purposes.
    Thanks for the info.
    Not4wood, Oct 7, 2007
  13. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    UC Guest

    Nope. The image is formed by a lens (the pinhole acts like a lens) in
    accordance with the laws of physics. A photograph is a photograph of
    something else, and is dependednt upon that other thing. A painting is
    NEVER 'of'' anything the way a photograph is 'of' something. If I set
    up my easer before the Queen...I can paint a dog. A camera cannot do
    Stieglitz was a moron. He desperately want photography to be 'art' for
    reasons unknown. He was insecure about the 'status' of photography. I
    don't know why people have to think photography is art for it to be
    significant, timely, pleasureable, or beautiful.
    This is correct.
    UC, Oct 7, 2007
  14. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Robert Coe Guest

    : > Cats enlightened us with:
    : >
    : > > Is he really angry (or arrogant/stupid/trolling etc.) or simply
    : > > living in a personal bubble, remote from the rest of us?
    : >
    : > Probably both :)
    : >
    : > Koekje
    : You haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Photography
    : is NOT art and CANNOT be art.
    : By the way, this thing is being torn down.
    : Good thing I photographed it!

    That link points to a flower! Who's it being torn down by? An army of aphids?

    Robert Coe, Oct 7, 2007
  15. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Part of Scruton's argument:
    : "1 ---
    : 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.....)

    In my experience, "arguments" like that usually come out of a bottle.

    Robert Coe, Oct 7, 2007
  16. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    May Guest

    Photography is a form of visual art. As I said before art is as
    organic as language it changes as our technology changes. Why can't
    we all agree on that?
    May, Oct 8, 2007
  17. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Not4wood Guest

    But May,

    Thats the whole point of not just Photography, but as a student of Art this
    is an on going constantly changing idea of whats new. An Artist learning to
    use new quality paints and brushes. New styles and always a new brush

    Just like we have to have an open mind on technology for everyday usage.
    Puters, Cameras, Cars and phones and now we have new technology in the
    construction industry as well. New materials, new tools, new machinery and
    new methods of design that can't even compare to a couple of decades ago let
    alone a century ago. As long as we are able to have the foresight to keep
    an open mind and constantly grow can we adapt and handle these new things.
    I know some people who have commented on this as "I can't or don't want to
    learn these things, I am computer illiterate". Or just don't want to out of
    laziness. Even in Construction, I have seen a gentlemen, who actually was
    very skillfull but didn't want to learn to use Sheetrock. He used the old
    method of using wire and plastering over it. Granted he did it very well,
    but way too much time and way too much money for plaster that can't be used
    for other things. I am talking about patching holes in walls or ceilings.

    As fast as technology is growing, as fast as technology is reaching out to
    other areas of day to day life. As people who try to stay on the newest
    side of ideas of expression we have to stay informed on whats available to
    use and explore new methods of accomplishing the goals of Revisualization.
    What we see in our Minds Eye can be transformed into something that the
    skill in our hands can create. All of our training and practical lessons
    keep our skill level at the point of perfection, but being able to use the
    newest methods and the newest technology to accomplish our goals can we be
    able to express ourselves to the highest levels.

    Reminds me of the legends of the older days when the new thing on the block
    was the Television, Electricity and Phones. Remember about a hundred years
    ago when the new method of transportation came out and nobody wanted to
    except this as a way of travel? The Horseless Carriage came out and nobody
    wanted to even get into these things. Used to scare the hoarsest as well.

    OK, what the hell did I just say............ LOL

    I guess what I'm trying to say is, that if we don't grow and change with the
    times we would all end up like UC ( No Offense UC ) and not being able to
    except such a basic thought process of a new Medium for creativity. Why
    would you limit the methods or hardware for your creativity? Sculptures
    that now use welding tools to create metal sculptures have only been around
    for a short time. I dont see people yelling out that it isn't Art? But its
    a new method of acceptance for the age old idea of creating a large
    sculpture like any one of the famous statues. Even when I was back in
    College sitting in one of my many Drafting Classes did I learn the old idea
    of the more you know, the more you realize you don't know. There is always
    something new and exciting to be able to learn and accomplish.

    Keeping an open mind, to be able to change and adapt is by far the most
    important skill as an artist and of course being new and different.

    Don't forget new technology in listening to music:
    Old Mono Radios, The Phonograph, Stereo Radio, Real to Real tape decks,
    Eight Track Tapes, Cassette Tapes, VHS Concerts, Portable Cassette Tape
    Players, Records released from the original cuttings, CD's, DVD's, Surround
    Sound Systems, Flat screen TV's and the latest technology High Def and
    Cable and what about multiple channel CD's like SACD or DVD Audio? Did I
    leave anything out? See how and what we have lived thru to be able to even
    discuss these things. The children of today do not know what its like to
    not have MP3 music or an IPod. If we can adapt and accept the above for
    our enjoyment, why can't we accept new media and technology for our

    Someone telling me that they cant see a Photograph as a work of Art because
    there is a lens between the hand and the creation is ridiculous that the
    camera is a machine. Forgetting of course that the same hand created that
    machine and lens that we are trying to use as a new media tool for

    Not4wood, Oct 8, 2007
  18. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    Not4wood Guest

    LOL, got caught in Spell-check. New technology my ass. LOL

    Its Pre-Visualization not re

    Mark G
    Not4wood, Oct 8, 2007
  19. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    May Guest

    You said a mouthful, but exactly what I have been eluding to. Just as
    our tools & mediums have changed over the years, so has the definition
    of art. So here's another food for thought. Why do we refer to
    creations from the Renaissance period to be considered Fine Art? Can't
    something created today be considered Fine Art as well?

    UC, your photography style reminds me of Monet. He used repeticious
    pattern to create art, just as the repetion in your photos creates a
    visual image. So if Monet's painting is art why can't a photo that
    creates a pleasing visual image simular to the painting be considered
    art as well?
    May, Oct 8, 2007
  20. \(not quite so\) Fat Sam

    dadiOH Guest

    Dang, and all this time I thought Goya was actually viewing and
    transcribing something when he painted "The Naked Maja". A literal
    rendition, IOW.
    No, the camera can't. But the *artist* (aka "photographer")
    could...if he was familiar with and skillful in using processes such
    as "abrasion tone". Here are some photos by a photographer who could
    turn anything into anything if he so chose...



    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
    dadiOH, Oct 8, 2007
    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.