The End Times Are Here

Tom Gardner (nospam) wrote:
"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Tom Gardner wrote:

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message
ink.net...

Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph
and can be considered ART.

Even Adams wrote that the next step in photography would be purely
electronic.

You're misquoting Adams...

I don't remember the exact phrasing, you might know the correct quote. I
think it was in "The Negative" I'm pretty sure it was along those lines. I
don't think Adams was repulsed by electronic imaging though. I guess it's a
moot point as he is dead now and there's no way to guess what he might have
done with digital imaging. My point is that what takes place in the brain
is what counts, the rest is translation. Digital imaging is a different
animal, it's not photography it's more just documentation...if that conveys
my thought. I think digital has "Art" potential but the creative process
takes place in the brain then in Photoshop, if at all. The end product
image is not a photograph but something else that I don't really know how to
define.

I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about
recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other
'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography
is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons,
which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on
photographic paper, then it can be art.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
UC spake thus:

[...]

I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about
recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other
'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography
is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons,
which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on
photographic paper, then it can be art.

Or even just place objects on photosensitive paper and expose it, making
a photogram. That's art.

Yup.

But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose...



--
If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect
and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the
Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories,
then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent--
and neither possibility is a very comforting thought.

- Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_

UC spake thus:

[...]

I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about
recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other
'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography
is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons,
which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on
photographic paper, then it can be art.

Or even just place objects on photosensitive paper and expose it, making
a photogram. That's art.


--
If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect
and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the
Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories,
then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—-
and neither possibility is a very comforting thought.

- Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_

I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about
recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other
'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography
is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons,
which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on
photographic paper, then it can be art.


I knew I wasn't saying what I was trying to. Let me say more. Neither
silver or digital are inherently "Art" and neither are exclusively non-art.
Silver based photography is a different craft than digital and has different
potential. Personally, I use different mediums for different purposes. I
think I have a good understanding of your thoughts and have seen some of
your images and I agree and understand your point. I think your stuff has
more interpretation (Art) than you admit to because you just follow the
"Muscle Memory" that you have developed over the years...it's just ingrained
in your work and is instinctual now...you don't think it, you just do it.

Only if by 'art' you mean something different from painting and
sculture, the true fine arts.It's possibly 'pseudo-art', if you will.

Tom Gardner nospam wrote:
I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about
recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other
'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography
is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons,
which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on
photographic paper, then it can be art.


I knew I wasn't saying what I was trying to. Let me say more. Neither
silver or digital are inherently "Art" and neither are exclusively non-art.
Silver based photography is a different craft than digital and has different
potential. Personally, I use different mediums for different purposes. I
think I have a good understanding of your thoughts and have seen some of
your images and I agree and understand your point. I think your stuff has
more interpretation (Art) than you admit to because you just follow the
"Muscle Memory" that you have developed over the years...it's just ingrained
in your work and is instinctual now...you don't think it, you just do it.

"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Nebenzahl wrote:
UC spake thus:

[...]

I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about
recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other
'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography
is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons,
which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on
photographic paper, then it can be art.

Or even just place objects on photosensitive paper and expose it, making
a photogram. That's art.

Yup.

But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose...


Bull****. It's the human mind that makes art, not any particular process.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

In article ,
"Matt Clara" wrote:

But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose...


Bull****. It's the human mind that makes art, not any particular process.

Give up on the twit,...... finger painting is the only true "Art"
according to the little a-hole.


--
"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

greg_____photo(dot)com

Matt Clara spake thus:

"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Nebenzahl wrote:

UC spake thus:

[...]

I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different
about recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and
the other 'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor
didgital photography is 'art'. Both are 'documentation',
because you start with photons, which begin a causal chain. If
you draw freehand using photoshop or on photographic paper,
then it can be art.

Or even just place objects on photosensitive paper and expose it,
making a photogram. That's art.

Yup.

But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose...

Bull****. It's the human mind that makes art, not any particular process.

But even accepting this axiom doesn't make a photograph "art", because
the mind doesn't make the photograph. It assists with setting up the
camera and other parts of the process used to make it, but the *camera*
makes (or more accurately takes) the photograph. The mind doesn't
capture photons on film; it just aims the camera, focuses, composes,
etc. The scene paints itself, unlike painting, sculpture, etc., where
the mind really does make the art.

Unfortunately, it's become a shibboleth, this widely-accepted conceit
that because there's something vaguely "creative" going on under the
dark cloth, it must be "art" when hung on a gallery wall. ("Shhhhhh,
Johnny! Don't disturb the artiste. He's *composing*!")


--
If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect
and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the
Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories,
then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—-
and neither possibility is a very comforting thought.

- Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_

Matt Clara wrote:


Yup.

But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose...


Bull****. It's the human mind that makes art, not any particular process.

But the CAMERA LENS makes the photograph. You merely POINT the camera.



--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Mike wrote:

Anyone who believes a digital camera is a camera (oops,
sorry...FILM camera) also likely believes in Santa Claus
and the tooth fairy. Time to grow up...

You are arguing about the meanings of words. The "meaning" of a word is
typically determined by what the majority of people interpret it as.

no, I'm not. I'm stating the differences in
the processes. Digital is not a photographic
process. Anyone who thinks so doesn't even
understand the photographic process as a
matter of science...

digital cameras are scanners...

Take a poll and 99% of people will think that a digital camera is a
"camera".

Which proves what? That 99% of all people also
think the crappy repros they see in the newspaper
are actual "photographs"? Sorry, they're not
photographs, they're reproductions of photographs.

snip remaining ignorat b.s....