Why digital is not photographic

|
| To come at this from another angle, Michael McKenna (I think) once
| looked at a photographer's portfolio. He asked something along these
| lines: "Are these photographs more beautfull than the original scene?"
| "No," Replied the photographer. "Why bother then?" asked McKenna.

I think that photographer made a capital mistake: trying to capture the
beauty of the scene as his eye experienced it, instead of making a striking
picture that emphasised his personal view on the scnene's beauty. Tom
Martinsen made great photograps of rocks at the Norwegian seaside; I
wouldn't like reality to be in the same gray tones, I like the colour of the
sea and the rocks covered with small vegetation in various colours, but
Martinsen's B&W pictures just stroke me, because of the atmosphere and
serenity of his prints.
|
| Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Paul Srand, and so on, emphasized the beauty
| of their subject matter.
See what I mean?
|
| Any art won't be saved by mining some theoretical niche. What matters is
| whether or not artists that use that medium produce interesting pieces.
Voilà.
|
| -Peter De Smidt
|
|
|
Jan

|
| To come at this from another angle, Michael McKenna (I think) once
| looked at a photographer's portfolio. He asked something along these
| lines: "Are these photographs more beautfull than the original scene?"
| "No," Replied the photographer. "Why bother then?" asked McKenna.

I think that photographer made a capital mistake: trying to capture the
beauty of the scene as his eye experienced it, instead of making a striking
picture that emphasised his personal view on the scnene's beauty. Tom
Martinsen made great photograps of rocks at the Norwegian seaside; I
wouldn't like reality to be in the same gray tones, I like the colour of the
sea and the rocks covered with small vegetation in various colours, but
Martinsen's B&W pictures just stroke me, because of the atmosphere and
serenity of his prints.
|
| Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Paul Srand, and so on, emphasized the beauty
| of their subject matter.
See what I mean?
|
| Any art won't be saved by mining some theoretical niche. What matters is
| whether or not artists that use that medium produce interesting pieces.
Voilà.
|
| -Peter De Smidt
|
|
|
Jan

|
| To come at this from another angle, Michael McKenna (I think) once
| looked at a photographer's portfolio. He asked something along these
| lines: "Are these photographs more beautfull than the original scene?"
| "No," Replied the photographer. "Why bother then?" asked McKenna.

I think that photographer made a capital mistake: trying to capture the
beauty of the scene as his eye experienced it, instead of making a striking
picture that emphasised his personal view on the scnene's beauty. Tom
Martinsen made great photograps of rocks at the Norwegian seaside; I
wouldn't like reality to be in the same gray tones, I like the colour of the
sea and the rocks covered with small vegetation in various colours, but
Martinsen's B&W pictures just stroke me, because of the atmosphere and
serenity of his prints.
|
| Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Paul Srand, and so on, emphasized the beauty
| of their subject matter.
See what I mean?
|
| Any art won't be saved by mining some theoretical niche. What matters is
| whether or not artists that use that medium produce interesting pieces.
Voilà.
|
| -Peter De Smidt
|
|
|
Jan

"Uranium Committee" schreef in bericht
om...
| Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message
...
| Jan T wrote:
| snip
|
| One of his statements is this: photography distinguishes from e.g.
painting
| in that it witnesses something 'that was there'.
| Photography, in this sense, is recording reality, in many creative
ways, but
| still: recording something that has been there.
|
| snip
|
| Ignoring that the above statements involve a very controversial realist
| metaphysics, why can't a painting record "what was there" as well?
|
| Because there's no causal link, no mechanism to do that.
|
| Consider portrait paintings. Couldn't someone respond on first seeing a
| painting, "you've captured my daughter very well! Better in fact than
| any photograph of her!"
|
| Certainly there is a different causal chain involved. With photography
| the direct causal chain of image capture is purely mechanical, as the
| chain does not go through a person's mind. A person is involved
| (choosing the scene, making the technical calculations...), but this is
| not the same thing. With painting, a human mind is directly in the
| causal chain of image capture.
|
| This distinction has been used in two ways. First, advocates of painting
| denied that photography is an art.
|
| It isn't.
|
| Second, advocates of photography
| denied that inkjet printing is an art.
|
| It isn't. So what?
Photography is not an art. But Kertesz was an artist, and so were
Cartier-Bresson, Weston, and many others.
|
| I suggest that the distinction in
| question supports neither claim.
|
| -Peter De Smidt

"Uranium Committee" schreef in bericht
om...
| Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message
...
| Jan T wrote:
| snip
|
| One of his statements is this: photography distinguishes from e.g.
painting
| in that it witnesses something 'that was there'.
| Photography, in this sense, is recording reality, in many creative
ways, but
| still: recording something that has been there.
|
| snip
|
| Ignoring that the above statements involve a very controversial realist
| metaphysics, why can't a painting record "what was there" as well?
|
| Because there's no causal link, no mechanism to do that.
|
| Consider portrait paintings. Couldn't someone respond on first seeing a
| painting, "you've captured my daughter very well! Better in fact than
| any photograph of her!"
|
| Certainly there is a different causal chain involved. With photography
| the direct causal chain of image capture is purely mechanical, as the
| chain does not go through a person's mind. A person is involved
| (choosing the scene, making the technical calculations...), but this is
| not the same thing. With painting, a human mind is directly in the
| causal chain of image capture.
|
| This distinction has been used in two ways. First, advocates of painting
| denied that photography is an art.
|
| It isn't.
|
| Second, advocates of photography
| denied that inkjet printing is an art.
|
| It isn't. So what?
Photography is not an art. But Kertesz was an artist, and so were
Cartier-Bresson, Weston, and many others.
|
| I suggest that the distinction in
| question supports neither claim.
|
| -Peter De Smidt

"Uranium Committee" schreef in bericht

|
| This distinction has been used in two ways. First, advocates of painting
| denied that photography is an art.
|
| It isn't.
|

Normally I don't read Uriness's comments, as he's in my killfile, but
someone else quoted the above text, alas, and so I read it. It reminds
me of what a friend of mine once said, namely, "A good sign that you're
right is that morons disagree with you."

-Peter De Smidt

In article ,
Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote:

"Uranium Committee" schreef in bericht

|
| This distinction has been used in two ways. First, advocates of painting
| denied that photography is an art.
|
| It isn't.
|

Normally I don't read Uriness's comments, as he's in my killfile, but
someone else quoted the above text, alas, and so I read it. It reminds
me of what a friend of mine once said, namely, "A good sign that you're
right is that morons disagree with you."

-Peter De Smidt

I guess there's hope for me because I agree :-),.......with YOU!
--
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

In article ,
Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote:

"Uranium Committee" schreef in bericht

|
| This distinction has been used in two ways. First, advocates of painting
| denied that photography is an art.
|
| It isn't.
|

Normally I don't read Uriness's comments, as he's in my killfile, but
someone else quoted the above text, alas, and so I read it. It reminds
me of what a friend of mine once said, namely, "A good sign that you're
right is that morons disagree with you."

-Peter De Smidt

I guess there's hope for me because I agree :-),.......with YOU!
--
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

"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

My $.02 worth are just that...my opinion. But lets look at the full
definition of photography:
[...]

Let's not. The dictionary is the last resort of the short-sighted. Think
for yourself and very deep and you will understand.

Elaborating on that a little... Dictionaries follow; good dictionaries do
not try to lead, nor solve philosophical problems. They just report the
ways words are already being used.

HOWEVER, why are we having this argument? When the word "photography" was
coined, nothing like digital imaging had been thought of. People are free
to apply that word to it, or not, and they will eventually establish a
widespread consensus as to whether to do so. That does not tell us
*anything* about photography, only something about words.

Digital imaging to me only congers up childreds' finger painting.
I am NOT a digital type and will probably never be, but electronic imaging
is definitely a new art form and the only art form originating in the
Twentieth Century. It certainly deserves to have a new and unique "title".
"Photography", "electronic" or "digital" seems incomplete to me. I have no
suggestions at this time, do you?

Truly, dr bob.

"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

My $.02 worth are just that...my opinion. But lets look at the full
definition of photography:
[...]

Let's not. The dictionary is the last resort of the short-sighted. Think
for yourself and very deep and you will understand.

Elaborating on that a little... Dictionaries follow; good dictionaries do
not try to lead, nor solve philosophical problems. They just report the
ways words are already being used.

HOWEVER, why are we having this argument? When the word "photography" was
coined, nothing like digital imaging had been thought of. People are free
to apply that word to it, or not, and they will eventually establish a
widespread consensus as to whether to do so. That does not tell us
*anything* about photography, only something about words.

Digital imaging to me only congers up childreds' finger painting.
I am NOT a digital type and will probably never be, but electronic imaging
is definitely a new art form and the only art form originating in the
Twentieth Century. It certainly deserves to have a new and unique "title".
"Photography", "electronic" or "digital" seems incomplete to me. I have no
suggestions at this time, do you?

Truly, dr bob.