Photography: Artist vs technician

Chris Brown wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:


Chris Brown wrote:


Let's think about this for a moment....

Which you obviously failed to do, dumbass...

Oh come on, I'm sure you can summon up more vitriol than "dumbass". You
didn't even manage "****ing dumbass". Why not go and stare at your Leica box
for a bit, maybe get some inspiration.

Photons are recorded in photography....

No photons come from things that don't exist, now do they?

Indeed they don't, but that doen't stop one making a photograph of a scene
that never did, nor never will exist.

Ha ha ha ha.....you're even stupider than I thought....

If you ever actually took pictures,
rather than just polished your toy camera, you'd realise this.

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:53:33 -0700, "Skip M"
wrote:

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...


You and Colin seem to be the only ones trying to connect
photography with "fine art".
Care to let us in on the difference between "art" and "fine
art"?
And tell us how long you'll make this distinction, while you're
at it, so we'll know when to expect the next change in
definitions.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Fine" became a prefix for "art" about the time "arts and crafts"
became a phrase, in order to distinguish Picasso from Martha
Stewart...

All well and good.
Except that until called on it, UC didn't make any distinction
between "art" and "fine art".
Thus, my point that he can't have anything he says taken
seriously,
becasue he doesn't say what he thinks he means.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

I think the bigger problem is that he doesn't know what he thinks,
or means, until he says it, than spends an immense amount of
verbiage trying to convince all and sundry that it really was what
he meant to say.

No, I think he's spending a lot of energy to show that his view of
the
world is different from most other peoples' view,and that he thinks
he's right, and the rest of us poor deluded souls are wrong.
Of course, he finds it necessary to redefine reality in his attempts
to do so, with no regard to the fact that it's already been defined.

I think he's in the final stages of dementia praecox and the drugs his
very kind physician prescribed are interfering with his ability to
look outside his own petrified brain.

Now the question remains: Why do y'all bother? There'll be no change
in him or his thinking until he expires. The effects of this exchange
on his co-deadhorsebeaters are obvious and saddening.

--
Frank S

"Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten-up a chump."
-William Claude Dukenfeld

wrote in message
oups.com...

Your attempt at an intelligible reply is noted, and rejected out of
hand.

And I'm sure the hand not involved in the rejection is busily practicing
some kind of auto-eroticism.

Bill Funk wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 14:18:18 -0700, wrote:

Wow. The stupidest thing you have said yet....

And yet, you can't counter it, it would seem.
You claim that others don't understand 'causal",

'Unbroken causal chain'...

then claim that "art"
must have a causal connection to the artist,

What are you talking about? I said no such thing!

then still claim,
evidently, that the photographer has no hand in his photographs.

I said no such thing. You're lying. You're so ****ing stupid that it's
impossible to discuss ANYTHING with you. You lie, distort, and
mis-quote.

So which just appears: the painting, or the photograph?
Which one is not the direct result of the person doing it?
Which one is not causal?
You claim that only the painting is causal. Are you saying that the
photograph just appears for no reason?

Ye gods.....I SAID NO SUCH THING!

A photograph is the natural result of an unbroken causal chain from
subject to negative...

Light (photons)....reflected from or emitted from
subject...refracted/collected by lens or pinhole...affect
emulsion...render silver grains developable...development...printing...

An uninterrupted cauusal chain...

Painting has NO such causal chain...I can sit in front of Queen
Elizabeth, with my easel, brushes, and paints, look her right in the
eye, tell her how to pose...and make a painting of a dog (one that
never existed, kust made up in my mind)....NO CAUSAL CHAIN!

How, sir, does successive illumination of parts of an object render it
non-existent?

Bill Funk wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 14:10:45 -0700, wrote:

'Painting with light' can mean different things. The sense I took it
was spraying film with light beams. Another sense is passing a beam of
light over a stationary object, illuminating the various parts of it in
sequence. This is done when the object cannot be conveniently
illuminated all at once. I don't see how the latter is 'photographing
something that does not exist'.

I know you don't see it. You continue to say so.
Your ignorance does not define photoraphy, nor dioes it define art.

Bill Funk wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 11:36:23 -0700, wrote:



Chris Brown wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
I can plop myself on a stool with brushes, paint, and canvas, before
Queen Elizabeth, and paint a picture....of a dog.

There is NO causal connection between the art-work and the existence of
some object. NONE!

I CANNOT take a photograph of Queen Elizabeth if there is no Queen
Elizabeth, and unless she is within view of my lens at the moment I
desire to make a photograph.

It's quite easy to make photographs of things that don't actually exist,
using a variety of techniques (painting with light, multiple exposures,
etc.). Photography isn't limited by your lack of imagination.

'Paintings made with light' are not photographs.

So? What's your point?
Oh, I see; you think we are as stupid as you are.
He didn't say "paintings made with light", he said, "painting with
light", which is a well-known photographic technique.
Another example of you changing things to suit your ideas, but we are
too smart for you. We see through your childish attempts to alter
reality at the six-year-old level.
Are you usually this
****ing stupid, or is this a special effort on your part? You CANNOT,
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, make a photograph of what does not exist.

Maybe *you* can't, but others manage all the time.
Photography is not limited by what you don't know.

No, it's limited by photons, you moron!

This thread has given me little cause to change my opinion of the utter
stupidity of most photographers.


--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 14:22:05 -0700, wrote:

"2 : the philosophy or science of art; specifically : the science
whose subject matter is the description and explanation of the arts,
artistic phenomena, and aesthetic experience and includes the
psychology, sociology, ethnology, and history of the arts and
essentially related aspects"

You were saying....?

I was saying that aesthetics does not define art.

'Define'? What do you mean by 'aesthetics does not define art'. Your
expression is so vague as to be meaningless.

Thak you for demonstrating that I am right.
Read what you quoted above. A description of something is not the same
as defining that thing.
I can describe a dog. I do not get to define what a dog is.
Aesthetics studies (and yes, even describes) art. It does not define
art.

Bill Funk wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 06:45:25 -0700, wrote:



Bill Funk wrote:
On 21 Jun 2005 07:19:34 -0700, wrote:

Concepts don't go 'out of date'. Philosophy deal with intangibles.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with that mode of thought.

Philosophy does not rule art.

Utter rubbish. Aesthetics is the theory of art. Aesthetics is a
sub-discipline that falls under philosophy.

Aesthetics is the *STUDY* of beauty and taste, not the *DEFINITION* of
art, nor any theory of art.
Look it up. You claim to know how to use a dictionary.

Therefore, your attempts to declare what is art, and what isn't, by
using philosophy as a rule, fails.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 14:19:49 -0700, wrote:

In the STRICT sense, (dumbass!) an IMAGE is produced only by an optical
system.

Paintings do not contain images but rather representations.

Agauin, you redefine words, but you can't produce a body of evidence
to back it up.

How's this, bubba?......


From Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

IMAGE:
"2 : a thing actually or seemingly reproducing another: as a (1) : the
optical counterpart of an object produced by a lens, mirror, or other
optical system and being the geometric figure made up of the foci
corresponding to the points of the object - see REAL IMAGE, VIRTUAL
IMAGE(2) : an analogous phenomenon in some field other than optics *an
acoustic image* *an electric image* b : any likeness of an object
produced on a photographic material"

This is EXACTLY what I mean by 'image'. OK? Paintings do not contain
'images' except in the extended sense, the metaphorical sense. The
TECHNICAL sense, the STRICT sense is what I care about, and that sense
is given above.

http://www.google.com/search?hs=P0H&...&btnG=Sear ch
Of course, this body of evidence that you're wrong is also
superfluous, becasue it doesn't agree with you.
You live alone, don't you?

Bill Funk wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 06:40:53 -0700, wrote:

'Images' are made by lenses only. What appears in a picture (a
painting) is not an 'image' at all. It is a 'representation'. A
'representation' is not a copy. The snake in many Christian religious
painings represents Satan. It is a SYMBOL. A representation is a
symbol, not an image.

Only lenses or the like can produce images. Images are connected
causally to some object by collecting photons.

You like Google search, try this one:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG=Se arch

Keep on redefining words. It's your world.


Skip M wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
It is not a painting 'OF' Queen Elizabeth in the same sense of 'OF'
that a photograph 'OF' Queen Elizabeth is 'OF' her. The relation in the
latter case is CAUSAL, in the former, INTENTIONAL. (For your
information, these relations are NOT the same.)


The only reasons for them not to be the same would be a) if the image were
of Queen Elizabeth I rather than II, or b) admitting that there was a link
would put your argument out to grass. Hmmm, I wonder which it is. There is
a causal link, in the identity of the subject and in the reason for making
the image, whether it is a photograph, painting ,sculpture or paper doll.
QEII did not "cause" the photograph, therefore the relation is indeed
intentional.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk wrote:

But see this entry in Webster's Third New International:

Main Entry:2art

snip long definition that does not define "art" and "fine art" as
being te same thing

I repeat the relevant part of what you cut:

"ART"
6 a : the craft of the artist; specifically : the technical devices
used by a painter regarded especially as a subject of study b : a
method or device that produces an artistic effect or is used for
decorative purposes *art needlework*
7 a : FINE ARTS b : one of the fine arts c : a plastic art d : a
graphic art e : PAINTING

This clearly shows what you said is false. Note especially definition
7a and 7e.

No, it shows that you must search and pick and choose what definitions
you will accept, and reject the others as superfluous.

But what you said contradicted this. You're a damned liar! This is the
common, everyday sense of 'art' and you know it!

(Snipped incomprehensible bull****)

Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:23:41 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

Your attempt at an intelligible reply is noted, and rejected out of
hand.
This is not discussion but you just turning your back, stamping your foot
and hoping that the answers to your perversions will just go away - such
as I hope with your persistant top posting rudeness.

No, it means you are so far off that you're not even 'wrong'. You're
not worth talking to, simply put.



--
neil
delete delete to reply

Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:36:23 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

It's quite easy to make photographs of things that don't actually exist,
using a variety of techniques (painting with light, multiple exposures,
etc.). Photography isn't limited by your lack of imagination.

'Paintings made with light' are not photographs. Are you usually this
****ing stupid, or is this a special effort on your part? You CANNOT,
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, make a photograph of what does not exist.
Of course you can. Consider just one example - lightening, by the time the
photo is taken the lightening doesn't exist. There is also print
manipulation although it is not practised as much now as in past times. In
the late 19thC a few photographers said the a negative wasn't ready to
print unless it was completely covered with pencil (really they were
exaggerating).

Allow me to clarify: You cannot take photographs of what has not
existed and given off or reflected photons.

Astronomers capture photons from objects that may 'now' no longer
exist. But the point is, they DID exist. It just took a long time for
the photons to reach us. I am referring to imaginary, 'unreal' objects.
Representations of these 'imaginings' can be painted onto canvas, but
they cannot be photographed.

Fairies, ghosts, Satan, my memory of 'last summer': these cannot be
photographed.


--
neil
delete delete to reply