35mm on grade 3 explained

(Uranium Committee) wrote in message
There is no 'correct' tonal distribution for all
images, only a 'correct' distribution for each image - the one which
best meets the intent of the artist.

Photography is not 'art' and cannot be art.

Fine. I disagree. But, if you prefer, I will happily amend the
statement to read "There is no 'correct' tonal distribution for all
images, only a 'correct' distribution for each image - the one which
best meets the intent of the photographer."

Why do the other? Because, as an artist,

YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST! PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ART AND CANNOT BE ART!

Thanks for confirming and reinforcing what I had suspected - there is
no point in attempting to discuss anything with someone who calls me a
Nazi.


-Paul
www.butzi.net

On 18 Sep 2004 14:20:22 -0700, (Uranium
Committee) wrote:


Why do the other? Because, as an artist,

YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST! PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ART AND CANNOT BE ART!


The old school states that art is one of 2, possibly 3 disciplines,
that are by tradition defined as art. For example painting and
sculpture, some would include pottery others would not.

The new school is much more open, it includes any media that is
creative in nature. That would include painting, sculpture, glass
blowing, photography, computer programming, makeup and a whole
plethoria of other things, including poetry.

If your old school, then that can be very damaging to your photography
because you limit yourself to technician which removes the creative
element. If your new school, then your statement is a tremendiously
large pile of malle bovine manure.

W

On 18 Sep 2004 14:20:22 -0700, (Uranium
Committee) wrote:


Why do the other? Because, as an artist,

YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST! PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ART AND CANNOT BE ART!


The old school states that art is one of 2, possibly 3 disciplines,
that are by tradition defined as art. For example painting and
sculpture, some would include pottery others would not.

The new school is much more open, it includes any media that is
creative in nature. That would include painting, sculpture, glass
blowing, photography, computer programming, makeup and a whole
plethoria of other things, including poetry.

If your old school, then that can be very damaging to your photography
because you limit yourself to technician which removes the creative
element. If your new school, then your statement is a tremendiously
large pile of malle bovine manure.

W

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

THIS IS ABOUT 35MM.

oooh. Well that's a different story. VERY (to use your venacular)
different.

See title of thread, please.

BUT not as it concerns the interpretation of tonality and to that
end I direct you to W. Eugene Smith's work. And the work of many unrenouned
35mm photographers.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

THIS IS ABOUT 35MM.

oooh. Well that's a different story. VERY (to use your venacular)
different.

See title of thread, please.

BUT not as it concerns the interpretation of tonality and to that
end I direct you to W. Eugene Smith's work. And the work of many unrenouned
35mm photographers.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

THIS IS ABOUT 35MM.

oooh. Well that's a different story. VERY (to use your venacular)
different.

See title of thread, please.

BUT not as it concerns the interpretation of tonality and to that
end I direct you to W. Eugene Smith's work. And the work of many unrenouned
35mm photographers.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...
(Paul Butzi) wrote in message
. com...

Paul:

What is the title of this thread?

When you have understood that, then and ONLY then, respond.

Hey, why don't you do The Right Thing and collect your thoughts into some
kind of manifesto.

I am writing a book, as a matter of fact. The purpose is to bust all
the photographic myths.

It might be a good exercise for you. I can already tell
that you have facist tendencies. Don't get all bent out of shape. There are
virtues even in that regard, albeit none that are worth a damn in politics.
I'll send you a name and nudge or two of the esthecic facist movement if it
helps.BUT you ain't going nowhere with such metrics except to Wally Land
(Walmart Esthetics). Enjoy.

No, the fascists are the Zonazis who proclaim themselves above
everybody else, who claim their manipulated and unnatural-looking
images (usually of 'nature'- ironic, isn't it?) are 'works of art'.
They aren't. Neither are mine, but at least I don't claim it.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...
(Paul Butzi) wrote in message
. com...

Paul:

What is the title of this thread?

When you have understood that, then and ONLY then, respond.

Hey, why don't you do The Right Thing and collect your thoughts into some
kind of manifesto.

I am writing a book, as a matter of fact. The purpose is to bust all
the photographic myths.

It might be a good exercise for you. I can already tell
that you have facist tendencies. Don't get all bent out of shape. There are
virtues even in that regard, albeit none that are worth a damn in politics.
I'll send you a name and nudge or two of the esthecic facist movement if it
helps.BUT you ain't going nowhere with such metrics except to Wally Land
(Walmart Esthetics). Enjoy.

No, the fascists are the Zonazis who proclaim themselves above
everybody else, who claim their manipulated and unnatural-looking
images (usually of 'nature'- ironic, isn't it?) are 'works of art'.
They aren't. Neither are mine, but at least I don't claim it.

Leigh Marrin/KM6JE wrote in message ...
Uranium Committee wrote:
YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST! PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ART AND CANNOT BE ART!

Another Scarpitti flip-flop; on September 4 2003, Mike Scarpitti proudly
proclaimed "Waffle Boy" to be a Work Of Art. (See below reprinted from
Google.)

Scarpitti thrives on self-generated controversy, and is very well likely
to eventually reverse himself, should the reversal generate more
attention.

From: Michael Scarpitti )
Subject: Variable contrast Fiber Based paper?
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-09-04 06:34:20 PST

[..] I think the black youth pouring syrup is 'a work of art' [...] The
hat, lighting, and his shirt and dark skin are fascinating, at least to
me. It's more than a snapshot.

You'll notice the quotation marks around the expression. That means it
is to be taken in a special sense. Of course it's not art, but it is
more than a snapshot.

Leigh Marrin/KM6JE wrote in message ...
Uranium Committee wrote:
YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST! PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ART AND CANNOT BE ART!

Another Scarpitti flip-flop; on September 4 2003, Mike Scarpitti proudly
proclaimed "Waffle Boy" to be a Work Of Art. (See below reprinted from
Google.)

Scarpitti thrives on self-generated controversy, and is very well likely
to eventually reverse himself, should the reversal generate more
attention.

From: Michael Scarpitti )
Subject: Variable contrast Fiber Based paper?
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.darkroom
Date: 2003-09-04 06:34:20 PST

[..] I think the black youth pouring syrup is 'a work of art' [...] The
hat, lighting, and his shirt and dark skin are fascinating, at least to
me. It's more than a snapshot.

You'll notice the quotation marks around the expression. That means it
is to be taken in a special sense. Of course it's not art, but it is
more than a snapshot.