Digital is not art!
 

I'm not the only one thinking this:

http://henrystop.multiservers.com/

bye
DarkRoom ForEver

This is so funny.

The web site in question displays a fair landscape photograph & asks
the question "Can you do this with digital photography?" Ummm, the
photograph being referenced is a digital photograph! Sure, it might
have started life with film & paper, but it was digitized when it was
scanned.

Perhaps we should also say that color photography is not art, either.
Only B&W photography can be art.

My view: art is not the materials, it is the expression. If the
medium is sufficient to carry the expression, then who cares?

looknsee
http://www.looknseephoto.com

(My web site lately has been mixing digital & "chemical" photography.
I still prefer the "chemical", but I use the digital camera to check
lighting & in those situations where my film camera is just too big &
bulky.)



On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:08:23 +0200, "DarkRoom ForEver"
wrote:

I'm not the only one thinking this:

http://henrystop.multiservers.com/

bye
DarkRoom ForEver

This is so funny.

The web site in question displays a fair landscape photograph & asks
the question "Can you do this with digital photography?" Ummm, the
photograph being referenced is a digital photograph! Sure, it might
have started life with film & paper, but it was digitized when it was
scanned.

Perhaps we should also say that color photography is not art, either.
Only B&W photography can be art.

My view: art is not the materials, it is the expression. If the
medium is sufficient to carry the expression, then who cares?

looknsee
http://www.looknseephoto.com

(My web site lately has been mixing digital & "chemical" photography.
I still prefer the "chemical", but I use the digital camera to check
lighting & in those situations where my film camera is just too big &
bulky.)



On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:08:23 +0200, "DarkRoom ForEver"
wrote:

I'm not the only one thinking this:

http://henrystop.multiservers.com/

bye
DarkRoom ForEver

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:08:23 +0200, "DarkRoom ForEver"
wrote:

I'm not the only one thinking this:

http://henrystop.multiservers.com/

According to painters, photography is not art.

Still, art is not determined by the medium, but by the artist.
Owning a camera does not make the photographer an artist just as
owning a paint brush doe not make me an artist. The vast majority of
photographers are not artists.

Art is not determined by the subject, but by the treatment of the
subject by the artist.

Art to an extent is also determined by the viewer. That is not to say
what they consider good or bad, tasteful or distasteful and whether
they like it or not, does or does not make it art

I can paint, I know the rules of composition, but my results at
painting definitely would not be considered art. :-))

I've studied art and photography in college, but the majority of my
photos are indeed not art, nor do I consider them so. OTOH some were
considered good enough to be in juried shows.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
-

bye
DarkRoom ForEver

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:08:23 +0200, "DarkRoom ForEver"
wrote:

I'm not the only one thinking this:

http://henrystop.multiservers.com/

According to painters, photography is not art.

Still, art is not determined by the medium, but by the artist.
Owning a camera does not make the photographer an artist just as
owning a paint brush doe not make me an artist. The vast majority of
photographers are not artists.

Art is not determined by the subject, but by the treatment of the
subject by the artist.

Art to an extent is also determined by the viewer. That is not to say
what they consider good or bad, tasteful or distasteful and whether
they like it or not, does or does not make it art

I can paint, I know the rules of composition, but my results at
painting definitely would not be considered art. :-))

I've studied art and photography in college, but the majority of my
photos are indeed not art, nor do I consider them so. OTOH some were
considered good enough to be in juried shows.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
-

bye
DarkRoom ForEver

"Roger" wrote

Still, art is not determined by the medium, but by the artist.

Er, the viewer, wouldn't you say?

Owning a camera does not make the photographer an artist just as
owning a paint brush doe not make me an artist. The vast majority of
photographers are not artists.

The vast majority of working painters are not artists, they are
'commercial artists'.

The vast majority of working photographers are not artists, again,
'commercial photographers'.

Not to say that they are not artists when they are not being 'commercial'.

Home photos are art in the same way a 5-year olds scribbles are art.
For home photos as art see

http://www.moderna.org/lookatme/pages/index/01-30.html

and a whole host of other sites.

J. Joyce defined the end stage of art as 'causing aesthetic
arrest in the viewer'.

He called it pornography if the image created a desire to
posses the object shown.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 01:21:45 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:

"Roger" wrote

Still, art is not determined by the medium, but by the artist.

Er, the viewer, wouldn't you say?

Owning a camera does not make the photographer an artist just as
owning a paint brush doe not make me an artist. The vast majority of
photographers are not artists.

The vast majority of working painters are not artists, they are
'commercial artists'.

The vast majority of working photographers are not artists, again,
'commercial photographers'.

Not to say that they are not artists when they are not being 'commercial'.

Home photos are art in the same way a 5-year olds scribbles are art.
For home photos as art see

http://www.moderna.org/lookatme/pages/index/01-30.html

and a whole host of other sites.

J. Joyce defined the end stage of art as 'causing aesthetic
arrest in the viewer'.

He called it pornography if the image created a desire to
posses the object shown.

You mean I gotta burn all my aviation photo collection before I get
arrested? They certainly create a desire in me to posses most of the
subjects.

OTOH I've seen a number of photos that had been labeled porno that did
not give me even the slightest desire to posses the subject. Maybe
run the other way though. That reminds me of one night when leaving
a bar... er never mind.

Roger

Art is not determined by the subject, but by the treatment of the
subject by the artist.

Art to an extent is also determined by the viewer. That is not to say
what they consider good or bad, tasteful or distasteful and whether
they like it or not, does or does not make it art


Art is in the intent of the Artist. Art is communication. The artist asks
"How do I express this?" and the view asks "What does it say to me" or "What
was the artist trying to say?" But, all too often its the dumb performing
tricks for the deaf.