National Zonalism

"The Wogster" wrote in message
...
jjs wrote:
If you use WindoZe Explorer, kill-filing someone is a one-step process.
Menu: Message - Option "Block Sender". Press the button and be happy.


Windows/Internet Exploder? I don't think so, yeah Thunderbird may make the
process harder, but it makes catching a virus much harder as well, because
it doesn't automatically run the virus initiator.

WhatEverThe**** you are talking about. Look, I've been using Macintosh since
_before_ it was available to the public, and now I use WindoZe because
goddamn it, I have to get things done. Mac OSX still has a suck interface
for graphic artists.

On 10/1/2004 1:22 PM Uranium Committee spake thus:

The Wogster wrote in message
. ..

On 30 Sep 2004 19:31:05 -0700, (Uranium
Committee) wrote:

(Travis Porco) wrote in message
...

In article ,
The Wogster wrote:
On 30 Sep 2004 10:20:39 -0700, (Uranium
Committee) wrote:

Photography depends on the existence of something else for its content
in a causal chain. Art does not. Art comes directly from the mind of
the artist and has no direct causal link to something else. A
photograph is always a photograph of something else, which serves as
the source of the content through a causal chain.

So if a painter takes and paints a landscape he sees it's not art (the
content is something else), but if he takes the same paint and
squeezes it out, and then wipes it around with his butt, then it's
art?

The landscape is not causally related to the painting made by the
artist in any way. The landscape is in no way a 'cause' of the
painting. The painting is not an 'image' of the landscape.

What makes a photograph art, is the fact it's the artists
interpretation of the scene, painted with light, rather then oils.

No, the image is formed by the lens.

[groan] We've been through all this crap before ... and I must say, as much as
it pains me (it really does), that I agree with MS he the photographer in
no way "paints" the scene onto the film. The photographer opens the shutter
and exposes the film. The image, as he said, is formed by the lens, not by the
photographer.

To claim otherwise is pretentions mystical horse****. Photography is not art
(as painting or drawing is art). It is, as MS has also pointed out, sui
generis, and deserving of respect in its own right, but it is not art. It is
artifice. It is craft. It is a process with possibilities for interpretation,
but not in the same sense as painting, drawing, sculpture, any of the truly
"creative" arts, where the artist literally *creates* the work of art.

I hate it when he's right!


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
...

[groan] We've been through all this crap before ... and I must say, as
much as it pains me (it really does), that I agree with MS he the
photographer in no way "paints" the scene onto the film. The photographer
opens the shutter and exposes the film. The image, as he said, is formed
by the lens, not by the photographer.

To claim otherwise is pretentions mystical horse****.

Let this post stand to admit a mutual disagreement. What you seem to portray
is the idea that there is a difference between a craft and Art. Art is not
striclty about images, but about ideas within the social and emerging
historical context in which the images or things were given. How they were
made is irrelevant. It's about context mainly, and other requisites I will
post if you insist. Our differences won't keep me from appreciating the rest
of your most excellent writings, David. We agree to disagree, I hope, in a
mutually appreciated dilemme.

He's not and neither are you. I paint, I draw & I
believe I am qualified to say photography is Art
when its done well (By that I intend to say appreciated by
many, with an awe inspiring feeling that something of benefit
has been viewed). Maybe your sense of perception needs work my
friend,...you seem somewhat of a dullard on this issue.

No mystic in any of it, although if you want to smoke
hash while you do it anything can have a grand scheme.

The horse**** part comes into play when Aholes like MS
try to dictate how people express themselves.

After all no one, I know has the balls to tell Keith Richards
how to play sympathy for the devil.


In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:


[groan] We've been through all this crap before ... and I must say, as much
as
it pains me (it really does), that I agree with MS he the photographer in
no way "paints" the scene onto the film. The photographer opens the shutter
and exposes the film. The image, as he said, is formed by the lens, not by
the
photographer.

To claim otherwise is pretentions mystical horse****. Photography is not art
(as painting or drawing is art). It is, as MS has also pointed out, sui
generis, and deserving of respect in its own right, but it is not art. It is
artifice. It is craft. It is a process with possibilities for interpretation,
but not in the same sense as painting, drawing, sculpture, any of the truly
"creative" arts, where the artist literally *creates* the work of art.

I hate it when he's right!

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

On 10/2/2004 7:45 PM jjs spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
...

[groan] We've been through all this crap before ... and I must say, as
much as it pains me (it really does), that I agree with MS he the
photographer in no way "paints" the scene onto the film. The photographer
opens the shutter and exposes the film. The image, as he said, is formed
by the lens, not by the photographer.

To claim otherwise is pretentions mystical horse****.

Let this post stand to admit a mutual disagreement. What you seem to portray
is the idea that there is a difference between a craft and Art. Art is not
striclty about images, but about ideas within the social and emerging
historical context in which the images or things were given. How they were
made is irrelevant. It's about context mainly, and other requisites I will
post if you insist. Our differences won't keep me from appreciating the rest
of your most excellent writings, David. We agree to disagree, I hope, in a
mutually appreciated dilemme.

Well, thanks for the kind words.

I should have attached my usual disclaimer: "I realize this is an extreme
minority viewpoint, and I never hope to win this argument [that Photography is
Not Art]. Nonetheless ... "

[By the way, you did mean to type "dilemma", didn'tja?]


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

I think what John stated regarding ideas is particularly
valid and worthy of consideration. Its the core of what I was
attempting to state.



In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/2/2004 7:45 PM jjs spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
...

[groan] We've been through all this crap before ... and I must say, as
much as it pains me (it really does), that I agree with MS he the
photographer in no way "paints" the scene onto the film. The photographer
opens the shutter and exposes the film. The image, as he said, is formed
by the lens, not by the photographer.

To claim otherwise is pretentions mystical horse****.

Let this post stand to admit a mutual disagreement. What you seem to
portray
is the idea that there is a difference between a craft and Art. Art is not
striclty about images, but about ideas within the social and emerging
historical context in which the images or things were given. How they were
made is irrelevant. It's about context mainly, and other requisites I will
post if you insist. Our differences won't keep me from appreciating the
rest
of your most excellent writings, David. We agree to disagree, I hope, in a
mutually appreciated dilemme.

Well, thanks for the kind words.

I should have attached my usual disclaimer: "I realize this is an extreme
minority viewpoint, and I never hope to win this argument [that Photography
is
Not Art]. Nonetheless ... "

[By the way, you did mean to type "dilemma", didn'tja?]

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
...

[By the way, you did mean to type "dilemma", didn'tja?]

est francais

Let me leave the subject with an example that is repeated in college every
year. When a class is asked to respond to a specific assignment which is a
graded challenge under a specific theme, invariably there is one who submits
an arbitrary piece of junk he found and says "Look, if Marcel DuChamp can
say that a urinal is art, then this is art." What the student failed to
understand was that DuChamp was protesting the show in which the urinal was
placed. It was an unjuried show to which DuChamp submited the urinal
(entitled Fountain), saying, in effect, that anything an artist put in an
unjuried show was what it was, and not neccessarily art regardless of the
current or historical reputation of the artist or the show sponsor. He did
not assert that it was Art, but raised the question to the gravest extreme.

BTW, and OT - see the following site: http://www.understandingduchamp.com/
for a beautifully illustrated interpretation of Marcel DuChamp's Large Glass
and great information about the artist.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/2/2004 7:45 PM jjs spake thus:

I should have attached my usual disclaimer: "I realize this is an
extreme minority viewpoint, and I never hope to win this argument [that
Photography is Not Art]. Nonetheless ... "

Well, my second wife would have said this was my Libra tendencies coming
out, and not to fan the flames, but I have to fall firmly in the middle
of this -- photography *can be* art, but it usually isn't. Most
photography is to art as grocery lists are to great poetry and fiction
-- a simple recording of bits of fact without even as much as context,
much less any internal beauty. Many, if not most photographic hobbyists
at least raise photography to the level of craft, on a par with the bulk
of tole painting, home shop woodwoorking, body and fender work, etc.;
this is also the level of the bulk of day-to-day professional
photography, albeit with more expert craftsmanship than hobbyists
generally exhibit -- portraiture, product photography, and most fashion
work.

Then there are, IMO, a few photographers -- just as there are a few auto
body workers, airplane designers, furniture builders, or pick a craft or
trade -- who are genuinely artists. There are tole painters who raise
their craft to the level of art, even while there are many, many
pictorial oil painters who barely reach the level of craft. And I don't
mean the most technically perfect of the product and fashion
photographers, though there surely are a few in each of those fields who
qualify as artists, at least when working on their own time. I'm
referring to photographers who, regardless of subject matter or medium
(B&W or color negative/print or transparency; digital, film, or even
daguerreotype and tintype) bring something transcendent to their work,
who can photograph the same scene from which I take a pedestrian record
of the landscape, and instead produce an artistic rendering.

I can (usually) recognize the difference when I see it; I hope somdeday
to cross that line. My greatest photographic aspiration is to reach the
stage where my photography is art often enough to think of myself as an
artist.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Uranium Committee wrote:
That is a causal connection. End of story. Nothing else matters. If
one were to take a laser pointer and wave it at a piece of sensitized
paper and form a 'picture', that would be art.

Aside from omitting the equally if not more important elements of
concept and context, the example of laser and paper fails to prove the
point. In fact it proves the opposite.

Hold the laser still and move the paper. This is the equivalent of
photography and traditional printing.

Not all photography is art in the same way that not all painting is art
but neither are limited or unlimited by the mechanics.