# The Art



## m.stevenson

Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things...

Just a Thought


----------



## The Shoe

Problem is, art is subjective.

If everyone herds into a mindset that, for example, all landscape photographs must employ certain rules (thirds, horizontal etc...) then they can all feel good by huddling close to one another all coming to the same conclusions.  Such as that yes, indeed, this person's photograph is not good because it is not completely level, or there is an even amount of sky and earth showing.


----------



## Flash Harry

My opinion is if you want to be an artist and have any ability whatsoever then pick up a paintbrush, if you want to create artistic photographs then you need technical ability first to get the best out of the equipment.

I'm sick up to the back teeth of photographers who reckon their work is art to justify technically abysmal photographs or captures which are just plain badly focussed/exposed or massively overprocessed junk. Yes art is subjective but don't be producing garbage to give it the "art" label. H


----------



## OlyNikonLearner

I was raised in a school of thought (and practice) that saw photography as the only way to stop life for one split second and capture that very briefest moment's reality on film. I still believe the same today.

Is this art? In a way, it is and always was; "Art" of course in the sense that some photographers do possess that instinct, that frame of mind that allows them to position themselves, without much thought, for that shot that makes the history books. 

Just one cursory review of the careers of some of the best photographers ever will tell you this story of "correct position." Most of these guys had none of the gadgets we have today... but they produced photos that will bring up emotions in most people we rarely get otherwise in life.

Yes, photography is an Art ... as much as an exercise in technical ability. All of the Arts have a technical side which, if you are the artist, you possess.

Part of the Art is not/is not post-processing in order to create whatever "work of art" this particular software tool can produce. In fact, I never really believed in tweaking with your images. 

Stand up and be counted for what you can do in capturing that briefest of instances, camera in hand, eye in the diopter.

As simple as that.


----------



## Derrel

Photography can be art...it can be a craft...it can be a mechanical process...it can be a scientific process...it can be a digital process...it can be a digital and mechanical process...it can be a hybrid process...it can be done to satisfy artistic yearnings for creating meaningful works, or it can be done to catalogue one's stamp collection, or for garnering higher sale prices on e-Bay crap...the art, science, and craft of photography intersect at different positions within the different photographers around the world. Some photographers are artists, some are scientists, some are craftspeople, some are multiples of one or two of those things,while some rare ones are all three.

I find it disconcerting how many people get in to photography,buy some fancy new digital equipment, and after two or three years start openly running down people who have spent most of their life around the art and craft of photography. They even start blogs and run other people down in an effort to stroke their insecure egos. They act like they are anything but "newbies",and develop egos about how great they are, and they set up model mayhem web pages and shoot "creative" stuff. Crap,mostly.

These people are known as the "Digital Adams". Look up the term.


----------



## oldmacman

Although I don't feel as strongly as Flash Harry, I agree with his sentiment and add that art does employ a visual language. When you stray from the principles and elements of design, those who are trained in applying those concepts will call you on it. If you have made artistic decisions and know why you have applied concepts in a particular way, then ignore those who are too ignorant to understand. Being an artist does require a thick skin.

My pet peeve, as a media art teacher, is when students tells me they like what they have created but cannot tell me why it works visually. Everyone will have a "happy accident" once in a while. To be good consistently requires thought and understanding.


----------



## white

m.stevenson said:


> Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things...
> 
> Just a Thought


Depends on where you show your photographs, and to who, I guess. Artists tend to understand each other, so you can experiment and make overprocessed and technically poor 'junk' and not be criticized for breaking compositional rules. That's been my experience. At school we all kind of encourage each other to experiment and have fun making images.


----------



## auntieofjed

the thought that a picture can capture the past. can show somebody else something they can not see. unsaid thoughts.


----------



## Mendoza

Rendering your _impression_ of a person, place, or thing, or a reflection of your state of mind in an image, or the essence of something, begins as a non-technical impulse.
It's simpler to criticize an image based on its technical "shortcomings" because there are more objective rules, norms, or guidelines everyone is supposed to follow.  But like The Shoe said, art is subjective and there's the rub.


----------



## JG_Coleman

m.stevenson said:


> Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things...
> 
> Just a Thought


 
It's important to understand, though, that art of any type has really always been this way. Painting, drawing, music, writing; all of these arts follow certain schools of thought and put forward certain standards that, for better or worse, loosely dictate what is considered good or bad.

On one hand, this makes individuals somewhat spiteful... the feeling is, "This is _my_ art, why isn't it respected as such?" It's an understandable sentiment.

On the other hand, though, such standards are what allow us to have coherent art forms.... it's how we are able, as a society, to produce art that people can understand.

I think that there is a certain double-bind that characterizes most types of art. On one side of the coin, it is emphasized that our art should come thoroughly and entirely from our own instinctive, artistic sense: "You should create art that _you_ like"... "You shouldn't worry about impressing others"... "Don't let people dictate to you what your art should be". Many beginners in artistic fields seem to focus on this to the exclusion of anything else and wind up with a kind of "me-against-the-world" attitude... a resentment towards a society that seems to heartlessly reject their artistic efforts and send them back to the drawing board.

But, what these individuals ignore is that all forms of art are about communication. Art _should_ be created to uniquely reflect the creator, but at the same time, it needs to be able to speak to others... to convey to others what the creator experienced with a certain amount of fidelity. If a painting, musical piece, or photograph cannot do that, then indeed, it is something of an artistic failure. No worries... the great painters made countless paintings that they never showed anyone because they deemed them flawed. Likewise, the greatest photographers took many thousands of exposures that got a one-way trip to the trash bin. Nobody strikes gold everytime.

As I mentioned on another thread some time ago: compare art (as communication) to language. I can convey so much more to someone using a refined and trained language like English, rather than just haphazardly barking sounds at people I meet.

Abiding by certain conventions doesn't rob individuality from art... in fact, it allows us to speak much more through our art than if we just offered up whatever we happened to create.


----------



## Petraio Prime

m.stevenson said:


> Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things...
> 
> Just a Thought



The most impressive photographs have always been and always will be the ones where the photographer 'disappears', and you are unaware of any 'manipulation'. Too much photography today is total crap, utterly worthless garbage, with nothing but manipulations, technique for the sake of technique, without an ounce of merit. Most of the so-called 'HDR' is like that (and 'HDR' is a misnomer anyway!).

If you think that a correctly exposed and in-focus photograph is a waste of time you're wrong.

Especially since digital has become popular, photography has gone rapidly downhill. Everyone wants to play with images in the computer instead of finding something interesting to photograph. It's easy to sit on your butt and play with the image on the screen instead of taking the time to learn your equipment so well it becomes part of you, and making the effort to go out and find interesting subject matter.

The world is full of interesting things to photograph, and they look better* in focus, **correctly exposed, *and *unmanipulated. *This takes, *skill, patience, *and *dedication, *things that are not popular these days. Everyone wants the easy way out, the path of least resistance. I don't buy it. It isn't 'art', it's just laziness and lack of talent or skill.


----------



## fwellers

Petraio, I won't bother to quote your jibberish in my response, and I'll keep it brief.
I just want to say that your polarizing opinion is very narrow and short sighted. While it's true there is great value in well thought out and well composed shooting of interesting subjects, circumstances, juxtapositions etc... there is also no doubt that a well crafted post processing can create magnificent images !!
I find your view to be very small minded.


----------



## Flash Harry

You still need a decent image to begin with imo before your manipulations can be called "art" or have the term "magnificent" applied, I'm still waiting to see my first magnificent image, from anyone. H


----------



## Petraio Prime

fwellers said:


> Petraio, I won't bother to quote your jibberish in my response, and I'll keep it brief.
> I just want to say that your polarizing opinion is very narrow and short sighted. While it's true there is great value in well thought out and well composed shooting of interesting subjects, circumstances, juxtapositions etc... there is also no doubt that a well crafted post processing can create magnificent images !!
> I find your view to be very small minded.



It takes work, talent, time, effort...._before _you press the shutter release...

Cleverly manipulated crap is still crap.


----------



## fwellers

Yes but your post seemed to say that once you start manipulating in post, the image becomes crap.


----------



## Petraio Prime

fwellers said:


> Yes but your post seemed to say that once you start manipulating in post, the image becomes crap.



1) You don't *need *it if the image is strong to begin with, and you are more than likely to ruin it with excessive manipulation
2) You can't make silk purse from a sow's ear

This girl at a festival caught my eye with her red hair, and she looked into the lens just a moment before I released the shutter. What would you do to this to make it 'better' through manipulation? The only thing to mention is the the girl behind her, but given this is a festival with people milling around everywhere, that's what happens, so it doesn't bother me. If it were a commercial photo of course I would have control over everything and this would not happen.

By the way, this was shot on film (Fuji Pro NPH 400) and scanned.


----------



## JG_Coleman

Petraio Prime said:


> What would you do to this to make it 'better' through manipulation?


 
Well... I suppose that what is meant by 'better' and 'manipulation' is really rather subjective. There's the opportunity to apply some output sharpening, at the very least. If you wanted to tweak the tone curve (for a shapely 'S'-curve) you could do that... you can subtly adjust the exposure or white balance if you saw fit.

I mean, if _you_ are satisfied with the photo as it is, then of course you don't have to do anything to it in post-processing. But I'm sure that if the photo were given to ten different people, they would all process it in ever so slightly different ways.

What I _can_ say is that I make a concerted effort to capture any given shot the best I can... but I also never 'force' myself to accept the in-camera shot as the final image merely out of principle. Every photograph goes through Lightroom, every photograph gets a certain degree of sharpening appropriate to the content, and many get tweaks in white balance, exposure, and tone curve. Sometimes the final result is only barely changed from the in-camera shot... other times it is much improved.

'Manipulation', which is really just kind of a loaded way of saying 'post-processing', is only detrimental to a photo if the individual doing the processing doesn't have a good enough eye to distinguish between 'just right' and 'over-the-top'.

Bad post-processing is not to be blamed on the practice of post-processing, but the person doing the processing. In the hands of an experienced photographer, post-processing applications only improve and refine photographs.

Those who shoot JPEG are jsut getting a "canned" processing algorithm applied to the shot in-camera... they are letting the software do the work for them. If that works for you, that's fine... other photographers prefer to make the decisions for themselves.

That's where RAW comes in... and if you've ever looked at a RAW image without _any_ adjustments, at all, you've certainly seen that post-processing isn't just preferable... it's absolutely necessary.


----------



## Petraio Prime

JG_Coleman said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you do to this to make it 'better' through manipulation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... I suppose that what is meant by 'better' and 'manipulation' is really rather subjective. There's the opportunity to apply some output sharpening, at the very least. If you wanted to tweak the tone curve (for a shapely 'S'-curve) you could do that... you can subtly adjust the exposure or white balance if you saw fit.
> 
> I mean, if _you_ are satisfied with the photo as it is, then of course you don't have to do anything to it in post-processing. But I'm sure that if the photo were given to ten different people, they would all process it in ever so slightly different ways.
> 
> What I _can_ say is that I make a concerted effort to capture any given shot the best I can... but I also never 'force' myself to accept the in-camera shot as the final image merely out of principle. Every photograph goes through Lightroom, every photograph gets a certain degree of sharpening appropriate to the content, and many get tweaks in white balance, exposure, and tone curve. Sometimes the final result is only barely changed from the in-camera shot... other times it is much improved.
> 
> 'Manipulation', which is really just kind of a loaded way of saying 'post-processing', is only detrimental to a photo if the individual doing the processing doesn't have a good enough eye to distinguish between 'just right' and 'over-the-top'.
> 
> Bad post-processing is not to be blamed on the practice of post-processing, but the person doing the processing. In the hands of an experienced photographer, post-processing applications only improve and refine photographs.
> 
> Those who shoot JPEG are jsut getting a "canned" processing algorithm applied to the shot in-camera... they are letting the software do the work for them. If that works for you, that's fine... other photographers prefer to make the decisions for themselves.
> 
> That's where RAW comes in... and if you've ever looked at a RAW image without _any_ adjustments, at all, you've certainly seen that post-processing isn't just preferable... it's absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...


In case you didn't know: this was shot on film (Fuji Pro NPH 400) and scanned.

By 'manipulation' I mean anything that involves altering the image substantially after exposure, using film or digital means.


----------



## JG_Coleman

Petraio Prime said:


> In case you didn't know: this was shot on film (Fuji Pro 400H) and scanned.
> 
> By 'manipulation' I mean anything that involves altering the image substantially after exposure, using film or digital means.


 
Okay... well, by "subjective", I mean that what's _good enough_ for one person is not necessarily _good enough_ for the next.

My point is simple: There is really no more merit to an in-camera shot left as-is than there is to a tastefully-tweaked version of the same shot. Unless, of course, you can actually see old-school, rutted concepts within the photograph. 

Your insistence to apply absolutely no processing whatsoever, if at all possible, leads one to believe that there is actually something inherently 'better' about doing things that way. In actuality, the quality of the finished product is the only thing that matters.

Sure, one should strive to get the best shot possible in-camera... but not because of some fanatical insistence on avoiding post-processing. Rather, because the higher quality the shot is in-camera, the better it will be after adjustments, as well.

Viewers of our photographs really don't care whether or not a given photograph came directly off the camera the way it looks now. It's entirely irrelevant. The overall quality of the finished work dictates the quality of the photograph... the path taken to get any given finished image has no real bearing, at all.


----------



## Petraio Prime

JG_Coleman said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you didn't know: this was shot on film (Fuji Pro 400H) and scanned.
> 
> By 'manipulation' I mean anything that involves altering the image substantially after exposure, using film or digital means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... well, by "subjective", I mean that what's _good enough_ for one person is not necessarily _good enough_ for the next.
> 
> My point is simple: There is really no more merit to an in-camera shot left as-is than there is to a tastefully-tweaked version of the same shot. Unless, of course, you can actually see old-school, rutted concepts within the photograph.
> 
> Your insistence to apply absolutely no processing whatsoever, if at all possible, leads one to believe that there is actually something inherently 'better' about doing things that way. In actuality, the quality of the finished product is the only thing that matters.
> 
> Sure, one should strive to get the best shot possible in-camera... but not because of some fanatical insistence on avoiding post-processing. Rather, because the higher quality the shot is in-camera, the better it will be after adjustments, as well.
> 
> Viewers of our photographs really don't care whether or not a given photograph came directly off the camera the way it looks now. It's entirely irrelevant. The overall quality of the finished work dictates the quality of the photograph... the path taken to get any given finished image has no real bearing, at all.
Click to expand...


You miss my point. _The photo has to be good to start with_, and no amount of 'processing' or 'technique' is going to make it good if it isn't good to start with.

People are out there taking stupid, boring crap and processing it every which way, thinking that makes it a good photograph. It doesn't. This is _especially _true of that HDR crap.

Staying at home and taking a photo of my bathroom sink and then processing the crap out of it isn't going to be as interesting as going out into the real world and finding a cute girl with red hair.


----------



## JG_Coleman

Petraio Prime said:


> You miss my point. _The photo has to be good to start with_, and no amount of 'processing' or 'technique' is going to make it good if it isn't good to start with.
> 
> People are out there taking stupid, boring crap and processing it every which way, thinking that makes it a good photograph. It doesn't. This is _especially _true of that HDR crap.


 
Fair enough, I suppose. Don't want to turn this thread into another HDR debacle, though I can't figure out why some people are so against HDR techniques. I've tried earnestly to figure it out, really... (Most HDRs do not feature a bathroom sink or the like).

I can only guess it's equivalent to the way that so many established painters thought photography was crap when it first came out... it was different. Which actually relates back to the OP's post... sometimes the genius of a new technique isn't truly realized until long after it has been pioneered. Many artists from many fields over history were shunned by the society of their time for embracing new techniques or interpretations... only to be hailed as great pioneers decades or centuries after their death. The "establishment" is oftentimes slow to catch on to new things.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, any artists that bank on this happening for them should be steeled against the very real possibility of total failure. Most "new techniques" or "revolutionary ways of seeing things" aren't destined for fame and fanfare... they are destined to be forgotten. Such is the way of art in human society.

Though, I have the feeling that HDR is not headed for oblivion... it will undoubtedly continue to evolve and become integral to modern photography... even if it does remain in it's own "school of thought" distinct from non-HDR photography.


----------



## Petraio Prime

JG_Coleman said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> You miss my point. _The photo has to be good to start with_, and no amount of 'processing' or 'technique' is going to make it good if it isn't good to start with.
> 
> People are out there taking stupid, boring crap and processing it every which way, thinking that makes it a good photograph. It doesn't. This is _especially _true of that HDR crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough, I suppose. Don't want to turn this thread into another HDR debacle, though I can't figure out why some people are so against HDR techniques. I've tried earnestly to figure it out, really... (Most HDRs do not feature a bathroom sink or the like).
> 
> I can only guess it's equivalent to the way that so many established painters thought photography was crap when it first came out... it was different. Which actually relates back to the OP's post... sometimes the genius of a new technique isn't truly realized until long after it has been pioneered. Many artists from many fields over history were shunned by the society of their time for embracing new techniques or interpretations... only to be hailed as great pioneers decades or centuries after their death. The "establishment" is oftentimes slow to catch on to new things.
> 
> Of course, in the grand scheme of things, any artists that bank on this happening for them should be steeled against the very real possibility of total failure. Most "new techniques" or "revolutionary ways of seeing things" aren't destined for fame and fanfare... they are destined to be forgotten. Such is the way of art in human society.
> 
> Though, I have the feeling that HDR is not headed for oblivion... it will undoubtedly continue to evolve and become integral to modern photography... even if it does remain in it's own "school of thought" distinct from non-HDR photography.
Click to expand...


I don't shoot digital. I use film; but if I did shoot digital, HDR is the last thing I would ever do. It's horrid.

If you want to play with that photo of the red-headed girl I give you leave.


----------



## white

Petraio Prime said:


> Too much photography today is total crap, utterly worthless garbage, with nothing but manipulations, technique for the sake of technique, without an ounce of merit.


I just love it when you talk dirty. You post your average photos as if they are colossal achievements every photographer should aspire to while making sweeping generalizations about photography. Fascinating. All you need to do now is link to Salgado's work and denounce the Zone system and your tirade will be complete.


----------



## Petraio Prime

white said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too much photography today is total crap, utterly worthless garbage, with nothing but manipulations, technique for the sake of technique, without an ounce of merit.
> 
> 
> 
> I just love it when you talk dirty. You post your average photos as if they are colossal achievements every photographer should aspire to while making sweeping generalizations about photography. Fascinating. All you need to do now is link to Salgado's work and denounce the Zone system and your tirade will be complete.
Click to expand...


They are certainly not 'colossal achievements', but they are _honest_, which is more than you can say about 95% of what I see around me. By this I mean what you see is what I saw in the viewfinder, without manipulations of any kind. I'm sorry, but the manipulation frenzy has gotten entirely out of hand. The kitchen-scene processed in HDR just doesn't do it for me.

http://activerain.com/image_store/uploads/6/7/2/9/4/ar124733161449276.jpg

I'll take my red-haired punker girl any day over that kind of crap.


----------



## Overread

Just to confirm - but does this mean that (since we are debating the extent of editing) photography can and is art? I seem to recall a certain someone stating that photography was not and could not ever be art (no matter how little or how much editing had been done)


----------



## pgriz

Good art succeeds by moving the spirit, evoking emotion, giving voice to what was mute, lending us eyes tosee  what we were blind to. Good art often is technically well executed, but the contrary is rarely true. Good art stands on its own merits, and doesn't need the pedigree of its creator to be good. The mechanics of creation are important, but mainly to accomplish their job, and then get out of the way. Good art is also subjective and individual - what may move you to tears, may leave me indifferent. Neither reaction is "right" or "wrong", nor is it necessary that you experience the idea that the creator wanted you to have. However, most of "us" are insecure in our own opinions and seek validation from others to confirm that "we" are "right". Which opens the door to a forceful personality to sway the group that a particular viewpoint is "good" and the rest is "bad". Currently, there is a fetish-like adoration in photographic circles of sharpness, straight horizon lines, positioning using the rules of thirds, etc. Well, those things can be important, IF they provide the "AHA" or "Eureka" reaction. By themselves, they are just a means to an end. And the end is to open eyes, touch hearts, stimulate brains. If that doesn't happen, it's not good art.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Just to confirm - but does this mean that (since we are debating the extent of editing) photography can and is art? I seem to recall a certain someone stating that photography was not and could not ever be art (no matter how little or how much editing had been done)



_*A photograph is not and cannot be a work of art.*_

If you start manipulating the crap out of it, it starts becoming 'art-like' and becomes less and less a photograph.

Tha_t doesn't _mean it becomes 'better'.

To say a photograph is a work of art means that you don't know how to use and apply the word 'art' properly.


----------



## Petraio Prime

pgriz said:


> Good art succeeds by moving the spirit, evoking emotion, giving voice to what was mute, lending us eyes tosee  what we were blind to. Good art often is technically well executed, but the contrary is rarely true. Good art stands on its own merits, and doesn't need the pedigree of its creator to be good. The mechanics of creation are important, but mainly to accomplish their job, and then get out of the way. Good art is also subjective and individual - what may move you to tears, may leave me indifferent. Neither reaction is "right" or "wrong", nor is it necessary that you experience the idea that the creator wanted you to have. However, most of "us" are insecure in our own opinions and seek validation from others to confirm that "we" are "right". Which opens the door to a forceful personality to sway the group that a particular viewpoint is "good" and the rest is "bad". Currently, there is a fetish-like adoration in photographic circles of sharpness, straight horizon lines, positioning using the rules of thirds, etc. Well, those things can be important, IF they provide the "AHA" or "Eureka" reaction. By themselves, they are just a means to an end. And the end is to open eyes, touch hearts, stimulate brains. If that doesn't happen, it's not good art.



The 'rules' don't _make_ a good photograph good. They _allow_ it to be good. 

Crooked horizons, bad focus, poor placement of the subject all detract. The 'rule of thirds' is often misunderstood. It is simply a way of dividing the space in a photograph in a pleasing way.


----------



## abraxas

m.stevenson said:


> Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things...
> 
> Just a Thought



Do what feels right and natural to you.  Give yourself time to learn and develop your personal aesthetic.  Keep an open mind while remaining objective about your work.  Don't use excuses.

-


----------



## JG_Coleman

Petraio Prime said:


> _*A photograph is not and cannot be a work of art.*_
> 
> If you start manipulating the crap out of it, it starts becoming 'art-like' and becomes less and less a photograph.
> 
> Tha_t doesn't _mean it becomes 'better'.
> 
> To say a photograph is a work of art means that you don't know how to use and apply the word 'art' properly.



C'mon now, Petraio... this is over the top even for you.  Sadly, as only one person out of billions, you don't get the exclusive privilege to define for the rest of the world what constitutes 'art'.  Leave that up to the dictionaries, buddy.

According to Merriam-Webster:

*art* 
Pronunciation: \&#712;ärt\
Function:  _noun_ 
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin _art-, ars_  &#8212; more at arm
Date: 13th century
*1* *:* skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
*2 a* *:* a branch of learning: _(1)_ *:* one of the humanities _(2)_ _plural_ *:* liberal arts  *b* _archaic_ *:* learning, scholarship
*3* *:* an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
*4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also  : works so produced* _b __(1)_ *:* fine arts _(2)_ *:* one of the fine arts _(3)_ *:* a graphic art
*5 a* _archaic_ *:* a skillful plan *b* *:* the quality or state of being artful
*6* *:* decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

Now... according to definition 4a you're... well... basically wrong.  Good photography is conducted through "the conscious use of skill" and "creative imagination"... the end result is certainly an "aesthetic object"...and the "works so produced" are clearly photographs.

Though, if I've pegged you already... and I think I have... you will nonetheless insist that you know better than both I and the rest of the English-speaking world.


----------



## Petraio Prime

JG_Coleman said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*A photograph is not and cannot be a work of art.*_
> 
> If you start manipulating the crap out of it, it starts becoming 'art-like' and becomes less and less a photograph.
> 
> Tha_t doesn't _mean it becomes 'better'.
> 
> To say a photograph is a work of art means that you don't know how to use and apply the word 'art' properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon now, Petraio... this is over the top even for you.  Sadly, as only one person out of billions, you don't get the exclusive privilege to define for the rest of the world what constitutes 'art'.  Leave that up to the dictionaries, buddy.
> 
> According to Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *art*
> Pronunciation: \&#712;ärt\
> Function:  _noun_
> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin _art-, ars_  &#8212; more at arm
> Date: 13th century
> *1* *:* skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
> *2 a* *:* a branch of learning: _(1)_ *:* one of the humanities _(2)_ _plural_ *:* liberal arts  *b* _archaic_ *:* learning, scholarship
> *3* *:* an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
> *4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also  : works so produced* _b __(1)_ *:* fine arts _(2)_ *:* one of the fine arts _(3)_ *:* a graphic art
> *5 a* _archaic_ *:* a skillful plan *b* *:* the quality or state of being artful
> *6* *:* decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
> 
> Now... according to definition 4a you're... well... basically wrong.  Good photography is conducted through "the conscious use of skill" and "creative imagination"... the end result is certainly an "aesthetic object"...and the "works so produced" are clearly photographs.
> 
> Though, if I've pegged you already... and I think I have... you will nonetheless insist that you know better than both I and the rest of the English-speaking world.
Click to expand...


See "Why Photography is not Art" by Roger Scruton. It can be found in a couple of places; the best source is in his book _The Aesthetic Understanding_ (1983).

The definition you cite is so vague it could be applied to anything.

Basically, photographs differ from works of art in several important ways. The most significant is that photographs have a causal relationship to their 'subject matter' whereas works of art do not. Also, works of art are not works of nature (they are works of 'art' in the sense of 'art' meaning 'made by the hand of man'), whereas photographs are produced through natural means and in accordance with natural laws (otherwise they could not be photographs).


----------



## bentcountershaft

Many moons ago, before I ever considered picking up a camera, I was an Art Major in college.  Apparently I missed the day they said photographs were not art.


----------



## JG_Coleman

Petraio Prime said:


> See "Why Photography is not Art" by Roger Scruton. It can be found in a couple of places.
> 
> The definition you cite is so vague it could be applied to anything.



I beg to differ...  please do explain how it could literally be applied to anything.  By this definition, the "anything" that it could be applied to would have to:

a) employ the "conscious use of skill and creative imagination"
b) most often bring about the "production of aesthetic objects"
c) should produce something reasonably called a "work"

I don't see why anything that fits this criteria shouldn't be given some credit as an 'art'.  

In fact, fields such as writing don't even produce aesthetic objects, at all... yet the entire world quite unanimously agrees that poetry and song-writing is art.

So, if you retained anything of value from Scruton's book, please do convince me that it is _worth _reading.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Many moons ago, before I ever considered picking up a camera, I was an Art Major in college.  Apparently I missed the day they said photographs were not art.



Yes, you did.


----------



## white

Petraio Prime said:


> Basically, photographs differ from works of art in several important ways. The most significant is that photographs have a causal relationship to their 'subject matter' whereas works of art do not. Also, works of art are not works of nature (they are works of 'art' in the sense of 'art' meaning 'made by the hand of man'), whereas photographs are produced through natural means and in accordance with natural laws (otherwise they could not be photographs).



Photographs do not have a causal relationship with their subject matter. They do not create reality, or record reality with any kind of objectivity. The picture of the redhead you so lovingly trot out as an example of raw, unprocessed photography is just another example of processing. Chemicals produced the negative, and yet more chemicals produced the color print. But the print could be overexposed for all I know.

The last half of your comment about natural laws and such is just silly. Art is as natural and obeys the same laws as anything else. If it didn't, it would not exist because it could not.


----------



## Petraio Prime

white said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, photographs differ from works of art in several important ways. The most significant is that photographs have a causal relationship to their 'subject matter' whereas works of art do not. Also, works of art are not works of nature (they are works of 'art' in the sense of 'art' meaning 'made by the hand of man'), whereas photographs are produced through natural means and in accordance with natural laws (otherwise they could not be photographs).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photographs do not have a causal relationship with their subject matter. They do not create reality, or record reality with any kind of objectivity. The picture of the redhead you so lovingly trot out as an example of raw, unprocessed photography is just another example of processing. Chemicals produced the negative, and yet more chemicals produced the color print. But the print could be overexposed for all I know.
> 
> The last half of your comment about natural laws and such is just silly. Art is as natural and obeys the same laws as anything else. If it didn't, it would not exist because it could not.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I was unclear. There is no _causal _relationship between a painting and its 'subject matter' (the relationship is _intentional_, not causal). There is a direct causal relationship between a photograph and its 'subject matter'. That's what I mean. You *don't *take a handful of light and throw it on a piece of film. A lens does it.That makes it a _natural _process (optical), as opposed to an artificial one (the hand).


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> white said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, photographs differ from works of art in several important ways. The most significant is that photographs have a causal relationship to their 'subject matter' whereas works of art do not. Also, works of art are not works of nature (they are works of 'art' in the sense of 'art' meaning 'made by the hand of man'), whereas photographs are produced through natural means and in accordance with natural laws (otherwise they could not be photographs).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photographs do not have a causal relationship with their subject matter. They do not create reality, or record reality with any kind of objectivity. The picture of the redhead you so lovingly trot out as an example of raw, unprocessed photography is just another example of processing. Chemicals produced the negative, and yet more chemicals produced the color print. But the print could be overexposed for all I know.
> 
> The last half of your comment about natural laws and such is just silly. Art is as natural and obeys the same laws as anything else. If it didn't, it would not exist because it could not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I was unclear. There is no _causal _relationship between a painting and its 'subject matter' (the relationship is _intentional_, not causal). There is a direct causal relationship between a photograph and its 'subject matter'. That's what I mean. You *don't *take a handful of light and throw it on a piece of film. A lens does it.That makes it a _natural _process (optical), as opposed to an artificial one (the hand).
Click to expand...


So paint drip art isn't art because it's gravity doing the work.  Why oh why weren't you one of my professors?


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> white said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photographs do not have a causal relationship with their subject matter. They do not create reality, or record reality with any kind of objectivity. The picture of the redhead you so lovingly trot out as an example of raw, unprocessed photography is just another example of processing. Chemicals produced the negative, and yet more chemicals produced the color print. But the print could be overexposed for all I know.
> 
> The last half of your comment about natural laws and such is just silly. Art is as natural and obeys the same laws as anything else. If it didn't, it would not exist because it could not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I was unclear. There is no _causal _relationship between a painting and its 'subject matter' (the relationship is _intentional_, not causal). There is a direct causal relationship between a photograph and its 'subject matter'. That's what I mean. You *don't *take a handful of light and throw it on a piece of film. A lens does it.That makes it a _natural _process (optical), as opposed to an artificial one (the hand).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So paint drip art isn't art because it's gravity doing the work.  Why oh why weren't you one of my professors?
Click to expand...


Of course it is.


----------



## JG_Coleman

> Perhaps I was unclear. There is no _causal _relationship between a painting and its 'subject matter' (the relationship is _intentional_, not causal). There is a direct causal relationship between a photograph and its 'subject matter'. That's what I mean. You *don't *take a handful of light and throw it on a piece of film. A lens does it.That makes it a _natural _process (optical), as opposed to an artificial one (the hand).


Ahhh, you're very clear... and my suspicions have been confirmed... the source of your argument is basically sophist buffoonery.  I think Merriam-Webster has put forward a rather simple and straight-forward definition that works very well... one that you seem to be reluctant to reasonably prove faulty (merely hiding behind some obscure book without further comment doesn't really qualify).

Yet here you are, arguing about "directness", "causal relationships", and drawing subjective distinctions between "artificial" and "natural".  No artist cares about any of these things while they are creating art... nor do viewers care about these things while they are admiring good art.  Your argument is so distant from the thing you're trying to pin down that it lacks relevance altogether.

If you truly feel _that_ confident that photography isn't art, you ought to be able to express why in a manner that is as straight-forward as Merriam-Webster's argument to the contrary.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> So paint drip art isn't art because it's gravity doing the work.  Why oh why weren't you one of my professors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
Click to expand...


 Well gravity is a natural process, like light.  What's the difference?


----------



## Petraio Prime

JG_Coleman said:


> Perhaps I was unclear. There is no _causal _relationship between a painting and its 'subject matter' (the relationship is _intentional_, not causal). There is a direct causal relationship between a photograph and its 'subject matter'. That's what I mean. You *don't *take a handful of light and throw it on a piece of film. A lens does it.That makes it a _natural _process (optical), as opposed to an artificial one (the hand).
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, you're very clear... and my suspicions have been confirmed... the source of your argument is basically sophist buffoonery.  I think Merriam-Webster has put forward a rather simple and straight-forward definition that works very well... one that you seem to be reluctant to reasonably prove faulty (merely hiding behind some obscure book without further comment doesn't really qualify).
> 
> Yet here you are, arguing about "directness", "casual relationships", and drawing subjective distinctions between "artificial" and "natural".  No artist cares about any of these things while they are creating art... nor do viewers care about these things while they are admiring good art.  Your argument is so distant from the thing you're trying to pin down that it lacks relevance altogether.
> 
> If you truly feel _that_ confident that photography isn't art, you ought to be able to express why in a manner that is as straight-forward as Merriam-Webster's argument to the contrary.
Click to expand...


That's why you need to read Scruton. This is a _philosophical _distinction, which is a significant one, one that photographers themselves may have had no exposure to. Photographers are not usually trained in philosophy.

My argument _is_ straightforward. 'Art' is made by hand and has no causal link to something else. Photographs are made entirely by natural processes and have a causal link to something else that must already exist; a photograph is always *of *something else, and *refers to* something else.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> So paint drip art isn't art because it's gravity doing the work.  Why oh why weren't you one of my professors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well gravity is a natural process, like light.  What's the difference?
Click to expand...


Because it doesn't *refer to* something else or depend on the existence of something else as its subject matter. It's not a lens.


----------



## Derrel

J.G. Coleman's allegation of sophist buffoonery rings true, methinks.


----------



## Petraio Prime

white said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, photographs differ from works of art in several important ways. The most significant is that photographs have a causal relationship to their 'subject matter' whereas works of art do not. Also, works of art are not works of nature (they are works of 'art' in the sense of 'art' meaning 'made by the hand of man'), whereas photographs are produced through natural means and in accordance with natural laws (otherwise they could not be photographs).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photographs do not have a causal relationship with their subject matter. They do not create reality, or record reality with any kind of objectivity. The picture of the redhead you so lovingly trot out as an example of raw, unprocessed photography is just another example of processing. Chemicals produced the negative, and yet more chemicals produced the color print. But the print could be overexposed for all I know.
> 
> The last half of your comment about natural laws and such is just silly. Art is as natural and obeys the same laws as anything else. If it didn't, it would not exist because it could not.
Click to expand...


*A photograph is always of something else to which it has a causal relationship.* Always. Otherwise it isn't a photograph.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> That's why you need to read Scruton. This is a _philosophical _distinction, which is a significant one, one that photographers themselves may have had no exposure to. Photographers are not usually trained in philosophy.
> 
> My argument _is_ straightforward. 'Art' is made by hand and has no causal link to something else. Photographs are made entirely by natural processes and have a causal link to something else that must already exist; a photograph is always *of *something else, and *refers to* something else.



That's an interesting distinction.  It's a shame that it doesn't disqualify anything for being art though.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gravity is a natural process, like light.  What's the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it doesn't *refer to* something else or depend on the existence of something else as its subject matter. It's not a lens.
Click to expand...


I understand your point.  What you don't understand is that your point is not the defining characteristic of art.  I'm sorry, you are wrong.  I'll put it in a way you'll understand.  Art is expression for the purpose of expression.  It is the act of and it is the product of said expression and this is indisputable.  No further debate is possible.


----------



## JG_Coleman

Petraio Prime said:


> That's why you need to read Scruton. This is a _philosophical _distinction, which is a significant one, one that photographers themselves may have had no exposure to. Photographers are not usually trained in philosophy.



There's a difference between rational philosophy and sophism, Petraio.  Real philosophers very much looked down upon sophistry... it made a mockery of useful philosophical inquiry.

Philosophically speaking, distinctions between artificial and natural are, themselves, artificial distinctions.  And photographs are indeed "created by the hand of man"... the hand that put a camera there to begin with and the mind that intentionally decided to put it there, snap the shutter, and collect photons in a way that reflected a conscious, creative decision which is most definitely a "man-made" and artistic phenomenon.  My proof:  photographs are not found growing on trees... at least not out here in Connecticut.

As you insist that detailed philosophical nonsense is required to give your argument even a single leg to stand on (a peg leg, at best), I can only assume that you can't reasonably defend your point-of-view.

This thread is beginning to bore me.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well gravity is a natural process, like light.  What's the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it doesn't *refer to* something else or depend on the existence of something else as its subject matter. It's not a lens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your point.  What you don't understand is that your point is not the defining characteristic of art.  I'm sorry, you are wrong.  I'll put it in a way you'll understand.  Art is expression for the purpose of expression.  It is the act of and it is the product of said expression and this is indisputable.  No further debate is possible.
Click to expand...


But that's not what art has been considered throughout history. 

Consider a Roman statue of a Roman god, say Janus:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/nov07/Janus.png

This is 'art' and was considered 'art' in ancient times. *'Art' was not considered primarily an outlet for personal expression, nor were artists held in high esteem. 

*"Those who practiced the visual arts, including sculpture, were held in low regard in ancient Greece, viewed as mere manual labourers. Plutarch (_Life of Pericles_, II) said "we admire the work of art but despise the maker of it"; this was a common view in the ancient world."
Art in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, where were we:

Yes, now as we all know, there is no such being as '_Janus_'. It is, then, in a sense, a fiction. There is no 'reference' to Janus because Janus does not exist.

No photons bounced off _Janus_' head to form this sculpture. It was made 'by hand' (even if a chisel was involved). It represents a notion in someone's mind, expressed as a solid object.

Now consider this sculpture of Julius Caesar:

http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/ktully/julius_caesar7_1085967629.jpg

Your first thought may be that this sculpture 'refers' to Julius Caesar, but it is just as 'fictional' as the sculpture of _Janus_, because even though JC was a real person, _this sculpture has no *causal *relationship to it whatsoever._

One can create a sculpture of anything, real or imaginary, and they are equally 'fictional'. One can create a sculpture of someone long dead, or who never lived, or the product of pure fancy.

Now consider this photograph of Louis Calhern as Julius Caesar:

Photos of Marlon Brando

Is this a work of art?

No, the photograph _refers to_ Louis Calhern. It is 'of' him in a way that the statue of JC is not. The photograph can have no existence apart from the existence of Louis Calhern. The statue of _Janus _can. 

_Works of art cannot be dependent upon the existence of their 'subject matter' in a causal connection.

A photograph is always 'of', refers to, and is dependent upon an entity. Art is not.
_


----------



## Flash Harry

What tosh, try googling "camera obscura" nothing to do with art, it enabled the tracing of an image/scene correctly for recording or historical purposes, its a frozen moment in time, that's it. 

Get posting all your "art" for cc, the camera did it, you pressed a button. 

Yes you may have the background oof or even the subject depending how garbage you are at this game but in general use a photograph is not art in my book, some photographs are artistic though, but to make photographic art one first has to be able to operate a camera correctly. 

Man Ray photographs imo have artistic merit, snapping away at empty barns/birds/scenery/bugs etc etc are for recording purposes, other types/events etc., historical, so if you set out to create art, its art, if not, its a mistake. H


----------



## Mike_E

^^What he said!^^


----------



## Petraio Prime

Mike_E said:


> ^^What he said!^^




I find it extraordinarily ironic that photographers want to be considered artists when in ancient times artists were held in low esteem.


----------



## ann

times change


----------



## bentcountershaft

In ancient times they didn't use toilet paper either.  As ann mentioned above, times change.


----------



## Petraio Prime

ann said:


> times change



LOL

Well I don't think much of 'artists' either. 

I think photography is much more important than art (other than the Mona Lisa), and that the two things are not the same.


----------



## Mike_E

Petraio Prime said:


> ann said:
> 
> 
> 
> times change
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Well I don't think much of 'artists' either.
> 
> I think photography is much more important than art (other than the Mona Lisa), and that the two things are not the same.
Click to expand...


It's probably a good thing that you don't depend on what other people think to eat.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> I think photography is much more important than art (other than the Mona Lisa), and that the two things are not the same.



Why the Mona Lisa?


----------



## Derrel

Petraio Prime said:


> _Works of art cannot be dependent upon the existence of their 'subject matter' in a causal connection.
> 
> A photograph is always 'of', refers to, and is dependent upon an entity. Art is not.
> _



Petraio-Prime, I call bull$h!+ on your entire argument. The painting entitled Mona Lisa was actually a commissioned portrait, a representation "of" an actual,living,real woman. The existence of that painting was dependent upon,and refers to, an "entity. Oops! Mona Lisa--NOT ART!!! Oh no!!!!

Sorry Petraio, I studied fine art and photography at the university level; it is quite possible to create photographic fine art. Your argument was the prevailing argument well over 150 years ago, but your argument discounts the possibility of non-representational photographic art, computer-generated artistic renderings of photographic or digital images, composite art, etc,etc. The argument that no photograph can ever rise to the level of art is a very old argument...that argument was quite easily discredited around the time Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States. Petraio Prime, this is the third or fourth thread in which you have espoused this fringe,revisionist theory. Sorry dude, but it's a bull$h!+ argument...ask the Museum of Modern Art's director why they have collected so much photographic "Art"...ask art museum curators all over the world why photography is such a huge component of their MODERN art sections...the idea that NO PHOTOGRAPH can possibly, EVER be considered art is a crackpot theory that seems to be espoused chiefly by....Petraio Prime...

We're not all uneducated fools like you...think we are...

Your definition of art goes back to before germ theory and X-rays and the telephone were invented...your level of education on this subject is laughably ignorant of "modern" thinking and modern scholarship.


----------



## Mike_E

Pete-boy, don't tell us that you bought stock in it!  :raisedbrow:


----------



## Overread

We've had this whole debate before - really we have and in the end we came out with



Petraio Prime said:


> _Works of art cannot be dependent upon the existence of their 'subject matter' in a causal connection.
> 
> A photograph is always 'of', refers to, and is dependent upon an entity. Art is not.
> _



being a personal viewpoint that almost everyone else disagrees with. Doesn't make it right nor wrong, just makes it a view point that most people disagree with.


----------



## Idahophoto

I'm paying less and less attention to exposure. Sure I still meter, but I often tweak it at least a bit and often times more than that. I also find myself breaking rules like making a subject out of focus. I have had fun the past few days Shooting my girlfriend with a zip-lock bag over the lens (Awesome softness effect). What is the proper exposure for artistic expression? I don't think you will find a "Correct" formula. Yeah, some people may not like this type of photography, but then again following all the rules and perfect exposure and always dead sharp focus you would still have people who won't like it. That's the beauty of it all. Work it naturally, and let you vision come out, it's been a long and hard lesson for me, but since I have started doing it, I find I am liking my photo's much more.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Works of art cannot be dependent upon the existence of their 'subject matter' in a causal connection.
> 
> A photograph is always 'of', refers to, and is dependent upon an entity. Art is not.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio-Prime, I call bull$h!+ on your entire argument. The painting entitled Mona Lisa was actually a commissioned portrait, a representation "of" an actual,living,real woman. The existence of that painting was dependent upon,and refers to, an "entity. Oops! Mona Lisa--NOT ART!!! Oh no!!!!
> 
> Sorry Petraio, I studied fine art and photography at the university level; it is quite possible to create photographic fine art. Your argument was the prevailing argument well over 150 years ago, but your argument discounts the possibility of non-representational photographic art, computer-generated artistic renderings of photographic or digital images, composite art, etc,etc. The argument that no photograph can ever rise to the level of art is a very old argument...that argument was quite easily discredited around the time Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States. Petraio Prime, this is the third or fourth thread in which you have espoused this fringe,revisionist theory. Sorry dude, but it's a bull$h!+ argument...ask the Museum of Modern Art's director why they have collected so much photographic "Art"...ask art museum curators all over the world why photography is such a huge component of their MODERN art sections...the idea that NO PHOTOGRAPH can possibly, EVER be considered art is a crackpot theory that seems to be espoused chiefly by....Petraio Prime...
> 
> We're not all uneducated fools like you...think we are...
> 
> Your definition of art goes back to before germ theory and X-rays and the telephone were invented...your level of education on this subject is laughably ignorant of "modern" thinking and modern scholarship.
Click to expand...


I don't think I have ever run into anyone who has such a knack of completely misunderstanding everything I write, no matter how clearly I express myself.

Photographs are not 'representational' (symbolic). They are iconic. They are _images _of something else produced wholly through natural means. Paintings are not. Paintings are representational (symbolic) produced wholly through artificial means (the hand of man). 

No photograph can be a work of art, ever, because of what the nature of a photograph is. It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.

Just as an airplane cannot be a horse; _they are two different things_. An airplane is not 'better' than a horse; a horse is not 'better' than an airplane.


----------



## kundalini

Petraio Prime said:


> Just as an airplane cannot be a horse; _they are two different things_. An airplane is not 'better' than a horse; a horse is not 'better' than an airplane.


Leopards do not changes their spots, pigs relish mud and jackasses will remain to be just as they are.


----------



## Derrel

Petraio Prime said:


> I don't think I have ever run into anyone who has such a knack of completely misunderstanding everything I write, no matter how clearly I express myself.



Sorry dude...your argument was discussed at length, roundly discredited, and entirely discarded--and that all occured about 150 years ago. 

No matter how eloquently you try and assert that photographs can NEVER be "art", your argument is baseless, facile, and flat-out stupid.

As I wrote, we're not all uneducated fools like you...think we are.

Got it P-P? You can attempt to re-state your theory, which again has been discussed, discredited, and discarded. Give it up. Everybody else did. By the year 1865.


----------



## Mike_E

Petraio Prime said:


> Photographs are not 'representational' (symbolic). They are iconic. They are _images _of something else produced wholly through natural means. Paintings are not. Paintings are representational (symbolic) produced wholly through artificial means (the hand of man).
> 
> No photograph can be a work of art, ever, because of what the nature of a photograph is. It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.
> 
> Just as an airplane cannot be a horse; _they are two different things_. An airplane is not 'better' than a horse; a horse is not 'better' than an airplane.



A camera, it's medium (glass plate,film or digital) and the printed result are all created by mankind.  The images which are the result of the use of the camera and medium are the representation of an idealized (good, bad or indifferent) bit of the world.  Even though the representation might be an exact copy of some event the point of view is not an example of the whole.

Canvas, paints, brushes and frames are all created by mankind.  The images which are the result of the use of the canvas, paints, brushes and frames are the representation of an idealized (good, bad or indifferent) bit of the world.  Even though the representation might be an exact copy of some event the point of view is not an example of the whole.

Airplanes are created by men, horses are not.  This example has no merit.


----------



## table1349

Petraio Prime said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Works of art cannot be dependent upon the existence of their 'subject matter' in a causal connection.
> 
> A photograph is always 'of', refers to, and is dependent upon an entity. Art is not.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio-Prime, I call bull$h!+ on your entire argument. The painting entitled Mona Lisa was actually a commissioned portrait, a representation "of" an actual,living,real woman. The existence of that painting was dependent upon,and refers to, an "entity. Oops! Mona Lisa--NOT ART!!! Oh no!!!!
> 
> Sorry Petraio, I studied fine art and photography at the university level; it is quite possible to create photographic fine art. Your argument was the prevailing argument well over 150 years ago, but your argument discounts the possibility of non-representational photographic art, computer-generated artistic renderings of photographic or digital images, composite art, etc,etc. The argument that no photograph can ever rise to the level of art is a very old argument...that argument was quite easily discredited around the time Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States. Petraio Prime, this is the third or fourth thread in which you have espoused this fringe,revisionist theory. Sorry dude, but it's a bull$h!+ argument...ask the Museum of Modern Art's director why they have collected so much photographic "Art"...ask art museum curators all over the world why photography is such a huge component of their MODERN art sections...the idea that NO PHOTOGRAPH can possibly, EVER be considered art is a crackpot theory that seems to be espoused chiefly by....Petraio Prime...
> 
> We're not all uneducated fools like you...think we are...
> 
> Your definition of art goes back to before germ theory and X-rays and the telephone were invented...your level of education on this subject is laughably ignorant of "modern" thinking and modern scholarship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I have ever run into anyone who has such a knack of completely misunderstanding everything I write, no matter how clearly I express myself.
> 
> Photographs are not 'representational' (symbolic). They are iconic. They are _images _of something else produced wholly through natural means. Paintings are not. Paintings are representational (symbolic) produced wholly through artificial means (the hand of man).
> 
> No photograph can be a work of art, ever, because of what the nature of a photograph is. It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.
> 
> Just as an airplane cannot be a horse; _they are two different things_. An airplane is not 'better' than a horse; a horse is not 'better' than an airplane.
Click to expand...


----------



## skieur

Petraio Prime said:


> white said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> B
> 
> *A photograph is always of something else to which it has a causal relationship.* Always. Otherwise it isn't a photograph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are most paintings or haven't you ever been in an art class or an art gallery?
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Derrel

Petraio Prime said:
			
		

> No photograph can be a work of art, ever, because of what the nature of a photograph is. It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.









Indeed...run it up the flagpole and see if it sticks...or is that "see if it stinks"??


----------



## kundalini

gryphonslair99 said:


>


I just wanted to comment on your signature............'kin awesome. Oh, and I kinda like the B.S. flagpole too.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.



As defined by philosophers not by artists.  Philosophers, contrary to what they believe, do not make the rules for the rest of us.  Philosophers like to ponder, study and try to understand life.  The rest of us prefer to live it.


----------



## abraxas

Mr. Prime;

Some of the things you're saying I understand, and to an extent, agree with.  I believe your demeanor and hardline black and white attitude are counterproductive to making an effective point.  Additionally, you're taking on too many things that are irrelevant to what I percieve as your core argument. Good luck with that.

& the Rest;

As I mentioned earlier in the thread--Keep an open mind.  

-


----------



## Petraio Prime

skieur said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> white said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are most paintings or haven't you ever been in an art class or an art gallery?
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. A painting is in no way causally related to its subject matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by philosophers not by artists.  Philosophers, contrary to what they believe, do not make the rules for the rest of us.  Philosophers like to ponder, study and try to understand life.  The rest of us prefer to live it.
Click to expand...


Yes, we do. That's the job of the philosopher, to argue and discuss the meanings of concepts. *We do define what art is, not you.* It's our job, not yours. You're not qualified enough to talk about it. Artists make art. Photographers make photographs. Neither has any business discussing the nature of art. That's the philosopher's job.

It is _not true_ that everyone's opinion in this matter carries equal weight.

My impression is that photographers have no business even trying to understand aesthetic theory. It's not their business. That's why they should abstain from claiming they are artists. It's ironic anyway that photographers want to be considered artists, because *photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.*


----------



## Derrel

Aye,aye,aye! I know that somebody here absolutely loves old cinema references  from the golden era of Hollywood. I thought the following image would dovetail nicely.


http://www.hometrainingtools.com/images/650/BE-NETDLX2.jpg


----------



## abraxas

Petraio Prime said:


> ... *photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.*



To who and how so?

-


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by philosophers not by artists.  Philosophers, contrary to what they believe, do not make the rules for the rest of us.  Philosophers like to ponder, study and try to understand life.  The rest of us prefer to live it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we do. That's the job of the philosopher, to argue and discuss the meanings of concepts. *We do define what art is, not you.* It's our job, not yours. You're not qualified enough to talk about it.
> 
> My impression is that photographers have no business even trying to understand aesthetic theory. It's not their business. That's why they should abstain from claiming they are artists. It's ironic anyway that photographers want to be considered artists, because *photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.*
Click to expand...


This job you claim is self appointed, not something anyone besides other  philosophers generally feels is needed.  I would be willing to bet that  no one, not one single person has ever said, "I sure wish I knew what  it was I was doing here but I'll leave it to a philosopher to figure out  for me."  What's funny is that you think the concepts of philosophy are  too complicated for us simpletons to understand.  They aren't.  What we  don't understand is why someone would rather waste their life trying to  figure out the _why_ instead of just getting on with the  _do_.  

It isn't up to you or anyone else to decide what is more important or meaningful when it comes to expression and oddly enough this is the same problem I have with the art world.  Too much emphasis on why this or that is important, why this artist is brilliant and that one sucks.  Too much emphasis on making everyone think the same which is so completely counter intuitive to art of any kind it boggles the mind.

I don't have any delusions of changing your mind and have wasted enough of the evening beating my head against this brick wall, but I will leave you with this final thought:  I can see the benefits of studying the philosophy of just about any subject.  Science, politics, education or what have you, there are benefits.  However, art, including literature, music, dance and photography, is about freedom of rules.  Freedom to express something you can't otherwise.  Freedom to not only think outside the box, but to play out there too.  If philosophy dictates having such a narrow mind concerning a subject that was born and thrives in minds that are anything but, well I guess I just find that really sad and a little ironic.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by philosophers not by artists.  Philosophers, contrary to what they believe, do not make the rules for the rest of us.  Philosophers like to ponder, study and try to understand life.  The rest of us prefer to live it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do. That's the job of the philosopher, to argue and discuss the meanings of concepts. *We do define what art is, not you.* It's our job, not yours. You're not qualified enough to talk about it.
> 
> My impression is that photographers have no business even trying to understand aesthetic theory. It's not their business. That's why they should abstain from claiming they are artists. It's ironic anyway that photographers want to be considered artists, because *photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This job you claim is self appointed, not something anyone besides other  philosophers generally feels is needed.  I would be willing to bet that  no one, not one single person has ever said, "I sure wish I knew what  it was I was doing here but I'll leave it to a philosopher to figure out  for me."  What's funny is that you think the concepts of philosophy are  too complicated for us simpletons to understand.  They aren't.  What we  don't understand is why someone would rather waste their life trying to  figure out the _why_ instead of just getting on with the  _do_.
> 
> It isn't up to you or anyone else to decide what is more important or meaningful when it comes to expression and oddly enough this is the same problem I have with the art world.  Too much emphasis on why this or that is important, why this artist is brilliant and that one sucks.  Too much emphasis on making everyone think the same which is so completely counter intuitive to art of any kind it boggles the mind.
> 
> I don't have any delusions of changing your mind and have wasted enough of the evening beating my head against this brick wall, but I will leave you with this final thought:  I can see the benefits of studying the philosophy of just about any subject.  Science, politics, education or what have you, there are benefits.  However, art, including literature, music, dance and photography, is about freedom of rules.  Freedom to express something you can't otherwise.  Freedom to not only think outside the box, but to play out there too.  If philosophy dictates having such a narrow mind concerning a subject that was born and thrives in minds that are anything but, well I guess I just find that really sad and a little ironic.
Click to expand...


Art isn't about 'freedom of rules'. How naive. The artists of ancient Greece operated under rather strict traditions and so have most artists throughout history. Nor is it about "express[ing] something you can't otherwise".

Philosophy is about discussing and analyzing and clarifying concepts and formulating theories that account for those concepts and make them coherent. The 'folk' notions of art and what constitutes art are almost worthless.  Most people do not know that artists in ancient Greece were thought of as mere laborers, the same way we would think of roofers or construction workers today. Photographers in general are extremely naive about the history of art and yet want to be called 'artists'. 

Nor is it narrow-minded to establish what constitutes art.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime;1987851
Art isn't about 'freedom of rules'. How naive. The artists of ancient Greece operated under rather strict traditions and so have most artists throughout history. Nor is it about "express[ing said:
			
		

> something you can't otherwise".
> 
> Philosophy is about discussing and analyzing and clarifying concepts and formulating theories that account for those concepts and make them coherent. The 'folk' notions of art and what constitutes art are almost worthless.  Most people do not know that artists in ancient Greece were thought of as mere laborers, the same way we would think of roofers or construction workers today. Photographers in general are extremely naive about the history of art and yet want to be called 'artists'.
> 
> Nor is it narrow-minded to establish what constitutes art.



The Greeks didn't invent art so I fail to see how they are relevant.  Whether someone is in an esteemed position or not is not relevant either.  I don't look down on roofers or construction workers.  I guess you do and that's your problem.  Being an artist has nothing to do with how well you know the history of it either.

ETA:  Trying to establish what constitutes as art is the definition of narrow mindedness.  Goodnight.


----------



## abraxas

Petraio Prime said:


> ... *photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.*



To who and how so?


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime;1987851
> Art isn't about 'freedom of rules'. How naive. The artists of ancient Greece operated under rather strict traditions and so have most artists throughout history. Nor is it about "express[ing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> something you can't otherwise".
> 
> Philosophy is about discussing and analyzing and clarifying concepts and formulating theories that account for those concepts and make them coherent. The 'folk' notions of art and what constitutes art are almost worthless.  Most people do not know that artists in ancient Greece were thought of as mere laborers, the same way we would think of roofers or construction workers today. Photographers in general are extremely naive about the history of art and yet want to be called 'artists'.
> 
> Nor is it narrow-minded to establish what constitutes art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Greeks didn't invent art so I fail to see how they are relevant.  Whether someone is in an esteemed position or not is not relevant either.  I don't look down on roofers or construction workers.  I guess you do and that's your problem.  Being an artist has nothing to do with how well you know the history of it either.
> 
> ETA:  Trying to establish what constitutes as art is the definition of narrow mindedness.  Goodnight.
Click to expand...


Who says I look down on roofers or construction workers? I said they are laborers.

Your second statement is not even intelligible so I cannot reply.


----------



## abraxas

Petraio Prime said:


> ... *photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.*



To who and how so?


----------



## Petraio Prime

abraxas said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... *photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To who and how so?
Click to expand...


I'm trying to destroy the notion of great photographs being 'art'.

They are not art, but I think photographs can be more important than art. To call a great photograph art is erroneous ad demeaning.


----------



## abraxas

Petraio Prime said:


> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... *photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To who and how so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> _They are not art, but I think photographs can be more important than art_. ...
Click to expand...


How?

-


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> To call a great photograph art is erroneous ad demeaning.



Why is it demeaning ?(we already know your stance no not believing photography is an art form even if we don't believe your argument)


----------



## fwellers

Petraio Prime said:


> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to destroy the notion of great photographs being 'art'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try and tell that to all the ART museum curators who fill their walls with photographic ART.
> 
> Thank goodness that there are still people around with artistic bents and talent that do not allow themselves to be put inside boxes created by narrow minded people.
> You can attempt to define, box-up, judge and compartmentalize life all you want. Those are YOUR self induced limitations. Break free of it man. Life and Art are bigger than the boxes your thoughts conceive of. And at least try not to argue and cajole others into your shallow world.
Click to expand...


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime;1987851
> Art isn't about 'freedom of rules'. How naive. The artists of ancient Greece operated under rather strict traditions and so have most artists throughout history. Nor is it about "express[ing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> something you can't otherwise".
> 
> Philosophy is about discussing and analyzing and clarifying concepts and formulating theories that account for those concepts and make them coherent. The 'folk' notions of art and what constitutes art are almost worthless.  Most people do not know that artists in ancient Greece were thought of as mere laborers, the same way we would think of roofers or construction workers today. Photographers in general are extremely naive about the history of art and yet want to be called 'artists'.
> 
> Nor is it narrow-minded to establish what constitutes art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Greeks didn't invent art so I fail to see how they are relevant.  Whether someone is in an esteemed position or not is not relevant either.  I don't look down on roofers or construction workers.  I guess you do and that's your problem.  Being an artist has nothing to do with how well you know the history of it either.
> 
> ETA:  Trying to establish what constitutes as art is the definition of narrow mindedness.  Goodnight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says I look down on roofers or construction workers? I said they are laborers.
> 
> Your second statement is not even intelligible so I cannot reply.
Click to expand...


Well, you said this...



Petraio Prime said:


> Most people do not know that artists in ancient Greece were thought of  as *mere laborers, the same way we would think of roofers or construction  workers today.*



...and that leads me to believe that you don't see them as very important.  You don't have a very high opinion of photographers as you don't want to be considered one.  You're above photographers.  As you've stated, photographers are above artists because what they produce is less important than photographs.  The term _mere laborers_ in and of it self is demeaning enough even if you weren't comparing them to artists which you apparently have such disdain for.

I'm not spending any more of my time dealing with someone with such a false sense of entitlement to think they are above anyone, as it's abundantly clear you think you're above us all.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Greeks didn't invent art so I fail to see how they are relevant.  Whether someone is in an esteemed position or not is not relevant either.  I don't look down on roofers or construction workers.  I guess you do and that's your problem.  Being an artist has nothing to do with how well you know the history of it either.
> 
> ETA:  Trying to establish what constitutes as art is the definition of narrow mindedness.  Goodnight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says I look down on roofers or construction workers? I said they are laborers.
> 
> Your second statement is not even intelligible so I cannot reply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you said this...
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people do not know that artists in ancient Greece were thought of  as *mere laborers, the same way we would think of roofers or construction  workers today.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and that leads me to believe that you don't see them as very important.  You don't have a very high opinion of photographers as you don't want to be considered one.  You're above photographers.  As you've stated, photographers are above artists because what they produce is less important than photographs.  The term _mere laborers_ in and of it self is demeaning enough even if you weren't comparing them to artists which you apparently have such disdain for.
> 
> I'm not spending any more of my time dealing with someone with such a false sense of entitlement to think they are above anyone, as it's abundantly clear you think you're above us all.
Click to expand...


"Mere laborers" is not intended as a term of derision. Laborers are not 'professionals' such as doctors, lawyers, professors. They (laborers) are vital of course, but you don't need a PhD, JD, or MD to do construction work. 

Yes, I do want to make clear that I am not a professional photographer and moreover don't want to be. The reasons are not what you might think though.

On the last point, yes, I do have an education in philosophy that most photographers don't have. That doesn't make me better than you, but what it does is provide me with some knowledge and insights that most photographers don't have. What does that mean? It means you should pay close attention to the arguments I make here.

I find it most ironic that the most important aspect of photography - its truthfulness - is the aspect most under attack by photographers. The constant attempts at manipulation, at making photographs less truthful, more 'artsy', work against photography being taken seriously. 

In the late 19th and early 20th century, it was Pictorialism.

In the 1960s, 70s, 80, and 90s, there was a series of 'techniques' that became popular (Tri-X in Rodinal printed on Agfa Brovira #4 paper; 'pushing' and high grain; posterization using lith film; slide sandwiches; multiple exposures; zoom during exposure; cross processing; Velvia film, etc.) 

All of these 'techniques' served only to make one wonder: what is wrong with a *truthful *photograph?


----------



## abraxas

Petraio Prime said:


> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... *photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To who and how so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> _They are not art, but I think photographs can be more important than art_. ...
Click to expand...


How?


----------



## Petraio Prime

abraxas said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> To who and how so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> _They are not art, but I think photographs can be more important than art_. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
Click to expand...


Because they _record _reality.


----------



## abraxas

Petraio Prime said:


> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> _They are not art, but I think photographs can be more important than art_. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they _record _reality.
Click to expand...


and how is that _more important_?

-


----------



## Warren Peace

I cant believe I just wasted a half hour of my life I will never get back reading this pile of crap.  :er::er:
  Art is like beauty.  It is in the eye of the beholder.  :lmao::lmao:


----------



## Overread

abraxas said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they _record _reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and how is that _more important_?
> 
> -
Click to expand...


Because PP does not like photographers - especailly if they try to do something as horrible as art


----------



## Petraio Prime

abraxas said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they _record _reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and how is that _more important_?
> 
> -
Click to expand...


It preserves an actual record of an event, not a fiction. It attains a sort of truth of which art is incapable.


----------



## fwellers

Petraio Prime said:


> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> It preserves an actual record of an event, not a fiction. It attains a sort of truth of which art is incapable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure hope you never use a shutter speed slower than 1/2 or so.
> Because that is a lie and not reality. You are recording in one frame things that take a half second to transpire. You can get ghost people in that frame, you can show movement of things etc...
> NOT REALITY !! therefore GARBAGE.
Click to expand...


----------



## Petraio Prime

fwellers said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> It preserves an actual record of an event, not a fiction. It attains a sort of truth of which art is incapable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure hope you never use a shutter speed slower than 1/2 or so.
> Because that is a lie and not reality. You are recording in one frame things that take a half second to transpire. You can get ghost people in that frame, you can show movement of things etc...
> NOT REALITY !! therefore GARBAGE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you come up with that? Don't put words in my mouth. The earliest photographs took hours.
> 
> Where did I say anything about garbage? I simply said that straightforward photography is the core of photography. Everyone thinks that a straight image is boring and needs to be somehow enhanced, whereas the reverse is actually the case. Heavily manipulated images do nothing for me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Overread

Ok serious question time which of these is the more realistic:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/4845492599_27cbef36e2_b.jpg
or
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3379/3407470294_68debf4c8a_o.jpg

Stating that photography should always be journalistic in approach and concept is however I think getting a bit rich. Photography can be many things and does not always have to be a photo journalistic approach - yes such photography that attempts to capture as realistic a moment in time as possible is very valuable, but so to (for different reasons) is artistic and other forms of photography.


----------



## fwellers

Petraio Prime said:


> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply said that .......  Heavily manipulated images do nothing for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you could have just said that and saved this whole thread, instead of making sweeping judgemental derisive and polarized statements designed solely for stirring the pot.
> Are you a plant from the owners of the forum ? Because your threads certainly get active. :er:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## abraxas

Petraio Prime said:


> Because they _record _reality.
> 
> Because PP does not like photographers - especailly if they try to do something as horrible as art
> 
> It preserves an actual record of an event, not a fiction. It attains a sort of truth of which art is incapable.



and why is that _more important_?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Ok serious question time which of these is the more realistic:
> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/4845492599_27cbef36e2_b.jpg
> or
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3379/3407470294_68debf4c8a_o.jpg
> 
> Stating that photography should always be journalistic in approach and concept is however I think getting a bit rich. Photography can be many things and does not always have to be a photo journalistic approach - yes such photography that attempts to capture as realistic a moment in time as possible is very valuable, but so to (for different reasons) is artistic and other forms of photography.



Where did I say that only a journalistic approach is valid? There is nothing wrong with retouching in portraiture, for instance, when intelligently and delicately applied.

See here:

Seraphic Secret: Joan Crawford: Untouched/Retouched

What I am objecting to is 'technique' simply for the sake of technique. I lived through numerous 'fads' in photography (listed above). If you don't have something worthwhile to start with, all the manipulation in the world won't save it.

Note the heavy diffusion in this photo of Greta Garbo from 1924. It was the style in the 20s:

http://www.updoprincess.com/images/Greta_Garbo_1920s.jpg

Today this strikes us as hopelessly antiquated.

Compare that with this somewhat later one, with little or no diffusion:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Photographic3000/Greta%20Garbo/GretaGarbo17.jpg

And this one, with no apparent diffusion:

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/30/l_944d014f5fafe1779470c8d33ea53039.jpg


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they _record _reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and how is that _more important_?
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because PP does not like photographers - especailly if they try to do something as horrible as art
Click to expand...


I have no objection to photographers attempting to do art. They have every right to set up their easel, get out their brushes and oils, just like anyone else.


----------



## JG_Coleman

Overread said:


> We've had this whole debate before - really we have and in the end we came out with
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Works of art cannot be dependent upon the existence of their 'subject matter' in a causal connection.
> 
> A photograph is always 'of', refers to, and is dependent upon an entity. Art is not.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> being a personal viewpoint that almost everyone else disagrees with. Doesn't make it right nor wrong, just makes it a view point that most people disagree with.
Click to expand...


You know... you're right.

Here's the deal guys... I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to slug it out here... but let's face it... this thread really isn't going anywhere.

Wiley old Petraio subscribes to a relatively ludicrous viewpoint which perhaps a couple dozen people in the entire world sincerely agree with.  By most all accounts, his point-of-view draws a meaningless distinction with no real purpose whatsoever (outside of drawing a distinction for the mere sake of doing so).  The distinction doesn't contribute to a deeper understanding of art _or_ photography, and it poorly delineates both.

Nonetheless, it a distinction which, in itself, can't be "proven" wrong.

Example:

I used to play a joke on new co-workers.  While we were out back of our shop having a cigarette, I would point to the forest and, feigning sincerity, ask," How many trees do you think there are out there?"  Now, of course, there were probably tens of thousands of trees... but I would continue,"  What do you think?  Maybe 300, 400?"

The new guy would look at me in disbelief..."Of course not!  There's gotta be 20,000 trees out there!"

"No... no..." I'd say," I'll give you maybe 600 or 700, tops..."

I'd let them go on and on trying to convince me otherwise... still pretending to be totally serious about there being no more than 1,000 trees.

It's funny, because despite my outrageous and clearly incorrect claims, they realized they couldn't correct me unless I conceded to be rational about the whole thing.  There obviously had to be more than 600 trees in the forest, but for someone that insists otherwise and refuses to listen to  common sense, there was no way to change my mind.

Eventually, once I got them totally wound up, I would give up the act and we'd have a laugh about it.

For the record, Petraio is far too stubborn and subscribes very sincerely to this oddball, fringe concept.  For what it's worth, it's impossible to convince him otherwise because his viewpoint precludes the possibility that he is mistaken... he refuses to see it any other way.

We're better off leaving him to his own, where he can sit in a dark room under a solitary lightbulb writing angry letters to museum curators about how ignorant they are for calling photographs art.


----------



## Petraio Prime

JG_Coleman said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've had this whole debate before - really we have and in the end we came out with
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Works of art cannot be dependent upon the existence of their 'subject matter' in a causal connection.
> 
> A photograph is always 'of', refers to, and is dependent upon an entity. Art is not.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> being a personal viewpoint that almost everyone else disagrees with. Doesn't make it right nor wrong, just makes it a view point that most people disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know... you're right.
> 
> Here's the deal guys... I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to slug it out here... but let's face it... this thread really isn't going anywhere.
> 
> Wiley old Petraio subscribes to a relatively ludicrous viewpoint which perhaps a couple dozen people in the entire world sincerely agree with.  By most all accounts, his point-of-view draws a meaningless distinction with no real purpose whatsoever (outside of drawing a distinction for the mere sake of doing so).  The distinction doesn't contribute to a deeper understanding of art _or_ photography, and it poorly delineates both.
> 
> Nonetheless, it a distinction which, in itself, can't be "proven" wrong.
> 
> Example:
> 
> I used to play a joke on new co-workers.  While we were out back of our shop having a cigarette, I would point to the forest and, feigning sincerity, ask," How many trees do you think there are out there?"  Now, of course, there were probably tens of thousands of trees... but I would continue,"  What do you think?  Maybe 300, 400?"
> 
> The new guy would look at me in disbelief..."Of course not!  There's gotta be 20,000 trees out there!"
> 
> "No... no..." I'd say," I'll give you maybe 600 or 700, tops..."
> 
> I'd let them go on and on trying to convince me otherwise... still pretending to be totally serious about there being no more than 1,000 trees.
> 
> It's funny, because despite my outrageous and clearly incorrect claims, they realized they couldn't correct me unless I conceded to be rational about the whole thing.  There obviously had to be more than 600 trees in the forest, but for someone that insists otherwise and refuses to listen to  common sense, there was no way to change my mind.
> 
> Eventually, once I got them totally wound up, I would give up the act and we'd have a laugh about it.
> 
> For the record, Petraio is far too stubborn and subscribes very sincerely to this oddball, fringe concept.  For what it's worth, it's impossible to convince him otherwise because his viewpoint precludes the possibility that he is mistaken... he refuses to see it any other way.
> 
> We're better off leaving him to his own, where he can sit in a dark room under a solitary lightbulb writing angry letters to museum curators about how ignorant they are for calling photographs art.
Click to expand...


It is not a 'fringe' concept. You're just not familiar with the philosophy of art (also called "aesthetic theory"). Since you don't hang around with art theorists and philosophers, well you just don't know the terminology. Just because you have not heard something before, that doesn't mean it's wrong or ludicrous. It just means you need to learn more.

Again, read the essay on this by Roger Scruton. My argument and his coincide on most points.


----------



## JG_Coleman

Petraio Prime said:


> It is not a 'fringe' concept. You're just not familiar with the philosophy of art (aesthetics). Since you don't hang around with art theorists and philosophers, well you just don't know the terminology. Just because you have not heard something before, that doesn't mean it's wrong or ludicrous. It just means you need to learn more.
> 
> Again, read the essay on this by Roger Scruton. My argument and his coincide on most points.



Riiiight.... seriously though, Petraio... I'm done playing the part of the new guy and trying to convince you that there more than 500 trees in the entire forest.

I'm done with you, man.  You're really just too much.


----------



## Petraio Prime

JG_Coleman said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a 'fringe' concept. You're just not familiar with the philosophy of art (aesthetics). Since you don't hang around with art theorists and philosophers, well you just don't know the terminology. Just because you have not heard something before, that doesn't mean it's wrong or ludicrous. It just means you need to learn more.
> 
> Again, read the essay on this by Roger Scruton. My argument and his coincide on most points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiight.... seriously though, Petraio... I'm done playing the part of the new guy and trying to convince you that there more than 500 trees in the entire forest.
> 
> I'm done with you, man.  You're really just too much.
Click to expand...


Have you ever been involved in such a discussion before? You may want to look at these arguments and see how they are constructed.

The question we are discussing is a philosophical one and you should be familiar with this sort of thing before you dismiss what others say. Your emotional reaction does nothing to advance your argument.

Do you understand that such questions are unavoidably philosophical ones, and recognize that philosophical arguments are used in such a context, and that you have to be familiar with &#8211; and competent in &#8211; philosophical arguments to have any hope of making your point?

Just disagreeing or saying the other fellow's argument is nonsense won't cut it.


----------



## abraxas

Petraio Prime said:


> Because they _record _reality.
> 
> Because PP does not like photographers - especailly if they try to do something as horrible as art
> 
> It preserves an actual record of an event, not a fiction. It attains a sort of truth of which art is incapable.



and why is that _more important_?


----------



## Petraio Prime

abraxas said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they _record _reality.
> 
> Because PP does not like photographers - especailly if they try to do something as horrible as art
> 
> It preserves an actual record of an event, not a fiction. It attains a sort of truth of which art is incapable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and why is that _more important_?
Click to expand...


Because it is valuable and _unique _to photography.


----------



## JG_Coleman

Ugggghhh... I'll hand it to you, Petraio, you know how to keep me in the game...

The reason why I can't be bothered with this any further... and believe me, after this post I refuse to further humor or dignify your nonsense... is that you still haven't really even made a complete argument.

You have droned on and on about how art as opposed to photography is about causal relationships and natural vs. artificial.  Everyone here understands what you're saying... what we have been asking you in every way imaginable is why we ought to accept this relatively trivial distinction as the sole and most valid consideration in determining if photography is art.  Your point has been made... the question is... what is the point of your point?  Why does your supposedly philosophical view matter, at all?  What makes it a more valid viewpoint than other philosophies of art?

Let's face it... you are unable to answer such questions...

Your philosophical style is reminiscent of Descartes... interesting, but mostly useful for demonstrating to new philosophy students how philosophers go astray by espousing one idea to the exclusion of others which are just as, if not more, plausible.  The mere fact that you can make a point of some kind by some statement doesn't make that point sacred or correct or functional or even sound.  Any philosopher would understand that.

You're quite a poor philosopher, Petraio...  and the mere fact that you are content to insinuate that you are a "philosophical scholar" of sorts just demonstrates that there is no cure for your ideological arrogance.

There... done.  How's that for an emotional response?


----------



## abraxas

Petraio Prime said:


> Because it is valuable and _unique _to photography.



So how does that make photography _more important_ than art?

-


----------



## Petraio Prime

JG_Coleman said:


> Ugggghhh... I'll hand it to you, Petraio, you know how to keep me in the game...
> 
> The reason why I can't be bothered with this any further... and believe me, after this post I refuse to further humor or dignify your nonesense... is that you still haven't really even made a complete argument.
> 
> You have droned on and on about how art as opposed to photography is about causal relationships and natural vs. artificial.  Everyone here understands what you're saying... what we have been asking you in every way imaginable is why we ought to accept this relatively trivial distinction as the sole and most valid consideration in determining if photography is art.  Your point has been made... the question is... what is the point of your point?  Why does your supposedly philosophical view matter, at all?  What makes it a more valid viewpoint than other philosophies of art?
> 
> Let's face it... you are unable to answer such questions...
> 
> Your philosophical style is reminiscent of Descartes... interesting, but mostly useful for teaching new philosophy students how philosphers go astray by espousing one idea to the exclusion of others which are just as, if not more, plausible.  The mere fact that you can make a point of some kind by some statement doesn't make that point sacred or correct or functional or even sound.  Any philosopher would understand that.
> 
> You're quite a poor philosopher, Petraio...  and the mere fact that you are content to insinuate that you are a "philosophical scholar" of sorts just demonstrates that their is no cure for your ideological arrogance.
> 
> There... done.  How's that for an emotional response?



What makes a work of art a work of art?

Have you ever seen statue of _David_? 

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3309811-A_copy_of_David_in_Piazza_della_Signora-Florence.jpg

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/7f/e8/ba/copy-of-the-david-florence.jpg

It's a great work of art, right?

No it isn't! That is a copy! It was placed there in 1910 to allow the original to be kept in a museum.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/david/David.htm

This is the original:

http://www.tortillabay.com/images/Europe/Michelangelos_David.jpg

Why isn't the copy a work of art? 

Suppose we take David and make a cast of it and make thousands of Davids from the mold. Are they works of art?

No?

Why not?

Because they were not made by hand. The original was made by hand.

A work of art is made by hand. Photographs are made by machines, not by hand.

That's why the distinction exists between art and photography.

An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:

http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=516

"...we simply prefer the original as "real" while the copy cannot be designated by this category. In this regard, a copy of an art piece can never be art in the true sense of the word."

*It's impossible for a photograph, by its nature, to be a work of art, no matter how beautiful or moving it is.

Why? Because it's not made by hand.
*


----------



## Petraio Prime

abraxas said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is valuable and _unique _to photography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does that make photography _more important_ than art?
> 
> -
Click to expand...


Because there is no substitute for a photograph.


----------



## Derrel

Surely a learned philosopher with a love for the golden age of Hollywood understands the hidden meaning of this device...

http://www.hometrainingtools.com/images/650/BE-NETDLX2.jpg


----------



## fwellers

I Love my Machine-art. :thumbup:







I kind of like these ones also.


----------



## Petraio Prime

fwellers said:


> I Love my Machine-art. :thumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> I kind of like these ones also.



They are nice.


----------



## AdrianC

Petraio Prime said:


> An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:



Hmm, what about music? Is it only art if you listen to it live? If I listen to an mp3 on my laptop, is it not art?


----------



## fwellers

AdrianC said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, what about music? Is it only art if you listen to it live? If I listen to an mp3 on my laptop, is it not art?
Click to expand...


As long as it's not a bootleg version.


----------



## Petraio Prime

AdrianC said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, what about music? Is it only art if you listen to it live? If I listen to an mp3 on my laptop, is it not art?
Click to expand...


The art is in the singing and playing and composing, not in the listening


----------



## abraxas

Petraio Prime said:


> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is valuable and _unique _to photography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does that make photography _more important_ than art?
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no substitute for a photograph.
Click to expand...


Well, I have to say, you've touched on a point or two I've had similar thoughts on. It's a shame you aren't the creative thinker behind these ideas and capable of discussion.  I'll move on and let you continue with your convoluted bitterness.


----------



## Petraio Prime

abraxas said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how does that make photography _more important_ than art?
> 
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no substitute for a photograph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I have to say, you've touched on a point or two I've had similar thoughts on. It's a shame you aren't the creative thinker behind these ideas and capable of discussion.  I'll move on and let you continue with your convoluted bitterness.
Click to expand...


I'm not bitter and my arguments are not convoluted. I somehow find the charms of a an HDR photo of a kitchen lost on me.


----------



## AdrianC

I have a feeling you're trolling here, but ok.

I've taken the liberty of finding the definition of photography in a couple of dictionaries.

Oxford Dictionaries calls photography an art. definition of photography from Oxford Dictionaries Online

Dictionary.com calls photography an art. Photography | Define Photography at Dictionary.com

Yahoo education (which, I believe, uses the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language ) calls photography an art. photography - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

The Wordnik dictionary calls photography an art. PHOTOGRAPHY - definition and meaning from Wordnik

The Merriam-Webster dictionary calls photography an art.Photography - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The Encarta Dictionary calls photography an art. photography definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta


----------



## mishele

I'll play......lol


----------



## Petraio Prime

AdrianC said:


> I have a feeling you're trolling here, but ok.
> 
> I've taken the liberty of finding the definition of photography in a couple of dictionaries.
> 
> Oxford Dictionaries calls photography an art. definition of photography from Oxford Dictionaries Online
> 
> Dictionary.com calls photography an art. Photography | Define Photography at Dictionary.com
> 
> Yahoo education (which, I believe, uses the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language ) calls photography an art. photography - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education
> 
> The Wordnik dictionary calls photography an art. PHOTOGRAPHY - definition and meaning from Wordnik
> 
> The Merriam-Webster dictionary calls photography an art.Photography - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> The Encarta Dictionary calls photography an art. photography definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta



When they say "the art or process of..." that's something different. You're confused. They are not saying photographs are 'art-works' in the same sense paintings are. They merely mean 'craft' or 'skill'. Just like "the art of boxing". 

Also, the word 'process' should give you a clue.


----------



## AdrianC

And.... now I *know *you're trolling.


----------



## bentcountershaft

I'd like to thank you Petraio Prime, for encouraging me to do a little  research into aesthetics.  In my short journey I've discovered Weitz's  "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics" and it pretty well says anything can  be art, because art is beyond definition.  He also seems to say that to  define art would do nothing but stagnate it's very essence, it's  creativity, and would never grow beyond the art of the past.  Being that  art has since it's inception done nothing but grow in scope that would  seem rather counterproductive.  What was that I was saying about narrow  mindedness?  Oh, I'm sorry, that's called essentialism.  What was it  Plato said about art, that it's imitation?  Photographs are as near to  perfect imitation as we can attain two dimensionally.  

If you have a problem with fads in photography, and I'm sure there have  been many over the decades then I'm going to have recommend you get over  it.  What does philosophy say about fads?  I'm guessing fads are nearly  as sure to come as death and taxes.  I can't speak for photography but  being a long time music fan I can empathize with your fad frustration.   The best thing about all fads is that they do eventually come to an  end.  Standard, truthful photos (as you put it) will always be here,  just like classical music, they will endure.  That doesn't mean you  can't enjoy a little jazz or rock every now and then.


----------



## fwellers

I like that !
It looks like it may have started out life as a leaf of some kind, before you morphed it into photographic art. :thumbup:


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> I'd like to thank you Petraio Prime, for encouraging me to do a little  research into aesthetics.  In my short journey I've discovered Weitz's  "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics" and it pretty well says anything can  be art, because art is beyond definition.  He also seems to say that to  define art would do nothing but stagnate it's very essence, it's  creativity, and would never grow beyond the art of the past.  Being that  art has since it's inception done nothing but grow in scope that would  seem rather counterproductive.  What was that I was saying about narrow  mindedness?  Oh, I'm sorry, that's called essentialism.  What was it  Plato said about art, that it's imitation?  Photographs are as near to  perfect imitation as we can attain two dimensionally.
> 
> If you have a problem with fads in photography, and I'm sure there have  been many over the decades then I'm going to have recommend you get over  it.  What does philosophy say about fads?  I'm guessing fads are nearly  as sure to come as death and taxes.  I can't speak for photography but  being a long time music fan I can empathize with your fad frustration.   The best thing about all fads is that they do eventually come to an  end.  Standard, truthful photos (as you put it) will always be here,  just like classical music, they will endure.  That doesn't mean you  can't enjoy a little jazz or rock every now and then.



Read Roger Scruton (_The Aesthetic Understanding_ (1983)) and get back to me. Then we can talk.


----------



## bentcountershaft

He thinks homosexuality is unnatural and a perversion.  I have no idea where I keep getting this feeling of narrow mindedness when it comes to his views.

ETA:  Just for clarification, by "him" I mean Scruton.  I don't mean to imply anything about P.P.'s views.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> He thinks homosexuality is unnatural and a perversion.  I have no idea where I keep getting this feeling of narrow mindedness when it comes to his views.
> 
> ETA:  Just for clarification, by "him" I mean Scruton.  I don't mean to imply anything about P.P.'s views.



I would at least partially disagree with that view, but that does not mean he's wrong about photography not being art.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> I'd like to thank you Petraio Prime, for encouraging me to do a little  research into aesthetics.  In my short journey I've discovered Weitz's  "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics" and it pretty well says anything can  be art, because art is beyond definition.  He also seems to say that to  define art would do nothing but stagnate it's very essence, it's  creativity, and would never grow beyond the art of the past.  Being that  art has since it's inception done nothing but grow in scope that would  seem rather counterproductive.  What was that I was saying about narrow  mindedness?  Oh, I'm sorry, that's called essentialism.  What was it  Plato said about art, that it's imitation?  Photographs are as near to  perfect imitation as we can attain two dimensionally.
> 
> If you have a problem with fads in photography, and I'm sure there have  been many over the decades then I'm going to have recommend you get over  it.  What does philosophy say about fads?  I'm guessing fads are nearly  as sure to come as death and taxes.  I can't speak for photography but  being a long time music fan I can empathize with your fad frustration.   The best thing about all fads is that they do eventually come to an  end.  Standard, truthful photos (as you put it) will always be here,  just like classical music, they will endure.  That doesn't mean you  can't enjoy a little jazz or rock every now and then.



If someone denies that photographs can be works of art like paintings, why does that bother you? Do you think it means that they are "not as good" as paintings, that a photographer is "not as good" as a painter?

If so, why? I certainly would deny both of those. To deny that photographs are works of art is not to say they are inferior to works of art, or that photographers are inferior to painters.

Are baseball players inferior to soccer players? Are musicians inferior to dancers?


----------



## abraxas

m.stevenson said:


> Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things...
> 
> Just a Thought



I found the following interesting, and it may help you out-



> So consider this: For photography to have its place in the world of Art, it must have within it that quality of having been achieved by the hand of a competent Artist, along with the hand of a technically competent photographer. Many technical photographers do magnificent work in the way of recording what the world has, but only Artist-photographers can do work that can hold its place in Art salons and Collections.



from - Is Photography Art? - © 2001 Robert Balcomb

-


----------



## Derrel

Petraio Prime said:


> Read Roger Scruton (_The Aesthetic Understanding_ (1983)) and get back to me. Then we can talk.



Continued references to the same, fringe author do not validate your point Petraio. It's easy to cite some fringe author to attempt to lend validity to a long-discredited argument, but it really looks desperate. Refusing to allow the opinions of other authors into the debate shows that to you this is not a debate, but rather a charade you enjoy perpetrating. Fringe viewpoints often garner lots of attention, and yet have basically no validity underlying them. 


Continually pointing toward Roger Scruton as the definitive,authoritative source regarding what can be considered art is akin to a drowning man, a former passenger of a sunken ship, desperately clinging to a piece of flotsam...the good ship Photography Ain't Art sunk around the late, mid-1800's...long,long ago...and yet, some of the passengers aboard her still live on as ghosts, clinging to the flotsam and proclaiming the doctrine. She was a sailing ship, powered by the wind. Built back before toilet paper was invented, when high technology meant the telegraph, and people thought that if a man moved faster than say, 45 miles per hour, he would explode. When whale oil lighted the lamps of Europe. Pointing over and over and over to Scruton's work is like pointing to the Unambomber's manifesto and saying, "read it, then we can talk about politics and social issues."

A learned man, somebody who claims he is always right, and who can "educate us", but who insists on allowing only his carefully selected sources to be brought into the "discussion" is little more than a false prophet, afraid that the truth as known by the wider society is a threat to his fringe point of view.


----------



## abraxas

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Then we can talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A learned man, somebody who claims he is always right, and who can "educate us", but who insists on allowing only his carefully selected sources to be brought into the "discussion" is little more than a false prophet, afraid that the truth as known by the wider society is a threat to his fringe point of view.
Click to expand...


PP's better read while on an ignore list.  As he's incapable of the adequate explanation of other's ideas, I'll continue my education without the obfuscation.

A discussion of Scruton's point of view:

The Art of Photography by Cameron Gaut

-


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> If someone denies that photographs can be works of art like paintings, why does that bother you? Do you think it means that they are "not as good" as paintings, that a photographer is "not as good" as a painter?
> 
> If so, why? I certainly would deny both of those. To deny that photographs are works of art is not to say they are inferior to works of art, or that photographers are inferior to painters.
> 
> Are baseball players inferior to soccer players? Are musicians inferior to dancers?



It doesn't bother me that a photo may not be considered art.  What bothers me is that art can not be defined.  Over the past 150 years or so, the world has been evolving and growing, art has been evolving and growing and mediums have been evolving and growing in number more rapidly than ever before.  Your philosophical view doesn't seem to be growing with it and actually seems determined to stop this growth.  

If someone wants to say, "That isn't art to me." then that's fine.  Art and our interactions with it are purely subjective and as such can be defined in a personal circumstance.  However, when someone tries to impose their personal definition on someone else I can't help but call b.s.  

From what little I know about philosophy, it seems to be ever changing and evolving on it's own.  Are there still philosophers arguing that the defining characteristic of art is that it is trying to be beautiful?  Or have most of them grown past that?  From what I've seen absolutes only work in the sciences.  It doesn't take a philosopher to understand that.

Oh, and baseball and soccer both suck.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Roger Scruton happens to be a contemporary philosopher who has specifically discussed this topic. Those who wish to read and understand the arguments presented here should consult _The Aesthetic Understanding_ by Scruton.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone denies that photographs can be works of art like paintings, why does that bother you? Do you think it means that they are "not as good" as paintings, that a photographer is "not as good" as a painter?
> 
> If so, why? I certainly would deny both of those. To deny that photographs are works of art is not to say they are inferior to works of art, or that photographers are inferior to painters.
> 
> Are baseball players inferior to soccer players? Are musicians inferior to dancers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't bother me that a photo may not be considered art.  What bothers me is that art can not be defined.  Over the past 150 years or so, the world has been evolving and growing, art has been evolving and growing and mediums have been evolving and growing in number more rapidly than ever before.  Your philosophical view doesn't seem to be growing with it and actually seems determined to stop this growth.
> 
> If someone wants to say, "That isn't art to me." then that's fine.  Art and our interactions with it are purely subjective and as such can be defined in a personal circumstance.  However, when someone tries to impose their personal definition on someone else I can't help but call b.s.
> 
> From what little I know about philosophy, it seems to be ever changing and evolving on it's own.  Are there still philosophers arguing that the defining characteristic of art is that it is trying to be beautiful?  Or have most of them grown past that?  From what I've seen absolutes only work in the sciences.  It doesn't take a philosopher to understand that.
> 
> Oh, and baseball and soccer both suck.
Click to expand...



Not sure what you mean.

Is this art?

http://brionygilbert.com/custom/king_tutankhamun_golden_mask.jpg

Looks like art to me. 

What about this?

http://www.cs.utah.edu/~bigler/pictures/europe2002/italy/sistine%20chapel.jpg

What characteristics do they share, that we call both art?

Why would we all pretty much agree, this brick wall isn't art:

http://static.open.salon.com/files/brick_wall11254935255.jpg


----------



## Petraio Prime

abraxas said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Then we can talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A learned man, somebody who claims he is always right, and who can "educate us", but who insists on allowing only his carefully selected sources to be brought into the "discussion" is little more than a false prophet, afraid that the truth as known by the wider society is a threat to his fringe point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PP's better read while on an ignore list.  As he's incapable of the adequate explanation of other's ideas, I'll continue my education without the obfuscation.
> 
> A discussion of Scruton's point of view:
> 
> The Art of Photography by Cameron Gaut
> 
> -
Click to expand...


I read Gaut's discussion there, and he does not seem to grasp Scruton's argument at all. Does not seem to be a very perceptive guy.

Ever since photography invaded the world of portraiture and took that business away from painters, there has been this tension between artists and photographers. I don't see why this should continue._ Painters looked down on photographers, who reacted by developing Pictorialism, because they somehow accepted this lie, and felt inferior to painters. _What a joke! Pictorialism was a failure, in that it did not allow the strengths of photography to assert themselves. Instead, Pictorialists tried to imitate painting, and photographers ever since have continued trying to imitate painting and call themselves artists.

Instead of accepting the falsehood (spread by painters) that photography is inferior to painting, photographers should have denied it and developed the strengths of photography, rather than creating the fuzzy photographs that were characteristic of Pictorialism.


----------



## Overread

Because deep down I'm a pyromaniac?


----------



## kundalini

erose86 said:


> Why are you guys feeding him again? You *know* every time someone posts an art thread this is going to happen... so why bother fanning the fire? :er:


 I applaud these threads.  It keeps him busy diddling about while leaving the rest of the community unscathed.  Of course, you should realize that he is likely sitting there in his tighty whities just laughing at all the attention.  It would not be any surprise to me if he was previously banned and this is a way of rectification.


----------



## Derrel

Petraio Prime said:


> Roger Scruton happens to be a contemporary philosopher who has specifically discussed this topic. Those who wish to read and understand the arguments presented here should consult _The Aesthetic Understanding_ by Scruton.



Here is another contemporary philosopher...the Unabomber.

Read it, then we can talk. http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> Not sure what you mean.



What don't you understand?



Petraio Prime said:


> Is this art?
> 
> http://brionygilbert.com/custom/king_tutankhamun_golden_mask.jpg



Sure.



Petraio Prime said:


> Looks like art to me.
> 
> What about this?
> 
> http://www.cs.utah.edu/~bigler/pictures/europe2002/italy/sistine%20chapel.jpg



Sure again.



Petraio Prime said:


> What characteristics do they share, that we call both art?
> 
> Why would we all pretty much agree, this brick wall isn't art:
> 
> http://static.open.salon.com/files/brick_wall11254935255.jpg



Why isn't the brick wall art?  Buildings can certainly be art.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What don't you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this art?
> 
> http://brionygilbert.com/custom/king_tutankhamun_golden_mask.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like art to me.
> 
> What about this?
> 
> http://www.cs.utah.edu/~bigler/pictures/europe2002/italy/sistine%20chapel.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure again.
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> What characteristics do they share, that we call both art?
> 
> Why would we all pretty much agree, this brick wall isn't art:
> 
> http://static.open.salon.com/files/brick_wall11254935255.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why isn't the brick wall art?  Buildings can certainly be art.
Click to expand...


I didn't say building, I said brick wall, *that *brick wall. Of course architecture is one of the fine arts.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're confusing the development of technology and especially new media with art.
Click to expand...


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> I didn't say building, I said brick wall, *that *brick wall. Of course architecture is one of the fine arts.



Why isn't *that* brick wall art?  *That* building could certainly be considered art.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say building, I said brick wall, *that *brick wall. Of course architecture is one of the fine arts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't *that* brick wall art?  *That* building could certainly be considered art.
Click to expand...


Because it's 'just' a brick wall, just a collection of bricks, not a whole building.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're confusing the development of technology and especially new media with art.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no confusion at all.  Art incorporates new media as it comes along, as technology advances.  Your philosophy doesn't.
Click to expand...


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say building, I said brick wall, *that *brick wall. Of course architecture is one of the fine arts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't *that* brick wall art?  *That* building could certainly be considered art.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's 'just' a brick wall, just a collection of bricks, not a whole building.
Click to expand...


Mosaics are just collections of tiles.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't *that* brick wall art?  *That* building could certainly be considered art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's 'just' a brick wall, just a collection of bricks, not a whole building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mosaics are just collections of tiles.
Click to expand...


Here is a work of architecture:

http://www.broroy.com/notre dame cathedral.jpg


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's 'just' a brick wall, just a collection of bricks, not a whole building.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mosaics are just collections of tiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a work of architecture:
> 
> http://www.broroy.com/notre dame cathedral.jpg
Click to expand...


This is also a work of architecture:

http://a.imageshack.us/img189/7011/shedq.jpg


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're confusing the development of technology and especially new media with art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no confusion at all.  Art incorporates new media as it comes along, as technology advances.  Your philosophy doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm. Why do you think philosophy needs to do that? Philosophy deals with the universal, core characters of things. You have a completely mistaken understanding of what philosophy is and does if you make a statement like the one above.
> 
> Here's a start for you:
> 
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=what...&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=f4db40c2f987d02d
Click to expand...


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no confusion at all.  Art incorporates new media as it comes along, as technology advances.  Your philosophy doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. Why do you think philosophy needs to do that? Philosophy deals with the universal, core characters of things. You have a completely mistaken understanding of what philosophy is and does if you make a statement like the one above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So philosophy doesn't evolve?  New ideas are not introduced?
Click to expand...


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. Why do you think philosophy needs to do that? Philosophy deals with the universal, core characters of things. You have a completely mistaken understanding of what philosophy is and does if you make a statement like the one above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So philosophy doesn't evolve?  New ideas are not introduced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Philosophy is a _process_, not an end in itself. It relies on analysis and argument.
Click to expand...


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> So philosophy doesn't evolve?  New ideas are not introduced?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is a _process_, not an end in itself. It relies on argument.
Click to expand...


So it seems pretty obvious to me that philosophy never has the final word on anything.


----------



## Derrel

Petraio Prime said:
			
		

> Here is a work of architecture:
> 
> http://www.broroy.com/notre dame cathedral.jpg



Here is yet another work of architecture, designed by a professional, certified architect. The plans also meet Federal regulations for safety and engineering soundness.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4557901260_24a36ccef7.jpg


----------



## table1349

Petraio Prime said:


> What makes a work of art a work of art?
> 
> Have you ever seen statue of _David_?
> 
> http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3309811-A_copy_of_David_in_Piazza_della_Signora-Florence.jpg
> 
> http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/7f/e8/ba/copy-of-the-david-florence.jpg
> 
> It's a great work of art, right?
> 
> No it isn't! That is a copy! It was placed there in 1910 to allow the original to be kept in a museum.
> 
> Michelangelo's David Correctly Oriented
> 
> This is the original:
> 
> http://www.tortillabay.com/images/Europe/Michelangelos_David.jpg
> 
> Why isn't the copy a work of art?
> 
> Suppose we take David and make a cast of it and make thousands of Davids from the mold. Are they works of art?
> 
> No?
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Because they were not made by hand. The original was made by hand.
> 
> A work of art is made by hand. Photographs are made by machines, not by hand.
> 
> That's why the distinction exists between art and photography.
> 
> An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:
> 
> Art Imitating Art
> 
> "...we simply prefer the original as "real" while the copy cannot be designated by this category. In this regard, a copy of an art piece can never be art in the true sense of the word."
> 
> *It's impossible for a photograph, by its nature, to be a work of art, no matter how beautiful or moving it is.
> 
> Why? Because it's not made by hand.
> *



So then you must believe that the only true art is finger painting since brushes are not by hand they are a tool in the hand of a human.  Hammer and chisel are not by hand as they too are again a tool in a humans hands.  In fact, paint on a fingertip then becomes a tool to make an visible impression on a medium, be it canvas, wood or a cave wall.  A camera too is a tool in a humans hands.  Apparently you philosophically forgot to break your definition of "art" down to it's base form.  For that is all this is your definition.

Art is an undefinable abstract belief held on an individual basis. 

Math and Science are the only two truly definable things in this world.  Math for it's pure order and science for it's ability to be repeated.  Theoretical science is based on foundations of proven science.  


Philosophy serves but two purposes in this world.  One provides a few selected individuals a teaching position for a required useless entry level liberal arts college class that most freshmen must suffer through and has no real use for their chosen major.  

Secondly it provides reading material for all the other "Philosophers" who make their living working at McDonalds something to read between shifts. They are the ones that majored in Philosophy  

Philosophy is merely a hobby.  You can't build a Philosophy factory.


----------



## table1349

kundalini said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just wanted to comment on your signature............'kin awesome. Oh, and I kinda like the B.S. flagpole too.
Click to expand...


----------



## Petraio Prime

gryphonslair99 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes a work of art a work of art?
> 
> Have you ever seen statue of _David_?
> 
> http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3309811-A_copy_of_David_in_Piazza_della_Signora-Florence.jpg
> 
> http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/7f/e8/ba/copy-of-the-david-florence.jpg
> 
> It's a great work of art, right?
> 
> No it isn't! That is a copy! It was placed there in 1910 to allow the original to be kept in a museum.
> 
> Michelangelo's David Correctly Oriented
> 
> This is the original:
> 
> http://www.tortillabay.com/images/Europe/Michelangelos_David.jpg
> 
> Why isn't the copy a work of art?
> 
> Suppose we take David and make a cast of it and make thousands of Davids from the mold. Are they works of art?
> 
> No?
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Because they were not made by hand. The original was made by hand.
> 
> A work of art is made by hand. Photographs are made by machines, not by hand.
> 
> That's why the distinction exists between art and photography.
> 
> An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:
> 
> Art Imitating Art
> 
> "...we simply prefer the original as "real" while the copy cannot be designated by this category. In this regard, a copy of an art piece can never be art in the true sense of the word."
> 
> *It's impossible for a photograph, by its nature, to be a work of art, no matter how beautiful or moving it is.
> 
> Why? Because it's not made by hand.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you must believe that the only true art is finger painting since brushes are not by hand they are a tool in the hand of a human.  Hammer and chisel are not by hand as they too are again a tool in a humans hands.  In fact, paint on a fingertip then becomes a tool to make an visible impression on a medium, be it canvas, wood or a cave wall.  A camera too is a tool in a humans hands.  Apparently you philosophically forgot to break your definition of "art" down to it's base form.  For that is all this is your definition.
> 
> Art is an undefinable abstract belief held on an individual basis.
> 
> Math and Science are the only two truly definable things in this world.  Math for it's pure order and science for it's ability to be repeated.  Theoretical science is based on foundations of proven science.
> 
> 
> Philosophy serves but two purposes in this world.  One provides a few selected individuals a teaching position for a required useless entry level liberal arts college class that most freshmen must suffer through and has no real use for their chosen major.
> 
> Secondly it provides reading material for all the other "Philosophers" who make their living working at McDonalds something to read between shifts. They are the ones that majored in Philosophy
> 
> Philosophy is merely a hobby.  You can't build a Philosophy factory.
Click to expand...


"Made by hand" does not exclude the use of tools. And just so you don't try it, a camera is not a tool but a machine.


----------



## table1349

Petraio Prime said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes a work of art a work of art?
> 
> Have you ever seen statue of _David_?
> 
> http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3309811-A_copy_of_David_in_Piazza_della_Signora-Florence.jpg
> 
> http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/7f/e8/ba/copy-of-the-david-florence.jpg
> 
> It's a great work of art, right?
> 
> No it isn't! That is a copy! It was placed there in 1910 to allow the original to be kept in a museum.
> 
> Michelangelo's David Correctly Oriented
> 
> This is the original:
> 
> http://www.tortillabay.com/images/Europe/Michelangelos_David.jpg
> 
> Why isn't the copy a work of art?
> 
> Suppose we take David and make a cast of it and make thousands of Davids from the mold. Are they works of art?
> 
> No?
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Because they were not made by hand. The original was made by hand.
> 
> A work of art is made by hand. Photographs are made by machines, not by hand.
> 
> That's why the distinction exists between art and photography.
> 
> An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:
> 
> Art Imitating Art
> 
> "...we simply prefer the original as "real" while the copy cannot be designated by this category. In this regard, a copy of an art piece can never be art in the true sense of the word."
> 
> *It's impossible for a photograph, by its nature, to be a work of art, no matter how beautiful or moving it is.
> 
> Why? Because it's not made by hand.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you must believe that the only true art is finger painting since brushes are not by hand they are a tool in the hand of a human.  Hammer and chisel are not by hand as they too are again a tool in a humans hands.  In fact, paint on a fingertip then becomes a tool to make an visible impression on a medium, be it canvas, wood or a cave wall.  A camera too is a tool in a humans hands.  Apparently you philosophically forgot to break your definition of "art" down to it's base form.  For that is all this is your definition.
> 
> Art is an undefinable abstract belief held on an individual basis.
> 
> Math and Science are the only two truly definable things in this world.  Math for it's pure order and science for it's ability to be repeated.  Theoretical science is based on foundations of proven science.
> 
> 
> Philosophy serves but two purposes in this world.  One provides a few selected individuals a teaching position for a required useless entry level liberal arts college class that most freshmen must suffer through and has no real use for their chosen major.
> 
> Secondly it provides reading material for all the other "Philosophers" who make their living working at McDonalds something to read between shifts. They are the ones that majored in Philosophy
> 
> Philosophy is merely a hobby.  You can't build a Philosophy factory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Made by hand" does not exclude the use of tools. And just so you don't try it, a camera is not a tool but a machine.
Click to expand...


Really?  So a light tight box with a lens and lens cap and a manual load wet plate slot is a machine?  Photo is taken when lens cap removed by human and replaced to stop the exposure?  What machine is there in this process. A similar process that was used in the beginning days of photography by the likes of Louis Daguerre with a hand operated sliding plate between the lens and the wet plate?  Once again your philosophy is ....... wait for it..........


----------



## Derrel

So,so,so many words have been traded. I thought I'd step back to mankind's earlier ages, and communicate my message about art using drawings, not words. I hope you like my effort. It is,as it clearly states, NOT ART, since it was made with a Macintosh, not by hand.


----------



## Petraio Prime

gryphonslair99 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you must believe that the only true art is finger painting since brushes are not by hand they are a tool in the hand of a human.  Hammer and chisel are not by hand as they too are again a tool in a humans hands.  In fact, paint on a fingertip then becomes a tool to make an visible impression on a medium, be it canvas, wood or a cave wall.  A camera too is a tool in a humans hands.  Apparently you philosophically forgot to break your definition of "art" down to it's base form.  For that is all this is your definition.
> 
> Art is an undefinable abstract belief held on an individual basis.
> 
> Math and Science are the only two truly definable things in this world.  Math for it's pure order and science for it's ability to be repeated.  Theoretical science is based on foundations of proven science.
> 
> 
> Philosophy serves but two purposes in this world.  One provides a few selected individuals a teaching position for a required useless entry level liberal arts college class that most freshmen must suffer through and has no real use for their chosen major.
> 
> Secondly it provides reading material for all the other "Philosophers" who make their living working at McDonalds something to read between shifts. They are the ones that majored in Philosophy
> 
> Philosophy is merely a hobby.  You can't build a Philosophy factory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Made by hand" does not exclude the use of tools. And just so you don't try it, a camera is not a tool but a machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  So a light tight box with a lens and lens cap and a manual load wet plate slot is a machine?  Photo is taken when lens cap removed by human and replaced to stop the exposure?  What machine is there in this process. A similar process that was used in the beginning days of photography by the likes of Louis Daguerre with a hand operated sliding plate between the lens and the wet plate?  Once again your philosophy is ....... wait for it..........
Click to expand...


Yes, even a primitive camera is a machine. The lens forms an image.


----------



## table1349

Petraio Prime said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Made by hand" does not exclude the use of tools. And just so you don't try it, a camera is not a tool but a machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  So a light tight box with a lens and lens cap and a manual load wet plate slot is a machine?  Photo is taken when lens cap removed by human and replaced to stop the exposure?  What machine is there in this process. A similar process that was used in the beginning days of photography by the likes of Louis Daguerre with a hand operated sliding plate between the lens and the wet plate?  Once again your philosophy is ....... wait for it..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, even a primitive camera is a machine. The lens forms an image.
Click to expand...


Then to you there must be no art, for the lens in the eye of man forms the image that is sent to his brain.  Man therefore by your description is a machine and as you have already stated, a machine can not make art.  Thus there is no art.  

Your philosophy just earned a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








_It is possible to be a master in false philosophy,  easier, in fact, than to be a master in the truth, because a false  philosophy can be made as simple and consistent as one pleases.
 George Santayana 
_


----------



## Petraio Prime

gryphonslair99 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  So a light tight box with a lens and lens cap and a manual load wet plate slot is a machine?  Photo is taken when lens cap removed by human and replaced to stop the exposure?  What machine is there in this process. A similar process that was used in the beginning days of photography by the likes of Louis Daguerre with a hand operated sliding plate between the lens and the wet plate?  Once again your philosophy is ....... wait for it..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, even a primitive camera is a machine. The lens forms an image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then to you there must be no art, for the lens in the eye of man forms the image that is sent to his brain.  Man therefore by your description is a machine and as you have already stated, a machine can not make art.  Thus there is no art.
> 
> Your philosophy just earned a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _It is possible to be a master in false philosophy,  easier, in fact, than to be a master in the truth, because a false  philosophy can be made as simple and consistent as one pleases.
> George Santayana
> _
Click to expand...


But the eye does not by itself make art, and blind men can make art.

You don't get it at all.

Why do you 'photographers' have such an inferiority complex, that you feel inferior to artists (which means painters and sculptors), and must co-opt the label 'artist'? If photographs are not works of art, _*so what*_?

You seem to believe that if a photograph is extraordinarily beautiful it becomes a work of art. If a horse is  extraordinarily beautiful, does it become an elk?


----------



## fwellers

Petraio Prime said:


> You don't get it at all.
> 
> Why do you 'photographers' have such an inferiority complex, that you feel inferior to artists (which means painters and sculptors), and must co-opt the label 'artist'? If photographs are not works of art, _*so what*_?
> 
> You seem to believe that if a photograph is extraordinarily beautiful it becomes a work of art. If a horse is  extraordinarily beautiful, does it become an elk?



The work of art would be in how that horse was captured in the photograph. The lighting that was taken advantage of or used, the way the backround was chosen or taken advantage of and treated etc.. 
there are a whole slew of choices that can take a simple horse ( how simple is a horse though, I consider it a work of God's art ) standing in a field and turn it into an image that strikes emotion in people.  A freekin slew of choices, angles, treatments. Waiting for just the right time of day or even season, which angle, high low dead on .... which lens what aperture, how close. what pose for the horse do we wait for ? Maybe the photographer ( artist ) waits for the horse to have one nostril flared and his right eye closed and his left leg lifted. I don't know. You get the point. 

How is the horse framed in order to create the desired effect ? How much negative space to use.  
All of these things just touch on the amount of choices to be made. And that is just at capture time. I didn't even go to the post processing options.
And I am a beginner and probably don't even know half the choices available to someone more adept at photography. Oh and then there are filters to be used, stacked for various numerous purposes. 

You get the point ? Tons of stuff. And the difference between what a great photographic artist can do to that horse and what a snapshotter can do can be vast !!

To through another kink in it, maybe only 10% of the people who view that image get anything out of it ? Maybe you or I think it just plain sucks. 

Who cares ? It is still art to the maker of that photograph, and is certainly worthy of being called art as much as somebody who paints a horse on a canvas.


----------



## Petraio Prime

fwellers said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it at all.
> 
> Why do you 'photographers' have such an inferiority complex, that you feel inferior to artists (which means painters and sculptors), and must co-opt the label 'artist'? If photographs are not works of art, _*so what*_?
> 
> You seem to believe that if a photograph is extraordinarily beautiful it becomes a work of art. If a horse is  extraordinarily beautiful, does it become an elk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The work of art would be in how that horse was captured in the photograph. The lighting that was taken advantage of or used, the way the backround was chosen or taken advantage of and treated etc..
> there are a whole slew of choices that can take a simple horse ( how simple is a horse though, I consider it a work of God's art ) standing in a field and turn it into an image that strikes emotion in people.  A freekin slew of choices, angles, treatments. Waiting for just the right time of day or even season, which angle, high low dead on .... which lens what aperture, how close. what pose for the horse do we wait for ? Maybe the photographer ( artist ) waits for the horse to have one nostril flared and his right eye closed and his left leg lifted. I don't know. You get the point.
> 
> How is the horse framed in order to create the desired effect ? How much negative space to use.
> All of these things just touch on the amount of choices to be made. And that is just at capture time. I didn't even go to the post processing options.
> And I am a beginner and probably don't even know half the choices available to someone more adept at photography. Oh and then there are filters to be used, stacked for various numerous purposes.
> 
> You get the point ? Tons of stuff. And the difference between what a great photographic artist can do to that horse and what a snapshotter can do can be vast !!
> 
> To through another kink in it, maybe only 10% of the people who view that image get anything out of it ? Maybe you or I think it just plain sucks.
> 
> Who cares ? It is still art to the maker of that photograph, and is certainly worthy of being called art as much as somebody who paints a horse on a canvas.
Click to expand...


What photograph? I said: "If a *horse* is extraordinarily beautiful, does it become an *elk*"? I am not talking about photographing a horse. I am talking about a* beautiful horse*.

Photographers seem to think that they are inferior to artists unless they can also call their work 'art'. They think that some photographs "rise to the level of art" if they are extraordinarily beautiful. This is false. *A photograph, no matter how beautiful, cannot be a work of art because of what the word 'art' mans.*

*An extraordinarily beautiful horse is an extraordinarily beautiful horse, not an **elk.* It is not inferior to the elk, just a different animal.

*An extraordinarily beautiful photograph is an extraordinarily beautiful photograph, not a work of art**. But that does not in any way make it 'inferior' to works of art.

What anyone thinks of his own work is of no consequence to this issue. It is a matter of the meaning of words.
*


----------



## fwellers

Petraio Prime said:


> What photograph? I said: "If a *horse* is extraordinarily beautiful, does it become an *elk*"?



You also said "You seem to believe that if a photograph is extraordinarily beautiful it becomes a work of art."



> Photographers seem to think that they are inferior to artists unless they can also call their work 'art'. They think that some photographs "rise to the level of art" if they are extraordinarily beautiful.


You are drawing conclusions to what motivates other people. What gives you the ability to do that ?  Because I disagree with you on whether a photograph can be art, you conclude that I feel inferior to other artists. Wow !



> *An extraordinarily beautiful photograph is an extraordinarily beautiful photograph, not a work of art**.*


I disagree, and I think I showed some valid reasons why photography can be a disciplined art. Obviously most of those interested in photography also agree.

You know what ? there is a forum on photo.net called philosophy of photography forum. They have some of the most convoluted and heady discussions in that forum that I've ever read. I think you should check it out and see if you can hold your own over there. 
I've read some of a thread over there about this same subject 'what is art'. I read it until I was sick of listening to it. It's about 10 times deeper than this thread, or at least ten times as stuffy. You'd love it. I doubt you can hold your own with those guys though. they are pretty darn filosifical.


----------



## usayit

World English Dictionary
art 1  (&#593;&#720;t) 

 n
1.	a. the creation of works of beauty or other special significance
 	b. ( as modifier ): an art movement
2.	the exercise of human skill (as distinguished from nature )
3.	imaginative skill as applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the imagination
4.	a. the products of man's creative activities; works of art collectively, esp of the visual arts, sometimes also music, drama, dance, and literature
 	b. arts See also fine art ( as modifier ): an art gallery
5.	excellence or aesthetic merit of conception or execution as exemplified by such works
6.	any branch of the visual arts, esp painting
7.	( modifier ) intended to be artistic or decorative: art needlework
8.	a. any field using the techniques of art to display artistic qualities: advertising art
 	b. ( as modifier ): an art film
9.	journalism  photographs or other illustrations in a newspaper, etc
10.	method, facility, or knack: the art of threading a needle ; the art of writing letters
11.	the system of rules or principles governing a particular human activity: the art of government
12.	artfulness; cunning
13.	get something down to a fine art  to become highly proficient at something through practice

----

see #9


----------



## bentcountershaft

What does beauty have to do with art?  Not a damn thing.


----------



## Flash Harry

My god is this still ongoing. Its a pointless thread and has been discussed thoroughly on every fora on this planet with a similar outcome, nothing concluded/argument, now where's all this "art" you "artists" are posting, go on, show me some, I can't wait. H


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> What does beauty have to do with art?  Not a damn thing.




In reference to which post? I agree, beauty has nothing to do with it. 

A carpenter is not a woodcarver. A woodcarver is an artist; a carpenter (qua carpenter) is not. Even inept woodcarving is 'art'; beautiful carpentry is not 'art'.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> World English Dictionary
> art 1  (&#593;&#720;t)
> 
> &#8212; n
> 1.    a. the creation of works of beauty or other special significance
> b. ( as modifier ): an art movement
> 2.    the exercise of human skill (as distinguished from nature )
> 3.    imaginative skill as applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the imagination
> 4.    a. the products of man's creative activities; works of art collectively, esp of the visual arts, sometimes also music, drama, dance, and literature
> b. arts See also fine art ( as modifier ): an art gallery
> 5.    excellence or aesthetic merit of conception or execution as exemplified by such works
> 6.    any branch of the visual arts, esp painting
> 7.    ( modifier ) intended to be artistic or decorative: art needlework
> 8.    a. any field using the techniques of art to display artistic qualities: advertising art
> b. ( as modifier ): an art film
> 9.    journalism  photographs or other illustrations in a newspaper, etc
> 10.    method, facility, or knack: the art of threading a needle ; the art of writing letters
> 11.    the system of rules or principles governing a particular human activity: the art of government
> 12.    artfulness; cunning
> 13.    get something down to a fine art  to become highly proficient at something through practice
> 
> ----
> 
> see #9



#9 refers to a term used in layout. It means merely "something other than text".

This shows how misleading dictionaries can be. I happen to do layout in programs such as PageMaker, and the manuals discuss this. In layout, everything is either 'copy' or 'art'.

Nice try, Bubba.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does beauty have to do with art?  Not a damn thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reference to which post? I agree, beauty has nothing to do with it.
> 
> A carpenter is not a woodcarver. A woodcarver is an artist; a carpenter (qua carpenter( is not. Even inept woodcarving is 'art'; beautiful carpentry is not 'art'.
Click to expand...


I wasn't necessarily correcting you, just clarifying.  You seem to assume people think that a beautiful photo is art but a regular photo isn't.  I don't know if anyone has been making that case here.  If they have I have missed it but I felt it needed to be mentioned for any that do.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does beauty have to do with art?  Not a damn thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reference to which post? I agree, beauty has nothing to do with it.
> 
> A carpenter is not a woodcarver. A woodcarver is an artist; a carpenter (qua carpenter( is not. Even inept woodcarving is 'art'; beautiful carpentry is not 'art'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't necessarily correcting you, just clarifying.  You seem to assume people think that a beautiful photo is art but a regular photo isn't.  I don't know if anyone has been making that case here.  If they have I have missed it but I felt it needed to be mentioned for any that do.
Click to expand...


I think that's the general notion, that a photograph that is extraordinarily beautiful is a 'work of art'. The term 'fine-art photography' is tossed around, and is used to describe photography of 'pretty things', and includes typically as subject matter nudes and landscapes. 

The term 'art' in this context is a term of approval and praise, referring to something that has transcended 'mere' photography and entered the divine world of 'art'. I argue this is not the case. 

I wish to point out that 'artist' basically means 'painter'. Photographers should stop comparing themselves to painters and quit feeling inferior to them. The world needs carpenters _and _woodcarvers. I can imagine someone who does both woodcarving and carpentry, but surely you understand the distinction.

The whole Pictorialist movement stemmed from this feeling of inferiority; photographers kept trying to imitate artists (painters) with the result that the photographs so produced no longer exhibited the virtues that photography has.

Pictorialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also note this:

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/pictoria.htm

"By the second half of the nineteenth century the novelty of capturing          images was beginning to wear off, and some people were now beginning to          question whether the camera, as it was then being used, was in fact *too*          accurate and *too* detailed in what it recorded. This, coupled with          the fact that _painting enjoyed a much higher status than this new mechanistic          process_, caused some photographers to adopt new techniques which, as they          saw it, made photography more of an art form. These new techniques came          also to be known as High-Art photography." (My italics for emphasis; bold in original.)

Here are some examples of the extremes to which some photographers went to try to make 'art' photographs:

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/rejlande.htm

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/robinson.htm

This last one is merely made with some interesting lighting:

http://thebeat.iloveny.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/goldenskythreewomen1.jpg

I reject Pictorialism's basic premise to begin with: that photography can be considered 'art'. It leads to constant attempts to justify its status as fine art by various 'techniques' that more or less resemble those of painting, that attempt to 'free' photography from its constraints as a mechanical process. Well, yes, if you modify an image so much that it is no longer a photograph, your work approaches that of a 'work of art'. But then of course it can't be _*both*._ It's one or the other. The attempt to free photography from its constraints as a mechanical process leads to the ultimate destruction of the photograph as photograph. 

Let's say you took a portrait photo of someone, then took the print and used it as a canvas, painting all over it with oils, except the eyes. Is this then a 'work of art'? Probably, because only a trace of the photo remains. Is it a photograph anymore? Not really.

Do you understand what I mean now?

There is no need for photographers to feel inferior to painters.


----------



## bentcountershaft

I understand what you mean, that hasn't been a problem.  I agree with you on the beauty of a photograph not making it art.  Where we disagree is that I think even the worst snapshot is art.  Tacky, bad art in my opinion, but art nonetheless.


----------



## fwellers

I knew a guy who mastered the fine art of lighting his farts on fire.
You won't see that in any of your books but I am quite sure he doesn't feel inferior to painters either. 
If you saw him you would have to admit it is an art what he is able to do with bodily methane and a match.


----------



## bentcountershaft

That's performance art and just as valid as anything else.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> World English Dictionary
> art 1  (&#593;&#720;t)
> 
> &#8212; n
> 1.    a. the creation of works of beauty or other special significance
> b. ( as modifier ): an art movement
> 2.    the exercise of human skill (as distinguished from nature )
> 3.    imaginative skill as applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the imagination
> 4.    a. the products of man's creative activities; works of art collectively, esp of the visual arts, sometimes also music, drama, dance, and literature
> b. arts See also fine art ( as modifier ): an art gallery
> 5.    excellence or aesthetic merit of conception or execution as exemplified by such works
> 6.    any branch of the visual arts, esp painting
> 7.    ( modifier ) intended to be artistic or decorative: art needlework
> 8.    a. any field using the techniques of art to display artistic qualities: advertising art
> b. ( as modifier ): an art film
> 9.    journalism  photographs or other illustrations in a newspaper, etc
> 10.    method, facility, or knack: the art of threading a needle ; the art of writing letters
> 11.    the system of rules or principles governing a particular human activity: the art of government
> 12.    artfulness; cunning
> 13.    get something down to a fine art  to become highly proficient at something through practice
> 
> ----
> 
> see #9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #9 refers to a term used in layout. It means merely "something other than text".
> 
> This shows how misleading dictionaries can be. I happen to do layout in programs such as PageMaker, and the manuals discuss this. In layout, everything is either 'copy' or 'art'.
> 
> Nice try, Bubba.
Click to expand...


ooooo... sorry.. I didn't realize that you were a more important source for definitions than the dictionary.   Kinda sounds like an egotistic stance to me.  really.. there's no point with reasoning someone who won't even recognize reference material that is widely accepted.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> I understand what you mean, that hasn't been a problem.  I agree with you on the beauty of a photograph not making it art.  Where we disagree is that I think even the worst snapshot is art.  Tacky, bad art in my opinion, but art nonetheless.



But why? Why does everyone want to be called an 'artist'? Why do so many feel compelled to expand art as if in some democratization movement?

"Everybody wants to get into the act!" Jimmy Durante

Why aren't photographers content to be photographers, no more, no less? Why have they continued to fall for the lame lie that artists (meaning painters) are 'better'?

Why has so much of the history of photography consisted of attempts to imitate painting and acquire the status of painters? 

*It's a joke! Painters have no greater status than photographers!*

And no, no kind of photography is art or can be art because of what the word 'art' _means_.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does beauty have to do with art?  Not a damn thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reference to which post? I agree, beauty has nothing to do with it.
> 
> A carpenter is not a woodcarver. A woodcarver is an artist; a carpenter (qua carpenter( is not. Even inept woodcarving is 'art'; beautiful carpentry is not 'art'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't necessarily correcting you, just clarifying.  You seem to assume people think that a beautiful photo is art but a regular photo isn't.  I don't know if anyone has been making that case here.  If they have I have missed it but I felt it needed to be mentioned for any that do.
Click to expand...


I know a local photographer who insists that his photographs are so good that they are art. I used to know him from the 70s when he took a job with a local industrial firm in their marketing communications area; I was working in photo retail. He knew nothing about photography. I sold him all his equipment and supplies, *and taught him how to use it* (Mamiya RB67).

I ran into him at a Halloween party a couple years ago and this topic came up. He told me he was now doing *'fine art photography'* and of course I told him there was *no such thing*. He started screaming and yelling that his work was so good it was fine art. He actually turned purple in the face.

Hilarious....and another reason I don't call myself a photographer.


----------



## bentcountershaft

I'm barely a photographer, I've been shooting for less than a year.  I would have made this same argument long before I picked up a camera.  It has nothing to do with wanting to be more than a photographer.  I don't know why you insist that's what it's about.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> I'm barely a photographer, I've been shooting for less than a year.  I would have made this same argument long before I picked up a camera.  It has nothing to do with wanting to be more than a photographer.  I don't know why you insist that's what it's about.



That is exactly what it's about. It has been this way for 150 years. Photographers have this inferiority complex and want to be called 'artists' because artists are shown at art galleries and openings etc. Exhibitions of photography are much less frequent and prominent, that's true, but it does not mean that 'artists' are more important or have greater status.

I have known quite a few artists, and trust me, they are no better than anyone else.

Here is the website of a typical 'artist' wanna-be:

http://www.contemporary-art-dialogue.com/barbara-white.html

"Working within a narrow depth of field, painting with light and color, Barbara White creates fine art photography that is reminiscent of still life Impressionist works. With out-of-focus backgrounds, they are often indistinguishable from paintings."

This sort of thing is everywhere.

http://www.frshore.com/

"Thinking of my large format wooden camera as a paintbrush and using only natural light as paint, I lay out my subject matter in a direct and intimate manner, inviting you to investigate further."


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm barely a photographer, I've been shooting for less than a year.  I would have made this same argument long before I picked up a camera.  It has nothing to do with wanting to be more than a photographer.  I don't know why you insist that's what it's about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what it's about. It has been this way for 150 years. Photographers have this inferiority complex and want to be called 'artists' because artists are shown at art galleries and openings etc. Exhibitions of photography are much less frequent and prominent, that's true, but it does not mean that 'artists' are more important or have greater status.
> 
> I have known quite a few artists, and trust me, they are no better than anyone else.
> 
> Here is the website of a typical 'artist' wanna-be:
> 
> Barbara White Uses Her Camera as a Paintbrush to Create...
> 
> "Working within a narrow depth of field, painting with light and color, Barbara White creates fine art photography that is reminiscent of still life Impressionist works. With out-of-focus backgrounds, they are often indistinguishable from paintings."
> 
> This sort of thing is everywhere.
Click to expand...


So?  I've seen mosaics that are indistinguishable from paintings.  Do those people want to be painters too?


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm barely a photographer, I've been shooting for less than a year.  I would have made this same argument long before I picked up a camera.  It has nothing to do with wanting to be more than a photographer.  I don't know why you insist that's what it's about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what it's about. It has been this way for 150 years. Photographers have this inferiority complex and want to be called 'artists' because artists are shown at art galleries and openings etc. Exhibitions of photography are much less frequent and prominent, that's true, but it does not mean that 'artists' are more important or have greater status.
> 
> I have known quite a few artists, and trust me, they are no better than anyone else.
> 
> Here is the website of a typical 'artist' wanna-be:
> 
> Barbara White Uses Her Camera as a Paintbrush to Create...
> 
> "Working within a narrow depth of field, painting with light and color, Barbara White creates fine art photography that is reminiscent of still life Impressionist works. With out-of-focus backgrounds, they are often indistinguishable from paintings."
> 
> This sort of thing is everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  I've seen mosaics that are indistinguishable from paintings.  Do those people want to be painters too?
Click to expand...


I don't know. Maybe we could ask them. What's that got to do with the point I made? *I.e., Why do photographers want to be called 'artists'?*


----------



## fwellers

did you know that art rhymes with fart ? 
If i could actually photograph a fart would that be considered art ?


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> I don't know. Maybe we could ask them. What's that got to do with the point I made? *I.e., Why do photographers want to be called 'artists'?*



It has to do with your supporting point:



Petraio Prime said:


> Here is the website of a typical 'artist' wanna-be:
> 
> Barbara White Uses Her Camera as a Paintbrush to Create...
> 
> "Working within a narrow depth of field, painting with light and color, Barbara White  creates fine art photography that is reminiscent of still life  Impressionist works. With out-of-focus backgrounds, *they are often  indistinguishable from paintings*."
> 
> This sort of thing is everywhere.



You give an example of a photographer imitating a painting as evidence that photographers want to be painters.  My reply discounts your evidence.  I'm sorry you didn't take it well.  



fwellers said:


> did you know that art rhymes with fart ?
> If i could actually photograph a fart would that be considered art ?



You can with the right camera, and yes it would.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Maybe we could ask them. What's that got to do with the point I made? *I.e., Why do photographers want to be called 'artists'?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with your supporting point:
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the website of a typical 'artist' wanna-be:
> 
> Barbara White Uses Her Camera as a Paintbrush to Create...
> 
> "Working within a narrow depth of field, painting with light and color, Barbara White  creates fine art photography that is reminiscent of still life  Impressionist works. With out-of-focus backgrounds, *they are often  indistinguishable from paintings*."
> 
> This sort of thing is everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You give an example of a photographer imitating a painting as evidence that photographers want to be painters.  My reply discounts your evidence.  I'm sorry you didn't take it well.
> 
> 
> 
> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you know that art rhymes with fart ?
> If i could actually photograph a fart would that be considered art ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can with the right camera, and yes it would.
Click to expand...


I must confess your logic does not follow. I said *photographers are constantly comparing their work to paintings and claiming to be 'artists'. 

Secondly, I believe this is because photographers feel inferior to, and jealous of, artists (painters and sculptors) *(which continues to astonish me; do you know how many artists are penniless bums?). 

How does the fact that you have seen a mosaic  that you think looks like a painting have anything to do with this? Is the mosaic-maker claiming anything? No? It is irrelevant. Besides, a mosaic *is* a work of art...a photograph *isn't*.


----------



## bentcountershaft

I'm sorry you have a problem following my logic.  Read it slower.


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> Why have they continued to fall for the lame lie that artists (meaning painters) are 'better'?



I'm starting to get the feeling that you not only dislike photographers but also greatly dislike painters. 



Petraio Prime said:


> *It's a joke! Painters have no greater status than photographers!*



Who has stated that painters are better than photographers or that photographers are better than painters? Does saying that photos are art instantly rank them lesser than other forms of art simply because they are considered art?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why have they continued to fall for the lame lie that artists (meaning painters) are 'better'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm starting to get the feeling that you not only dislike photographers but also greatly dislike painters.
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's a joke! Painters have no greater status than photographers!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has stated that painters are better than photographers or that photographers are better than painters? Does saying that photos are art instantly rank them lesser than other forms of art simply because they are considered art?
Click to expand...


I don't follow your last sentence here.

If photographers don't think that being called 'artists' makes their activity more prestigious, why say it? Why the constant comparisons to painting, and why the references to the camera as a paint-brush? I'll tell you why! It's because photographers feel inferior to and jealous of artists.

Why do photographers *want *to be called artists, unless they think they are inferior to artists otherwise, unless they can get into the act, and join the club, and be called 'artists'? The joke is, artists are nothing to look up to or be jealous of!

*Why would you want to be called 'artist' unless you thought that conferred some additional status upon you?*


----------



## fwellers

bentcountershaft said:


> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you know that art rhymes with fart ?
> If i could actually photograph a fart would that be considered art ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can with the right camera, and yes it would.
Click to expand...


You are such an encourager.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> I'm sorry you have a problem following my logic.  Read it slower.



No, it is irrelevant.


----------



## fwellers

Petraio Prime said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do photographers *want *to be called artists, unless they think they are inferior to artists otherwise, unless they can get into the act, and join the club, and be called 'artists'?
> 
> *Why would you want to be called 'artist' unless you thought that conferred some additional status upon you?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about any status or thinking anyone is better than anyone.
> My goal is to become a photographer with an artistic flair. In other words I want to be good enough to be considered a photographer by other photographers and I want to use that medium to develop my artistic / creative side.
> 
> I believe many "photographers" feel the same way, and this would make your sweeping generalization about what [implied - all ] photographers *want* to be called
Click to expand...


----------



## Petraio Prime

fwellers said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do photographers *want *to be called artists, unless they think they are inferior to artists otherwise, unless they can get into the act, and join the club, and be called 'artists'?
> 
> *Why would you want to be called 'artist' unless you thought that conferred some additional status upon you?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about any status or thinking anyone is better than anyone.
> My goal is to become a photographer with an artistic flair. In other words I want to be good enough to be considered a photographer by other photographers and I want to use that medium to develop my artistic / creative side.
> 
> I believe many "photographers" feel the same way, and this would make your sweeping generalization about what [implied - all ] photographers *want* to be called
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say 'all'? Why do you think I mean 'all'? I'm talking about the many who do. Those who don't obviously are of no concern.
> 
> But there are thousands upon thousands who *do *want to be called 'artists', who mistakenly believe they are, who mistakenly believe that great photographs are works of art, who have web sites that proclaim they are 'fine-art photographers.
> 
> I am not saying they are not good photographers. This is about *language*.
> 
> I think it is interesting that we don't have language for 'high-class' photography and do borrow terms such as 'creative' and 'artistic' from the arts. Photography has such an unwieldy name that it never spawned its own vocabulary. We say 'artistic' (as you did above) instead of using a word such as 'photographistic'. It's part of the problem.
Click to expand...


----------



## bentcountershaft

Your problem is with a societal interpretation of what constitutes art.   The often heralded "It's good enough to be art."  People that don't  know any better say such things and that is what you are arguing  against.  No one here is making that argument.  

It seems your narrow mindedness is affecting your ability to look at  anything objectively.  You see an photographer comparing their camera to  to a paint brush and immediately reach the conclusion that they really  want to be a painter and are trying to improve their self esteem by  telling themselves a lie.  It couldn't be that they are comparing for  the sake of example, to help explain to a non photographer how they go  about creating their art.  A painter is an easy reference because most  everyone at some point in their lives, even if it was during childhood  in art class, has painted.  Photographers often copy the "rules of  painting composition", not because they want to be painters, but because  their art is similar in display.  It's generally two dimensional, often  framed hung on a wall so most of these tips for composition apply to  both.  It has nothing to do with wanting to be a painter.  Your failure  to see any other explanation is again, just evidence of your lack of an  open mind.  Art is generally a celebration of the open mind and how on  earth someone with such a narrow view could think they are capable of  defining it is beyond me.


----------



## bentcountershaft

fwellers said:


> I don't know about any status or thinking anyone is better than anyone.
> My goal is to become a photographer with an artistic flair. In other words I want to be good enough to be considered a photographer by other photographers and I want to use that medium to develop my artistic / creative side.
> 
> I believe many "photographers" feel the same way, and this would make your sweeping generalization about what [implied - all ] photographers *want* to be called



This is off point, but I think it's important to keep in mind.  You shouldn't worry about making photos that impress other photographers.  I made that mistake with music.  The more I learned, the more I wanted to impress other musicians.  You know what I ended up with?  Music only musicians like.  Don't worry about pleasing anyone but yourself.  Unless you are doing it for a client.  Then worry about pleasing your client to your own standards.


----------



## fwellers

Petraio Prime said:


> Where did I say 'all'? Why do you think I mean 'all'?



You continue to say "photographers want to be artists", photographers this, photographers that.

It's common when you don't wish to make a sweeping generalization to say things like "many photographers", "some photographers", "most photographers" etc.. When you just say "photographers" in the context you use the implication is that you are speaking of all of them.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Your problem is with a societal interpretation of what constitutes art.   The often heralded "It's good enough to be art."  People that don't  know any better say such things and that is what you are arguing  against.  No one here is making that argument.
> 
> It seems your narrow mindedness is affecting your ability to look at  anything objectively.  You see an photographer comparing their camera to  to a paint brush and immediately reach the conclusion that they really  want to be a painter and are trying to improve their self esteem by  telling themselves a lie.  It couldn't be that they are comparing for  the sake of example, to help explain to a non photographer how they go  about creating their art.  A painter is an easy reference because most  everyone at some point in their lives, even if it was during childhood  in art class, has painted.  Photographers often copy the "rules of  painting composition", not because they want to be painters, but because  their art is similar in display.  It's generally two dimensional, often  framed hung on a wall so most of these tips for composition apply to  both.  It has nothing to do with wanting to be a painter.  Your failure  to see any other explanation is again, just evidence of your lack of an  open mind.  Art is generally a celebration of the open mind and how on  earth someone with such a narrow view could think they are capable of  defining it is beyond me.



Well, what your saying _might _be true (though I doubt it very much), but my experience when talking to photographers directly, face to face, is that they go apoplectic when I say there is no such thing as 'fine-art photography' and that their photographs are not works of art. That experience has been repeated several times, and it seems to be true universally. Those who claim to be 'artists' do so because they think they would be inferior to artists if they did not *merit *that name.

The all-too-common understanding of the term 'art' is that it is a term of praise or merit, not a technical term such as 'carpenter', 'mason', or 'riveter'. But that's exactly what the word 'artist' is. An artist is one who makes 'art', by hand, and is a* job title*, just like a mason, carpenter, or riveter. Photography cannot be art, so photographers (as such) cannot be (properly called) 'artists'. *If a photographer wants to paint or sculpt, fine! Then *he becomes an artist!

The men who made Tut's coffin mask were artists because what they made was art.

The men who photographed it so marvelously here, are *not *(as such) artists:

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/...tian-museum/resized/king-tut-mask-wp-gfdl.jpg

*Why? Because what photographers make is not art!*


----------



## fwellers

bentcountershaft said:


> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about any status or thinking anyone is better than anyone.
> My goal is to become a photographer with an artistic flair. In other words I want to be good enough to be considered a photographer by other photographers and I want to use that medium to develop my artistic / creative side.
> 
> I believe many "photographers" feel the same way, and this would make your sweeping generalization about what [implied - all ] photographers *want* to be called
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is off point, but I think it's important to keep in mind.  You shouldn't worry about making photos that impress other photographers.  I made that mistake with music.  The more I learned, the more I wanted to impress other musicians.  You know what I ended up with?  Music only musicians like.  Don't worry about pleasing anyone but yourself.  Unless you are doing it for a client.  Then worry about pleasing your client to your own standards.
Click to expand...


Well that is a good point. I think though that I already realize that artistically or creatively I will please myself with my photography. But I would like to be respected by peers for the work as far as it's technical side.   If they don't agree with my choices but can see that they were choices I made out of my proficiency and ability, then that is good enough for me.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> The all-too-common understanding of the term 'art' is that it is a term of praise or merit, not a technical term such as 'carpenter', 'mason', or 'riveter'. But that's exactly what the word 'artist' is.



I'm with you 100% on this point.  I can certainly concede that there are some people would feel insulted if you said their photographs weren't aren't because of this reason.  Using, "that's a work of art" as praise is not doing anyone any favors and it perpetuates the misinformation.




Petraio Prime said:


> An artist is one who makes 'art', by hand, and is a* job title*, just like a mason, carpenter, or riveter. Photography cannot be art, so photographers (as such) cannot be (properly called) 'artists'. *If a photographer wants to paint or sculpt, fine! Then *he becomes an artist!
> 
> The men who made Tut's coffin mask were artists because what they made was art.
> 
> The men who photographed it so marvelously here, are *not *(as such) artists:
> 
> http://www.sacred-destinations.com/...tian-museum/resized/king-tut-mask-wp-gfdl.jpg



This, as you know, is where we disagree.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about any status or thinking anyone is better than anyone.
> My goal is to become a photographer with an artistic flair. In other words I want to be good enough to be considered a photographer by other photographers and I want to use that medium to develop my artistic / creative side.
> 
> I believe many "photographers" feel the same way, and this would make your sweeping generalization about what [implied - all ] photographers *want* to be called
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is off point, but I think it's important to keep in mind.  You shouldn't worry about making photos that impress other photographers.  I made that mistake with music.  The more I learned, the more I wanted to impress other musicians.  You know what I ended up with?  Music only musicians like.  Don't worry about pleasing anyone but yourself.  Unless you are doing it for a client.  Then worry about pleasing your client to your own standards.
Click to expand...


I agree wholeheartedly with this. Don't look at other photographers work too much. If you do, you will tend subconsciously to copy or imitate or try to out-do them.

If you do want to look at other photography, look at very old stuff that is not at all like what is contemporary.

Here is a nice example of very old-fashioned photography that I kind of like:

http://a69.g.akamai.net/n/69/10688/.../x/x/x/medias/nmedia/18/65/32/43/18847206.jpg


----------



## bentcountershaft

fwellers said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about any status or thinking anyone is better than anyone.
> My goal is to become a photographer with an artistic flair. In other words I want to be good enough to be considered a photographer by other photographers and I want to use that medium to develop my artistic / creative side.
> 
> I believe many "photographers" feel the same way, and this would make your sweeping generalization about what [implied - all ] photographers *want* to be called
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is off point, but I think it's important to keep in mind.  You shouldn't worry about making photos that impress other photographers.  I made that mistake with music.  The more I learned, the more I wanted to impress other musicians.  You know what I ended up with?  Music only musicians like.  Don't worry about pleasing anyone but yourself.  Unless you are doing it for a client.  Then worry about pleasing your client to your own standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that is a good point. I think though that I already realize that artistically or creatively I will please myself with my photography. But I would like to be respected by peers for the work as far as it's technical side.   If they don't agree with my choices but can see that they were choices I made out of my proficiency and ability, then that is good enough for me.
Click to expand...


I know what your saying, and like I said, it's just something to keep in mind.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> The all-too-common understanding of the term 'art' is that it is a term of praise or merit, not a technical term such as 'carpenter', 'mason', or 'riveter'. But that's exactly what the word 'artist' is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you 100% on this point.  I can certainly concede that there are some people would feel insulted if you said their photographs weren't aren't because of this reason.  Using, "that's a work of art" as praise is not doing anyone any favors and it perpetuates the misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> An artist is one who makes 'art', by hand, and is a* job title*, just like a mason, carpenter, or riveter. Photography cannot be art, so photographers (as such) cannot be (properly called) 'artists'. *If a photographer wants to paint or sculpt, fine! Then *he becomes an artist!
> 
> The men who made Tut's coffin mask were artists because what they made was art.
> 
> The men who photographed it so marvelously here, are *not *(as such) artists:
> 
> http://www.sacred-destinations.com/...tian-museum/resized/king-tut-mask-wp-gfdl.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, as you know, is where we disagree.
Click to expand...


Why? Do you want to expand the concept of riveter so that anyone can be a riveter? Do you think I am narrow-minded if I insist that riveters drive rivets into beams, masons lay bricks, and carpenters saw wood and nail pieces of wood together? 

What do you think if riveters suddenly started doing what they call 'fine-art riveting' and calling themselves 'artists'? Absurd, right? Well it's no more absurd than photographers doing it.

Why do you think that photography _needs _to be called art? What purpose does it serve? Language needs to be kept precise and useful.

Riveter:
http://www.benlampman.com/photogallery/Construction/riveter.jpg

Mason:
http://www.sposatomasonry.com/slides/1.jpg

Carpenter:
http://image.shutterstock.com/displ...-attach-asphalt-shingles-to-roof-15906955.jpg

Artist:
http://tightwadtechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/painter.jpg

Photographer:
http://www.travel-images.com/miguel-torres-photographer.jpg


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> Why? Do you want to expand the concept of riveter so that anyone can be a riveter? Do you think I am narrow-minded if I insist that riveters drive rivets into beams, masons lay bricks, and carpenters saw wood and nail pieces of wood together? Why do you think that photography _needs _to be called art? What purpose does it serve?



What purpose is served by trying to define art?  I'm not concerned if photography is looked up to or down upon by anyone  I'm anti-definition.  I see defining art as pointless as defining any subjective abstract.  Love, beauty or evil, abstract entities are beyond definition and I don't see the point in attempting to define them.  Perhaps to elevate the philosopher's self esteem so they can feel they have superior knowledge and understanding that others don't, I don't know.  In the end such attempts are nothing more than opinions based on generalizations.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Do you want to expand the concept of riveter so that anyone can be a riveter? Do you think I am narrow-minded if I insist that riveters drive rivets into beams, masons lay bricks, and carpenters saw wood and nail pieces of wood together? Why do you think that photography _needs _to be called art? What purpose does it serve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose is served by trying to define art?  I'm not concerned if photography is looked up to or down upon by anyone  I'm anti-definition.  I see defining art as pointless as defining any subjective abstract.  Love, beauty or evil, abstract entities are beyond definition and I don't see the point in attempting to define them.  Perhaps to elevate the philosopher's self esteem so they can feel they have superior knowledge and understanding that others don't, I don't know.  In the end such attempts are nothing more than opinions based on generalizations.
Click to expand...


What purpose is there in defining any term? It makes communication clearer and fosters mutual comprehensibility. Witness 'bokeh' lately. It has come to mean merely 'selective focus' whereas it really means the character of out-of-focus areas and is a property of a lens.

If _anything _can be 'art', what's so special about 'art' then?

'Fine art' is not something abstract at all. In the narrow sense, it's something made by hand and intended to be looked at. Ever hear of 'decorative art'?

Do you know the difference between glass as art and glass as functional?

http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/~sma/images/chihuly.jpg

This is *made by hand*, and *intended to be contemplated as something beautiful*.

http://www.glassblower.info/images/chihuly-seaforms.jpg

*Both parts* have to be present to be 'art'.

This is not art:

http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-glass-bottle.jpg

Why? 

It's made by machine and intended only for functional use. But even if it were hand-made it would not qualify as art.

For something to be 'art', it must satisfy the following conditions.

It must be:

*1) Made by hand*, and
*2) Intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

*We are talking of course about the plastic arts, not the performing arts.

A photograph fails to satisfy the *first *condition (it's made by a lens), the hand-made wine bottle fails to satisfy the *second *condition (it's not intended to be contemplated as something beautiful).

*Now *do you understand?


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> What purpose is there in defining any term? It makes communication clearer and fosters mutual comprehensibility. Witness 'bokeh' lately. It has come to mean merely 'selective focus' whereas it really means the character of out-of-focus areas and is a property of a lens.
> 
> If _anything _can be 'art', what's so special about 'art' then?
> 
> 'Fine art' is not something abstract at all. In the narrow sense, it's something made by hand and intended to be looked at. Ever hear of 'decorative art'?
> 
> Do you know the difference between glass as art and glass as functional?
> 
> http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/~sma/images/chihuly.jpg
> 
> This is *made by hand*, and *intended to be contemplated as something beautiful*.
> 
> http://www.glassblower.info/images/chihuly-seaforms.jpg
> 
> *Both parts* have to be present to be 'art'.
> 
> This is not art:
> 
> http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-glass-bottle.jpg
> 
> Why?
> 
> It's made by machine and intended only for functional use. But even if it were hand-made it would not qualify as art.



Other terms can be defined and debated all you want.  I believe philosophers use the term concrete for these?  I'm not 100% on my terminology here so I apologize if I'm wrong.  

And who said art was special?  Stating something is art doesn't make it special, I thought we agreed on that.  I thought we were past the "intended to be contemplated as something beautiful" thing too.  Even if there were defined rules for art, that wouldn't be one of them.  And since when is art not able to serve a function?


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose is there in defining any term? It makes communication clearer and fosters mutual comprehensibility. Witness 'bokeh' lately. It has come to mean merely 'selective focus' whereas it really means the character of out-of-focus areas and is a property of a lens.
> 
> If _anything _can be 'art', what's so special about 'art' then?
> 
> 'Fine art' is not something abstract at all. In the narrow sense, it's something made by hand and intended to be looked at. Ever hear of 'decorative art'?
> 
> Do you know the difference between glass as art and glass as functional?
> 
> http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/~sma/images/chihuly.jpg
> 
> This is *made by hand*, and *intended to be contemplated as something beautiful*.
> 
> http://www.glassblower.info/images/chihuly-seaforms.jpg
> 
> *Both parts* have to be present to be 'art'.
> 
> This is not art:
> 
> http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-glass-bottle.jpg
> 
> Why?
> 
> It's made by machine and intended only for functional use. But even if it were hand-made it would not qualify as art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other terms can be defined and debated all you want.  I believe philosophers use the term concrete for these?  I'm not 100% on my terminology here so I apologize if I'm wrong.
> 
> And who said art was special?  Stating something is art doesn't make it special, I thought we agreed on that.  I thought we were past the "intended to be contemplated as something beautiful" thing too.  Even if there were defined rules for art, that wouldn't be one of them.  And since when is art not able to serve a function?
Click to expand...


'Fine art' serves no function. That's its essence (to be contemplated). It's_ Zweckmäßigkeit ohne Zweck_, to use Kantian terminology. It's not really possible to translate that expression, but basically it means having the kind of form a useful object has but no true intended use.

Applied art or decorative art does or can serve a function. The term 'fine' here means 'pure', not 'elegant'.

Of course art (fine art) is special: it is intended to be contemplated. What I said was that if photographers are trying to elevate themselves by calling themselves 'artists' they're going about it the wrong way. _Artists _are nothing special. It's like masons calling themselves zookeepers to elevate their status.


----------



## Flash Harry

When its a dead sheep suspended in formaldehyde, no longer edable and not worth looking at unless your a bestial necrophiliac. H

PS are you two having an affair?


----------



## bentcountershaft

Fine art is a category, like rock music.  I'm not a fan of categories as they are generally vague, over simplified generalizations that lose meaning nearly as soon as they are adopted.  There's nothing special about any art.  It is the product of imagination.  Just because people like to study and contemplate it and not a rock or a table doesn't make it special or more important than them.


----------



## Warren Peace

Do you think the OP got his answer yet?


----------



## bentcountershaft

Flash Harry said:


> When its a dead sheep suspended in formaldehyde, no longer edable and not worth looking at unless your a bestial necrophiliac. H
> 
> PS are you two having an affair?



The so called "shock art" or what have you doesn't do anything for me either.  And that would be a no on the affair.  I'm off work with a back injury and I'm bored.  Facebook games can only take up so much time.  It's 102 outside with 99% humidity so I'm not going out there.  I might melt and people would argue over whether I was art or not.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Warren Peace said:


> Do you think the OP got his answer yet?



Actually that's one thing that P.P. has done very well.  He has stated numerous times that photographers needn't feel looked down upon.


----------



## Warren Peace

bentcountershaft said:


> The so called "shock art" or what have you doesn't do anything for me either. And that would be a no on the affair. I'm off work with a back injury and I'm bored. *Facebook games can only take up so much time*. It's 102 outside with 99% humidity so I'm not going out there. I might melt and people would argue over whether I was art or not.


  Have you tried Farmville?  It never ends. :meh:


----------



## bentcountershaft

Warren Peace said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so called "shock art" or what have you doesn't do anything for me either. And that would be a no on the affair. I'm off work with a back injury and I'm bored. *Facebook games can only take up so much time*. It's 102 outside with 99% humidity so I'm not going out there. I might melt and people would argue over whether I was art or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried Farmville?  It never ends. :meh:
Click to expand...


Bubble Island.  It's great because you don't have to annoy other people with requests.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Warren Peace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the OP got his answer yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's one thing that P.P. has done very well.  He has stated numerous times that photographers needn't feel looked down upon.
Click to expand...


At least not by artists....LOL


----------



## smokinphoto

The Shoe said:


> Problem is, art is subjective.
> 
> If everyone herds into a mindset that, for example, all landscape photographs must employ certain rules (thirds, horizontal etc...) then they can all feel good by huddling close to one another all coming to the same conclusions.  Such as that yes, indeed, this person's photograph is not good because it is not completely level, or there is an even amount of sky and earth showing.




*Problem is, art is subjective.*  He said it. You have to have a taste for good art as well as good photography shots that captures all the minor details from the painting in their shots.


----------



## Petraio Prime

smokinphoto said:


> The Shoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, art is subjective.
> 
> If everyone herds into a mindset that, for example, all landscape photographs must employ certain rules (thirds, horizontal etc...) then they can all feel good by huddling close to one another all coming to the same conclusions.  Such as that yes, indeed, this person's photograph is not good because it is not completely level, or there is an even amount of sky and earth showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Problem is, art is subjective.*  He said it. You have to have a taste for good art as well as good photography shots that captures all the minor details from the painting in their shots.
Click to expand...


Depends on what you mean. _Evaluating _art could be subjective, yes, but that's not what we are talking about.


----------



## usayit

Oh.. so "art" doesn't really have true meaning unless used within the context of PP...


----------



## Overread

I wonder how in all this art talk the Tate Modern fits in? 
A few dirty coffee mugs (they got washed and cleaned away!) Trashcans; cat litter trays; bluetack on wall; empty room  - are these art or do they live with photography ?


----------



## pgriz

Sounds like the discussion I heard about whether art should be capital A or small a.  :chatty::violin:


----------



## table1349

Derrel said:


> So,so,so many words have been traded. I thought I'd step back to mankind's earlier ages, and communicate my message about art using drawings, not words. I hope you like my effort. It is,as it clearly states, NOT ART, since it was made with a Macintosh, not by hand.



Very creative and VERY ARTISTIC!!  :thumbup:  :mrgreen:


----------



## table1349

usayit said:


> World English Dictionary
> art 1  (&#593;&#720;t)
> 
>  n
> 1.    a. the creation of works of beauty or other special significance
> b. ( as modifier ): an art movement
> 2.    the exercise of human skill (as distinguished from nature )
> 3.    imaginative skill as applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the imagination
> 4.    a. the products of man's creative activities; works of art collectively, esp of the visual arts, sometimes also music, drama, dance, and literature
> b. arts See also fine art ( as modifier ): an art gallery
> 5.    excellence or aesthetic merit of conception or execution as exemplified by such works
> 6.    any branch of the visual arts, esp painting
> 7.    ( modifier ) intended to be artistic or decorative: art needlework
> 8.    a. any field using the techniques of art to display artistic qualities: advertising art
> b. ( as modifier ): an art film
> 9.    journalism  photographs or other illustrations in a newspaper, etc
> 10.    method, facility, or knack: the art of threading a needle ; the art of writing letters
> 11.    the system of rules or principles governing a particular human activity: the art of government
> 12.    artfulness; cunning
> 13.    get something down to a fine art  to become highly proficient at something through practice
> 
> ----
> 
> see #9



Please quite using logic and accepted definitions in this discussion.  I just shoots the hell out of a hobby like philosophy.  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## usayit

pgriz said:


> Sounds like the discussion I heard about whether art should be capital A or small a.  :chatty::violin:



At this point, you might as well start a new thread.... I'm sure PP will be quick to respond.


----------



## table1349

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Do you want to expand the concept of riveter so that anyone can be a riveter? Do you think I am narrow-minded if I insist that riveters drive rivets into beams, masons lay bricks, and carpenters saw wood and nail pieces of wood together? Why do you think that photography _needs _to be called art? What purpose does it serve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose is served by trying to define art?  I'm not concerned if photography is looked up to or down upon by anyone  I'm anti-definition.  I see defining art as pointless as defining any subjective abstract.  Love, beauty or evil, abstract entities are beyond definition and I don't see the point in attempting to define them.  Perhaps to elevate the philosopher's self esteem so they can feel they have superior knowledge and understanding that others don't, I don't know.  In the end such attempts are nothing more than opinions based on generalizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What purpose is there in defining any term? It makes communication clearer and fosters mutual comprehensibility. Witness 'bokeh' lately. It has come to mean merely 'selective focus' whereas it really means the character of out-of-focus areas and is a property of a lens.
> 
> If _anything _can be 'art', what's so special about 'art' then?
> 
> 'Fine art' is not something abstract at all. In the narrow sense, it's something made by hand and intended to be looked at. Ever hear of 'decorative art'?
> 
> Do you know the difference between glass as art and glass as functional?
> 
> http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/~sma/images/chihuly.jpg
> 
> This is *made by hand*, and *intended to be contemplated as something beautiful*.
> 
> http://www.glassblower.info/images/chihuly-seaforms.jpg
> 
> *Both parts* have to be present to be 'art'.
> 
> This is not art:
> 
> http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-glass-bottle.jpg
> 
> Why?
> 
> It's made by machine and intended only for functional use. But even if it were hand-made it would not qualify as art.
> 
> For something to be 'art', it must satisfy the following conditions.
> 
> It must be:
> 
> *1) Made by hand*, and
> *2) Intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.
> 
> *We are talking of course about the plastic arts, not the performing arts.
> 
> A photograph fails to satisfy the *first *condition (it's made by a lens), the hand-made wine bottle fails to satisfy the *second *condition (it's not intended to be contemplated as something beautiful).
> 
> *Now *do you understand?
Click to expand...



I understand.  I understand that you feel the need to force your beliefs on others as truths.  With no shred of provable/repeatable evidence.  Something commonly referred to as an opinion.  

There are only two truths in our this world that we live in at this present time.  Pure Math and Death.  

All other things are just opinions.  And as we all know Opinions are like @$$HOLES, every one has one and...... well you know the rest.  












Guess I will go now and endeavor to persevere at my chosen artistic venue.


----------



## mishele

*ART!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Overread

^^ mishele has a very good point there!


----------



## mishele

lol Just trying to add what I can.............you guys are just crazy...lol
Art is in the eye of the beholder so it's ok if PP doesn't believe my image is art. I do and that's what counts. Reasoning or trying to change someones opinion on art is just silly. The feeling art brings from you comes from inside and can't be reasoned w/.....=)  

Do I sound like some one that just smoked a lot of pot?!!  lol


----------



## Petraio Prime

mishele said:


> *ART!!!!!!!!!!*



Nope. Photograph, made by a machine.

All caps bold and red doesn't mean anything either.


----------



## Petraio Prime

gryphonslair99 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose is served by trying to define art?  I'm not concerned if photography is looked up to or down upon by anyone  I'm anti-definition.  I see defining art as pointless as defining any subjective abstract.  Love, beauty or evil, abstract entities are beyond definition and I don't see the point in attempting to define them.  Perhaps to elevate the philosopher's self esteem so they can feel they have superior knowledge and understanding that others don't, I don't know.  In the end such attempts are nothing more than opinions based on generalizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose is there in defining any term? It makes communication clearer and fosters mutual comprehensibility. Witness 'bokeh' lately. It has come to mean merely 'selective focus' whereas it really means the character of out-of-focus areas and is a property of a lens.
> 
> If _anything _can be 'art', what's so special about 'art' then?
> 
> 'Fine art' is not something abstract at all. In the narrow sense, it's something made by hand and intended to be looked at. Ever hear of 'decorative art'?
> 
> Do you know the difference between glass as art and glass as functional?
> 
> http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/~sma/images/chihuly.jpg
> 
> This is *made by hand*, and *intended to be contemplated as something beautiful*.
> 
> http://www.glassblower.info/images/chihuly-seaforms.jpg
> 
> *Both parts* have to be present to be 'art'.
> 
> This is not art:
> 
> http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-glass-bottle.jpg
> 
> Why?
> 
> It's made by machine and intended only for functional use. But even if it were hand-made it would not qualify as art.
> 
> For something to be 'art', it must satisfy the following conditions.
> 
> It must be:
> 
> *1) Made by hand*, and
> *2) Intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.
> 
> *We are talking of course about the plastic arts, not the performing arts.
> 
> A photograph fails to satisfy the *first *condition (it's made by a lens), the hand-made wine bottle fails to satisfy the *second *condition (it's not intended to be contemplated as something beautiful).
> 
> *Now *do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  I understand that you feel the need to force your beliefs on others as truths.  With no shred of provable/repeatable evidence.  Something commonly referred to as an opinion.
> 
> There are only two truths in our this world that we live in at this present time.  Pure Math and Death.
> 
> All other things are just opinions.  And as we all know Opinions are like @$$HOLES, every one has one and...... well you know the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I will go now and endeavor to persevere at my chosen artistic venue.
Click to expand...


I'm not trying to force beliefs onto anyone. I'm trying to clarify the meanings of some terms that have been abused.


----------



## AdrianC

Lol, this thread is still going. Haven't you guys ever heard of internet trolls?


----------



## abraxas

*2) Intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.*

and the definition of "_beautiful_" is?

Wouldn't 
*2) Intended to be contemplated.*

Be more appropriate?
-


----------



## invisible

Photographs can be found in art galleries and art museums. I suppose that makes them qualify as art.


----------



## pgriz

Art is... to be contemplated, by its creator, or by others. It has no functional utility. Good art is a key that opens doors in our minds, allowing new perspectives, arousing emotion, opening our eyes to things that we did not perceive. Bad art leaves us indifferent or dismissive.

Art is moreover, a creation of sentience, and as such cares not about the tools of its genesis. Good art will continue to be created by whatever tools are available, be they chisel, brush, camera, computer, instrument, or hand. So discussions about whether art is art because it is created by some means and not other, are specious.

Art does not even have to have a corporeal existence to be art. Dancers, choreographers, performers, actors, singers, musicians, all create art without leaving a material object behind. Yet if a song, a dance, a performance moves you to tears, then you have experienced the art. 

Because art is the interplay between the creator and the perceiver, it is always individual. You can describe its effect on you, but you will never be able to fully convey its impact on you to others, as their reaction may be different from yours. Good art for some people, is bad art for others. Neither opinion is wrong.

Good art is a perception-modifyer. And if you don't agree, that's fine with me. Except... greenpbl says the little kid in me.


----------



## table1349

Petraio Prime said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose is there in defining any term? It makes communication clearer and fosters mutual comprehensibility. Witness 'bokeh' lately. It has come to mean merely 'selective focus' whereas it really means the character of out-of-focus areas and is a property of a lens.
> 
> If _anything _can be 'art', what's so special about 'art' then?
> 
> 'Fine art' is not something abstract at all. In the narrow sense, it's something made by hand and intended to be looked at. Ever hear of 'decorative art'?
> 
> Do you know the difference between glass as art and glass as functional?
> 
> http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/~sma/images/chihuly.jpg
> 
> This is *made by hand*, and *intended to be contemplated as something beautiful*.
> 
> http://www.glassblower.info/images/chihuly-seaforms.jpg
> 
> *Both parts* have to be present to be 'art'.
> 
> This is not art:
> 
> http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-glass-bottle.jpg
> 
> Why?
> 
> It's made by machine and intended only for functional use. But even if it were hand-made it would not qualify as art.
> 
> For something to be 'art', it must satisfy the following conditions.
> 
> It must be:
> 
> *1) Made by hand*, and
> *2) Intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.
> 
> *We are talking of course about the plastic arts, not the performing arts.
> 
> A photograph fails to satisfy the *first *condition (it's made by a lens), the hand-made wine bottle fails to satisfy the *second *condition (it's not intended to be contemplated as something beautiful).
> 
> *Now *do you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  I understand that you feel the need to force your beliefs on others as truths.  With no shred of provable/repeatable evidence.  Something commonly referred to as an opinion.
> 
> There are only two truths in our this world that we live in at this present time.  Pure Math and Death.
> 
> All other things are just opinions.  And as we all know Opinions are like @$$HOLES, every one has one and...... well you know the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I will go now and endeavor to persevere at my chosen artistic venue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to force beliefs onto anyone. I'm trying to clarify the meanings of some terms that have been abused.
Click to expand...


Meanings as you interpret them.  Abused as you interpret them.  Thus they are YOUR opinions.


----------



## Flash Harry

mishele said:


> *ART!!!!!!!!!!*



Intentional, I think not, wrong aperture at little distance equals mistake, not art. H


----------



## invisible

Flash Harry said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ART!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intentional, I think not, wrong aperture at little distance equals mistake, not art. H
Click to expand...


Intentional. Flickr: Mishele21's Photostream


----------



## white

"wrong aperture" 

:lmao:


----------



## usayit

I like it.


----------



## abraxas

I'd like to hear PPs answer.  ---

*2) Intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.*

and the definition of "_beautiful_" is?

Wouldn't 
*2) Intended to be contemplated.*

Be more appropriate?
-


----------



## Derrel

gryphonslair99 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So,so,so many words have been traded. I thought I'd step back to mankind's earlier ages, and communicate my message about art using drawings, not words. I hope you like my effort. It is,as it clearly states, NOT ART, since it was made with a Macintosh, not by hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very creative and VERY ARTISTIC!!  :thumbup:  :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Thanks g! I appreciate the mention and the compliments. I really felt that I could express my deepest feelings only by using clip art. I am hoping it catches on,and starts a new artistic movement, you know, like pointalism, or impressionism, or neo-realism. My comment "this is NOT ART" is my winky-winky homage to Renee Magritte. (Untitled Document)


----------



## mishele

Flash Harry said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ART!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intentional, I think not, wrong aperture at little distance equals mistake, not art. H
Click to expand...

LOL.........BAhhhahhhaaaaa!!!

The funny thing here is......I don't give a **** what any one else thinks...lol It's ART.......Oh and it's _*ART!!!!!!!!!!*_  (and yes the red bold print makes it so...lol) :thumbup::lmao::hug::


----------



## OrionsByte

There's a picture of this thread next to the word "semantics" in the dictionary.  True story.

Defining something does not give it meaning.  The meaning of something does not give it a definition.  Definition and meaning are obviously related, but you can't get to one from the other.

You could _define_ "home" simply as a residence, but that doesn't say anything about what a particular "home" might _mean_ to the person that lives there.  "This is my home," and "I am at home," are completely different statements, even though they may refer to the same place.

Photographs, paintings, architecture, music - you can define them in terms of the implements used and the techniques involved, but you cannot define or quantify what they mean to the people that create or observe them.  A discussion about whether or not photography is art has nothing to do with definition and everything to do with meaning, and meaning is personal and subjective.

You can try to draw lines in the sand all you want, but no amount of philosophy is going to convince me that whether or not something is called "art" should change how I feel about it, nor that anyone has a right to tell me that something that moves me cannot be considered "art" to me.


----------



## Petraio Prime

OrionsByte said:


> There's a picture of this thread next to the word "semantics" in the dictionary.  True story.
> 
> Defining something does not give it meaning.  The meaning of something does not give it a definition.  Definition and meaning are obviously related, but you can't get to one from the other.
> 
> You could _define_ "home" simply as a residence, but that doesn't say anything about what a particular "home" might _mean_ to the person that lives there.  "This is my home," and "I am at home," are completely different statements, even though they may refer to the same place.
> 
> Photographs, paintings, architecture, music - you can define them in terms of the implements used and the techniques involved, but you cannot define or quantify what they mean to the people that create or observe them.  A discussion about whether or not photography is art has nothing to do with definition and everything to do with meaning, and meaning is personal and subjective.
> 
> You can try to draw lines in the sand all you want, but no amount of philosophy is going to convince me that whether or not something is called "art" should change how I feel about it, nor that anyone has a right to tell me that something that moves me cannot be considered "art" to me.



If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved. Want to discuss golf? Then you better learn what chipping, putting, driving, slice, and hook mean.

Those terms are _not_ relative. Why should 'art' be any different? 

We are talking about the_ psychological need_ for photographers to call themselves 'artists', to abuse, subvert, and distort the perfectly clear meaning of 'art'.

I reject your statement out of hand.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved. Want to discuss golf? Then you better learn what chipping, putting, driving, slice, and hook mean.
> 
> Those terms are _not_ relative. Why should 'art' be any different?
> 
> I reject your statement out of hand.



"talk" Intelligently?  
"meaning of" chipping, putting, driving , slice????
Terms ~not~ relative, Why should "art" be any different?

All coming from the only person who rejected the dictionary meaning of the word "art"?  

You can't state that art is not "relative" and yet reject its dictionary meaning.

You ability to have intelligent debate is laughable.


----------



## abraxas

*If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved. *

Hey PP,

Out of all the 'words' you've been typing, it seems you -forgot- the word, '_artisan_.'

-


----------



## OrionsByte

Petraio Prime said:


> OrionsByte said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a picture of this thread next to the word "semantics" in the dictionary.  True story.
> 
> Defining something does not give it meaning.  The meaning of something does not give it a definition.  Definition and meaning are obviously related, but you can't get to one from the other.
> 
> You could _define_ "home" simply as a residence, but that doesn't say anything about what a particular "home" might _mean_ to the person that lives there.  "This is my home," and "I am at home," are completely different statements, even though they may refer to the same place.
> 
> Photographs, paintings, architecture, music - you can define them in terms of the implements used and the techniques involved, but you cannot define or quantify what they mean to the people that create or observe them.  A discussion about whether or not photography is art has nothing to do with definition and everything to do with meaning, and meaning is personal and subjective.
> 
> You can try to draw lines in the sand all you want, but no amount of philosophy is going to convince me that whether or not something is called "art" should change how I feel about it, nor that anyone has a right to tell me that something that moves me cannot be considered "art" to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved. Want to discuss golf? Then you better learn what chipping, putting, driving, slice, and hook mean.
> 
> Those terms are _not_ relative. Why should 'art' be any different?
Click to expand...


Chipping, putting, driving, slice and hook are not relative.  "Nice shot" is relative.

F-stop, aperture, emulsion, exposure and light are not relative.  "Nice shot" is relative.



Petraio Prime said:


> I reject your statement out of hand.



That's probably what I should have done with your statements as well.  Ah well, live and learn.


----------



## Petraio Prime

abraxas said:


> *If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved. *
> 
> Hey PP,
> 
> Out of all the 'words' you've been typing, it seems you -forgot- the word, '_artisan_.'
> 
> -



No, I haven't


----------



## Petraio Prime

OrionsByte said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OrionsByte said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a picture of this thread next to the word "semantics" in the dictionary.  True story.
> 
> Defining something does not give it meaning.  The meaning of something does not give it a definition.  Definition and meaning are obviously related, but you can't get to one from the other.
> 
> You could _define_ "home" simply as a residence, but that doesn't say anything about what a particular "home" might _mean_ to the person that lives there.  "This is my home," and "I am at home," are completely different statements, even though they may refer to the same place.
> 
> Photographs, paintings, architecture, music - you can define them in terms of the implements used and the techniques involved, but you cannot define or quantify what they mean to the people that create or observe them.  A discussion about whether or not photography is art has nothing to do with definition and everything to do with meaning, and meaning is personal and subjective.
> 
> You can try to draw lines in the sand all you want, but no amount of philosophy is going to convince me that whether or not something is called "art" should change how I feel about it, nor that anyone has a right to tell me that something that moves me cannot be considered "art" to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved. Want to discuss golf? Then you better learn what chipping, putting, driving, slice, and hook mean.
> 
> Those terms are _not_ relative. Why should 'art' be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chipping, putting, driving, slice and hook are not relative.  "Nice shot" is relative.
> 
> F-stop, aperture, emulsion, exposure and light are not relative.  "Nice shot" is relative.
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your statement out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably what I should have done with your statements as well.  Ah well, live and learn.
Click to expand...


Photographs *cannot* be works of art because of what the word 'art' means.


----------



## OrionsByte

Petraio Prime said:


> Photographs *cannot* be works of art _to me_ because of what the word 'art' means _to me_



Fixed that for ya.


----------



## Petraio Prime

OrionsByte said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photographs *cannot* be works of art _to me_ because of what the word 'art' means _to me_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed that for ya.
Click to expand...


Sorry, language doesn't work that way. It is possible for people to use words incorrectly and need correcting about it.

No, 'art' has a meaning that is well established, and photographs don't fit in the meaning of the word 'art'.

You can't make something art by just using the word 'art'.


----------



## Derrel

Ohhhhhhmmmmmm........ohhhhhhhmmmmmmm......ohhhhhmmmmmmm.....we're not worthy......we're not worthy......we're not worthy.......ohhhhhhhmmmmmmm......ohhhhhmmmmmmm.....we're not worthy......we're not worthy......we're not worthy.......philosophy is God......philosophy is God......philosophy is God......philosophy is God......philosophy is God......ohhhhhmmmm......ohhhhhhmmmmmm........ohhhhmmmmm....we concede your point P-P......we concede your point P-P......we concede your point P-P......we concede your point P-P......we concede your point P-P......we concede your point P-P......ohhhhhmmmmm....ohhhhhhmmmmmm......philosphy is God....philosophy is God....

A bit exaggerated perhaps P-P, but seriously, this is not even a discussion...this is a ridiculous exercise in intellectual masturbation for you. People need to stop enabling you.


----------



## Mike_E

Someone who goads others into a conversation which they know better than to get into due to it's juvenile subject matter is called a baiter.

Someone who is a master of the exercise is called.. you get the rest.


----------



## pgriz

Petraio Prime said:


> Sorry, language doesn't work that way. It is possible for people to use words incorrectly and need correcting about it.
> 
> No, 'art' has a meaning that is well established, and photographs don't fit in the meaning of the word 'art'.


 
So Petraio, why is it important for you to continue this discussion, as it appears that you're not convincing anyone?

The original poster made this comment:
"Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things..."

If you don't believe that photographs can be art, then you don't really have a dog in this race, do you?  For the rest of us (at least those who believe photographs can be art), the question was essentially, whether a photograph had to be technically correct before it could be considered to be art.  And the answer was essentially, that yes, it was not necessary for the photograph to be technically perfect to convey its artistic message. 

This is no different than comparing a technically perfectly played piano sonata, or one that is played with feeling and emphasis, even with mistakes; or a dance that is not "perfect", but conveys the energy and passion and raw emotion.


----------



## Petraio Prime

pgriz said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, language doesn't work that way. It is possible for people to use words incorrectly and need correcting about it.
> 
> No, 'art' has a meaning that is well established, and photographs don't fit in the meaning of the word 'art'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Petraio, why is it important for you to continue this discussion, as it appears that you're not convincing anyone?
> 
> The original poster made this comment:
> "Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things..."
> 
> If you don't believe that photographs can be art, then you don't really have a dog in this race, do you?  For the rest of us (at least those who believe photographs can be art), the question was essentially, whether a photograph had to be technically correct before it could be considered to be art.  And the answer was essentially, that yes, it was not necessary for the photograph to be technically perfect to convey its artistic message.
> 
> This is no different than comparing a technically perfectly played piano sonata, or one that is played with feeling and emphasis, even with mistakes; or a dance that is not "perfect", but conveys the energy and passion and raw emotion.
Click to expand...


Well, there's more to it than that.

1) 'Art' has a long history:

You might start here:

Egypt: An Introduction to Egyptian Art

This will help you understand what 'art' is.

It has almost nothing to do with 'self-expression'.

2) No amount of manipulation will make a really weak photograph into something good. It has to be good to start with, and that also involves technical competence. No, a photograph doesn't have to be 'perfect' but a certain degree of competence is required to be taken seriously.

Whether I am convincing anyone is irrelevant to me.


----------



## pgriz

Well, thank you.  I didn't realize I was deficient in my understanding of what "art" is.  I'm married to an artist (watercolours, conté, charcoal, etc.), and in my immediate family is a writer, a poet, a singer, a musician, a folk-craft maker, and a craftsman specializing in metal.  In my slightly wider circle of family and friends we have more musicians, photographers, potters (ceramics), and woodworkers. 

As for your reference, it points out that art has fulfilled many functions over the span of history, including being an instrument of state propaganda, a method of enforcing conformity, a way of showing status, a form of rebellion and a form of self-expression.  Prior to the invention of the printing press, "art" was an important method of disseminating information (along with songs and storytelling).  
There is a correlation between the wealth of a society, and the degree that "art" is practiced by the population.  Art, like any other human endeavor, evolves with the times and occupies new ground as it becomes available.  It happens that "self-expression" (that you claim has little to do with art) IS one of the main drivers of the current understanding of what art is.

As for your last point (#2), is anyone seriously arguing this point in this thread?


----------



## Petraio Prime

pgriz said:


> Well, thank you.  I didn't realize I was deficient in my understanding of what "art" is.  I'm married to an artist (watercolours, conté, charcoal, etc.), and in my immediate family is a writer, a poet, a singer, a musician, a folk-craft maker, and a craftsman specializing in metal.  In my slightly wider circle of family and friends we have more musicians, photographers, potters (ceramics), and woodworkers.
> 
> As for your reference, it points out that art has fulfilled many functions over the span of history, including being an instrument of state propaganda, a method of enforcing conformity, a way of showing status, a form of rebellion and a form of self-expression.  Prior to the invention of the printing press, "art" was an important method of disseminating information (along with songs and storytelling).
> There is a correlation between the wealth of a society, and the degree that "art" is practiced by the population.  Art, like any other human endeavor, evolves with the times and occupies new ground as it becomes available.  It happens that "self-expression" (that you claim has little to do with art) IS one of the main drivers of the current understanding of what art is.
> 
> As for your last point (#2), is anyone seriously arguing this point in this thread?



Yes, apparently. Are you an art historian? What has the fact that you are married to an artist have to do with anything?

And *all* art throughout history has been "made by hand"; that is the common element, and that is why photographs *cannot* be called 'art'.


----------



## white

Well I think the "made by hand" argument is silly because all steps of the photographic process are by hand with conscious intent, and even something as simple as dodging and burning in the traditional darkroom (which is not so simple, really) is all about shaping light and changing the tonal quality of the print deliberately. And that is really no different than an artist using a pencil or brush to build up tones in their work.

So if being a photographer means not being an artist, I'm inclined to argue that being a printmaker sure as hell does. But I don't agree with the original premise, so whatevah. :meh:


----------



## Petraio Prime

white said:


> Well I think the "made by hand" argument is silly because all steps of the photographic process are by hand with conscious intent, and even something as simple as dodging and burning in the traditional darkroom (which is not so simple, really) is all about shaping light and changing the tonal quality of the print deliberately. And that is really no different than an artist using a pencil or brush to build up tones in their work.
> :meh:



Yes it is. It could hardly be more different.

Whether you feel it's 'silly' or not is utterly irrelevant. It's what the word means.

I think 'water' is a silly word for H2O. So what? That's the word!


----------



## white

Nah. See what you don't get is light can be treated like an artistic medium the same as paint or graphite.


----------



## Petraio Prime

white said:


> Nah. See what you don't get is light can be treated like an artistic medium the same as paint or graphite.



But you can't hold it and shape it with your hands. That's why photography is not and cannot be art.


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> white said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. See what you don't get is light can be treated like an artistic medium the same as paint or graphite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can't hold it and shape it with your hands. That's why photography is not and cannot be art.
Click to expand...


Can't do that with music either and yet that is considered an art form  Heck the singing doesn't involve the opposable thumbs at any stage 

And yes light can be held and shaped with our hands - using a tool - like one would use a paintbrush to control paint or a pencil to control graphite


----------



## table1349

Petraio Prime said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, thank you.  I didn't realize I was deficient in my understanding of what "art" is.  I'm married to an artist (watercolours, conté, charcoal, etc.), and in my immediate family is a writer, a poet, a singer, a musician, a folk-craft maker, and a craftsman specializing in metal.  In my slightly wider circle of family and friends we have more musicians, photographers, potters (ceramics), and woodworkers.
> 
> As for your reference, it points out that art has fulfilled many functions over the span of history, including being an instrument of state propaganda, a method of enforcing conformity, a way of showing status, a form of rebellion and a form of self-expression.  Prior to the invention of the printing press, "art" was an important method of disseminating information (along with songs and storytelling).
> There is a correlation between the wealth of a society, and the degree that "art" is practiced by the population.  Art, like any other human endeavor, evolves with the times and occupies new ground as it becomes available.  It happens that "self-expression" (that you claim has little to do with art) IS one of the main drivers of the current understanding of what art is.
> 
> As for your last point (#2), is anyone seriously arguing this point in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, apparently. Are you an art historian? What has the fact that you are married to an artist have to do with anything?
> 
> And *all* art throughout history has been "made by hand"; that is the common element, and that is why photographs *cannot* be called 'art'.
Click to expand...



*Sieg Heil Mein Philosophical Fuher!*

As you reject the though of a photograph as being art, I reject you as being a rational intelligent member of the human species.  You are the irrelevant element in this entire thread. 

Of course, that is just my OPINION!!!  Oh wait, that's what the definition of ART is .... merely individual opinion.


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> And *all* art throughout history has been "made by hand"; that is the common element, and that is why photographs *cannot* be called 'art'.



So long as we exclude any art made by feet *yes some people draw with their feet or make other artistic impressions*, mouth *yep singing as well as other things, I'm sure there are some who have drawn with their mouth and lips holding the brush and not hands* then maybe we might be able to uphold your view that art can only be made my hands and hands alone.

However if I use a brush to paint a picture have I done the painting or has the brush been the painter - it has after all been controlling and placing the paint upon the canvus *my selection of which paint, where and when to place being as irrelevant as my selection of aperture, shutter speed and ISO of course)


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> Photographs *cannot* be works of art because of what the word 'art' means.



References to what "art" "means"?

If none.. then I reject this and any prior.


----------



## pgriz

Petraio Prime said:


> Yes, apparently. Are you an art historian? What has the fact that you are married to an artist have to do with anything?
> 
> And *all* art throughout history has been "made by hand"; that is the common element, and that is why photographs *cannot* be called 'art'.


 
To your first question, No, but one of my daughters is.  To your second question, when you see it being created on a daily basis, you get a certain sense of what's involved, not to mention participating in discussions with other family members in terms of their art. 

Your last sentence is an opinion, and is certainly not shared by either the members on this forum (unless they are the silent majority), or by the wider community which has a somewhat less restrictive view of the term than you do.  You are, of course, perfectly entitled to hold whatever opinion you choose, but if you are being an advocate trying to get others to come to your viewpoint, you are apparently not succeeding.  That too is fine, history records many promotors of "new/old/radical/conservative" ideas who shouted in the wilderness...  Unfortunately, this somewhat pointless hijack of the OP thread colors my perception of you (not that you care, of course), and your contribution to other threads, however noteworthy, may cause a reflective "here we go again..." reaction.

'nuff said.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> And *all* art throughout history has been "made by hand"; that is the common element, and that is why photographs *cannot* be called 'art'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So long as we exclude any art made by feet *yes some people draw with their feet or make other artistic impressions*, mouth *yep singing as well as other things, I'm sure there are some who have drawn with their mouth and lips holding the brush and not hands* then maybe we might be able to uphold your view that art can only be made my hands and hands alone.
> 
> However if I use a brush to paint a picture have I done the painting or has the brush been the painter - it has after all been controlling and placing the paint upon the canvus *my selection of which paint, where and when to place being as irrelevant as my selection of aperture, shutter speed and ISO of course)
Click to expand...


When I speak of 'hands' you know what I mean. A lens, though, is something entirely different.

The basic meaning of 'art' is human interference 

Consider Shakespeare's usages, for example in _Hamlet_:

"More matter, with less art."

"Madam, I swear I use no art at all.&#8221;

"But farewell it, for I will use no art.&#8221;

&#8220;O dear Ophelia, I am ill at these numbers; I have not art to reckon my groans; but that I love thee best, O most best, believe it.&#8221;

Basically, it means cunning or ingenuity for the purpose of creating some false notion or impression.​


----------



## maris

Whether photography is art may not ultimately be elucidated in The PhotoForum but it has been decided in a court of law; and a very long time ago too.

1861 in France saw photographers Mayer and Pierson bring a copyright action against the photographic duo of Betbeder and Schwabbe. The ruckus was over pirated pictures of Lord Palmerston. Mayer and Pierson claimed copyright protection under the French copyright laws of 1793 and 1810. The catch was that those laws protected only works of art so the courts decision hinged on whether photography was art.

Mayer and Pierson lost! Photography apparently was not art according to the judgement of 9 January 1862.

Mayer and Pierson appealed the decision on 10 April 1862. Their lawyer, a Monsieur M.Marie, gave an eloquent defence of the art of photography using many of the ideas now raised in this very thread. The court reversed its previous decision and declared on 4 July 1862 that photography was art.

The battle was not over. Later in 1862 a group of famous painters including Ingres petitioned against the decision. The arguments they used bear a striking resemblance to the anti-art-photography sentiments expressed in this thread.

Finally on 28 November 1862 the French court threw out the painters' petition and photography has enjoyed secure status as art ever since; at least in France it has.


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> When I speak of 'hands' you know what I mean. A lens, though, is something entirely different.
> 
> The basic meaning of 'art' is human interference



And framing, composition, selection of the subject (in the case of studio work even creation of the whole subject and background!) selection of settings to capture the light as well as processing of the final resulting data from the recording medium don't count as human interference?  
Heck we can use flash and other light modifications to interfere as well!!

As for lenses being different - how so? All it does is reflect light - if light reflection is bad then what about self portraits being drawn from a reflection in a mirror


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I speak of 'hands' you know what I mean. A lens, though, is something entirely different.
> 
> The basic meaning of 'art' is human interference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And framing, composition, selection of the subject (in the case of studio work even creation of the whole subject and background!) selection of settings to capture the light as well as processing of the final resulting data from the recording medium don't count as human interference?
> Heck we can use flash and other light modifications to interfere as well!!
> 
> As for lenses being different - how so? All it does is reflect light - if light reflection is bad then what about self portraits being drawn from a reflection in a mirror
Click to expand...


'Art' is not dependent causally upon the 'subject' but has an independent existence. 

A portrait artist could set up his easel in front of the queen of England and paint......a dog.

http://www.shela-nye.com/shu/photos/King%20Charles.jpg

There is no causal link  between the portrait ad the 'subject'. A painting can be of something that has never even existed. A photograph can be only of what is in front of the lens, now. It is an optical image. A painting is not an image at all but a representation.


----------



## abraxas

*"It is an optical image. A painting is not an image at all but a representation."*

OT - So, can an optical image can be made into a representation?

-


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> 'Art' is not dependent causally upon the 'subject' but has an independent existence.
> 
> A portrait artist could set up his easel in front of the queen of England and paint......a dog.



But in order to draw the dog the artist must first have seen a dog or a likeness of a dog. All art as a casual relation to the subject, the only difference being that an artist can combine independent subjects together to form something that is otherwise considered unique, but in fact simply combines subjects in a different manner.
You could argue that the photographer has to obey the fact that the subject is there in front of them at that moment in time whilst an artist is not so constrained but then it becomes a time factor - and art can indeed be done at that instant in time. 

The only way art can be as you describe is if you take an artist who has never had any input - visual, audio etc.. into their life and get them to create art.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Art' is not dependent causally upon the 'subject' but has an independent existence.
> 
> A portrait artist could set up his easel in front of the queen of England and paint......a dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in order to draw the dog the artist must first have seen a dog or a likeness of a dog. All art has a causal relation to the subject, the only difference being that an artist can combine independent subjects together to form something that is otherwise considered unique, but in fact simply combines subjects in a different manner.
> You could argue that the photographer has to obey the fact that the subject is there in front of them at that moment in time whilst an artist is not so constrained but then it becomes a time factor - and art can indeed be done at that instant in time.
> 
> The only way art can be as you describe is if you take an artist who has never had any input - visual, audio etc.. into their life and get them to create art.
Click to expand...


An artist could imagine and paint anything at all, including representations of impossible objects:

http://ccs-pk.chace-school.net/files-2008/escher-waterfall.jpg

http://www.flirtingwithdisaster.net/images/site_graphics/Impossible-Terrace.jpg

Alien life forms:

http://www.dicksatisfaction.com/alien_wire.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_56uq77msz_g/SfbYVk2cPvI/AAAAAAAAATQ/i9iEXR9yWRo/s400/mars2-16-09.jpg

Figures from the past whose actual appearance is unknown:

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/jesus.jpg

You really need to read Scruton's essay, _Why Photography is not Art_.

A photograph is limited to what exists at the moment of exposure and is before the lens.


----------



## Overread

Those are all just composite creations based on former subjects that the photographer has seen - there is a casual link between those former components and the final work that the artist draws. Sometimes this is called reference material other times its stuff that the artist sees and simply recalls or combines on the fly.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Those are all just composite creations based on former subjects that the photographer has seen - there is a casual link between those former components and the final work that the artist draws. Sometimes this is called reference material other times its stuff that the artist sees and simply recalls or combines on the fly.



Though it is true our fancies are based in part on experience, it does not follow that a painting has a causal connection to anything else in the outside world. A photograph has a direct and immediate causal connection to something that exists: Photons.

'Causal', not 'casual'.


----------



## Overread

But that means that if a painter sits down and paints a portrait of the person in front of them then its not art?

Your whole argument seems to be that photography must be real whilst art does not have to be real and yet art can contain real parts - thus surely photography can be art to as it fits this last section.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> But that means that if a painter sits down and paints a portrait of the person in front of them then its not art?
> 
> Your whole argument seems to be that photography must be real whilst art does not have to be real and yet art can contain real parts - thus surely photography can be art to as it fits this last section.



The relationship between the 'subject' in the painting and anything else (my fancy or something that exists in reality) is _intentional _and *not *_causal_. 

The relationship between the 'subject' in the photograph and anything else (which must, by the nature of photography, exist in reality) is _causal_ and accidentally, incidentally _intentional._The camera can make a photograph whether I am there or not, whether I have any intention of photographing the 'subject' or not. Someone else can trip the shutter, or it can be automated. A painting of the queen cannot be an accident.


----------



## Overread

You are saying that all photography is accidental and that the placement of the camera; focusing; framing; composition and content (remember those studio lot who make their own subjects) lighting and all the rest are all just their by accident? And that the photography just appears - presses the button - the photo is taken and thus it is not art?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> You are saying that all photography is accidental and that the placement of the camera; focusing; framing; composition and content (remember those studio lot who make their own subjects) lighting and all the rest are all just their by accident? And that the photography just appears - presses the button - the photo is taken and thus it is not art?



When I say 'accidental' I mean that in the philosophical sense*, and I am referring to the _intention_. It means that the 'intentional' relationship between the creator of the photograph and the subject is not essential; the causal laws creating the photograph operate independently of the photographer.  A photograph can be intentional or not. The relationship between the subject and the painter in a painting is essentially, and in all respects, intentional. Without the intention, no painting. Thus, the intention is _essential _to the painting, but _accidental _(or _incidental_, if you prefer) to the photograph.

_*"Accidental: 1 : arising from or produced by extrinsic, secondary, or additional causes or forces : not innate, intrinsic, or of the real nature of : NONESSENTIAL *some of the colors were mineral, in the rock itself: but others were accidental due to water from the melting snow T.E.Lawrence* *whether this paralogistic procedure is essential or accidental to his doctrine T.H.Green*

_In a photograph, the 'subject' is what's in front of the lens; in a painting or other work of art, it is in the work itself.


----------



## Warren Peace

Maybe Im a retard...but. 
  If a musician uses his instrument to create his art, and a woodworker uses his tools to create his art, or a painter uses his brushes to create his art,  or a cartoonist uses his pencils to create his art, why is it so wrong for a photographer to use his camera to create his art.  
  sorry...Im dumb as a post and no where near the photographic geniouses you all are here, but it just crossed my mind while having my lunch.


----------



## Aayria

Petraio Prime said:


> In a photograph, the 'subject' is what's in front of the lens; in a painting or other work of art, it is in the work itself.



  So do you believe portrait paintings fall outside of the "art" category? :scratch:


----------



## Petraio Prime

Aayria said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a photograph, the 'subject' is what's in front of the lens; in a painting or other work of art, it is in the work itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you believe portrait paintings fall outside of the "art" category? :scratch:
Click to expand...


Not at all. They are perfect examples of art. The vast majority of paintings made before the invention of photography were probably portraits of some kind.


----------



## Aayria

Petraio Prime said:


> Aayria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a photograph, the 'subject' is what's in front of the lens; in a painting or other work of art, it is in the work itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you believe portrait paintings fall outside of the "art" category? :scratch:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. They are perfect examples of art. The vast majority of paintings made before the invention of photography were probably portraits of some kind.
Click to expand...



   What was the "subject" of a traditional painted portrait?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Aayria said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aayria said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you believe portrait paintings fall outside of the "art" category? :scratch:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. They are perfect examples of art. The vast majority of paintings made before the invention of photography were probably portraits of some kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What was the "subject" of a traditional painted portrait?
Click to expand...


The idea or ideal of the person in the artist's mind. It is not identical with the person whose portrait is being painted, but a visual concept thereof.


----------



## Aayria

Would you agree that painters were, in this process, producing a likeness of their subjects?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Aayria said:


> Would you agree that painters were, in this process, producing a likeness of their subjects?



No. Not necessarily, and Scruton covers this. Besides, a photograph is not a 'likeness' in the same sense. It captures photos bounced from the object before the lens.

Much of our terminology used in photography originated in painting; unfortunately we never developed a vocabulary specifically for photography.


----------



## Aayria

Petraio Prime said:


> Aayria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. They are perfect examples of art. The vast majority of paintings made before the invention of photography were probably portraits of some kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so we both agree that portraiture is a form of art.
> 
> What was the "subject" of a traditional painted portrait?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea or ideal of the person in the artist's mind. It is not identical with the person whose portrait is being painted, but a visual concept thereof.
Click to expand...


   So, you are including in your definition of art, that the "artist" must somehow change his "ideal" and version of reality...otherwise it is not truly art?  What about the type of paintings where the artist speciffically tries to portray reality as realistically and true to the subject as possible?



Petraio Prime said:


> Aayria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you agree that painters were, in this process, producing a likeness of their subjects?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Not necessarily, and Scruton covers this. Besides, a photograph is not a 'likeness' in the same sense. It captures photos bounced from the object before the lens.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


   What speciffically about the likeness portrayed in a creative portrait, composed, lighted, framed and processed speciffically to convey the photographer's "ideal of the subject" separates the type of "likeness" a photograph conveys verses a portrait painting?


----------



## FieralDS

"No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit. "
-Ansel Adams

Sounds an awful lot like art to me...coming from one of the most patient photographers that i can think of.

Addendum:
" You don't take a photograph, you make it. "
-Ansel Adams


----------



## Petraio Prime

Aayria said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aayria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so we both agree that portraiture is a form of art.
> 
> What was the "subject" of a traditional painted portrait?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea or ideal of the person in the artist's mind. It is not identical with the person whose portrait is being painted, but a visual concept thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are including in your definition of art, that the "artist" must somehow change his "ideal" and version of reality...otherwise it is not truly art?  What about the type of paintings where the artist speciffically tries to portray reality as realistically and true to the subject as possible?
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aayria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you agree that painters were, in this process, producing a likeness of their subjects?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Not necessarily, and Scruton covers this. Besides, a photograph is not a 'likeness' in the same sense. It captures photos bounced from the object before the lens.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What speciffically about the likeness portrayed in a creative portrait, composed, lighted, framed and processed speciffically to convey the photographer's "ideal of the subject" separates the type of "likeness" a photograph conveys verses a portrait painting?
Click to expand...


Our vocabulary is inadequate to distinguish all the concepts consistently.

A photograph is not a likeness; it is an image. A painting, a very realistic painting, at first glance appears to be an image (by which I mean an _optical _image)...but it's not. An image is 'of' something else. A positive lens makes a 'real image', i.e. it focuses light rays to a point, producing an inverted, reversed image of whatever it is pointed at. (Virtual images can only be seen by the eye, and are not used to produce photographs; they are produced in viewfinder systems.)

Real image - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Virtual image - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Words such as 'likeness', 'image', 'picture', etc., are vague and not always used with precision and consistency. A photograph does not 'resemble', it is not a 'likeness'; it is not a 'picture'; it is, rather, an optical image, light focused by a lens, collected and frozen by the sensitive material used. _It is the result of the direct action of photons_. A painting is nothing remotely like it, except that it is two-dimensional. 

Their livelihoods threatened, portrait painters were up in arms when photography was invented, and tried (unsuccessfully, of course) to stem the tide of photography as a means of making portraits by criticizing the sharpness and clarity that it achieved. The painters kept it up, and eventually photographers accepted the lie that photography was in some way 'inferior' to painting. As a result, various late-20th century photographers began making 'painterly' photographs, in which the intent was to make photographs look as much as possible like paintings, like 'art'. This was Pictorialism, whose influence lasted for about 35 years, until the F/64 group rejected it. The  irony was that the sharp  photographs produced by this group were also intended to be 'art'. But at least they recognized that photography was not well served by the fuzzy, dreary products paraded as 'art' by the Pictorialists.

How ironic. It was not the _style _that was the problem;_ the error was the notion that photography was a form of art and that photographers were artists just like painters._

Pictorialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But in any event, we have one kind of photographic style rejected, and another one adopted, but still the practitioners thought of themselves as making 'art' and wanted to be called 'artists' rather than photographers. It all reflects an inferiority complex which to me is inexplicable. 

Photography has had its own unique name, photography, which from the beginning has kind of handicapped it.

There is a certain cache associated (rightly or wrongly) with being called 'artist'.

It's time we let that go.

Now, as an aside, paintings can indeed present a portrait in a way that a photograph can never do. But that does not make photographs 'inferior' to paintings, because the reverse is also true.


----------



## Overread

Surely its just just the case that photography is art and that photographers are also artists in the very same way that a painter is both a painter and an artist


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Surely its just just the case that photography is art and that photographers are also artists in the very same way that a painter is both a painter and an artist



Nope. The _primary _(not the only one) meaning of 'artist' is 'painter' (with respect to the _fine arts_).

"a person skilled in one of the fine arts;  especially: PAINTER"

From Merriam Webster Unabridged, 3rd ed.


----------



## table1349

Warren Peace said:


> Maybe Im a retard...but.
> If a musician uses his instrument to create his art, and a woodworker uses his tools to create his art, or a painter uses his brushes to create his art,  or a cartoonist uses his pencils to create his art, why is it so wrong for a photographer to use his camera to create his art.
> sorry...Im dumb as a post and no where near the photographic geniouses you all are here, but it just crossed my mind while having my lunch.



Trust me Warren Peace, It's not you.  If you read PP's posts in this thread and in other threads you will find him an eating, breathing, typing contradiction.  With all replies on this or any forum one should take them with a grain of salt as they are often nothing more than opinions.  With PP's replies in threads of this nature, I would suggest that you take them with a semi-tractor trailer load of salt.


----------



## Warren Peace

gryphonslair99 said:


> Trust me Warren Peace, It's not you. If you read PP's posts in this thread and in other threads you will find him an eating, breathing, typing contradiction. With all replies on this or any forum one should take them with a grain of salt as they are often nothing more than opinions. With PP's replies in threads of this nature, I would suggest that you take them with a semi-tractor trailer load of salt.


 
I always thought that was the beauty of being an "artist" whether it was a painter, sculpture, cartoonist, musician and whatever else, was that it was up to the individual to get his/her vision across. I have never figured out who it was that wrote all these so called "guidelines" or "rules" as to what an "artist" can and cant not do. I have never seen a "bible" on how to create art, only someone elses opinion, or their visions on how it is done. These are only words given to describe things. During the day the average human becomes many things. Pedestrian,Motorist, Commuter,Shipper, Doctor, Newscaster, but inside it is still the same person. Art is just a word, photographer, just a word, painter, just a word. All these are words to label someone. 
When we look at music, it is now broken down. Musician is many things. Drummer, Singer, Pianist, and so on. Within music, it is broken down to genres, country, metal, dance, hell even rap. Then take metal for instance. It gets broken down to death metal, glam metal, thrash metal. Even photography is broken down into genres, wedding, street, baby, nature, birds. Everything just goes on and on. :er:  Just enjoy what we have today, and enjoy that we have the freedom to create art.
These are just my opinions, and dont mean sh!t in the real world. :greenpbl:


----------



## Petraio Prime

Warren Peace said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me Warren Peace, It's not you. If you read PP's posts in this thread and in other threads you will find him an eating, breathing, typing contradiction. With all replies on this or any forum one should take them with a grain of salt as they are often nothing more than opinions. With PP's replies in threads of this nature, I would suggest that you take them with a semi-tractor trailer load of salt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought that was the beauty of being an "artist" whether it was a painter, sculpture, cartoonist, musician and whatever else, was that it was up to the individual to get his/her vision across. I have never figured out who it was that wrote all these so called "guidelines" or "rules" as to what an "artist" can and cant not do. I have never seen a "bible" on how to create art, only someone elses opinion, or their visions on how it is done. These are only words given to describe things. During the day the average human becomes many things. Pedestrian,Motorist, Commuter,Shipper, Doctor, Newscaster, but inside it is still the same person. Art is just a word, photographer, just a word, painter, just a word. All these are words to label someone.
> When we look at music, it is now broken down. Musician is many things. Drummer, Singer, Pianist, and so on. Within music, it is broken down to genres, country, metal, dance, hell even rap. Then take metal for instance. It gets broken down to death metal, glam metal, thrash metal. Even photography is broken down into genres, wedding, street, baby, nature, birds. Everything just goes on and on. :er:  Just enjoy what we have today, and enjoy that we have the freedom to create art.
> These are just my opinions, and dont mean sh!t in the real world. :greenpbl:
Click to expand...


You just don't get it. That's OK, not everyone is a philosopher, but it helps to know what words mean and use them clearly and properly.

What makes one an artist is _*not*_ exclusively or even primarily self-expression, any more than it makes a riveter a riveter. Being an artist (painter or sculptor, is what is usually meant by that term) is a specific kind of occupation, like riveter, welder, etc. It is someone who works with his hands (this can mean using tools, of course) to fashion something to be contemplated, manipulating solid materials (though they can be liquid for working).

http://www.chihuly.com/persians/persB001.html

So far as I know, there is no art made of gases.

:lmao:


----------



## OrionsByte

I'm both surprised and not surprised that this thread is still going.  Here's the problem though: the two sides of the argument _are not talking about the same thing_.

Petraio has adopted a very specific, narrow philosophical definition of the word "art".  The rest of us are looking at the broader use of the word.

I know the definition thing has been done in this thread a couple of times, but I'm going to go at it from a slightly different perspective.  Bear with me.

The definitions in BLUE below seem to apply to photography.  The definitions in RED would exclude photography according to Petraio's arguments.  I'm going to try to do this pretty conservatively, and some of my classifications are no doubt debatable, but let's just see how this looks.



> 1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
> 
> 2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
> 
> 3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
> 
> 4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
> 
> 5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
> 
> 6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
> 
> 7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
> 
> 8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
> 
> 9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
> 
> 10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
> 
> 11. arts,
> a. ( used with a singular verb ) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
> b. ( used with a plural verb ) liberal arts.
> 
> 12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
> 
> 13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
> 
> 14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
> 
> 15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
> 
> 16. _Archaic_. science, learning, or scholarship.



So Petraio, I'd ask you to specifically address the definitions I've colored blue above, and explain how they do not apply to photography.  The reason I'm asking you to do this is because the rest of us do not agree with your philosophical definition of "art", so if you want to convince us that you are right and we are wrong, you will need to do it on our terms.  If you can't do that, and instead you must fall back to the philosophical arguments you've been espousing for 20 pages, then I really don't think that either side has anything else to bring to this discussion.

Debate only works if there is some common ground between the two sides, and you're debating from a perspective that none of us shares.  See if you can bring us closer by coming at it from _our_ perspective.


----------



## Petraio Prime

OrionsByte said:


> I'm both surprised and not surprised that this thread is still going.  Here's the problem though: the two sides of the argument _are not talking about the same thing_.
> 
> Petraio has adopted a very specific, narrow philosophical definition of the word "art".  The rest of us are looking at the broader use of the word.
> 
> I know the definition thing has been done in this thread a couple of times, but I'm going to go at it from a slightly different perspective.  Bear with me.
> 
> The definitions in BLUE below seem to apply to photography.  The definitions in RED would exclude photography according to Petraio's arguments.  I'm going to try to do this pretty conservatively, and some of my classifications are no doubt debatable, but let's just see how this looks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
> 
> 2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
> 
> 3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
> 
> 4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
> 
> 5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
> 
> 6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
> 
> 7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
> 
> 8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
> 
> 9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
> 
> 10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
> 
> 11. arts,
> a. ( used with a singular verb ) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
> b. ( used with a plural verb ) liberal arts.
> 
> 12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
> 
> 13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
> 
> 14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
> 
> 15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
> 
> 16. _Archaic_. science, learning, or scholarship.
> 
> 
> 
> So Petraio, I'd ask you to specifically address the definitions I've colored blue above, and explain how they do not apply to photography.  The reason I'm asking you to do this is because the rest of us do not agree with your philosophical definition of "art", so if you want to convince us that you are right and we are wrong, you will need to do it on our terms.  If you can't do that, and instead you must fall back to the philosophical arguments you've been espousing for 20 pages, then I really don't think that either side has anything else to bring to this discussion.
> 
> Debate only works if there is some common ground between the two sides, and you're debating from a perspective that none of us shares.  See if you can bring us closer by coming at it from _our_ perspective.
Click to expand...


The fine arts are:

Painting
Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
Architecture
Engraving

(and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)

When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.

Yes, 'art' is a broad word with many uses. The point is this: photography is not among the activities that are classified as the 'fine arts'. 

That does not make photography inferior though, just separate.


----------



## Warren Peace

Petraio Prime said:


> [You just don't get it. That's OK, not everyone is a philosopher, but it helps to know what words mean and use them clearly and properly.
> 
> What makes one an artist is _*not*_ exclusively or even primarily self-expression, any more than it makes a riveter a riveter. Being an artist (painter or sculptor, is what is usually meant by that term) is a specific kind of occupation, like riveter, welder, etc. It is someone who works with his hands (this can mean using tools, of course) to fashion something to be contemplated, manipulating solid materials (though they can be liquid for working).
> 
> Chihuly - Persians
> 
> So far as I know, there is no art made of gases.
> 
> :lmao:


 
 Oh I get it and Im not going to worry about it.  Im going to do what I enjoy now, before Im too old to be able too.  Like I said, it is only a word.:lmao:  
  I do cartooning, photography, digital manipulations and animation,  and use all 4 of them to create the visions I have, cause in todays world, we have that technology, and Im going to use it, no matter what it might be called.


----------



## OrionsByte

Petraio Prime said:


> The fine arts are:
> 
> Painting
> Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
> Architecture
> Engraving
> 
> (and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)
> 
> When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.
> 
> Yes, 'art' is a broad word with many uses. The point is this: photography is not among the activities that are classified as the 'fine arts'.
> 
> That does not make photography inferior though, just separate.



Okay, see now we might be getting somewhere, because you've just narrowed down your definition of "art" in terms the rest of us can relate to.

So, knowing that, the debate is no longer, "is photography art" but rather, "is photography _fine _art", or more correctly, "can photography be fine art".  

That's a different discussion than I think most of us have been having.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Warren Peace said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> [You just don't get it. That's OK, not everyone is a philosopher, but it helps to know what words mean and use them clearly and properly.
> 
> What makes one an artist is _*not*_ exclusively or even primarily self-expression, any more than it makes a riveter a riveter. Being an artist (painter or sculptor, is what is usually meant by that term) is a specific kind of occupation, like riveter, welder, etc. It is someone who works with his hands (this can mean using tools, of course) to fashion something to be contemplated, manipulating solid materials (though they can be liquid for working).
> 
> Chihuly - Persians
> 
> So far as I know, there is no art made of gases.
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I get it and Im not going to worry about it.  Im going to do what I enjoy now, before Im too old to be able too.  Like I said, it is only a word.:lmao:
> I do cartooning, photography, digital manipulations and animation,  and use all 4 of them to create the visions I have, cause in todays world, we have that technology, and Im going to use it, no matter what it might be called.
Click to expand...


I have no intention of discouraging you. Just don't want photographers to feel inferior to painters or try to justify their work as important by calling it 'art'. I have known several artists and dated a couple of them (I met a bunch of girls who were students at CCAD). They are no different from you or me, and there is certainly no need to feel inferior to them.

Furthermore, I don't understand why everyone want to be called an 'artist'. I sure as hell don't.


----------



## table1349

Petraio Prime said:


> OrionsByte said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm both surprised and not surprised that this thread is still going.  Here's the problem though: the two sides of the argument _are not talking about the same thing_.
> 
> Petraio has adopted a very specific, narrow philosophical definition of the word "art".  The rest of us are looking at the broader use of the word.
> 
> I know the definition thing has been done in this thread a couple of times, but I'm going to go at it from a slightly different perspective.  Bear with me.
> 
> The definitions in BLUE below seem to apply to photography.  The definitions in RED would exclude photography according to Petraio's arguments.  I'm going to try to do this pretty conservatively, and some of my classifications are no doubt debatable, but let's just see how this looks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
> 
> 2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
> 
> 3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
> 
> 4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
> 
> 5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
> 
> 6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
> 
> 7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
> 
> 8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
> 
> 9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
> 
> 10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
> 
> 11. arts,
> a. ( used with a singular verb ) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
> b. ( used with a plural verb ) liberal arts.
> 
> 12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
> 
> 13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
> 
> 14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
> 
> 15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
> 
> 16. _Archaic_. science, learning, or scholarship.
> 
> 
> 
> So Petraio, I'd ask you to specifically address the definitions I've colored blue above, and explain how they do not apply to photography.  The reason I'm asking you to do this is because the rest of us do not agree with your philosophical definition of "art", so if you want to convince us that you are right and we are wrong, you will need to do it on our terms.  If you can't do that, and instead you must fall back to the philosophical arguments you've been espousing for 20 pages, then I really don't think that either side has anything else to bring to this discussion.
> 
> Debate only works if there is some common ground between the two sides, and you're debating from a perspective that none of us shares.  See if you can bring us closer by coming at it from _our_ perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fine arts are:
> 
> Painting
> Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
> Architecture
> Engraving
> 
> (and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)
> 
> When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.
> 
> Yes, 'art' is a broad word with many uses. The point is this: photography is not among the activities that are classified as the 'fine arts'.
> 
> That does not make photography inferior though, just separate.
Click to expand...


Except I would like to see PP directly answer the question.  None of his normal self styled philosophical ramblings, but direct answers to the questions in blue as you asked. For I have yet to see any proof of what PP continues to repeat, over and over.


----------



## Petraio Prime

gryphonslair99 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OrionsByte said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm both surprised and not surprised that this thread is still going.  Here's the problem though: the two sides of the argument _are not talking about the same thing_.
> 
> Petraio has adopted a very specific, narrow philosophical definition of the word "art".  The rest of us are looking at the broader use of the word.
> 
> I know the definition thing has been done in this thread a couple of times, but I'm going to go at it from a slightly different perspective.  Bear with me.
> 
> The definitions in BLUE below seem to apply to photography.  The definitions in RED would exclude photography according to Petraio's arguments.  I'm going to try to do this pretty conservatively, and some of my classifications are no doubt debatable, but let's just see how this looks.
> 
> So Petraio, I'd ask you to specifically address the definitions I've colored blue above, and explain how they do not apply to photography.  The reason I'm asking you to do this is because the rest of us do not agree with your philosophical definition of "art", so if you want to convince us that you are right and we are wrong, you will need to do it on our terms.  If you can't do that, and instead you must fall back to the philosophical arguments you've been espousing for 20 pages, then I really don't think that either side has anything else to bring to this discussion.
> 
> Debate only works if there is some common ground between the two sides, and you're debating from a perspective that none of us shares.  See if you can bring us closer by coming at it from _our_ perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fine arts are:
> 
> Painting
> Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
> Architecture
> Engraving
> 
> (and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)
> 
> When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.
> 
> Yes, 'art' is a broad word with many uses. The point is this: photography is not among the activities that are classified as the 'fine arts'.
> 
> That does not make photography inferior though, just separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I would like to see PP directly answer the question.  None of his normal self styled philosophical ramblings, but direct answers to the questions in blue as you asked. For I have yet to see any proof of what PP continues to repeat, over and over.
Click to expand...


The fine arts are (this is not a matter for debate):

Painting
Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
Architecture
Engraving

(and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)

When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate  photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for  several reasons.

The fact that you don't like the way words are properly used is irrelevant.

The fact that you have been misinformed or poorly informed in the past about the meanings of certain words is irrelevant.

The fact that you didn't or don't know something doesn't make it false.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:
			
		

> If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved.





Petraio Prime said:


> The fine arts are:
> 
> Painting
> Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
> Architecture
> Engraving
> 
> (and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)




Here's the wikipedia entry on Fine Art:

Found some interesting reading there:


			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Historically, the fine arts were limited to painting, sculpture, architecture and engraving.


Where have I read that before?

The very next sentence reads:


			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Today, the fine arts commonly include visual and performing art forms, such as painting, sculpture, installation, Calligraphy, music, dance, theatre, architecture, *photography** and printmaking.


 *_Bold added for emphasis_


Petraio Prime said:


> When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.



Please see linked article.



Petraio Prime said:


> Yes, 'art' is a broad word with many uses. The point is this: photography is not among the activities that are classified as the 'fine arts'.



Yes it is; at least according to the wikipedia article cited above. The beauty of wikipedia is that the format is designed to yield an article that is representative of the views of many experts (open to everyone) within a given field. Granted, I've found minor flaws in articles related to my specific field, and I have corrected them myself (with references), but in general, I find the wikipedia articles on scholarly topics (at least within my field) to be largely accurate and useful.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fine arts are:
> 
> Painting
> Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
> Architecture
> Engraving
> 
> (and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the wikipedia entry on Fine Art:
> 
> Found some interesting reading there:
> 
> Where have I read that before?
> 
> The very next sentence reads:
> *_Bold added for emphasis_
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please see linked article.
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 'art' is a broad word with many uses. The point is this: photography is not among the activities that are classified as the 'fine arts'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is; at least according to the wikipedia article cited above. The beauty of wikipedia is that the format is designed to yield an article that is representative of the views of many experts (open to everyone) within a given field. Granted, I've found minor flaws in articles related to my specific field, and I have corrected them myself (with references), but in general, I find the wikipedia articles on scholarly topics (at least within my field) to be largely accurate and useful.
Click to expand...


Wikipedia is not authoritative, but is based on internet contributions. This list is has a long history, is traditional, and can be found in the Century Dictionary.


----------



## usayit

gryphonslair99 said:


> For I have yet to see any proof of what PP continues to repeat, over and over.



Gryph... don't you know????  PP IS the ultimate/one-stop-shop/definitive resource.  Notice how zero references to help build a stance has been provided?   he can't even quote the dictionary properly 


From Merriam-webster.com

Main Entry: 2art 
Pronunciation: \&#712;ärt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars &#8212; more at arm
Date: 13th century
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
synonyms art, skill, cunning, artifice, craft mean the faculty of executing well what one has devised. art implies a personal, unanalyzable creative power <the art of choosing the right word>. skill stresses technical knowledge and proficiency <the skill of a glassblower>. cunning suggests ingenuity and subtlety in devising, inventing, or executing <a mystery plotted with great cunning>. artifice suggests technical skill especially in imitating things in nature <believed realism in film could be achieved only by artifice>. craft may imply expertness in workmanship <the craft of a master goldsmith>.

 I see nothing in there that excludes photography.  In fact, photos (printed) hanging on a wall in a decorative manner falls under #6.  

Heck, art in its purest form really is just something that is the product of skill (any skill).  For example, the "Art of War".


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> Wikipedia is not authoritative, but is based on internet contributions. This list is has a long history, is traditional, and can be found in the Century Dictionary.



Well you're not really contradicting anything I stated in my original post. In fact the wikipedia article acknowledges the historical value of your list of "fine arts".


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is not authoritative, but is based on internet contributions. This list is has a long history, is traditional, and can be found in the Century Dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're not really contradicting anything I stated in my original post. In fact the wikipedia article acknowledges the historical value of your list of "fine arts".
Click to expand...



What I'm saying is that Wiki has no authority any greater than that of people here coming to leave comments.

The notion that we can sort of just extend and expand what is 'art' makes no sense. It is based on a misunderstanding of what characterizes art, what makes it deserve that term, and historically, 'self-expression' has never been the most important criterion, and in fact was not even considered for the vastly greater part of the history of art. 

I can see calling Dale Chihuly's glass pieces 'art', but that's because it is a kind of *sculpture*, _something that is already on the traditional list._ Glass-work as art has a history too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly

But the important thing is that every piece is wrought, made manually...that's a core part of it being 'art'. And that is why a photograph can _never _be 'art'. It isn't merely that photographs don't happen to be art, it's impossible.

http://www.chihuly.com/macchia/Art/CdMac069_Pilchuck_ca83_B.jpg

I happen to have seen quite a bit of this glass-working, as I have friends who have friends who are glass artists. It is hot, nasty work.

Another glass artist:

http://glass.ae/en/index.htm

Stained glass as 'art':

http://www.thestorefinder.com/glass/library/history.html


----------



## abraxas

There have been a few interesting points brought up, but mostly selective pretentious rhetoric and talking in circles. I think this has indirectly been about envy and striking out at artistic creative ability. Too bad. Maybe blog it.


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> The notion that we can sort of just extend and expand what is 'art' makes no sense.



Why not? Words are always being changed, chopped and evolved into language in a continuous process. Say "I have a very gay friend" today and people think you mean something very different today to what they thought you were saying 50 or 100 years ago. The meaning of the word - its definition has expanded to include new meanings.

So if the historical definition of art is no longer valid then I think its safe to say that the word has evolved in its meaning to include new forms of artistic expression that are recognised in the current, modern world by the vast majority of the population (both professional and unprofessional).


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> The notion that we can sort of just extend and expand what is 'art' makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? Words are always being changed, chopped and evolved into language in a continuous process. Say "I have a very gay friend" today and people think you mean something very different today to what they thought you were saying 50 or 100 years ago. The meaning of the word - its definition has expanded to include new meanings.
> 
> So if the historical definition of art is no longer valid then I think its safe to say that the word has evolved in its meaning to include new forms of artistic expression that are recognised in the current, modern world by the vast majority of the population (both professional and unprofessional).
Click to expand...


'Self-expression' isn't what makes art, 'art'. It is important that our concept of art be consistent with calling ancient Egyptian art, Byzantine art, and every other kind of ancient or exotic art, 'art'. Self-expression was not only *not *part of what they were doing, it was actually *discouraged *in some cases. What needed to be 'expressed' was often what *Pharaoh *wanted, or the _*Pope *_wanted, or the *Crown *wanted, or the _*Gentry *_wanted. So, it makes no sense to use that criterion (self-expression) to expand the concept of art, because it means closing off the past to the application of the word 'art'. It is utterly irrelevant to the meaning of the word 'art' despite the fact that many people *think *it does.

Is that clear enough? If self-expression is the criterion, much of what has always been called 'art' no longer can be called 'art', because self-expression was not involved at all. What *was *involved, what constitutes an essential criterion, is "made by hand", and that's why photographs, which are formed optically and not made by hand, cannot be called 'art'.

So, if you want photography to be called 'art', then you cannot call Tut's coffin mask 'art' anymore. If it 'expresses' anything at all, it is what the _*Egyptian tradition *_as administered by his court and successors, called for. 













I think you would have an extraordinarily hard time justifying that.

This is not all that difficult to grasp.


----------



## Overread

The original meaning of the word gay still stands and remains in the dictionary - I said change and extend the meaning not rewrite the whole meaning. So there would be the part of the definition that covers old art as well as the newer aspect that deals with more modern parlance.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> What I'm saying is that Wiki has no authority any greater than that of people here coming to leave comments.



Fair enough, although I suggest that you ought to include yourself in applying the above statement.

[/THREAD]


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that Wiki has no authority any greater than that of people here coming to leave comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough, although I suggest that you ought to include yourself in applying the above statement.
Click to expand...


Not at all. I am claiming the _traditional _definition applies, and why it applies.


----------



## OrionsByte

Petraio Prime said:


> What I'm saying is that Wiki has no authority any greater than that of people here coming to leave comments.



You must also accept that _you_ have no authority any greater than the rest of us.



Petraio Prime said:


> The notion that we can sort of just extend and expand what is 'art' makes no sense. It is based on a misunderstanding of what characterizes art, what makes it deserve that term, and historically, 'self-expression' has never been the most important criterion, and in fact was not even considered for the vastly greater part of the history of art.



If you are suggesting that the meaning of words is always permanent, and never transitory, that's simply not the case.  Words change meaning all the time, through use.  No single word has intrinsic value or definition; they only gain definition through use, and if the use changes, the definition changes.



			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change said:
			
		

> Semantic change, also known as semantic shift or semantic progression describes the evolution of word usage &#8212; usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. Semantic change is one of three major processes to find a designation for a concept. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology and semantics.





			
				http://writinghood.com/style/grammar/eight-words-which-have-completely-changed-their-meaning-over-time said:
			
		

> Eight Words Which Have Completely Changed Their Meaning Over Time
> 
> Strangely, their original meaning was very different &#8211; or totally the opposite &#8211; of what it is now.
> 
> *Artificial*
> This originally meant &#8216;full of artistic or technical skill&#8217;. Now its meaning has a very different slant.
> 
> *Nice*
> This comes from the Latin &#8216;not to know&#8217;. Originally a &#8216;nice person&#8217; was someone who was ignorant or unaware.
> 
> *Awful*
> This meant &#8216;full of awe&#8217; i.e. something wonderful, delightful, amazing. However, over time it has evolved to mean exactly the opposite.
> 
> *Brave*
> This once was used to signify cowardice. Indeed, its old meaning lives on in the word &#8216;bravado&#8217;.
> 
> *Manufacture*
> From the Latin meaning &#8216;to make by hand&#8217; this originally signified things that were created by craftsmen. Now the opposite, made by machines, is its meaning.
> 
> *Counterfeit*
> This once meant a perfect copy. Now it means anything but.
> 
> *Prove*
> Originally this meant to test. The old meaning survives in the phrase &#8216;proving ground&#8217;.
> 
> *Tell*
> Its original meaning was &#8216;to count&#8217;. Which is how we came by the term &#8216;bank teller&#8217;.



So why is the word "art" immune to semantic change?  I'll answer that question for you, from what I believe is your perspective: the semantic definition of the word "art" is different from the philosophical definition of the _concept_ of "art".  Is that a fair translation of your premise?

The problem is, you're trying to say that the philosophical definition supersedes the semantic definition, but you've provided no argument as to why the rest of us should agree with you on that point.  Furthermore, the nature of philosophy suggests that there is no such thing as an "absolute philosophy", so even if you managed to convince us that philosophy trumps semantics, you'd still have to convince us that _your _philosophy trumps _our _philosophy.

It's an uphill battle, my friend.  I'd suggest that we "agree to disagree" but I have never seen any statements from you that indicate you'd be willing to accept such an offer.

EDIT: Dang, got beat to the punch with both of my points!  Must learn to type faster...


----------



## Petraio Prime

OrionsByte said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that Wiki has no authority any greater than that of people here coming to leave comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must also accept that _you_ have no authority any greater than the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> The notion that we can sort of just extend and expand what is 'art' makes no sense. It is based on a misunderstanding of what characterizes art, what makes it deserve that term, and historically, 'self-expression' has never been the most important criterion, and in fact was not even considered for the vastly greater part of the history of art.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are suggesting that the meaning of words is always permanent, and never transitory, that's simply not the case.  Words change meaning all the time, through use.  No single word has intrinsic value or definition; they only gain definition through use, and if the use changes, the definition changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semantic change, also known as semantic shift or semantic progression describes the evolution of word usage &#8212; usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. Semantic change is one of three major processes to find a designation for a concept. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology and semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://writinghood.com/style/grammar/eight-words-which-have-completely-changed-their-meaning-over-time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eight Words Which Have Completely Changed Their Meaning Over Time
> 
> Strangely, their original meaning was very different &#8211; or totally the opposite &#8211; of what it is now.
> 
> *Artificial*
> This originally meant &#8216;full of artistic or technical skill&#8217;. Now its meaning has a very different slant.
> 
> *Nice*
> This comes from the Latin &#8216;not to know&#8217;. Originally a &#8216;nice person&#8217; was someone who was ignorant or unaware.
> 
> *Awful*
> This meant &#8216;full of awe&#8217; i.e. something wonderful, delightful, amazing. However, over time it has evolved to mean exactly the opposite.
> 
> *Brave*
> This once was used to signify cowardice. Indeed, its old meaning lives on in the word &#8216;bravado&#8217;.
> 
> *Manufacture*
> From the Latin meaning &#8216;to make by hand&#8217; this originally signified things that were created by craftsmen. Now the opposite, made by machines, is its meaning.
> 
> *Counterfeit*
> This once meant a perfect copy. Now it means anything but.
> 
> *Prove*
> Originally this meant to test. The old meaning survives in the phrase &#8216;proving ground&#8217;.
> 
> *Tell*
> Its original meaning was &#8216;to count&#8217;. Which is how we came by the term &#8216;bank teller&#8217;.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is the word "art" immune to semantic change?  I'll answer that question for you, from what I believe is your perspective: the semantic definition of the word "art" is different from the philosophical definition of the _concept_ of "art".  Is that a fair translation of your premise?
> 
> The problem is, you're trying to say that the philosophical definition supersedes the semantic definition, but you've provided no argument as to why the rest of us should agree with you on that point.  Furthermore, the nature of philosophy suggests that there is no such thing as an "absolute philosophy", so even if you managed to convince us that philosophy trumps semantics, you'd still have to convince us that _your _philosophy trumps _our _philosophy.
> 
> It's an uphill battle, my friend.  I'd suggest that we "agree to disagree" but I have never seen any statements from you that indicate you'd be willing to accept such an offer.
Click to expand...


Much semantic change is error. People use words incorrectly because they don't know exactly what the word means. The word 'bokeh' is a perfect example. When I first encountered it, it meant the character of a lens's out-of-focus areas. Now, apparently, people are using it to mean 'selective focus'. HDR is another example. 'Dynamic range' refers to the range of loudness in _music_ over time, and by extension, an electric signal carrying music or sound. It has nothing to do with photographs. Scenes photographed have a _brightness _range, not a _dynamic _range. 'Dynamic' is of Greek origin, and it has to do with _change_.

"Main Entry:dynamic range
Function:noun 

:the ratio of the loudest to the weakest sound intensity which can be transmitted or reproduced by a recording or broadcasting system"

In music, Italian terms are used to denote the pace and volume at which the music is to be played:

http://www.pianoinstructors.com/musicterms/term.html

Read my prior posts to answer the rest of your question.


----------



## OrionsByte

Petraio Prime said:


> Much semantic change is error. People use words incorrectly because they don't know exactly what the word means. The word 'bokeh' is a perfect example. When I first encountered it, it meant the character of a lens's out-of-focus areas. Now, apparently, people are using it to mean 'selective focus'. HDR is another example. 'Dynamic range' refers to the range of loudness in _music_ over time, and by extension, an electric signal carrying music or sound. It has nothing to do with photographs. Scenes photographed have a _brightness _range, not a _dynamic _range. 'Dynamic' is of Greek origin, and it has to do with _change_.



Okay, but you're still missing the point.  Even if semantic change is "error," that doesn't mean the change doesn't stick.  If you told your wife she was "awful" in bed, she's going to slap you, regardless of the fact that the word "awful" used to mean "full of awe" and the definition only changed due to "error."  The way we use it today is completely different; you simply can't say, "this is the way it's supposed to be," and have it _be_ that while the rest of the world moves on.

As Overread pointed out, the word "art" hasn't even been completely redefined to the extremes of the examples I quoted - it's simply been extended.  I honestly don't understand why you're locked in to a "traditional" definition of the term as the _only viable definition_ when the rest of the world has extended the definition through use, whether or not it was originally "correct" to do so.

Language is not defined by sheer will, it is defined by use.  The use has changed.  Live with it.


----------



## Petraio Prime

OrionsByte said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much semantic change is error. People use words incorrectly because they don't know exactly what the word means. The word 'bokeh' is a perfect example. When I first encountered it, it meant the character of a lens's out-of-focus areas. Now, apparently, people are using it to mean 'selective focus'. HDR is another example. 'Dynamic range' refers to the range of loudness in _music_ over time, and by extension, an electric signal carrying music or sound. It has nothing to do with photographs. Scenes photographed have a _brightness _range, not a _dynamic _range. 'Dynamic' is of Greek origin, and it has to do with _change_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but you're still missing the point.  Even if semantic change is "error," that doesn't mean the change doesn't stick.  If you told your wife she was "awful" in bed, she's going to slap you, regardless of the fact that the word "awful" used to mean "full of awe" and the definition only changed due to "error."  The way we use it today is completely different; you simply can't say, "this is the way it's supposed to be," and have it _be_ that while the rest of the world moves on.
> 
> As Overread pointed out, the word "art" hasn't even been completely redefined to the extremes of the examples I quoted - it's simply been extended.  I honestly don't understand why you're locked in to a "traditional" definition of the term as the _only viable definition_ when the rest of the world has extended the definition through use, whether or not it was originally "correct" to do so.
> 
> Language is not defined by sheer will, it is defined by use.  The use has changed.  Live with it.
Click to expand...


It isn't always just 'semantic change'; in some cases it's lies and deliberate distortion, and here, I think a great deal is at stake. If we accept that photography is art (for the reasons proposed, 'self-expression' being chief among them) _*then we have to exclude much of what is accepted as art.

*_In other words, we cannot say "This is art because it shows self expression and even though it was not made by hand" and this "this is art, because it was made by hand and even though it does _not _show self-expression". These are _contradictory _criteria.

_*Whatever the concept of 'art' is, it has to be coherent and not self-contradictory.*_

Notice we are not talking about "the art of pitching" or "the art of dancing" or "the art of persuasion". We are talking about 'art' as 'fine art'.


----------



## Overread

So in fact we are not debating the term "art" (which I think everyone HAS been debating) but the sub-group of "Fine art" - and to if photography counts as a fine art - which of course accepts that photography is an art form.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> So in fact we are not debating the term "art" (which I think everyone HAS been debating) but the sub-group of "Fine art" - and to if photography counts as a fine art - which of course accepts that photography is an art form.



I mean specifically 'fine art' which is what people are claiming by calling it 'fine-art photography'. I don't mean 'the art of dancing' and such, which is _not _what we are talking about. I don't mean the 'skill' or 'craft'. I mean "photographs as works of art".

No-one is disputing that photography involves skill or craftsmanship. What I am denying is that a photograph can be called a 'work of art' in the sense that a painting or sculpture is, i.e., a work of 'fine art'. If you mean merely 'craft' or 'skill', that's an entirely distinct meaning, and *not *the one under discussion.

To say 'the art of photography' is not saying that photographs are 'works of art'.


----------



## Overread

So which are we debating then :

That photography is or is not an artistic form of expression

or 

That photography is or is not a form of fine art

The latter I think depends greatly upon the nature of the photography involved and I view that whilst some might contribute toward or might indeed be considered fine art it is not a label to attach to all photography - whilst the former I think is a label that can be applied to a greater portion of photography - the other part of the equation generally being journalistic photography.


----------



## OrionsByte

What _we_ have been debating:


Overread said:


> That photography is or is not an artistic form of expression



What _Petraio_ has been debating:


Overread said:


> That photography is or is not a form of fine art



This is why this thread has gone on so long... it hasn't been the same discussion, and Petraio's refusal to see our side of the discussion (up to this point, arguably) has made it impossible to get anywhere.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> So which are we debating then :
> 
> That photography is or is not an artistic form of expression
> 
> or
> 
> That photography is or is not a form of fine art
> 
> The latter I think depends greatly upon the nature of the photography involved and I view that whilst some might contribute toward or might indeed be considered fine art it is not a label to attach to all photography - whilst the former I think is a label that can be applied to a greater portion of photography - the other part of the equation generally being journalistic photography.



No, to both.

Photography is *not *an _artistic _form of expression, strictly speaking, because it is not 'art'. I suppose one could use it (photography) to express feeling, but only _indirectly_. A group of photographs of dead birds covered with oil, I suppose, could express outrage at BP. Photographs of beautiful flowers merely reflect the beauty of the flowers and their attractive colors. 

(In such cases the word 'artistic' in "artistic expression" must be disallowed in connection with photography. The problem is, what do we say instead? We don't have a vocabulary for photography, but borrow from the vocabulary of painting. We tend to call things 'magical' or 'artistic' when we don't understand them. To the pro football quarterback, the arc of a long pass is not a thing of beauty, but the result of a calculation and skill, to drop the ball into the receiver's hands at just the right angle; to the spectator, it can be a thing of beauty. The spectator just doesn't know it's all just technique and skill. To the primitive races around the world who have no experience with modern technology, such things as phonographs, cameras, automobiles, etc. are 'magical', because they don't understand them. I recall someone on a forum mentioning that a critic for a paper or something like that wrote a column extolling the work of a photographer whose work was being exhibited, for its extraordinary 'artistic qualities'. The laugh was that he had merely pushed Tri-X and got some grainy, fuzzy shots, but to the critic it was 'artistic'. To those of us who know how to achieve this simple effect, her reaction is hilarious. To those of us who don't know how to paint, the work of a DaVinci or a Rembrandt appears 'magical', but it's all just _technique_. The 'beauty' of a flower is not _real_; it is merely the work of evolution; there is no 'artistry'; it is but the product of inexorable demands of natural selection and the additional work of breeders. To bees, there are no 'beautiful' flowers, only ones with nectar and ones without.)

A painting allows a more or _less _direct form of expression, but in any case, *self-expression isn't what makes it art. *

Photography is *not *a form of fine art because a photograph is not something made "by hand" but is the product entirely of optical and chemical (natural) processes.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> To those of us who don't know how to paint, the work of a DaVinci or a Rembrandt appears 'magical', but it's all just _technique_.




If it's "just technique", then it's not art?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> To those of us who don't know how to paint, the work of a DaVinci or a Rembrandt appears 'magical', but it's all just _technique_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's "just technique", then it's not art?
Click to expand...


Many things we think of as 'magic' or 'art' are simply technique applied by consummately skilled individuals. We laugh at the primitive who thinks a rifle or Polaroid camera is a demon, but we don't recognize that calling photographs 'works of art' is exactly the same thing.

We have the word 'artistic' that comes from the root 'artist'. But what are we supposed to do with 'photographer'? I don't think a word such as 'photographeristic' ever had a chance.

It's not the consummate application of technique that makes something 'art'._* 'Art' is something made by hand.*_


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> We laugh at the primitive who thinks a rifle or Polaroid camera is a demon, but we don't recognize that calling photographs 'works of art' is exactly the same thing.
> [/B][/I]



First part is the result of not enough knowledge to appreciate what is in front of them.

The second part is your repeated statement that is still an opinion.   

If a primitive looks at the Mona Lisa and claims its a demon incarnate, it doesn't mean that the Mona Lisa is not a "work of art".  


Sorry attempt at a straw man argument.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> We laugh at the primitive who thinks a rifle or Polaroid camera is a demon, but we don't recognize that calling photographs 'works of art' is exactly the same thing.
> [/B][/I]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First part is the result of not enough knowledge to appreciate what is in front of them.
> 
> The second part is your repeated statement that is still an opinion.
> 
> If a primitive looks at the Mona Lisa and claims its a demon incarnate, it doesn't mean that the Mona Lisa is not a "work of art".
> 
> 
> Sorry attempt at a straw man argument.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understood the analogy. To me, photographers calling themselves 'artists' and their photographs 'works of art' is exactly the same kind of mistake as the one made by the primitive who thinks a Polaroid camera is a magic box and a rifle is a demon. Both need to be enlightened. The primitive is still in the pre-scientific state of culture: to him, everything is magic and demons. The photographer needs to undergo a similar stage of enlightenment, to understand that claims to being an 'artist' are similarly 'pre-scientific' in a way.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> I don't think you understood the analogy. To me, photographers calling themselves 'artists' and their photographs 'works of art' is exactly the same kind of mistake as the primitive who thinks a Polaroid camera or a rifle is a demon.



Analogies are based on "tit for tat"

Photographers call themselves "artists" therefore their work is called "works of art"

Primitives call themselves "???" there for their work is called "???".  Trying to figure out the "???" in your analogy.  So you think that Primitives think they are a camera or rifle therefore their action is that of a demon???   

How again is this an analogy?  

Oh so photographers are not enlightened?   How screwed up argument is that?


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understood the analogy. To me, photographers calling themselves 'artists' and their photographs 'works of art' is exactly the same kind of mistake as the primitive who thinks a Polaroid camera or a rifle is a demon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Analogies are based on "tit for tat"
> 
> Photographers call themselves "artists" therefore their work is called "works of art"
> 
> Primitives call themselves "???" there for their work is called "???".  Trying to figure out the "???" in your analogy.  So you think that Primitives think they are a camera or rifle therefore their action is that of a demon???
> 
> How again is this an analogy?
Click to expand...


It *is* an analogy. Photographers think their actions are other than what they are, that they are producing 'art' when the truth is that they are consummate craftsmen. They think that once a photograph achieves a certain level of quality or beauty, it enters the realm, the divine realm, of 'art'.

It's just a rifle (not a demon)
It's just a Polaroid camera (not a magic box that steals souls)
It's just a pushed Tri-X in a photograph (not a work of art)
The 'beautiful' flower is merely the result of natural selection
The Mona Lisa is merely very skilled technique (it is a work of art, yes, because it was *made by hand*)
The pro quarterback's pass is intended to drop sharply into the receiver's hands (not a work of art)


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> It *is* an analogy.



Not a tit for tat analogy... thus invalid.



> Photographers think their actions are other than what they are, that they are producing 'art' when the truth is that they are consummate craftsmen. They think that once a photograph achieves a certain level of quality or beauty, it enters the realm, the divine realm, of 'art'.
> 
> It's just a rifle
> It's just a Polaroid camera
> It's just a photograph



A truly gifted painter can sketch a stick man on toilet  paper and call it art.  Its not. 

Next...


oh btw...  You define art as something created from raw material into something greater aesthetic value... yet previously you simply stated that "layout" is also art.


Next...


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> It *is* an analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a tit for tat analogy... thus invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photographers think their actions are other than what they are, that they are producing 'art' when the truth is that they are consummate craftsmen. They think that once a photograph achieves a certain level of quality or beauty, it enters the realm, the divine realm, of 'art'.
> 
> It's just a rifle
> It's just a Polaroid camera
> It's just a photograph
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A truly gifted painter can sketch a stick man on toilet  paper and call it art.  Its not.
> 
> Next...
> 
> 
> oh btw...  You define art as something created from raw material into something greater aesthetic value... yet previously you simply stated that "layout" is also art.
> 
> 
> Next...
Click to expand...


Huh? None of this makes any sense. I said that in *page layout*, anything other than text (copy) is called 'art'. It's simply layout jargon.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> Huh? None of this makes any sense. I said that in *layout*, anything other than text (copy) is called 'art'.



Page layout is the part of graphic design that deals in the arrangement and style treatment of elements (content) on a page.

With print media, elements usually consist of type (text), images (pictures), and occasionally place-holder graphics for elements that are not printed with ink such as die/laser cutting, foil stamping or blind embossing.



ignoring the fact that  you analogy and logic sucks.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? None of this makes any sense. I said that in *layout*, anything other than text (copy) is called 'art'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page layout is the part of graphic design that deals in the arrangement and style treatment of elements (content) on a page.
> 
> With print media, elements usually consist of type (text), images (pictures), and occasionally place-holder graphics for elements that are not printed with ink such as die/laser cutting, foil stamping or blind embossing.
> 
> ignoring the fact that  you analogy and logic sucks.
Click to expand...


In layout, anything other than copy is called 'art'. A page may contain either or both.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> In layout, anything other than copy is called 'art. A page may contain either or both.



So the arrangement of elements within a page is "art"?


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> In layout, anything other than copy is called 'art. A page may contain either or both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the arrangement of elements within a page is "art"?
Click to expand...


Not what I am talking about. A page laid out contains copy and non-copy parts. The copy parts are editable. The non-copy parts are not editable and are called 'art'. They could be photographs or drawings or anything but words.


----------



## usayit

So photographs within page layout is "art"?


----------



## usayit

Oh btw.. I see you editing your response after I responded:

"Last edited by Petraio Prime; Today at 04:52 PM."

And no.. jargon and page layout were not mentioned in the definition.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Oh btw.. I see you editing your response after I responded:
> 
> "Last edited by Petraio Prime; Today at 04:52 PM."
> 
> And no.. jargon and page layout were not mentioned in the definition.



Don't be in such a hurry. I often have to fill in subtler points and flesh out my posts.


----------



## usayit

Oh like adding in "Its just jargon"...  

Let me flush it out for you...

Next you are going to argue that "art" referring to photographs in a page layout doesn't really mean "art"...  

So everyone here needs to be like primitives and "be enlightened".
Along with all the professional "artists" and "Engineers" involved with page layout.
Along with all the interior decorators that refer to photographs as "wall art".
.. etc...

You may think my logic is lacking but at least I have the dictionary as the foundation.. not some ego pushed opinion.

you've just talked yourself into a circle...


Next..


About this time.. in the old days.. my buddies that like to debate would have just laughed. and ordered another cold one.  Never mind the fact that you completely ignored my other comments regarding holes in your argument... which is something you do often in this thread with other responses.

its been fun.. really.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Oh like adding in "Its just jargon"...
> 
> Let me flush it out for you...
> 
> Next you are going to argue that "art" referring to photographs in a page layout doesn't really mean "art"...
> 
> So everyone here needs to be like primitives and "be enlightened".
> Along with all the professional "artists" and "Engineers" involved with page layout.
> Along with all the interior decorators that refer to photographs as "wall art".
> .. etc...
> 
> You may think my logic is lacking but at least I have the dictionary as the foundation.. not some ego pushed opinion.
> 
> you've just talked yourself into a circle...
> 
> 
> Next..
> 
> 
> About this time.. in the old days.. my buddies that like to debate would have just laughed. and ordered another cold one.  Never mind the fact that you completely ignored my other comments regarding holes in your argument... which is something you do often in this thread with other responses.



So are you familiar with printer's jargon, or aren't you? It seemed you needed me to add that.

In page layout programs (PageMaker, Quark Express, etc.) copy and 'art' are handled differently. 'Art' consists of graphic files such as TIFF files, JPEG files, or other graphic files. It can be a photograph or anything else, but what matters is the kind of file it is. Text uses fonts (True Type or Type 1). Everything on a page is either a graphic file (art) or copy (text). 'Art' can easily be expanded or contracted as it is a graphic. Text has to be kerned, sized, spell-checked, etc. They are completely different things. Text (copy) is not in a separate file but part of the page.

These terms help to identify the parts of a page.


----------



## table1349

Petraio Prime said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except I would like to see PP directly answer the question.  None of his normal self styled philosophical ramblings, but direct answers to the questions in blue as you asked. For I have yet to see any proof of what PP continues to repeat, over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fine arts are (this is not a matter for debate):
> 
> Painting
> Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
> Architecture
> Engraving
> 
> (and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)
> 
> When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate  photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for  several reasons.
> 
> The fact that you don't like the way words are properly used is irrelevant.
> 
> The fact that you have been misinformed or poorly informed in the past about the meanings of certain words is irrelevant.
> 
> The fact that you didn't or don't know something doesn't make it false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case. You ignored the question and instead regurgitated more of the same old song and dance that is out of tune and by now out of fashion.
> 
> You indicate that only Painting, Sculpture, Architecture & Engraving are the only fine arts and it is not matter for debate.  Says who.  Show me the proof. * PUT UP or SHUT UP.*
> 
> You bragged in another thread of having your masters in philosophy and now you lay claim to the exclusive knowledge of the use of words in their proper manner.  Do you have a degree inlinguistics as well? Do you also write thesis' on linguistics?  Funny, I don't remember linguistics in my philosophy class.
> 
> I also don't remember seeing you as one of the contributors to the Oxford English Dictionary.  I actually find your reference laughable in regards to the meaning of words since you have blatantly ignored the accepted meanings posted by others in this thread.
> 
> The language we Americans call English is one of the poorest languages on the face of the planet for pure communication.  However one word that has not lost it's meaning over the span of time or continents is hypocrite.
> 
> The fact that you cannot or will not accept that which has already been accepted and defined is irrelevant.  Your pseudo intellectualism is boorish and frankly what you espouse is nothing more than piffle and balderdash. The fact that you try to create meaning to your own liking does not make them true.
> 
> Or to put it in terms that anyone who live in the 60's in the U.S. could relate.  You are the Dr. Zachary Smith of this thread.
> 
> Sorry, the remake movie just doesn't live up to the television show in my opinion, however the special effects were spectacular.
Click to expand...


----------



## Petraio Prime

gryphonslair99 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fine arts are (this is not a matter for debate):
> 
> Painting
> Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
> Architecture
> Engraving
> 
> (and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)
> 
> When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate  photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for  several reasons.
> 
> The fact that you don't like the way words are properly used is irrelevant.
> 
> The fact that you have been misinformed or poorly informed in the past about the meanings of certain words is irrelevant.
> 
> The fact that you didn't or don't know something doesn't make it false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case. You ignored the question and instead regurgitated more of the same old song and dance that is out of tune and by now out of fashion.
> 
> You indicate that only Painting, Sculpture, Architecture & Engraving are the only fine arts and it is not matter for debate.  Says who.  Show me the proof. * PUT UP or SHUT UP.*
> 
> You bragged in another thread of having your masters in philosophy and now you lay claim to the exclusive knowledge of the use of words in their proper manner.  Do you have a degree inlinguistics as well? Do you also write thesis' on linguistics?  Funny, I don't remember linguistics in my philosophy class.
> 
> I also don't remember seeing you as one of the contributors to the Oxford English Dictionary.  I actually find your reference laughable in regards to the meaning of words since you have blatantly ignored the accepted meanings posted by others in this thread.
> 
> The language we Americans call English is one of the poorest languages on the face of the planet for pure communication.  However one word that has not lost it's meaning over the span of time or continents is hypocrite.
> 
> The fact that you cannot or will not accept that which has already been accepted and defined is irrelevant.  Your pseudo intellectualism is boorish and frankly what you espouse is nothing more than piffle and balderdash. The fact that you try to create meaning to your own liking does not make them true.
> 
> Or to put it in terms that anyone who live in the 60's in the U.S. could relate.  You are the Dr. Zachary Smith of this thread.
> 
> Sorry, the remake movie just doesn't live up to the television show in my opinion, however the special effects were spectacular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It so happens I have published two articles on translation theory in _Semiotica_, and am well read in semiotics. I am also working on translations of three books on Nietzsche.
> 
> If you have reason to doubt my claims to competence, please announce them now.
> 
> If you want some insight, please read the opening introduction to _History of Art_ by Janson. The first thing he says is that at the very least art is something tangible  made by human hands.
> 
> That disqualifies photography right off the bat.
> 
> I have repeated this here in this thread many times.
Click to expand...


----------



## usayit

Photography shares creativity with art because, by its very nature, it necessarily involves the immagination.  Any photograph, even a casual snapshot, represents both an organizational experience and the record of a mental image.  The subject and style of a photograph thus tell us about hte photographer's inner and outer worlds.  Furthermore, photography participates in the same seek-and-find process as painting or sculpture.  Photographers may not realize what they respond to until after they see the image in printed form.  To understand phtography's place in the history of art, we must recognize the medium's particular strengths and inherent limitations.


----------



## Derrel

"piffle and balderdash"...that's good stuff!  Gotta' love the Dr. Zachary Smith reference as well... http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...ploads/2009/07/dr-smith-lost-in-space.jpg&t=1

I wonder if Lost in Space could possibly be art....hmmm...I wonder what the philosopher king might say about that...


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Photography shares creativity with art because, by its very nature, it necessarily involves the immagination.  Any photograph, even a casual snapshot, represents both an organizational experience and the record of a mental image.  The subject and style of a photograph thus tell us about hte photographer's inner and outer worlds.  Furthermore, photography participates in the same seek-and-find process as painting or sculpture.  Photographers may not realize what they respond to until after they see the image in printed form.  To understand phtography's place in the history of art, we must recognize the medium's particular strengths and inherent limitations.



No, this is all false.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photography shares creativity with art because, by its very nature, it necessarily involves the immagination.  Any photograph, even a casual snapshot, represents both an organizational experience and the record of a mental image.  The subject and style of a photograph thus tell us about hte photographer's inner and outer worlds.  Furthermore, photography participates in the same seek-and-find process as painting or sculpture.  Photographers may not realize what they respond to until after they see the image in printed form.  To understand phtography's place in the history of art, we must recognize the medium's particular strengths and inherent limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is all false.
Click to expand...


Oops.. I forgot to mention.

This is from "History of art: the Western tradition By Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson"   

So I guess you don't agree with Horst Janson huh?



Next..


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photography shares creativity with art because, by its very nature, it necessarily involves the immagination.  Any photograph, even a casual snapshot, represents both an organizational experience and the record of a mental image.  The subject and style of a photograph thus tell us about hte photographer's inner and outer worlds.  Furthermore, photography participates in the same seek-and-find process as painting or sculpture.  Photographers may not realize what they respond to until after they see the image in printed form.  To understand phtography's place in the history of art, we must recognize the medium's particular strengths and inherent limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is all false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops.. I forgot to mention.
> 
> This is from "History of art: the Western tradition By Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson"
> 
> So I guess you don't agree with Horst Janson huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Next..
Click to expand...


Absolutely not. He is dead wrong if he's saying photographs are works of art.Why? Because photographs don't satisfy the basic requirements outlined in the quote by Janson I gave earlier. Photographs are not "something tangible made by human hands". 

Photographs are *not *a record of a "mental image". They record what is in front of the lens, period.


----------



## KenC

Are you guys still going on about "art"?  Don't you ever sleep or actually photograph anything?  Just shoot what makes you happy or what you can sell.  "Art" is only a label affixed after the fact by critics or art historians trying to justify their existence.


----------



## Petraio Prime

KenC said:


> Are you guys still going on about "art"?  Don't you ever sleep or actually photograph anything?  Just shoot what makes you happy or what you can sell.  "Art" is only a label affixed after the fact by critics or art historians trying to justify their existence.



I just get tired of photographers who feel they are ennobled by calling their work 'art', as if making art were the highest endeavour of man. It isn't. Dentistry is.

So, listen up, folks:

Art is no better than photography
Artists are no better than photographers
Calling yourself and artist when you are a photographer is like calling yourself a riveter when you're a carpenter.

If you really want to impress people, tell them you're a dentist.

:lmao:


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is all false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops.. I forgot to mention.
> 
> This is from "History of art: the Western tradition By Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson"
> 
> So I guess you don't agree with Horst Janson huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Next..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. He is dead wrong if he's saying photographs are works of art.Why? Because photographs don't satisfy the basic requirements outlined in the quote by Janson I gave earlier. Photographs are not "something tangible made by human hands".
> 
> Photographs are *not *a record of a "mental image". They record what is in front of the lens, period.
Click to expand...


Dude you are hopeless... you latch on to anything that meets your fancy and reject/ignore the rest even when faced with your own references and established zero foundation on which to stand on.

This non-art major computer geek (I haven't even read the book) just pointed to a passage contrary to your stance from the very reference you brought up... even then you choose to be ignorant.   An entire chapter (27th one) in that book is dedicated to photography and you latch on to a non-specific single line in the intro.  

You are portray yourself as the learned one in this field of study and all you can teach me is "He is wrong because I said so".  You are pathetic....    

All that I have up on you are years of exposure to a group of friends trained in the "art of debate" from which I was subjected to over Thursday and Friday beer at the local pub.  Even that modest experience betters your stance.


Nothing more to say.. and nothing here to learn.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops.. I forgot to mention.
> 
> This is from "History of art: the Western tradition By Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson"
> 
> So I guess you don't agree with Horst Janson huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Next..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. He is dead wrong if he's saying photographs are works of art.Why? Because photographs don't satisfy the basic requirements outlined in the quote by Janson I gave earlier. Photographs are not "something tangible made by human hands".
> 
> Photographs are *not *a record of a "mental image". They record what is in front of the lens, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you are hopeless... you latch on to anything that meets your fancy and reject/ignore the rest even when faced with your own references and established zero foundation on which to stand on.
> 
> This non-art major computer geek (I haven't even read the book) just pointed to a passage contrary to your stance from the very reference you brought up... even then you choose to be ignorant.   An entire chapter (27th one) in that book is dedicated to photography and you latch on to a non-specific single line in the intro.
> 
> You are portray yourself as the learned one in this field of study and all you can teach me is "He is wrong because I said so".  You are pathetic....
> 
> All that I have up on you are years of exposure to a group of friends trained in the "art of debate" from which I was subjected to over Thursday and Friday beer at the local pub.  Even that modest experience betters your stance.
> 
> 
> Nothing more to say.. and nothing here to learn.
Click to expand...


Some people don't recognize the contradictions in their own work. I laid out the contradictions earlier.

If you think that 'self-expression' is necessary for something to be 'art', well 99% of the art that has ever been created does *not *contain self-expression. Do you want to throw away 99% of the history of art? All those Egyptian statues?



















Do you? 

Is this art? Yes? No?

* Yes, of course it is.*

These works are highly stylized within an Egyptian artistic tradition, and are not concerned at all with "self-expression". _They express cultural and political motifs._

OK, so maybe that *isn't *a criterion after all, *innit*?

You can't have it both ways. Janson can't either.

So, why are they art?


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> If you have reason to doubt my claims to competence, please announce them now.



Biggest reason: This is the internet. 

We're in a discussion about your opinion vs. essentially everyone else's. Competence really has little to do with something so subjective.

Nevertheless, when you write things like "No, this is all false", assert yourself as having more authority than others on an internet forum, state that you're right because you've repeated yourself several times, people may start to doubt your credibility. 

When you cite your publication record (in a field that is loosely-at-best related to the topic at hand) curious minds start to wonder. Regarding your publications, the cold hard fact is that the 5-year average impact factor of _Semiotica_ is less than 0.2. Yes, that's a decimal before the 2. I honestly didn't think impact factors were even calculated if they were that low.

All this really means is that semiotics is a teeny tiny field and that in all likelihood, no one ever cited your articles (maybe you cited your first article in your second article)...how much significance are we to ascribe to this accomplishment of yours?

Maybe people wouldn't treat you with so much hostility if you made any attempt to view the issue from their points of view. Instead you insist on invalidating the opinions of everyone else with your own opinions, making some dubious claim to being an expert.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> Is this art? Yes? No?
> 
> * Yes, of course it is.*




Umm, they're photographs. :lmao:


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this art? Yes? No?
> 
> * Yes, of course it is.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, they're photographs. :lmao:
Click to expand...


No, they're photons.


----------



## KenC

Petraio Prime said:


> KenC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you guys still going on about "art"? Don't you ever sleep or actually photograph anything? Just shoot what makes you happy or what you can sell. "Art" is only a label affixed after the fact by critics or art historians trying to justify their existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just get tired of photographers who feel they are ennobled by calling their work 'art', as if making art were the highest endeavour of man. It isn't. Dentistry is.
> 
> So, listen up, folks:
> 
> Art is no better than photography
> Artists are no better than photographers
> Calling yourself and artist when you are a photographer is like calling yourself a riveter when you're a carpenter.
> 
> If you really want to impress people, tell them you're a dentist.
> 
> :lmao:
Click to expand...

 
Dentistry "the highest endeavour of man"?  I thought it was brewing!


----------



## Petraio Prime

KenC said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KenC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you guys still going on about "art"? Don't you ever sleep or actually photograph anything? Just shoot what makes you happy or what you can sell. "Art" is only a label affixed after the fact by critics or art historians trying to justify their existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just get tired of photographers who feel they are ennobled by calling their work 'art', as if making art were the highest endeavour of man. It isn't. Dentistry is.
> 
> So, listen up, folks:
> 
> Art is no better than photography
> Artists are no better than photographers
> Calling yourself and artist when you are a photographer is like calling yourself a riveter when you're a carpenter.
> 
> If you really want to impress people, tell them you're a dentist.
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dentistry "the highest endeavour of man"?  I thought it was brewing!
Click to expand...


Sicilian wine-making?


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this art? Yes? No?
> 
> * Yes, of course it is.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, they're photographs. :lmao:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they're photons.
Click to expand...


Waves or particles?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, they're photographs. :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're photons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waves or particles?
Click to expand...


Ask Heisenberg; maybe he knows, maybe he doesn't.


----------



## Overread

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, they're photographs. :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're photons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waves or particles?
Click to expand...


ahh now I get it! Its nothing to do with art or not, its to do with base materials! Clearly art can only be made with particles or waves whilst halfbreeds are not allowed! I think that is some sort of racism so to keep things politically and morally correct photography must remain an art form!


----------



## usayit

Oops, in my haste of posting a quote, I also forgot an important sentence in that passage:

"In itself, photography is simply a medium, like oil paint, or pastel, used to make art and has no inherent claim to being art.  What distinguishes any art from a craft is why, not how, it is done."

- Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson



(ok I lied.. I left it out on purpose thinking it would be useful to be used later on)

 

Do you hear something?   Yup.. its my credit card completing a purchase of a more valid/complete resource on said topic... PP, thanks for pointing out a good book.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Oops, in my haste of posting a quote, I also forgot an important sentence in that passage:
> 
> "In itself, photography is simply a medium, like oil paint, or pastel, used to make art and has no inherent claim to being art.  What distinguishes any art from a craft is why, not how, it is done."
> 
> - Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson
> 
> 
> 
> (ok I lied.. I left it out on purpose thinking it would be useful to be used later on)
> 
> 
> 
> Do you hear something?   Yup.. its my credit card completing a purchase of a more valid/complete resource on said topic... PP, thanks for pointing out a good book.



No, it's not, and of course he's full of crap. It's *not *"simply a medium, like oil paint, or pastel, used to make art".
Janson defined what art is, properly, by saying it's "something tangible made by human hands". If you understand what photography is, you know it's *not *"something tangible made by human hands".


----------



## usayit

Congrats.. you just made a suggestion (even quoted) to a reference you now think is total crap.   That's really impressive.

Maybe you should warn me about which other chapters are crap.... or did you even read it?


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Congrats.. you just made a suggestion (even quoted) to a reference you now think is total crap.   That's really impressive.
> 
> Maybe you should warn me about which other chapters are crap.... or did you even read it?



It's possible for people to make mistakes and contradict themselves.

Do you think the Egyptian statues and sculptures are art, and if so why?


----------



## usayit

Chapter 3, 17.1 - "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight"
Chapter 3, 17.2 - "He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces"
Chapter 3, 18 - "Hence the saying:  If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."

- Sun Tzu - "The ART of War"


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Chapter 3, 17.1 - "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight"
> Chapter 3, 17.2 - "He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces"
> Chapter 3, 18 - "Hence the saying:  If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."
> 
> - Sun Tzu - "The ART of War"



Gosh, I didn't know he wrote that in _English_!



So, are the Egyptian statues art or not? Give me an answer.


----------



## usayit

Chapter 4, 1: "The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.  To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself"

- Sun Tzu "The ART of War."

Too dense to figure it out eh?   I'm not the self-proclaimed expert, I need not take you on level ground.  I simply take the high ground and wait for an opportunity.  Let me simplify it for you... The burden of proof is on you.  Not I.


Gosh.. this is fun...


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Chapter 4, 1: "The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.  To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself"
> 
> - Sun Tzu "The ART of War."
> 
> Too dense to figure it out eh?   I'm not the self-proclaimed expert, I need not take you on level ground.  I simply take the high ground and wait for an opportunity.  Let me simplify it for you... The burden of proof is on you.  Not I.
> 
> 
> Gosh.. this is fun...



English seems not to be your strength. It should be "on me".

There is no 'proof' required here. It is simply an analysis of the terms. If we call the Egyptian statuary and wall engravings 'art', when there was *no* self-expression involved, why do we call them 'art'? Surely you must have some idea.

I *can *show that the criteria for calling photography 'art' and these ancient works 'art' are incompatible. In other words, they can't *both *be art on the criteria given by those who say photography is art.

So, fine, if you want photography to be art, you can have it, but the entire history of 'art' is gone along with it. No Mona Lisa, no Sistine Chapel, no Last Supper, no Venus d'Milo, no monumental sculptures of ancient Egypt or Persia or Greece or Rome can be considered art, just so you and all your photographer wanna-be-artists friends can call yourselves 'artists'.







Are you happy with that outcome?

Didn't think so.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> English seems not to be your strength. It should be "on me".
> 
> Are you happy with that outcome?
> 
> Didn't think so.



Nope.. English is not my strength.  I code for a living.  Engineers much prefer organized logic thought in short bursts which

Actually.. I am satisfied with the outcome.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> English seems not to be your strength. It should be "on me".
> 
> Are you happy with that outcome?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. English is not my strength.  I code for a living.  Engineers much prefer organized logic thought in short bursts which
> 
> Actually.. I am satisfied with the outcome.
Click to expand...


OK, you can call photography 'art' but nothing else that has been considered 'art' for the last 40,000 years is to be called art anymore.

No Italian Renaissance painting or sculpture, no Egyptian statues or wall carvings, none of it is art anymore.

:lmao:


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> OK, you can call photography 'art' but nothing else that has been considered 'art' for the last 40,000 years is to be called art anymore.
> 
> No Italian Renaissance painting or sculpture, no Egyptian statues or wall carvings, none of it is art anymore.
> 
> :lmao:



I'll let you figure out which of the Fallacies of Logic you just implied:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you can call photography 'art' but nothing else that has been considered 'art' for the last 40,000 years is to be called art anymore.
> 
> No Italian Renaissance painting or sculpture, no Egyptian statues or wall carvings, none of it is art anymore.
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let you figure out which of the Fallacies of Logic you just implied:
> 
> List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Is there one for arguing with a rock?

You ought to find this amusing:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_border_bridges


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> Is there one for arguing with a rock?



Resorting to name calling eh...?

I've provided two passages from a credible source (Janson, History of Art), an entry from the dictionary, and have public opinion of this thread in agreement with both.  I believe it is you who has not shown proof... much like a rock.   

Funny thing is.. I haven't even begun arguing my personal stance on such question of art.. I've only poked holes in your stance and you assume I don't agree with you.      You are your worst enemy...


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there one for arguing with a rock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resorting to name calling eh...?
> 
> I've provided two passages from a credible source (Janson, History of Art), an entry from the dictionary, and have public opinion of this thread in agreement with both.  I believe it is you who has not shown proof... much like a rock.
> 
> Funny thing is.. I haven't even begun arguing my personal stance on such question of art.. I've only poked holes in your stance and you assume I don't agree with you.
Click to expand...


You have done nothing of the sort. I can do a _reductio ad absurdum_, that to call photography 'art' is to appeal to criteria that are inconsistent with those accepted for art for thousands of years.

You are unable to reconcile them because they are irreconcilable. 

It is impossible to accept something as art because it meets certain criteria (and must meet them) when those criteria are *not *met by other things that certainly *are *art.

If you say " 'x' is 'art' because it shows self-expression" and claim that anything that is art *must *show self-expression, then how can you say that things such as Egyptian statues and other similar works, which certainly are *not *the product of self-expression, are art?

You end up in a contradiction! If it is art if and only if it shows self expression, then the Egyptian stuff is not art, and you have not only contradicted yourself, you still don't have both photography and statues in the same class ('art') which was what you are trying to accomplish!

You can't win, either way!

If photography is art (because it shows self-expression), then Egyptian statuary is *not *art (because it is *not *the result of self-expression). 

If Egyptian statuary is art (because it's something tangible that is the work of human hands), then photography is *not *art (because it's *not *something tangible that is the work of human hands).


----------



## usayit

EH?  sonny... didn't hear you the first 100 times...

In the end, I showed burden of proof even though I relied on other sources.   You are still just passing opinions with no foundation.    The proof of burden is on the so called expert not the layman.. hence my defensive stance.

The Egyptian Statuary is your red herring..   Not mine.
Showing me a red apple doesn't mean all apples are red.


----------



## usayit

"In itself, photography is simply a medium, like oil paint or pastel, used to make art and has no inherent claim to being art"

History of art: the western tradition, Horst Janson

Medium is tangible just like oil and pastel is what I gather from that.



You are too easy...  I've had much worse debates with less established knowledge on said topics.


----------



## usayit

"Furthermore, photography participates in the same seek-and-find process as painting or sculpture."

History of art: the western tradition, Horst Janson

I can't wait to actually get this book in print...


Ok.. enough fun..  for now..   This academically challenged person needs a beer... work day is done.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> "Furthermore, photography participates in the same seek-and-find process as painting or sculpture."
> 
> History of art: the western tradition, Horst Janson
> 
> I can't wait to actually get this book in print...
> 
> 
> Ok.. enough fun..  for now..   This academically challenged person needs a beer... work day is done.



The comments about photography are entirely without truth or merit.


----------



## table1349

> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case. You ignored the question and instead regurgitated more of the same old song and dance that is out of tune and by now out of fashion.
> 
> You indicate that only Painting, Sculpture, Architecture & Engraving are the only fine arts and it is not matter for debate.  Says who.  Show me the proof. * PUT UP or SHUT UP.*
> 
> You bragged in another thread of having your masters in philosophy and now you lay claim to the exclusive knowledge of the use of words in their proper manner.  Do you have a degree inlinguistics as well? Do you also write thesis' on linguistics?  Funny, I don't remember linguistics in my philosophy class.
> 
> I also don't remember seeing you as one of the contributors to the Oxford English Dictionary.  I actually find your reference laughable in regards to the meaning of words since you have blatantly ignored the accepted meanings posted by others in this thread.
> 
> The language we Americans call English is one of the poorest languages on the face of the planet for pure communication.  However one word that has not lost it's meaning over the span of time or continents is hypocrite.
> 
> The fact that you cannot or will not accept that which has already been accepted and defined is irrelevant.  Your pseudo intellectualism is boorish and frankly what you espouse is nothing more than piffle and balderdash. The fact that you try to create meaning to your own liking does not make them true.
> 
> Or to put it in terms that anyone who live in the 60's in the U.S. could relate.  You are the Dr. Zachary Smith of this thread.
> 
> Sorry, the remake movie just doesn't live up to the television show in my opinion, however the special effects were spectacular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It so happens I have published two articles on translation theory in _Semiotica_, and am well read in semiotics. I am also working on translations of three books on Nietzsche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so what do you see Semiotics as.  From my understanding of Semiotics it is no so much an academic discipline, but rather a field of study utilizing various theoretical avenues. Theoretical, meaning it is based upon theory or speculation.  Speculation, meaning an assumption or belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have reason to doubt my claims to competence, please announce them now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As to your competence in philosophy or semiotics, frankly I don't know, nor do I care.  You offer no proof, just claims.  Frankly however, neither have much meaning in the function of the real world.
> 
> As you you competence to be self appointed prosecutor, judge and jury as to what is and is not Art.  *Yes*, as in an affirmative reply, I doubt you competence to this self proclaimed lofty title.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want some insight, please read the opening introduction to _History of Art_ by Janson. The first thing he says is that at the very least art is something tangible  made by human hands.
> 
> That disqualifies photography right off the bat.
> 
> I have repeated this here in this thread many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want some insight please read this: A small beginning excerpt.
> _*Art* is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings_
> 
> The whole article: art - Google Search
> 
> Perhaps you should go here: Art cyclopedia: The Fine Art Search Engine.   They seem fit to include Ansel Adams and many other accomplished photographers as Artists.
> 
> The Art Institute of Chicago.  A learned institution, hall of Academia, and well know Museum seems to include photography as one of their Artistic Courses of study.  The Art Institute of Chicago
> 
> Perhaps you should check out the Fall 2010 curriculum at the New York University Institute of Fine Art.  IFA | NYU - About the Institute  They seem to included photography in their curriculum.
> 
> Would you like to go on trading citations?  If, according to your reasoning, citations make it true, then by the sheer volume here apparently ole H. W. Janson was wrong back in 1962 when he published is book.   The above, more modern citations qualifies photography right off the bat.
> 
> I will agree with you on one thing however, you have doggedly repeated your OPINION numerous times in this thread. An opinion overwhelmingly not shared by others as is apparent by the responses in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Petraio Prime

gryphonslair99 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want some insight please read this: A small beginning excerpt.
> _*Art* is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble is that a very large portion of what has been considered 'art' for thousands of years does not qualify under these criteria to be called 'art'. Or else the statement is so vague as to include almost anything.
> 
> Surely neither of these positions is tenable.
> 
> The rest of your post does not merit a response.
> 
> You are simply not qualified to debate this with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Derrel

Which would be an easier way out of seeing this thread? A big,big overdose of pills? Or a rope around my neck and a step off of a dining room chair?????

WHEN will this thing END???????????????????????


----------



## Overread

It will end when it ends - not a post before and not a post after
42 probably factors into the equation of when it ends because the answer to the question of "when will it end" is 42 - though 42 works in mysterious ways so its hard to guess at the actual end - for that we would need to know the question.


----------



## err_ok

It's page 13 why are you still humouring him. I got to page 3 and ceased caring.


Oh wait it's page 25... :S


----------



## Warren Peace

Do we know if photography is art yet?


----------



## SusanMart

photography may become art only in the arms of a skilled artist


----------



## ann

ok i can't believe i have continue to read this thread ( i never pass an accident and say oooh i must take a look)

for me it is time to say, we will agree to disagree. Nothing but nothing will ever change with the positions taken regarding this topic . If PP insist on taking on the world single handed, so be it *(forgive ending with IT ) .


----------



## abraxas

This is what dogs do.

-


----------



## Overread

My ava takes issue with your point on dogs - she never chases her tail - she is far more interested in chasing cat/rabbit/pheasant/vole and other various small furry thing's tails.


----------



## table1349

> =Petraio Prime;1995534]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble is that a very large portion of what has been considered 'art' for thousands of years does not qualify under these criteria to be called 'art'. Or else the statement is so vague as to include almost anything
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> For thousands of years man thought the earth was flat and that the sun and stars revolved around the earth.  Are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society?
> 
> What criteria, and more importantly, what universally accepted and respected body developed this criteria that you refer to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely neither of these positions is tenable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your belief in your position is so strong offer proof, not rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your post does not merit a response.
> 
> You are simply not qualified to debate this with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will make an outstandingly average parent.  You have mastered the art of "Because I said so".   The sad thing is, you apparently believe in "Because I said so" as well.
> 
> You apparently lack in the area of analytical thinking deludes your abilities to separate opinion from provable fact.  You have been challenged innumerable times in this thread to offer proof of your opinions and you continually fail to do so, which makes you last statement a bit of an oxymoron.
> 
> What is perplexing is you apparent belief in the philosophy that if you repeat the same opinion over and over, it will become fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Petraio Prime

gryphonslair99 said:


> =Petraio Prime;1995534]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> For thousands of years man thought the earth was flat and that the sun and stars revolved around the earth.  Are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society?
> 
> What criteria, and more importantly, what universally accepted and respected body developed this criteria that you refer to?
> 
> 
> 
> If your belief in your position is so strong offer proof, not rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> You will make an outstandingly average parent.  You have mastered the art of "Because I said so".   The sad thing is, you apparently believe in "Because I said so" as well.
> 
> You apparently lack in the area of analytical thinking deludes your abilities to separate opinion from provable fact.  You have been challenged innumerable times in this thread to offer proof of your opinions and you continually fail to do so, which makes you last statement a bit of an oxymoron.
> 
> What is perplexing is you apparent belief in the philosophy that if you repeat the same opinion over and over, it will become fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I have, many times, laid out, in excruciating detail, the matter.
> 
> Why do *you *think we consider Egyptian art, 'art'?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## table1349

Overread said:


> It will end when it ends - not a post before and not a post after
> 42 probably factors into the equation of when it ends because the answer to the question of "when will it end" is 42 - though 42 works in mysterious ways so its hard to guess at the actual end - for that we would need to know the question.



I like you.  You are a funny funny guy.


----------



## Petraio Prime

gryphonslair99 said:


> =Petraio Prime;1995534]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> For thousands of years man thought the earth was flat and that the sun and stars revolved around the earth.  Are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society?
> 
> What criteria, and more importantly, what universally accepted and respected body developed this criteria that you refer to?
> 
> 
> 
> If your belief in your position is so strong offer proof, not rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> You will make an outstandingly average parent.  You have mastered the art of "Because I said so".   The sad thing is, you apparently believe in "Because I said so" as well.
> 
> You apparently lack in the area of analytical thinking deludes your abilities to separate opinion from provable fact.  You have been challenged innumerable times in this thread to offer proof of your opinions and you continually fail to do so, which makes you last statement a bit of an oxymoron.
> 
> What is perplexing is you apparent belief in the philosophy that if you repeat the same opinion over and over, it will become fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are reasons why people call things 'art'. If the criteria are contradictory, then something is wrong. You cannot say something is art, claiming that self-expression is the essential criterion and a necessary one, when the vast majority of art ever created has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> Why do *you *think we consider Egyptian art, 'art'?



Do I? Never really thought about if it was art or not - certainly much is very ornate, beyond basic needs for functionality - and its very skilled in production. 

I guess pretty and requiring skill to produce are the two basic criteria for things to start being art in my book - inner meaning; inner expression and all other such thing tend to lead to what I call Tate Modern Trash - that is art that is considered art only because a 1000+word essay justifying it as art comes along with it. 

I can even justify art as art when it is not pretty (to my eye) but requires great skill and shows a degree of beauty even if I cannot appreciate it *eg I don't find the Mona Lisa all that engaging, but I respect the quality of the artistry present)

edit - and containing a degree of creativity as well I think is probably important as well now I think of it


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do *you *think we consider Egyptian art, 'art'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I? Never really thought about if it was art or not - certainly much is very ornate, beyond basic needs for functionality - and its very skilled in production.
> 
> I guess pretty and requiring skill to produce are the two basic criteria for things to start being art in my book - inner meaning; inner expression and all other such thing tend to lead to what I call Tate Modern Trash - that is art that is considered art only because a 1000+word essay justifying it as art comes along with it.
> 
> I can even justify art as art when it is not pretty (to my eye) but requires great skill and shows a degree of beauty even if I cannot appreciate it *eg I don't find the Mona Lisa all that engaging, but I respect the quality of the artistry present)
Click to expand...


I'm asking you, *now*, specifically, why we think of Egyptian art as 'art'. What makes it 'art'?


----------



## Overread

Well I thought I just gave you the answer for myself and I can't say why you think of Egyptian works as art.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Well I thought I just gave you the answer for myself and I can't say why you think of Egyptian works as art.



No, you gave some vague answer. Focus specifically on Egyptian sculptures, etc.






Why is this considered 'art'? You said something about being 'pretty'.


----------



## table1349

> =Petraio Prime
> 
> But I have, many times, laid out, in excruciating detail, the matter.



The only thing you have laid out many times is your own rhetoric based upon opinion.  You have laid out no concrete, sustainable proof.  This apparently is not just my opinion as others in this thread have expressed the same thing.  



> =Petraio Prime
> Why do *you *think we consider Egyptian art, 'art'?



First I don't presume to act as the spokesman for the masses as you do.  That I why I do not use the term *we*.  As to why you or any other person does or does not consider Egyptian art as art is inconsequential to all but the individual.  

I do not consider all of the things created during the Egyptian period to be art.  That which I do consider art is based upon my opinion shaped by my personal likes and dislikes.  

You miss the very basic common point in a topic of this nature.  Any answer to an abstract concept such as a definition of art is purely opinion.  It to this point cannot be proven. Until such time as there is Proof of what is or is not art, the whole concept of defining the term ART is merely personal opinion.


----------



## Overread

It's my experience that the aims of the creator mean nothing when it comes to the acceptance of their creations - and that different communities (within and outside of the same time frame) can interpret the same creation in different light.

Maybe it was made to appease the gods - such the pharaoh might say
Maybe it was made to appease the pharaoh - such as the sculpture might say
Maybe it was made to be a right pain the neck - such as the stonecutter might say
Maybe it was made to be beautiful or artistic or creative

Whatever it was made for is, in effect, irrelevant - its what it is accepted as that is important. Some accept it as a sculpture - some sculpture is art and some is not. That one is art does not make all art - just some of it to some people for some reasons.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> I'm asking you, *now*, specifically, why we think of Egyptian art as 'art'. What makes it 'art'?



Was it considered art at the time it was made? The belief at the time was likely that it served a very practical purpose...to satisfy the gods/pharoahs, which would lead to prosperity, success in battle, stuff like that. Also, pyramids and sphinx's send a pretty clear message about how powerful the ruler is. Quite practical, really. 

Alternatively, maybe it represented the self-expression of the pharoah, who did all of his bidding through the work of slaves...commissioned art, if you will. Times have changed (thankfully). 

So there, either it wasn't art, or it was indeed representing self expression, albeit indirectly. 

Just trying to approach this with an open mind (try it out!).


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking you, *now*, specifically, why we think of Egyptian art as 'art'. What makes it 'art'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it considered art at the time it was made? The belief at the time was likely that it served a very practical purpose...to satisfy the gods/pharoahs, which would lead to prosperity, success in battle, stuff like that. Also, pyramids and sphinx's send a pretty clear message about how powerful the ruler is. Quite practical, really.
> 
> Alternatively, maybe it represented the self-expression of the pharoah, who did all of his bidding through the work of slaves...commissioned art, if you will. Times have changed (thankfully).
> 
> So there, either it wasn't art, or it was indeed representing self expression, albeit indirectly.
> 
> Just trying to approach this with an open mind (try it out!).
Click to expand...


It was not '*self*-expression'. Rather, it expressed the cultural, governmental, ceremonial, religious, political, and propaganda needs of those who paid for it.

But it is art now and was art then. Why?


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> But it is art now and *was art then*. Why?



erm we just gave you 3 answers  
and haven't you spent the last 25odd pages telling us that it wasn't art then but now it is art then?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it is art now and *was art then*. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> erm we just gave you 3 answers
> and haven't you spent the last 25odd pages telling us that it wasn't art then but now it is art then?
Click to expand...


No, I didn't say that. Where did you come up with that?


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it is art now and *was art then*. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> erm we just gave you 3 answers
> and haven't you spent the last 25odd pages telling us that it wasn't art then but now it is art then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say that. Where did you come up with that?
Click to expand...


You've said it yourself many times - art requires self expression in order for photography to be accepted as art. Therefore since I accept that photography has the capacity to be art and artistic I have to (according to your understanding) accept that art requires self expression - and thus because Egyptian sculpture shows no self expression of the creator it cannot be art under your definitions.


Of course, myself, I don't accept that art requires self expression nor that all photography requires self expression - and thus I am capable of accepting the artistic quality of both ancient Egyptian art as well as photography.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> It was not '*self*-expression'. Rather, it expressed the cultural, governmental, ceremonial, religious, political, and propaganda needs of those who paid for it.
> 
> But it is art now and was art then. Why?




The notion of self expression was surely different then than it is now. Pharaoh wanted to express himself with a sphinx, slaves made a sphinx.

Please back up your assertion that it is art now and was art then. Mere repetition is not sufficient to prove this point.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> erm we just gave you 3 answers
> and haven't you spent the last 25odd pages telling us that it wasn't art then but now it is art then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say that. Where did you come up with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've said it yourself many times - art requires self expression in order for photography to be accepted as art.
Click to expand...


I said no such thing. Someone else may have.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not '*self*-expression'. Rather, it expressed the cultural, governmental, ceremonial, religious, political, and propaganda needs of those who paid for it.
> 
> But it is art now and was art then. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The notion of self expression was surely different then than it is now. Pharaoh wanted to express himself with a sphinx, slaves made a sphinx.
> 
> Please back up your assertion that it is art now and was art then. Mere repetition is not sufficient to prove this point.
Click to expand...


Consider the comments of Plato and other ancient Greeks about the Greek artists. Their work was judged not on 'self-expression' but its grace and its ability to capture and express the cultural and religious notions of the god or goddess depicted.


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say that. Where did you come up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've said it yourself many times - art requires self expression in order for photography to be accepted as art.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said no such thing. Someone else may have.
Click to expand...


So if art does not require self expression in order to be art and nor does it require the lacking of self expression  then what exactly is your barrier to photography being art?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've said it yourself many times - art requires self expression in order for photography to be accepted as art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said no such thing. Someone else may have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if art does not require self expression in order to be art and nor does it require the lacking of self expression  then what exactly is your barrier to photography being art?
Click to expand...


Because, as I have stated numberless times, it is the product of nature (photons focussed by a lens), *not *'something tangible made by human hands', and that *is *necessary for something to be art.


----------



## Overread

surely painting is the nature of paint upon canvus 
surely sculpting is the nature of hammer and chizzel upon stone or ice
surely sketching is the nature of graphite upon paper
etc... .etc....
surely photography is the nature of photons upon film/sensor
surely drawing is the nature of electrons and other fancy things inside the computer being arranged into a specific form

surely hammer, camera, computer, chizzel, fingers, feet, mouth, eyes, ears - does art really matter totally on the how in this manner? I (and most others in this thread) say no - we even accept that the original intent of the creator is no longer important once the work is released to the acceptance or rejection of the masses.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> Because, as I have stated numberless times, it is the product of nature (photons focussed by a lens), *not *'something tangible made by human hands', and that *is *necessary for something to be art.



Now we're back on track. You are citing an old, outdated, obsolete convention. Furthermore, the photographer is an active agent in the process of making a photograph: all the way from determining the scene that the lens renders, to the final product, the print. 

Modern convention dictates that some (not all) photography can be art. Corollary: some, not all painting can be art. The fact is, we are all appealing to authority...albeit different authorities. Your argument is no stronger than that of the dissenters.


----------



## usayit

I'm sorry PP, you are full of crap.. er.. (did I think of that out loud).. I meant.

Your comments about photography are entirely without truth or merit.





guys... he rejects even credible sources he references himself (even got him going in circles)... at that point, intelligent conversation turns into head banging on wall conversation.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as I have stated numberless times, it is the product of nature (photons focussed by a lens), *not *'something tangible made by human hands', and that *is *necessary for something to be art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're back on track. You are citing an old, outdated, obsolete convention. Furthermore, the photographer is an active agent in the process of making a photograph: all the way from determining the scene that the lens renders, to the final product, the print.
> 
> Modern convention dictates that some (not all) photography can be art. Corollary: some, not all painting can be art. The fact is, we are all appealing to authority...albeit different authorities. Your argument is no stronger than that of the dissenters.
Click to expand...


It's not old or obsolete. I'm pointing out that *if* you claim that there is self-expression in photography (which I deny to begin with, but never mind that for now) *and that's what makes it art, *then what makes the Egyptian statues and carvings art, when they are not the product of self-expression? 

Your claim is that *some *photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct? My claim is simple: it's art because of the manner of its production. All art must be 'hand-made' to be art:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/11/world/11mural-600.jpg

http://oxleylearning.org/germandictionary/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/sculpting.gif

http://www.sad74.k12.me.us:16080/district/file.php/1/Pictures/Pictures_-_Misc_-_Pottery_Wheel.jpg

http://www.bsu.edu/web/bsjessie/glass_history/glass_blowing.jpg

*That *is what makes it art.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> : it's art because of the manner of its production. All art must be 'hand-made' to be art:.



I believe this is wrong


I have a red apple.... see the red apple?   does it mean all apples are red?

The quote from "History of Art" stated that there's more to art than simply the question "how?"


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as I have stated numberless times, it is the product of nature (photons focussed by a lens), *not *'something tangible made by human hands', and that *is *necessary for something to be art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're back on track. You are citing an old, outdated, obsolete convention. Furthermore, the photographer is an active agent in the process of making a photograph: all the way from determining the scene that the lens renders, to the final product, the print.
> 
> Modern convention dictates that some (not all) photography can be art. Corollary: some, not all painting can be art. The fact is, we are all appealing to authority...albeit different authorities. Your argument is no stronger than that of the dissenters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not old or obsolete. I'm pointing out that *if* you claim that there is self-expression in photography (which I deny to begin with, but never mind that for now) *and that's what makes it art, *then what makes the Egyptian statues and carvings art, when they are not the product of self-expression?
> 
> Your claim is that *some *photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct? My claim is simple: it's art because of the manner of its production. All art must be 'hand-made' to be art:
Click to expand...


Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated any necessary condition for what makes anything art. 

Further, I never agreed (nor disagreed) that the Egyptian works are art. In fact, I provided plausible conditions that may in fact disqualify them as art, taking into account the prevailing beliefs about religion and royalty at the time they were made.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> : it's art because of the manner of its production. All art must be 'hand-made' to be art:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this is wrong
Click to expand...


That's the problem. You don't understand that.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're back on track. You are citing an old, outdated, obsolete convention. Furthermore, the photographer is an active agent in the process of making a photograph: all the way from determining the scene that the lens renders, to the final product, the print.
> 
> Modern convention dictates that some (not all) photography can be art. Corollary: some, not all painting can be art. The fact is, we are all appealing to authority...albeit different authorities. Your argument is no stronger than that of the dissenters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not old or obsolete. I'm pointing out that *if* you claim that there is self-expression in photography (which I deny to begin with, but never mind that for now) *and that's what makes it art, *then what makes the Egyptian statues and carvings art, when they are not the product of self-expression?
> 
> Your claim is that *some *photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct? My claim is simple: it's art because of the manner of its production. All art must be 'hand-made' to be art:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated any necessary condition for what makes anything art.
> 
> Further, I never agreed (nor disagreed) that the Egyptian works are art. In fact, I provided plausible conditions that may in fact disqualify them as art, taking into account the prevailing beliefs about religion and royalty at the time they were made.
Click to expand...


Do you see the bold *'if' *there? How could you miss it?


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> : it's art because of the manner of its production. All art must be 'hand-made' to be art:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this is wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the problem. You don't understand that.
Click to expand...


No the problem is your understanding.  This would be so much easier if you just accept what I say.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this is wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem. You don't understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the problem is your understanding.  This would be so much easier if you just accept what I say.
Click to expand...


But you lack authority and gravitas. Roger Scruton and I have that.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem. You don't understand that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the problem is your understanding.  This would be so much easier if you just accept what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you lack authority and gravitas. Roger Scruton and I have that.
Click to expand...


I don't think you do.. I think you are B.S'ing.  What I have is agreement with academically accepted and credible resource (which you provided).


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the problem is your understanding.  This would be so much easier if you just accept what I say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you lack authority and gravitas. Roger Scruton and I have that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you do.. I think you are B.S'ing.  What I have is agreement with academically accepted and credible resource (which you provided).
Click to expand...


But the philosopher Roger Scruton has specifically discussed, and wrote an article entitled_ Why Photography is Not Art_, and gave a thorough argument_._ Philosophy trumps art history.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you lack authority and gravitas. Roger Scruton and I have that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you do.. I think you are B.S'ing.  What I have is agreement with academically accepted and credible resource (which you provided).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the philosopher Roger Scruton specifically discussed, and wrote an article entitled_ Why Photography is Not Art_, and gave a thorough argument_._ Philosophy trumps art history.
Click to expand...


His opinion is without merit.  Saying Philosophy trumps history is utterly ignorant.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> Your claim is that *some *photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct?





			
				Infidel said:
			
		

> Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated any necessary condition for what makes anything art.
> 
> Further, I never agreed (nor disagreed) that the Egyptian works are art. In fact, I provided plausible conditions that may in fact disqualify them as art, taking into account the prevailing beliefs about religion and royalty at the time they were made.





Petraio Prime said:


> Do you see the bold *'if' *there? How could you miss it?



I should have quoted more selectively.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> Philosophy trumps art history.



False. I can play too: Infidel trumps Petraio Prime.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim is that *some *photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated any necessary condition for what makes anything art.
> 
> Further, I never agreed (nor disagreed) that the Egyptian works are art. In fact, I provided plausible conditions that may in fact disqualify them as art, taking into account the prevailing beliefs about religion and royalty at the time they were made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the bold *'if' *there? How could you miss it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have quoted more selectively.
Click to expand...


Thank you for admitting it.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you do.. I think you are B.S'ing.  What I have is agreement with academically accepted and credible resource (which you provided).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the philosopher Roger Scruton specifically discussed, and wrote an article entitled_ Why Photography is Not Art_, and gave a thorough argument_._ Philosophy trumps art history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His opinion is without merit.  Saying Philosophy trumps history is utterly ignorant.
Click to expand...


It's not merely opinion, it's argument, and you can't just dismiss argument; you have to refute it.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim is that *some *photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the bold *'if' *there? How could you miss it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have quoted more selectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting it.
Click to expand...


I suppose possess the gravitas it takes to admit when I'm mistaken .


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should have quoted more selectively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose possess the gravitas it takes to admit when I'm mistaken .
Click to expand...


I make it a point never to be mistaken.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the philosopher Roger Scruton specifically discussed, and wrote an article entitled_ Why Photography is Not Art_, and gave a thorough argument_._ Philosophy trumps art history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His opinion is without merit.  Saying Philosophy trumps history is utterly ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not merely opinion, it's argument, and you can't just dismiss argument; you have to refute it.
Click to expand...


You do all the time...  and now you are complaining?


Ok here is a refute.   Art is subjective and subject to many definitions.  You assert that there is only one definition.. You are wrong.  I only need to show one example.  According to Paul Anderson, in his book, The Fine Art of Photography, fine art is &#8220;any medium of expression which permits one person to convey to another an abstract idea of lofty emotion&#8221;.  Why don't you give us Scrutom's definition of art, because I believe it is different too.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> I make it a point never to be mistaken.



Quoted for posterity.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> Your claim is that *some *photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct?



As I stated earlier, that was not my claim, therefore you were mistaken. 

OHHH SNAP!!!


----------



## usayit

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim is that *some *photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated earlier, that was not my claim, therefore you were mistaken.
> 
> OHHH SNAP!!!
Click to expand...


Let's not forget referencing material that doesn't support his claims... also a mistake.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> His opinion is without merit.  Saying Philosophy trumps history is utterly ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not merely opinion, it's argument, and you can't just dismiss argument; you have to refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do all the time...  and now you are complaining?
> 
> 
> Ok here is a refute.   Art is subjective and subject to many definitions.  You assert that there is only one definition.. You are wrong.  I only need to show one example.  According to Paul Anderson, in his book, The Fine Art of Photography, fine art is &#8220;any medium of expression which permits one person to convey to another an abstract idea of lofty emotion&#8221;.
Click to expand...


No. You're not following.

There are necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. Do you understand the distinction?

If Janson says that for something to be classed as art  it must be 'at least....a tangible thing being made by human hands', that 'at least' is to be read as a _necessary condition_. It is _not _a sufficient condition, because some things made by hand are not art. 

Agreed?

Now, since photography does _not _produce anything by hand (lenses and sensitive materials are involved) and since that violates the _necessary condition, _*photography cannot produce art.

*It's really very simple.


----------



## hazeleyes1992

Well...there are different forms of photographs...some people may think that the person that took a picture didn't do something right on his/her camera. However, the photographer may have wanted the picture to look that way. "The camera doesn't take the pictures...the person holding the camera does."


----------



## Petraio Prime

hazeleyes1992 said:


> Well...there are different forms of photographs...some people may think that the person that took a picture didn't do something right on his/her camera. However, the photographer may have wanted the picture to look that way. "The camera doesn't take the pictures...the person holding the camera does."



It's not that simple. Photography can be automated and random. Art cannot be.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime said:


> Now, since photography does _not _produce anything by hand (lenses and sensitive materials are involved) and since that violates the _necessary condition, _*photography cannot produce art.
> 
> *It's really very simple.




Lenses (which are adjusted by hand) determine how photons are applied to film. 

Brushes (which are adjusted by hand) determine how paint is applied to canvas.

It's really very simple.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> If Janson says that for something to be classed as art  it must be 'at least....a tangible thing being made by human hands', that 'at least' is to be read as a _necessary condition_. It is _not _a sufficient condition, because some things made by hand are not art.



Let me remind you that Janson does not support your foundation.   Here.. it is for your short memory



Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, in my haste of posting a quote, I also forgot an important sentence in that passage:
> 
> "In itself, photography is simply a medium, like oil paint, or pastel, used to make art and has no inherent claim to being art.  What distinguishes any art from a craft is why, not how, it is done."
> 
> - Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson
> 
> 
> 
> (ok I lied.. I left it out on purpose thinking it would be useful to be used later on)
> 
> 
> 
> Do you hear something?   Yup.. its my credit card completing a purchase of a more valid/complete resource on said topic... PP, thanks for pointing out a good book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not, and of course he's full of crap. It's *not *"simply a medium, like oil paint, or pastel, used to make art".
> Janson defined what art is, properly, by saying it's "something tangible made by human hands". If you understand what photography is, you know it's *not *"something tangible made by human hands".
Click to expand...



and no its not simply stating that art has a single definition... it does not.  I have refuted that stance already.


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> hazeleyes1992 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...there are different forms of photographs...some people may think that the person that took a picture didn't do something right on his/her camera. However, the photographer may have wanted the picture to look that way. "The camera doesn't take the pictures...the person holding the camera does."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple. Photography can be automated and random. Art cannot be.
Click to expand...


erm you are aware that today sculpting, painting, sketching etc... .can all be automated - heck with some lego and a pen you can make a remote controled pencil sketching machine - hook that up to some automated software and away you go


----------



## Warren Peace

Look on the bright side. Your post counts are skyrocketing because of this ongoing conversation. At this rate, everyone will be passing Big Mike by Sunday. :lmao::lmao:


----------



## Overread

*wonders if this thread *would see any life if it slipped down into offtopic*


----------



## Petraio Prime

Infidel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, since photography does _not _produce anything by hand (lenses and sensitive materials are involved) and since that violates the _necessary condition, _*photography cannot produce art.
> 
> *It's really very simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lenses (which are adjusted by hand) determine how photons are applied to film.
> 
> Brushes (which are adjusted by hand) determine how paint is applied to canvas.
> 
> It's really very simple.
Click to expand...


But it's not analogous.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazeleyes1992 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...there are different forms of photographs...some people may think that the person that took a picture didn't do something right on his/her camera. However, the photographer may have wanted the picture to look that way. "The camera doesn't take the pictures...the person holding the camera does."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple. Photography can be automated and random. Art cannot be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> erm you are aware that today sculpting, painting, sketching etc... .can all be automated - heck with some lego and a pen you can make a remote controled pencil sketching machine - hook that up to some automated software and away you go
Click to expand...


Then it's not 'art'. Understand why?


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Janson says that for something to be classed as art  it must be 'at least....a tangible thing being made by human hands', that 'at least' is to be read as a _necessary condition_. It is _not _a sufficient condition, because some things made by hand are not art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me remind you that Janson does not support your foundation.   Here.. it is for your short memory
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, in my haste of posting a quote, I also forgot an important sentence in that passage:
> 
> "In itself, photography is simply a medium, like oil paint, or pastel, used to make art and has no inherent claim to being art.  What distinguishes any art from a craft is why, not how, it is done."
> 
> - Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson
> 
> 
> 
> (ok I lied.. I left it out on purpose thinking it would be useful to be used later on)
> 
> 
> 
> Do you hear something?   Yup.. its my credit card completing a purchase of a more valid/complete resource on said topic... PP, thanks for pointing out a good book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not, and of course he's full of crap. It's *not *"simply a medium, like oil paint, or pastel, used to make art".
> Janson defined what art is, properly, by saying it's "something tangible made by human hands". If you understand what photography is, you know it's *not *"something tangible made by human hands".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and no its not simply stating that art has a single definition... it does not.  I have refuted that stance already.
Click to expand...


I quoted what he said is a _necessary condition_, not a definition. If something does not satisfy a _necessary condition_, then the discussion is over.

You have an extraordinary propensity to ignore the _point _of the argument and bring up irrelevancies.

*Do you understand what a *_*necessary condition is or not?*
_


----------



## Warren Peace

Overread said:


> *wonders if this thread *would see any life if it slipped down into offtopic*


 It might pass Word Association in posts.


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple. Photography can be automated and random. Art cannot be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> erm you are aware that today sculpting, painting, sketching etc... .can all be automated - heck with some lego and a pen you can make a remote controled pencil sketching machine - hook that up to some automated software and away you go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it's not 'art'. Understand why?
Click to expand...


Depends of course on the degree of automation involved of course, but at a basic level its understandable. However photography isn't automated when its done by a human controlling the camera - even with in camera processing and JPEG outputs there is still a significant amount of human involvement needed (Esp to make art).
Just because part of the process relies upon more advanced technology (and of course I include the fold film; glass slates etc... methods in this) than say other forms of art (though of course that is a fallacy in itself as there is a whole mass of technology behind brush production and paint creation for example) does not make it more or lesser than the others.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> erm you are aware that today sculpting, painting, sketching etc... .can all be automated - heck with some lego and a pen you can make a remote controled pencil sketching machine - hook that up to some automated software and away you go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not 'art'. Understand why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends of course on the degree of automation involved of course, but at a basic level its understandable. However photography isn't automated when its done by a human controlling the camera - even with in camera processing and JPEG outputs there is still a significant amount of human involvement needed (Esp to make art).
> Just because part of the process relies upon more advanced technology (and of course I include the fold film; glass slates etc... methods in this) than say other forms of art (though of course that is a fallacy in itself as there is a whole mass of technology behind brush production and paint creation for example) does not make it more or lesser than the others.
Click to expand...


I am showing you what I mean:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...1mural-600.jpg

http://oxleylearning.org/germandicti.../sculpting.gif

http://www.sad74.k12.me.us:16080/dis...tery_Wheel.jpg

http://www.bsu.edu/web/bsjessie/glas...ss_blowing.jpg

What do these have in common?


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> You have an extraordinary propensity to ignore the _point _of the argument and bring up irrelevancies.



We have something in common then.   

I still assert that your definition of art is not the only definition nor a required criteria for art.  That still is the basis of your argument and still incorrect no matter how many times you repeat yourself.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have an extraordinary propensity to ignore the _point _of the argument and bring up irrelevancies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have something in common then.
> 
> I still assert that your definition of art is not the only definition nor a required criteria for art.  That still is the basis of your argument and still incorrect no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
Click to expand...


I will make this the last reply to you, unless you answer that you understand:

Do you know what a _necessary condition_ is, or not?

If yes, then do you understand that Janson's claim that to be art, something must be "at least something tangible made by human hands", is stating a _necessary condition _or not?


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not 'art'. Understand why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends of course on the degree of automation involved of course, but at a basic level its understandable. However photography isn't automated when its done by a human controlling the camera - even with in camera processing and JPEG outputs there is still a significant amount of human involvement needed (Esp to make art).
> Just because part of the process relies upon more advanced technology (and of course I include the fold film; glass slates etc... methods in this) than say other forms of art (though of course that is a fallacy in itself as there is a whole mass of technology behind brush production and paint creation for example) does not make it more or lesser than the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am showing you what I mean:
> 
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...1mural-600.jpg
> 
> http://oxleylearning.org/germandicti.../sculpting.gif
> 
> http://www.sad74.k12.me.us:16080/dis...tery_Wheel.jpg
> 
> http://www.bsu.edu/web/bsjessie/glas...ss_blowing.jpg
> 
> What do these have in common?
Click to expand...


They all use tools to help them create and realise their art - rather like photographers
Extreme Conditions | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

or digital painters: 
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2sPl_Z7ZU[/ame]
*ok that one is a copy but there are many others doing original work*


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends of course on the degree of automation involved of course, but at a basic level its understandable. However photography isn't automated when its done by a human controlling the camera - even with in camera processing and JPEG outputs there is still a significant amount of human involvement needed (Esp to make art).
> Just because part of the process relies upon more advanced technology (and of course I include the fold film; glass slates etc... methods in this) than say other forms of art (though of course that is a fallacy in itself as there is a whole mass of technology behind brush production and paint creation for example) does not make it more or lesser than the others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am showing you what I mean:
> 
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...1mural-600.jpg
> 
> http://oxleylearning.org/germandicti.../sculpting.gif
> 
> http://www.sad74.k12.me.us:16080/dis...tery_Wheel.jpg
> 
> http://www.bsu.edu/web/bsjessie/glas...ss_blowing.jpg
> 
> What do these have in common?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They all use tools to help them create and realise their art - rather like photographers
> 
> *ok that one is a copy but there are many others doing original work*
Click to expand...


No, that's false. Do you understand _why _it's false?


----------



## Overread

nope tools are tools
unless its the mud/grime/paint stains?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> nope tools are tools
> unless its the mud/grime/paint stains?



If you took a piece of film or sensitized paper and took an LED light or something and traced it over the surface of the material, that would be 'art'.

A lens is not like a chisel or brush.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have an extraordinary propensity to ignore the _point _of the argument and bring up irrelevancies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have something in common then.
> 
> I still assert that your definition of art is not the only definition nor a required criteria for art.  That still is the basis of your argument and still incorrect no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will make this the last reply to you, unless you answer that you understand:
> 
> Do you know what a _necessary condition_ is, or not?
> 
> If yes, then do you understand that Janson's claim that to be art, something must be "at least something tangible made by human hands", is stating a _necessary condition _or not?
Click to expand...


You haven't answered a whole list of questions put forth by others (as well as me).  There are many statements you have ignored at your leisure.  Heck you still quote Janson which I have already proven numerous times his works Does Not Support Your Assertion.   You claim that it is possible for mistakes and contradictions are possible yet fail to recognize that the one quote you latched on contradicts an ENTIRE chapter in the very book you reference.

The issue here is that your are linking your assertion that "tangible made by human hands" implies that photography is not "tangible" and not "made by human hands".   You are flat wrong.   The whole foundation of your argument is that there is one definition of art... the one you keep repeating.  You are wrong.  All I have to do prove you wrong is show another source differently.  

Now I ask you,  what is Scrutom's definition of art?   Its not the same as the one you keep repeating and doesn't support your assertion even though YOU referenced him.  I don't even think you've read his essay because you referenced him without knowing that he rejects photography as an art form for entirely different reasons than  you.   Just like I don't believe you read Janson works either.  

(btw... I haven't read them either and make no claim to have)

Let me remind you:



usayit said:


> Ok here is a refute.   Art is subjective and subject to many definitions.  You assert that there is only one definition.. You are wrong.  I only need to show one example.  According to Paul Anderson, in his book, The Fine Art of Photography, fine art is &#8220;any medium of expression which permits one person to convey to another an abstract idea of lofty emotion&#8221;.  Why don't you give us Scrutom's definition of art, because I believe it is different too.



I keep poking holes into your argument because it is implying a rigid notion of art from which art itself (and widely accepted) as a subjective manner ... this is way too easy.  For someone who implies a background in academia, you are coming off as simply stubborn .


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have something in common then.
> 
> I still assert that your definition of art is not the only definition nor a required criteria for art.  That still is the basis of your argument and still incorrect no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will make this the last reply to you, unless you answer that you understand:
> 
> Do you know what a _necessary condition_ is, or not?
> 
> If yes, then do you understand that Janson's claim that to be art, something must be "at least something tangible made by human hands", is stating a _necessary condition _or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't answered a whole list of questions put forth by others (as well as me).  There are many statements you have ignored at your leisure.  Heck you still quote Janson which I have already proven numerous times his works Does Not Support Your Assertion.   You claim that it is possible for mistakes and contradictions are possible yet fail to recognize that the one quote you latched on contradicts an ENTIRE chapter in the very book you reference.
> 
> The issue here is that your are linking your assertion that "tangible made by human hands" implies that photography is not "tangible" and not "made by human hands".   You are flat wrong.   The whole foundation of your argument is that there is one definition of art... the one you keep repeating.  You are wrong.  All I have to do prove you wrong is show another source differently.
> 
> Now I ask you,  what is Scrutom's definition of art?   Its not the same as the one you keep repeating and doesn't support your assertion even though YOU referenced him.  I don't even think you've read his essay because you referenced him without knowing that he rejects photography as an art form for entirely different reasons than  you.   Just like I don't believe you read Janson works either.
> 
> (btw... I haven't read them either and make no claim to have)
> 
> Let me remind you:
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok here is a refute.   Art is subjective and subject to many definitions.  You assert that there is only one definition.. You are wrong.  I only need to show one example.  According to Paul Anderson, in his book, The Fine Art of Photography, fine art is &#8220;any medium of expression which permits one person to convey to another an abstract idea of lofty emotion&#8221;.  Why don't you give us Scrutom's definition of art, because I believe it is different too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep poking holes into your argument because it is implying a rigid notion of art from which art itself (and widely accepted) as a subjective manner ... this is way too easy.  For someone who implies a background in academia, you are coming off as simply stubborn .
Click to expand...


I'll take that as "No, I don't understand what a necessary condition is".

Maybe you should just be honest and say so.

Good day to you.


----------



## usayit

A necessary condition of a statement must be satisfied for the statement to be true. 

You failed to realize that it is the implications afterwards that I have a problem.  Making neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for something to be classified as art.  

Again.. you leisurely ignore mine and other's questions..  but expect me to respond to yours.   

Good day to you.  I've made my point by poking holes in your arguments from the very references you use.   Next time, you should actually read those articles/essays/books before using them.   Neither Janson, dictionary, nor Scrutom support.... the only thing left is you but you are not a credible resource.



not a credible resource but an interesting essay to read:
The Art of Photography


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> A necessary condition of a statement must be satisfied for the statement to be true.
> 
> You failed to realize that it is the implications afterwards that I have a problem.  Making neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for something to be classified as art.
> 
> Again.. you leisurely ignore mine and other's questions..  but expect me to respond to yours.
> 
> Good day to you.  I've made my point by poking holes in your arguments from the very references you use.   Next time, you should actually read those articles/essays/books before using them.
> 
> not a credible resource but an interesting essay to read:
> The Art of Photography



I picked what I thought was a useful statement for our purposes here. It establishes the foundation for my assertion that photography isn't art because it doesn't meet that necessary condition. Whatever else he may say may contradict that, perhaps because he wasn't thinking.


----------



## Overread

Petraio Prime said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope tools are tools
> unless its the mud/grime/paint stains?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you took a piece of film or sensitized paper and took an LED light or something and traced it over the surface of the material, that would be 'art'.
> 
> A lens is not like a chisel or brush.
Click to expand...


But if I put glass between the LED and the film/paper/camera sensor it suddenly becomes not art? Of if I shift it from drawing with the LED itself to drawing upon a subject with a light and then capturing the reflected light?


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> Whatever else he may say may contradict that, perhaps because he wasn't thinking



Easy and ignorant, scapegoat of a statement to fall back on anything in a referenced material you don't agree with.   No that isn't a sign of an intelligent person from academia.   (also a recipe for taking things out of context)  Really.. you should use that as a disclaimer.  I take it you didn't read any of the material then...  If you were a student of mine, I would have failed you.

Good day to you...   you are not worthy of my attention.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope tools are tools
> unless its the mud/grime/paint stains?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you took a piece of film or sensitized paper and took an LED light or something and traced it over the surface of the material, that would be 'art'.
> 
> A lens is not like a chisel or brush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if I put glass between the LED and the film/paper/camera sensor it suddenly becomes not art? Of if I shift it from drawing with the LED itself to drawing upon a subject with a light and then capturing the reflected light?
Click to expand...


If you shine an LED on the paper or film it's not a lens making an image of something else.


----------



## Infidel

Petraio Prime, it is my opinion that you are not willing to accept any evidence or authority that would cause you to reject your original assertion that art must be tangible and made by hand; not even the one you originally cited.

As usayit has pointed out several times, you repeatedly appeal to one statement from one particular authority, whilst discrediting the same authority's other statements. In other words, it seems to me that you have chosen to cite a particular statement as credible on the basis of its author's credibility. Yet you undermine the same author's credibility on the basis of his other statements, which you happen to disagree with. You have effectively defeated yourself, but fail to recognize it. 

Clearly someone possessing sophisticated debate skills would understand the grave implications of this type of contradiction to one's own line of reasoning.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

I clicked on your thread willing to read through a few pages of BS but 30 is way to much.

There are very few artistic people on forums. You will find gear obsessed people. You will find others who will write you a 10 page essay on the history of the art with no understanding of art whatsoever as shown by their photos. You will find few artists.

They don't last here. For good reasons.

Art has little to nothing to do with technique, gear or knowledge of history as understood by non artistic members of the forum.

Good luck.


----------



## table1349

> =usayit;1996236]I'm sorry PP, you are full of crap.. er.. (did I think of that out loud).. I meant.









 ......................... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







> Your comments about photography are entirely without truth or merit.










> guys... he rejects even credible sources he references himself (even got him going in circles)... at that point, intelligent conversation turns into head banging on wall conversation.


----------



## table1349

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A necessary condition of a statement must be satisfied for the statement to be true.
> 
> You failed to realize that it is the implications afterwards that I have a problem.  Making neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for something to be classified as art.
> 
> Again.. you leisurely ignore mine and other's questions..  but expect me to respond to yours.
> 
> Good day to you.  I've made my point by poking holes in your arguments from the very references you use.   Next time, you should actually read those articles/essays/books before using them.
> 
> not a credible resource but an interesting essay to read:
> The Art of Photography
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I picked what I thought was a useful statement for our purposes here. It establishes the foundation* for my assertion *that photography isn't art because it doesn't meet that necessary condition. Whatever else he may say may contradict that, perhaps because he wasn't thinking.
Click to expand...





> *for my assertion*



Which translates to:

1.  a positive statement or declaration, *often without support or reason*.  

2. a positive statement, *usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence*.  

Hence you are voicing a mere opinion, nothing more, with no more value than that of a single opinion.    


I believe that usayit put it best when he stated, and I quote:  

_"Good day to you...   you are not worthy of my attention." 	_


----------



## DennyCrane

Without naming names, someone here is simply hijacking threads for attention. The original poster and their questions are forgotten and he makes it all about him. Good attention, bad attention... it doesn't matter. He just wants attention. And we're all feeding his need to be at the center. I think enough is enough.


----------



## JG_Coleman

DennyCrane said:


> Without naming names, someone here is simply hijacking threads for attention. The original poster and their questions are forgotten and he makes it all about him. Good attention, bad attention... it doesn't matter. He just wants attention. And we're all feeding his need to be at the center. I think enough is enough.



Yup... I can't believe this thread has been in the 'Active Topics' listing for about two weeks now.  A review of the last _*16 pages*_ of discussion will reveal that there's nothing more to be said.


----------



## manaheim

omg... there was 30 pages of this.  Never mind.  I deleted my comments. wow.

lol

btw, I think pgriz or whatever kinda nailed it on page 2.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

JG_Coleman said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without naming names, someone here is simply hijacking threads for attention. The original poster and their questions are forgotten and he makes it all about him. Good attention, bad attention... it doesn't matter. He just wants attention. And we're all feeding his need to be at the center. I think enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup... I can't believe this thread has been in the 'Active Topics' listing for about two weeks now.  A review of the last _*16 pages*_ of discussion will reveal that there's nothing more to be said.
Click to expand...


WOW!

Some of us have mentioned that weeks ago. We also mentioned the idea of ignoring the guy. How hard is that? The guy doesn't have anything much to contribute yet any thread he posts in becomes his...

And I have no problem naming names. PP, get lost.


----------



## table1349

c.cloudwalker said:


> JG_Coleman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without naming names, someone here is simply hijacking threads for attention. The original poster and their questions are forgotten and he makes it all about him. Good attention, bad attention... it doesn't matter. He just wants attention. And we're all feeding his need to be at the center. I think enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup... I can't believe this thread has been in the 'Active Topics' listing for about two weeks now.  A review of the last _*16 pages*_ of discussion will reveal that there's nothing more to be said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW!
> 
> Some of us have mentioned that weeks ago. We also mentioned the idea of ignoring the guy. How hard is that? The guy doesn't have anything much to contribute yet any thread he posts in becomes his...
> 
> And I have no problem naming names. PP, get lost.
Click to expand...


To late, he was voluntarily lost earlier in the day:

Petraio Prime 
*Banned*

				Join Date: May 2010
 				Location: Ohio
 				 				 					Posts: 1,352 				
*My Photos Are  NOT OK to Edit*
       				   	 		 			 				Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts 			 		 	
  My Gallery: (156)


----------



## Overread

but its not page 42 yet!! gah this makes finding the question a lot lot harder now!


----------



## table1349

manaheim said:


> omg... there was 30 pages of this.  Never mind.  I deleted my comments. wow.
> 
> lol
> 
> btw, I think pgriz or whatever kinda nailed it on page 2.



Please return your comments, they were appropriate with meaning.


----------



## manaheim

mmm... ok. I have a lot of respect for gryph, so if he asks me to repost them I shall do so.

First off, I just wanted to say that with all the back and forth we get the usual drowning out of the one or two people who say something that really nails it. I felt that pgriz was one of these drowned out people, and he nailed it as early as page 2.






pgriz said:


> Good art succeeds by moving the spirit, evoking emotion, giving voice to what was mute, lending us eyes tosee what we were blind to. Good art often is technically well executed, but the contrary is rarely true. Good art stands on its own merits, and doesn't need the pedigree of its creator to be good. The mechanics of creation are important, but mainly to accomplish their job, and then get out of the way. Good art is also subjective and individual - what may move you to tears, may leave me indifferent. Neither reaction is "right" or "wrong", nor is it necessary that you experience the idea that the creator wanted you to have. However, most of "us" are insecure in our own opinions and seek validation from others to confirm that "we" are "right". Which opens the door to a forceful personality to sway the group that a particular viewpoint is "good" and the rest is "bad". Currently, there is a fetish-like adoration in photographic circles of sharpness, straight horizon lines, positioning using the rules of thirds, etc. Well, those things can be important, IF they provide the "AHA" or "Eureka" reaction. By themselves, they are just a means to an end. And the end is to open eyes, touch hearts, stimulate brains. If that doesn't happen, it's not good art.


 


The second thing I said was that this is _my_ take on this whole topic...

Vincent van Gough was largely ignored and even laughed at as an artist during his time. Today he is considered to be one of the most important and beloved artists of all time. A visionary. A pioneer.

I personally don't like his stuff at all.

Think about that for a bit.


----------



## pgriz

Thank you, manaheim, for noticing.  I think unfortunately, the majority of the "discussion" was a red-herring.

There is a problem with photography &#8211; it&#8217;s much too easy to be seduced into &#8220;equipmentitis&#8221; thinking that a bigger/faster/more expensive lens or body or flash will give us the better pictures we crave.  All the marketing is focused on getting us to buy into that.  This is no different than the beer commercials where dorky guys start buying/drinking the advertised brew, and by magic, they are instantly surrounded by gorgeous young women.  Or someone gets into a new car and instantly is transported (in successive clips) to the beach by the ocean, a stunning mountain top, etc.  Now we know that this type of &#8220;aspirational&#8221; advertising tries to create a link between the wished-for outcome, and the product being flogged.  But we often seem to forget that when it comes to photographic equipment.

When it comes to making memorable images, be they &#8220;art&#8221; or advertising, the true skill is to create a compelling story to pull the viewer into the image.  The storyline may be simple (and in fact, simpler is better), and it is successful, it causes the viewer to stop and really look.  A storyline is not conveyed by f-stops and shutter speeds &#8211; it is conveyed by the arrangement of materials in the image, by the skillful use of lighting to highlight some aspects and hide others, by the composition which allow the eye to wander (or not), and by the elimination of distracting elements (hot spots, obstructing foreground elements, visual noise, background clutter, etc.).  

What&#8217;s the link between the first paragraph above, and the second?  Well, it&#8217;s the &#8220;way&#8221; we see stuff.  The eye is not a camera.  Everything we see is constructed in our brains.  There is a lot of neural processing going on to construct the &#8220;image&#8221; of the world we perceive as &#8220;real&#8221;.  99.99% of the time we&#8217;re not aware of this process, and we accept what we think we see at face value.  However, things that interfere with the neural processing (alcohol, drugs, certain neural diseases, some toxins, chemical imbalances, etc.), make us aware that the process of perceiving the outside world is much more complicated than we usually know.  One characteristic of this processing, is that we use visual labels for things, so that we don&#8217;t have to process the whole object every time we see something.  This shows up in the phenomenon that we see what we expect to see, not necessarily what&#8217;s actually there.  It also shows up in the way we look at the world, having picked up from our culture (and seeing is culture-influenced), certain conventions of perception.

As manaheim indicated, Van Gough, due to his mental illness, portrayed the world as he saw it, and at the time, he was laughed at because people just couldn&#8217;t connect what he created and their personal experience.  Much later, when there was a less rigid way of looking at stuff, there came an appreciation for his genius, and still later, when we started to understand the mental processes underlying perception, did we start to understand why he did it that way.

Again, what does all this have to do with the photography?  Well, certain clichés work because we&#8217;ve absorbed that chiche as a visual shortcut, and we instantly recognize it without taking the time to study the image.  However, really good images break through that and force us to stop and really stare, looking at the image without the filter of our preconceptions and conventions.  That is why deliberately breaking the rules can work &#8211; the image doesn&#8217;t &#8220;flow&#8221; according to the implicit mental rules.  But once you do that, you better deliver &#8211; you&#8217;ve forced the viewer to work at understanding your image, and they better have a payback for their effort.


----------



## manaheim

Discussion => Tracks


----------



## Flash Harry

I vote this one thread to be the longest piece of drivel I've ever seen on any forum. H


----------



## table1349

Flash Harry said:


> I vote this one thread to be the longest piece of drivel I've ever seen on any forum. H



With all due respects, in my opinion, this is not the longest piece of drivel on any forum.  I believe that this thread is longer and more drivelly. Google's 2007-Q3/Q4 PageRank (PR) Update

Flash Harry, I'm really not spoiling for a fight, just trying to make Overread happy and get the thing to 42 pages.


----------



## Antarctican

^^^ With Petraio Prime having been banned, I doubt that's gonna happen now


----------



## table1349

Antarctican said:


> ^^^ With Petraio Prime having been banned, I doubt that's gonna happen now



But if we all chip in here with what ever drivel we have we can reach our goal.  Come on guys and gals, were only 10 pages away and remember were doing this for Overread.


----------



## Overread

I wish I had found this 2 days ago!! 
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9kOgrKDlhc&feature=channel[/ame]


----------



## table1349

Overread said:


> I wish I had found this 2 days ago!!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9kOgrKDlhc&feature=channel








  To freaking funny.  Leave it to youtube to have something for everyone.


----------



## ann

banned? how did i miss that message


----------



## manaheim

Snarf.

(chipping in for the 42 page thread goal)


----------



## pgriz

OK, if we want to stretch this out, how about another thread hijack?


I'll try to get the fires burning again....

Let's see...  how about the difference between snapshots and photographs???


Bad snapshots &#8211; not sure what we&#8217;re looking at.
Snapshots &#8211; getting the subject into the picture.
Good snapshots &#8211; getting the subject into the picture in focus and recognizable.
Great snapshots &#8211; getting the subject to be well exposed and clearly visible.
Bad photographs &#8211; Not sure why this thing exists.
Photographs &#8211; Hmm.  I think I see what the photographer&#8217;s trying to do.
Good photographs &#8211;don&#8217;t know the people/place/thing, but this is interesting.
Great photographs &#8211; Wow &#8211; never saw that (subject) in that way before.  Makes me want to (love/hate/know more/emulate/avoid) it.  It (excites/irritates the crap outa me/inspires/disgusts) me.  

How do you recognize an image as a snapshot or a photograph?
Snapshot:
-       Usually taken at a height of 5&#8217; to 6&#8217;
-       Almost always landscape orientation
-       Always hand-held
-       Little or no thought about the background or surroundings
-       Little effort to manage or control light
-       No effort of using selective focus, depth of field, or shutter speed
-       Usually takes no more than 1-5 seconds of preparation before shooting
-       You had to be there to know the significance of the shot
Photograph:
-       Position of camera chosen to highlight some aspect of subject
-       Subject is placed so that there is clear separation between it and the foreground/background, OR the link between foreground/background to the subject is material and supporting to subject focus
-       Distractions of foreground/background are minimized
-       Image often taken on a tripod
-       Light is managed to highlight the subject or create the mood
-       Focus point and depth of field are used to direct viewer attention and eye flow
-       You &#8220;get&#8221; the image even if you weren&#8217;t there.
-       Preparation can take days or weeks.
-       You can create a narrative from the image, or imagine a story.
-       Often makes you want to say &#8211; I wish I took that shot, or knew how to do that.
Oh, and to piss off some people...  Snapshots are almost never art, but photographs can and do...


----------



## usayit

You are all completely and utterly wrong... 

(joking)


----------



## pgriz

usayit said:


> You are all completely and utterly wrong...
> 
> (joking)


 

So, when are you going to let go of your baby camera and upgrade to the S2? (gripped, of course). :er:

I saw one in action a few months ago, and the image quality made the full-frame sensor cameras look like Point-and-shoot...


----------



## usayit

I would LOVE one... but too rich for me...    

I'm just a regular joe with a regular job... takes a long time and effort to buy Leica stuff.  

Buying a few expensive things... ok
Buying many inexpensive things... ok
Buying many expensive  things... not ok.

I fall into the first category.. usually in cash.   Local Leica dealer has already sold 4 and 1 on display was offered for me to play with for a few minutes (i'm a good customer)  OMG... I actually considered ebay'ing my wife and son... lol   I've been saving for an M9 since it was announced... got a long way to go.    

Still Lovin the M8.  In fact, its already packed along with an Olympus E-PL1 w/ Leica and Takumar glass for a fun trip to Maine starting on Monday.


----------



## table1349

> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, if we want to stretch this out, how about another thread hijack?
> 
> 
> I'll try to get the fires burning again....
> 
> Let's see...  how about the difference between snapshots and photographs???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad snapshots  not sure what planet it was taken on.
> Snapshots  getting the subject into the frame.
> Good snapshots  cute girl in the background.
> Great snapshots  cute girl in the background flashing the camera.
> 
> Bad photographs  Great subject with an ugly guy in the background.
> Photographs  Hmm. It makes sense, is in focus and with a proper exposure. (how the heck did He manage that?)
> Good photographs In focus, proper exposure, good lighting and cute girl in a bikini.
> Great photographs  See above minus the bikini.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know it makes me wanna
> (Shout-wooo) lift my heels up and
> (Shout-wooo) throw my head back and
> (Shout-wooo) kick my heels up and
> (Shout-wooo) come on now
> (Shout-wooo) take it easy
> (Shout-wooo) take it easy
> (Shout-wooo) take it easy (higher)
> (Shout) a little bit softer now (wooo)
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> (Shout) a little bit softer now
> 
> (Shout) a little bit louder now
> (Shout) a little bit louder now
> (Shout) a little bit louder now (ooo)
> (Shout) a little bit louder now
> (Shout) a little bit louder now
> (Shout) a little bit louder now
> 
> (Shout) a little bit louder now (wooo)
> (Shout) a little bit louder now (wooo)
> (Shout) a little bit louder now (wooo)
> (Shout) a little bit louder now (wooo)
> (Shout) a little bit louder now (wooo)
> (Shout) a little bit louder now
> (Shout)
> Hey-Hey-A-Hey
> (Hey-Hey-A-Hey)
> Hey-A-Hey-A
> (Hey-A-Hey-A)
> Hey-A-Hey-A)
> (Hey-A-Hey-A)
> Hey-A-A-Hey)
> (Hey-A-A-Hey)
> 
> Jump Now!
> Jump up and shout now (wooo)
> Jump up and shout now (wooo)
> Jump up and shout now (wooo)
> Jump up and shout now (wooo)
> Jump up and shout now (wooo)
> Everybody shout now
> Everybody shout now
> Everybody, shout, shout
> Shout, shout, shout
> Shout, shout, shou-out
> Shout, shout, shou-out
> Shout, shout, shout, shout (oh-whoa-yeah)
> Shout, shout, shout, shout (oh yeah)
> Shout, shout, shout, shout
> Everybody shout now (ooo)
> 
> How do you recognize an image as a snapshot or a photograph?
> Snapshot:
> -Usually taken at night in the dark at ISO100 and a shutter speed of 1/10
> -Almost always landscape orientation tilted 45 degrees
> -Always hand-held in one hand while holding a corn dog in the other.
> -Little or no thought in their brain.
> -Little effort to control the camera only the beer.
> -No effort tofocus,
> -Usually takes no more than 1-5 minutes of preparation before shooting
> -You had to be there to know what the hell the shot was of
> 
> Photograph:
> -Position of camera chosen to highlight some aspect of subjects body.
> -Subject is placed so that there is clear separation between it and the shocked people in the background OR the link between the people to the subject is material and supporting to subject focus
> -Distractions of foreground/background are all girls
> -Image often taken on a tripod
> -Light is managed to create the mood
> -Focus point and depth of field are used to direct viewer attention and eye flow right to the ..... well you know
> -You get excited by the image even if you werent there.
> -Preparation can take days or weeks.
> -You can create a fantasy from the image, or imagine a story.
> -Often makes you want to say  I wish I had a cigarette.
> 
> Oh, and to piss off some people...  Snapshots are almost never art, but they can be porn...
> 
> 
> It's just a joke ladies, were trying to get to 42 pages with this thread. Lighten up.
> 
> P.S. People, if your children understand this post..... *IT"S NOT MY FAULT!!!*
Click to expand...


----------



## pgriz

Hey!  

That's good. 

I'll PM you as to where to send the royalty check.

Anyone else?


----------



## usayit

I think you just pissed off the street shooters...


----------



## table1349

pgriz said:


> Hey!
> 
> That's good.
> 
> I'll PM you as to where to send the royalty check.
> 
> Anyone else?



Royalty Checks???  Your Canadian, with the exchange rate don't you mean Royalty Change???:lmao:


----------



## pgriz

gryphonslair99 said:


> Ahem, at the rate the exchange has been changing, you might have to pay steeply for the petro-loonies.  But I'm willing to negotiate.  :lmao:


----------



## Flash Harry

gryphonslair99 said:


> Flash Harry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I vote this one thread to be the longest piece of drivel I've ever seen on any forum. H
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respects, in my opinion, this is not the longest piece of drivel on any forum.  I believe that this thread is longer and more drivelly. Google's 2007-Q3/Q4 PageRank (PR) Update
> 
> Flash Harry, I'm really not spoiling for a fight, just trying to make Overread happy and get the thing to 42 pages.
Click to expand...


Why on earth would I think your spoiling for a fight, and, whats the significance of a 42 page thread?

Besides, I was on Petrio's side, there's no such thing as photographic art, and thats my final say on the subject.

Unless there's a fight to be picked H


----------



## usayit

Flash Harry said:


> Besides, I was on Petrio's side, there's no such thing as photographic art, and thats my final say on the subject.



You did not just do that......

Ok... where's that dictionary...


----------



## pgriz

Hmmm. without the $h!t-disturbers, we don't have volume.  Time for another hijack.  

I was on one board that went 64 pages discussing whether an airplane could take off if it was on a conveyor belt that matched (in reverse sense) the movement of the wheels.  Anyone know what I'm talking about?


----------



## usayit

pgriz said:


> I was on one board that went 64 pages discussing whether an airplane could take off if it was on a conveyor belt that matched (in reverse sense) the movement of the wheels.  Anyone know what I'm talking about?



There's enough content to discuss that for 64 pages?

Its all about Bernoulli's principle .. the conveyor belt is irrelevant.


----------



## table1349

Flash Harry said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash Harry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I vote this one thread to be the longest piece of drivel I've ever seen on any forum. H
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respects, in my opinion, this is not the longest piece of drivel on any forum.  I believe that this thread is longer and more drivelly. Google's 2007-Q3/Q4 PageRank (PR) Update
> 
> Flash Harry, I'm really not spoiling for a fight, just trying to make Overread happy and get the thing to 42 pages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why on earth would I think your spoiling for a fight, and, whats the significance of a 42 page thread?
> 
> Besides, I was on Petrio's side, there's no such thing as photographic art, and thats my final say on the subject.
> 
> Unless there's a fight to be picked H
Click to expand...


Oh Yeah......... Well I would direct you to this particular post.  http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/213050-art-32.html#post1997591

If it is on youtube it is FACT!!!:mrgreen::lmao:

As for the 42 pages that is the goal of this thread.


----------



## pgriz

usayit said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was on one board that went 64 pages discussing whether an airplane could take off if it was on a conveyor belt that matched (in reverse sense) the movement of the wheels. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's enough content to discuss that for 64 pages?
> 
> Its all about Bernoulli's principle .. the conveyor belt is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

 
OK, let's try this:

Imagine you've got a plane sitting on a runway. This runway, however, is special - it's a conveyor belt that senses the motion of the airplane's wheels.  So, as soon as the airplane starts its engines and gets enough thrust to move the wheels, the conveyor belt senses this movement and rolls back the same amount that the wheels move forward.  Will this plane ever leave the ground? (for purposes of this discussion, assume all frictional effects of wheels, tires, and conveyors, are null).


----------



## usayit

Um... the wheels don't move the plane forward by rotational/friction, the thrust from the jet engines do.  So the conveyor belt (and wheels) are irrelevant.   

For every action there is an equal opposite reaction.  Jet engines do not rotate the wheels they produce thrust via newton's law of motion (3rd I think).  Conveyer belt only has an effect on the rotation of the wheels not the craft itself.

A car on the other hand does produce forward movement via rotational force on wheels.  As such, the conveyor belt will have an effect on the car itself.  In this case, the (total velocity of the vehicle) = Vcar - Vconveyor.   If Vconveyor is consistently the negative value of Vcar then total velocity of the vehicle is zero.   Now put wings on the car and you have a more relative discussion by looking at Bernoulli's equations with v=0.


----------



## Buckster

usayit said:


> Um... the wheels don't move the plane forward by rotational/friction, the thrust from the jet engines do. So the conveyor belt (and wheels) are irrelevant.


.
The jets thrust the plane forward.  Without lift, it stays on the ground, on the wheels, which then must turn (or drag, if the brakes are locked up).  The conveyor compensates for this relative motion.

The point is that the plane stays in place relative to everything but the conveyor.

And, of course it will take off.  (If it's a Harrier!  :greenpbl: )


----------



## usayit

I don't think so.

The wheels have one purpose... to apply upward force to counter gravity.  It rotates freely independent of the jets propulsion.  Any forces applied to the wheels themselves are directed simply to the rotation of the wheels.  Jets on the other hand are based on the law that for every force there is an equal opposite force.  The forces of jet propulsion are isolated to the fluid (air) in which is in operation.

Mythbusters, airplane on a conveyor belt

In other words,  the conveyor belts horizontal velocity/acceleration is 100% isolated from the craft by the rotation of the wheels.  As such, the only horizontal velocity and acceleration that matters is the forces generated by the engines themselves on the fluid (air), not the ground (conveyor belt)  The vertical velocity/acceleration is 100% produced by the lift generated by the wings via the Bournolli principle.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode97


Now.. If glued the plane to the conveyor belt (a really strong one) with the wheels removed, you are no longer isolating the horizontal forces applied by the conveyor belt.   The result is completely different.

Now.. If you controlled the wind around the aircraft in such that it is counter to the forward motion of the aircraft, then yes..... the plane will not take off.  (This is similar to the car on the conveyor belt example).  This is because the fluid (air) is not isolated from the craft.


----------



## Buckster

You don't get a plane into the air without lift.  You don't get lift without airflow over the wings.  You don't get airflow over the wings unless the plane is moving forward in relation to the air.


----------



## usayit

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ul_5DtMLhc[/ame]


----------



## usayit

Buckster said:


> You don't get a plane into the air without lift.  You don't get lift without airflow over the wings.  You don't get airflow over the wings unless the plane is moving forward in relation to the air.



What moves the plane forward?  Jet propulsion which only acts on the fluid surrounding not the ground (or conveyor belt) which is isolated from the plane itself.  You said it yourself... "moving forward in relation to the air".  Conveyer belt does not act on the air.


What you say is only true if and only if the forward motion of plane is achieved via applying force to the rotation of the wheels just like a car.


----------



## Buckster

The plane moved forward past the cones - along the runway.  The whole point is that the plane remain stationary in relation to the ground due to the conveyor counteracting the plane's forward thrust.  They didn't achieve that at all.  In effect, all they did was slow it down - but not enough to keep it from moving forward to get airflow over the wings and achieve lift.


----------



## usayit

Buckster said:


> The plane moved forward past the cones - along the runway.  The whole point is that the plane remain stationary in relation to the ground due to the conveyor counteracting the plane's forward thrust.



You are missing the point....  It is impossible for a conveyor belt to keep the plane stationary.  The only thing that matters is the force of the propulsion and the fluid surrounding (and the velocity of said fluid) the aircraft.


----------



## Overread

Pfft that belt wasn't moving fast enough and its arguable that the plane got rolling forward far too much thus allowing it to fly. Besides that is a propeller plane and not a jet - the propeller clearly blows air back onto the wings to create additional upward force


----------



## Overread

usayit said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plane moved forward past the cones - along the runway.  The whole point is that the plane remain stationary in relation to the ground due to the conveyor counteracting the plane's forward thrust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing the point....  It is impossible for a conveyor belt to keep the plane stationary.
Click to expand...


they just need a bigger, faster truck to pull it


----------



## Buckster

usayit said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get a plane into the air without lift. You don't get lift without airflow over the wings. You don't get airflow over the wings unless the plane is moving forward in relation to the air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What moves the plane forward? Jet propulsion which only acts on the fluid surrounding not the ground (or conveyor belt) which is isolated from the plane itself. You said it yourself... "moving forward in relation to the air". Conveyer belt does not act on the air.
> 
> 
> What you say is only true if and only if the forward motion of plane is achieved via applying force to the rotation of the wheels just like a car.
Click to expand...

 
I see what you're saying now and, as counter-intuitive as it first seems, you're right.

That's awesome.  :thumbup:


----------



## usayit

Airplane on a Conveyor Belt  Tempus Fugit by Mark Jaquith

"The problem here, of course, is that the poster (and Neal) cannot disengage themselves from seeing the airplane as a car. The difference between a car and a grounded airplane is that a car uses its wheels to propel itself forward, and an airplane moves itself forward by moving air. They assume that the runway moving backwards would move the plane backwards. This is what would happen with a car (that is in gear), so why not for an airplane? Well, because an airplane&#8217;s wheels are free rolling. There is obviously some friction, so there would be some small backwards force, but it would be infinitely small as compared to the forward thrust of the airplane."


----------



## usayit

Buckster said:


> I see what you're saying now and, as counter-intuitive as it first seems, you're right.



Most Myths are counter-intuitive... that's what makes them interesting.

Here's another:

If I drop a bowling ball and a feather at the same time on the moon (vacuum), which will hit ground first?


----------



## Buckster

They hit at the same time.  I think Apollo actually conducted that experiment, but with a feather and a rock instead of a bowling ball?


----------



## usayit

Ah.. yup...  do you know why?


----------



## Overread

They should hit at the same time because nothing stops the feather falling like on earth - so in a perfect vacuum its gravity alone that pulls one down and defines the terminal velocity - whilst in a partial or full atmosphere resistance might cause small or major differences in the resulting terminal velocity.

edit (yay I think I remembered some physics for once!!) 

edit 2 - wait its only school level - that means its all lies!!


----------



## usayit

Oh.. but hold on... (just adding to the confusion)

Newtonian Mechanics state:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 (mass) (velocity)^2

If the mass of the bowling ball is greater than feather then why not?


(btw .. you are right... just more talk to hit page 42 )


----------



## Overread

wait wait I know this one - its because the ball and feather arn't falling down its the earth moving up (or in the moons case the moon) to meet the ball and feather - so the mass of the earth is a constant and singular so there is only one kinetic force!

(I might be totally making this one up though )


----------



## usayit

Hint....

Inertia


----------



## KmH

pgriz said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was on one board that went 64 pages discussing whether an airplane could take off if it was on a conveyor belt that matched (in reverse sense) the movement of the wheels. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's enough content to discuss that for 64 pages?
> 
> Its all about Bernoulli's principle .. the conveyor belt is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, let's try this:
> 
> Imagine you've got a plane sitting on a runway. This runway, however, is special - it's a conveyor belt that senses the motion of the airplane's wheels. So, as soon as the airplane starts its engines and gets enough thrust to move the wheels, the conveyor belt senses this movement and rolls back the same amount that the wheels move forward. Will this plane ever leave the ground? (for purposes of this discussion, assume all frictional effects of wheels, tires, and conveyors, are null).
Click to expand...

No it won't, because without sufficient air movement over the wings from forward motion of the airplane, no lift is generated because there is no pressure differential, which is what Bernoulli's principle is all about.

Bernoulli's principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a special case of Bernoulli's principle that was investigated for a time and was know as WIG, or a wing in ground effect. Ground effect vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the case of a airplane having engine driven propellers in front of the wings, they cannot move air over enough of the wings surface area to generate the lift required for the airplane to take flight. The angle of attack of the wing is critical for it's performance, particularly at takeoff. A wing is shaped differently by the flaps and/or slats, for takeoff and landing than for flight at normal cruising speeds.

In fact, in flight the area of the wing shielded by the propellers delivers less lift than the portion of the wing not shielded by the propellers.

Wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Buckster

usayit said:


> Ah.. yup... do you know why?


I'm old, but as I recall...

Gravity acts on everything in the same way, with the same force.  You need something to counteract it to make any difference.

On Earth (relative to this experiment in physics), air acts as a fluid that the two objects need to 'sink' through.  The bowling ball's mass outmatches the air's by so much, it has no problem at all bullying it's way through to get to the bottom.  The feather's mass is much closer to that of the air's so it has a harder time pushing against it, which slows it's rate of decent.

On the moon, there is so little in the way of atmosphere that it doesn't effectively play a role as a counteracting force.


----------



## DennyCrane

But, if bears eat oats and does eat oats, do little lambs still eat ivy?


----------



## Josh66

KmH said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's enough content to discuss that for 64 pages?
> 
> Its all about Bernoulli's principle .. the conveyor belt is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's try this:
> 
> Imagine you've got a plane sitting on a runway. This runway, however, is special - it's a conveyor belt that senses the motion of the airplane's wheels. So, as soon as the airplane starts its engines and gets enough thrust to move the wheels, the conveyor belt senses this movement and rolls back the same amount that the wheels move forward. Will this plane ever leave the ground? (for purposes of this discussion, assume all frictional effects of wheels, tires, and conveyors, are null).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it won't, because without sufficient air movement over the wings from forward motion of the airplane, no lift is generated because there is no pressure differential, which is what Bernoulli's principle is all about.
> 
> Bernoulli's principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There is a special case of Bernoulli's principle that was investigated for a time and was know as WIG, or a wing in ground effect. Ground effect vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In the case of a airplane having engine driven propellers in front of the wings, they cannot move air over enough of the wings surface area to generate the lift required for the airplane to take flight. The angle of attack of the wing is critical for it's performance, particularly at takeoff. A wing is shaped differently by the flaps and/or slats, for takeoff and landing than for flight at normal cruising speeds.
> 
> In fact, in flight the area of the wing shielded by the propellers delivers less lift than the portion of the wing not shielded by the propellers.
> 
> Wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

So, what exactly do you propose is stopping the plane from moving forward?  As long as the brakes are off, the plane will move (and become airborne).

The ground speed doesn't matter.  Air speed does.


----------



## usayit

KmH said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's enough content to discuss that for 64 pages?
> 
> Its all about Bernoulli's principle .. the conveyor belt is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's try this:
> 
> Imagine you've got a plane sitting on a runway. This runway, however, is special - it's a conveyor belt that senses the motion of the airplane's wheels. So, as soon as the airplane starts its engines and gets enough thrust to move the wheels, the conveyor belt senses this movement and rolls back the same amount that the wheels move forward. Will this plane ever leave the ground? (for purposes of this discussion, assume all frictional effects of wheels, tires, and conveyors, are null).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it won't, because without sufficient air movement over the wings from forward motion of the airplane, no lift is generated because there is no pressure differential, which is what Bernoulli's principle is all about.
> 
> Bernoulli's principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There is a special case of Bernoulli's principle that was investigated for a time and was know as WIG, or a wing in ground effect. Ground effect vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In the case of a airplane having engine driven propellers in front of the wings, they cannot move air over enough of the wings surface area to generate the lift required for the airplane to take flight. The angle of attack of the wing is critical for it's performance, particularly at takeoff. A wing is shaped differently by the flaps and/or slats, for takeoff and landing than for flight at normal cruising speeds.
> 
> In fact, in flight the area of the wing shielded by the propellers delivers less lift than the portion of the wing not shielded by the propellers.
> 
> Wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Answer is in the thread.... so is the experiment.


----------



## usayit

Buckster said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.. yup... do you know why?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm old, but as I recall...
> 
> Gravity acts on everything in the same way, with the same force.  You need something to counteract it to make any difference.
> 
> On Earth (relative to this experiment in physics), air acts as a fluid that the two objects need to 'sink' through.  The bowling ball's mass outmatches the air's by so much, it has no problem at all bullying it's way through to get to the bottom.  The feather's mass is much closer to that of the air's so it has a harder time pushing against it, which slows it's rate of decent.
> 
> On the moon, there is so little in the way of atmosphere that it doesn't effectively play a role as a counteracting force.
Click to expand...


correct.... how about the second part (question) regarding the Kenetic energy = mass * velocity ^2.

hint was inertia.


----------



## usayit

DennyCrane said:


> But, if bears eat oats and does eat oats, do little lambs still eat ivy?



This one should be easy..

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make sound?


This one I don't have an answer...

If every force has an equal and opposite, then what is the opposite of Gravity?


----------



## usayit

O|||||||O said:


> The ground speed doesn't matter.  Air speed does.



THere it is!   I knew my explanation could have been more simplistic.


----------



## Buckster

usayit said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.. yup... do you know why?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm old, but as I recall...
> 
> Gravity acts on everything in the same way, with the same force. You need something to counteract it to make any difference.
> 
> On Earth (relative to this experiment in physics), air acts as a fluid that the two objects need to 'sink' through. The bowling ball's mass outmatches the air's by so much, it has no problem at all bullying it's way through to get to the bottom. The feather's mass is much closer to that of the air's so it has a harder time pushing against it, which slows it's rate of decent.
> 
> On the moon, there is so little in the way of atmosphere that it doesn't effectively play a role as a counteracting force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> correct.... how about the second part (question) regarding the Kenetic energy = mass * velocity ^2.
> 
> hint was inertia.
Click to expand...

Possibly, I don't understand the question.  It doesn't affect the rate of decent, nor should it (that I know of).

To me, it means that on the moon, though they'll hit at the same time, the bowling ball will make a bigger 'dent' / sink further because even though they have the same velocity, the ball will have more kinetic energy built up than the feather due to its mass being greater than the feather's.


----------



## Josh66

For about the last 10 years I've been working on one type of aircraft or another ... the concept is pretty easy for me to picture.

It doesn't matter if the wheels are spinning at 5 or 5,000 RPM - they'll just go as fast as they have to until the bearings burn up.  


That's why aircraft carries always point themselves into the wind before launch (and go as fast as they can in that direction).
If there's a 30kt wind, that's 30kt slower the plane can to move across the deck to get airborne.  The airspeed would already be 30kt, with the plane just sitting there.

EDIT

A Nimitz class carrier has a top speed of 30kts+ (I guess the real speed is still classified...).  (That's pretty fast for something that displaces more than 100,000 tons...lol.)  If it were going that fast into a 30kt wind, the airspeed on deck would be 60kts.


----------



## usayit

Buckster said:


> Possibly, I don't understand the question.  It doesn't affect the rate of decent, nor should it (that I know of).
> 
> To me, it means that on the moon, though they'll hit at the same time, the bowling ball will make a bigger 'dent' / sink further because even though they have the same velocity, the ball will have more kinetic energy built up than the feather due to its mass being greater than the feather's.



Its probably me making things more complex than they really are... but you are close.

Ke = 1/2 mass * velocity^2

If Ball has more mass than the feather, it seems (at first glance) that the ball should have more energy thus should hit the ground in less time even in vacuum.  The hidden aspect of this is that the ball with its greater mass ALSO requires more energy to start its decent downward... due to inertia.  "Object at rest tends to stay at rest".   As such, the mass is actually not a big factor as it might seem.


----------



## Overread

usayit said:


> Hint....
> 
> Inertia



hmm I don't think we got that far as school - if we did I might have forgotten that bit


----------



## table1349

Ok, so lets try a little different one here:

If a chicken and a half lays and egg and a half in a day and a half, how long will it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick all of the seeds out of a dill pickle???


----------



## Buckster

42


----------



## Josh66

2 days.


:meh:

:lmao:


----------



## Josh66

usayit said:


> If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make sound?


Of course it would.

Sound is nothing more than a pressure wave.  Assuming that the atmospheric conditions were right for a pressure wave to form after impact (they would be, unless it was in a vacuum), there would be sound.
It doesn't matter if anybody is there to witness it.

Though, I guess you could say that the answer is yes AND no...

EDIT
If you want to be technical ... sound has to be 'heard' to be 'sound'.  If it was unheard, it would just be a pressure wave.


usayit said:


> This one I don't have an answer...
> 
> If every force has an equal and opposite, then what is the opposite of Gravity?


Anti-Gravity.


----------



## usayit

O|||||||O said:


> EDIT
> If you want to be technical ... sound has to be 'heard' to be 'sound'.  If it was unheard, it would just be a pressure wave.



Bingo


----------



## usayit

O|||||||O said:


> If every force has an equal and opposite, then what is the opposite of Gravity?


Anti-Gravity.[/QUOTE]

That's what I thought at first but

" anti-gravity is the idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity"

Free from a force isn't the opposite of said force.


----------



## Josh66

Maybe Antimatter?

Gravity is basically a side effect of mass.  Antimatter is the opposite of mass, so it should produce the opposite of gravity.


edit
This is fun.


----------



## usayit

I thought anti-mattter meant matter which the electronics were + and protons -.  If in contact with matter will cancel.

Many suggest that Gravity isn't even a force and that's were I'm biased towards at the moment.   Think of a flat soft surface.  A heavy object on this surface changes the contour of the surface.  Objects in the vicinity of this contoured surface have a tendency to fall towards the heavy object (gravity).  If the heavy object is infinitely dense, it can potentially sink so far into the surface that it breaks through... suggesting a black hole.   that's essentially all i know about it


----------



## usayit

Why are humans the only animal on the planet that grows hair only their head?  Even better...  All animals have fur or hair that slow down/stop once they get a certain length.  Why can humans grow and grow and grow hair to lengths that absolutely seem to have zero purpose?

Most animals within a genus has several species.  Please explain why Humans are the only extant specie of the Homo Genus?


WTH are people obsessed with Snooki?


----------



## Josh66

usayit said:


> I thought anti-mattter meant matter which the electronics were + and protons -.  If in contact with matter will cancel.
> 
> Many suggest that Gravity isn't even a force and that's were I'm biased towards at the moment.   Think of a flat soft surface.  A heavy object on this surface changes the contour of the surface.  Objects in the vicinity of this contoured surface have a tendency to fall towards the heavy object (gravity).  If the heavy object is infinitely dense, it can potentially sink so far into the surface that it breaks through... suggesting a black hole.   that's essentially all i know about it


The opposite of which would be something that pushes up on the surface, driving everything away from it.

Gravity is a side effect of mass.  More mass = more gravity.  Negative mass should produce negative gravity.

Antimatter is basically negative mass, is it not?

OK, maybe not...

Negative mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A lot of that goes over my head...  BUT, I think negative mass = negative gravity.  Whatever negative mass is...


----------



## Josh66

usayit said:


> Why are humans the only animal on the planet that grows hair only their head?  Even better...  All animals have fur or hair that slow down/stop once they get a certain length.  Why can humans grow and grow and grow hair to lengths that absolutely seem to have zero purpose?
> 
> Most animals within a genus has several species.  Please explain why Humans are the only extant specie of the Homo Genus?
> 
> 
> WTH are people obsessed with Snooki?


How many people do you know that have not cut their hair in over 20 years?

After it gets to your ass (roughly), it falls off, stops growing, gets too frayed - whatever.  The point is, it will never get much longer than your ass.  


Grow hair only on you head?  I have hair on most of my body...  Granted, none of it is as long as that on my head, but it's still there...

I saw a guy at the pool once that (no kidding) looked like an ape.  The only skin you could see on his entire body was his face, palms, and the bottom of his feet.  It was kinda freaky.  I'll never forget that day.  

...I don't know what Snooki is.


----------



## Josh66

Also - I think evolution can happen a lot faster than some people would like to believe.

I'm no anthropologist, but I think the time we stopped having hairy bodies and the time we started wearing clothing is probably pretty close.

With clothing, there is no need for a hairy body.


----------



## Buckster

usayit said:


> Why are humans the only animal on the planet that grows hair only their head?


Because when that genetic mutation occurred, it didn't kill us off - we were smart enough to cover ourselves with the skins of other animals to compensate.



usayit said:


> Even better... All animals have fur or hair that slow down/stop once they get a certain length. Why can humans grow and grow and grow hair to lengths that absolutely seem to have zero purpose?


It's for mating - chicks with long hair look hot. :thumbup:



usayit said:


> Most animals within a genus has several species. Please explain why Humans are the only extant specie of the Homo Genus?


Luck of the draw. Just as well anyway; With our herd mentality combined with massive egos and self-centeredness, homo sapien can hardly deal with slightly different colored or physically built people in a rational manner. If there were any that were even stranger, we'd no doubt kill them off just for GP

Hey! Maybe that's what happened to them!



usayit said:


> WTH are people obsessed with Snooki?


Same reason they were obsessed with disco - most are inherently shallow and mindless drones. Plus, she has big boobs, causing primordial urges buried deep in the ancient parts of our brains.


----------



## Buckster

O|||||||O said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought anti-mattter meant matter which the electronics were + and protons -. If in contact with matter will cancel.
> 
> Many suggest that Gravity isn't even a force and that's were I'm biased towards at the moment. Think of a flat soft surface. A heavy object on this surface changes the contour of the surface. Objects in the vicinity of this contoured surface have a tendency to fall towards the heavy object (gravity). If the heavy object is infinitely dense, it can potentially sink so far into the surface that it breaks through... suggesting a black hole. that's essentially all i know about it
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite of which would be something that pushes up on the surface, driving everything away from it.
Click to expand...

That's the only clue I needed to figure it out.

The opposite of gravity is - - - my third wife!


----------



## Josh66

Buckster said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are humans the only animal on the planet that grows hair only their head?
> 
> 
> 
> Because when that genetic mutation occurred, it didn't kill us off - we were smart enough to cover ourselves with the skins of other animals to compensate.
Click to expand...

I, personally, think it more likely happened the other way around.

The hair probably came off when we started to cover ourselves in animal skins.

Friction from the clothing wearing the hair off, added warmth making it less of a real need, etc...

A (relatively) hairless body is likely a result of not needing the hair - clothing.


----------



## Buckster

O|||||||O said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are humans the only animal on the planet that grows hair only their head?
> 
> 
> 
> Because when that genetic mutation occurred, it didn't kill us off - we were smart enough to cover ourselves with the skins of other animals to compensate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I, personally, think it more likely happened the other way around.
> 
> The hair probably came off when we started to cover ourselves in animal skins.
> 
> Friction from the clothing wearing the hair off, added warmth making it less of a real need, etc...
> 
> A (relatively) hairless body is likely a result of not needing the hair - clothing.
Click to expand...

From what I've read about evolution, that puts the cart before the horse.

One experiment that was performed (and I'm sure there have been many, but I remember this one): You can shave generations and generations and generations of mice, keeping them all in an environment where they'll never miss that hair, yet you don't start getting bald mice eventually.

Genetic mutation doesn't occur because of outside forces like that. It occurs or doesn't no matter what in some individuals or even in large groups, and that turns out to be beneficial, non-beneficial, or of no consequence.

If we weren't smart enough to make coverings and take shelter, it might have died out with the individuals or groups who first exhibited the trait.


----------



## Josh66

Hmmm...  I guess I can see that.  Some things I've read suggest the opposite of that, but I guess there is no real authority.


----------



## Infidel

Buckster said:


> If we weren't smart enough to make coverings and take shelter, it might have died out with the individuals or groups who first exhibited the trait.



Not only was is not a disadvantage, hairlessness may have been advantageous (mating attractiveness-wise)...otherwise, there would still be a lot of super hairy people wandering around.

Tangent: I remember reading about a super car that could generate down-force that exceeded its weight, at something less than its top speed. Hell, just read on wiki that F1 cars can achieve this from 78-81 mph, and achieve 2x mass down-force at 118 mph. That's basically equal to the weight of the car sitting on the track (top side up) at 0 mph. This theoretically means that it could be driven upside down on an appropriately constructed track, no? Feel free to discuss (or not).


----------



## usayit

I agree.... yes the car can theoretically drive upside down as long as the forces "sucking" it to the surface are greater than the forces of gravity.  Seems totally plausible just as long as the car can continue without interruption.


btw.. I'm liking all the explanations in regards to humanoids that I posted!  VERY interesting thoughts.   


How the world did evolution end up with the likes of the platypus?   One weird mammal...  poisonous too!



Wisdom or Intelligence...  Which is more important for the humanity?


----------



## DennyCrane

Both in equal doses. Sheer intelligence without wisdom could lead you down the road to politician.


----------



## table1349

usayit said:


> I agree.... yes the car can theoretically drive upside down as long as the forces "sucking" it to the surface are greater than the forces of gravity.  Seems totally plausible just as long as the car can continue without interruption.
> 
> 
> btw.. I'm liking all the explanations in regards to humanoids that I posted!  VERY interesting thoughts.
> 
> 
> How the world did evolution end up with the likes of the platypus?   One weird mammal...  poisonous too!
> 
> 
> 
> Wisdom or Intelligence...  Which is more important for the humanity?





DennyCrane said:


> Both in equal doses. Sheer intelligence without wisdom could lead you down the road to politician.



Neither, basic inborn common sense.  Wisdom can be acquired, but a person either possess or does not possess common sense.  The intelligent man gains wisdom faster than the man of lesser intelligence.  Neither can gain however common sense. 

...the person that had took a bull by the        tail once had learnt sixty or seventy times as much as a person that hadn't,        and said a person that started in to carry a cat home by the tail was getting        knowledge that was always going to be useful to him, and warn't ever going        to grow dim or doubtful. 
      -_Tom Sawyer Abroad_


P.S.  The answer tot he monkey post is.................................................................................wait for it..................................................................................NEVER.  Monkeys don't have wooden legs.  :lmao:


----------



## Josh66

You know, here is something I've wondered about, and physicists (or whatever) have a hard time explaining...

Why aren't memories passed down?

Elephants pass their memories down...  From what I've read, the 'science community' can't figure out why we don't as well...


----------



## table1349

I'm not convinced that elephants pass down memories.  I suspect that they have a very innate natural instinct.  Just as migratory birds know when to fly north or south depending on the season as well as returning to the same location.  Just my opinion though.  

As man gained in intelligence he lost not only his much stronger senses of smell and hearing, but I suspect we also lost a lot of our inborn instincts necessary to survive.


----------



## usayit

gryphonslair99 said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.... yes the car can theoretically drive upside down as long as the forces "sucking" it to the surface are greater than the forces of gravity.  Seems totally plausible just as long as the car can continue without interruption.
> 
> 
> btw.. I'm liking all the explanations in regards to humanoids that I posted!  VERY interesting thoughts.
> 
> 
> How the world did evolution end up with the likes of the platypus?   One weird mammal...  poisonous too!
> 
> 
> 
> Wisdom or Intelligence...  Which is more important for the humanity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both in equal doses. Sheer intelligence without wisdom could lead you down the road to politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither, basic inborn common sense.  Wisdom can be acquired, but a person either possess or does not possess common sense.  The intelligent man gains wisdom faster than the man of lesser intelligence.  Neither can gain however common sense.
Click to expand...


Of course, I don't believe wisdom and intelligence is not mutually exclusive.. each are present in everyone.  I wonder though...  If Sheer intelligence without wisdom is bad then what is sheer wisdom without intelligence?

Some believe that common sense and wisdom are one of the same (Me included).    As wisdom allows us to use intelligence/knowledge properly.   Friends of mine "feel" that all the problems in present day society can be linked to a focus on intelligence (schooling of math, science, etc) but a lack of focus on wisdom (Philosophy for example is rarely part of high school curriculum)


----------



## table1349

usayit said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.... yes the car can theoretically drive upside down as long as the forces "sucking" it to the surface are greater than the forces of gravity.  Seems totally plausible just as long as the car can continue without interruption.
> 
> 
> btw.. I'm liking all the explanations in regards to humanoids that I posted!  VERY interesting thoughts.
> 
> 
> How the world did evolution end up with the likes of the platypus?   One weird mammal...  poisonous too!
> 
> 
> Wisdom or Intelligence...  Which is more important for the humanity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both in equal doses. Sheer intelligence without wisdom could lead you down the road to politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither, basic inborn common sense.  Wisdom can be acquired, but a person either possess or does not possess common sense.  The intelligent man gains wisdom faster than the man of lesser intelligence.  Neither can gain however common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, I don't believe wisdom and intelligence is not mutually exclusive.. each are present in everyone.  I wonder though...  If Sheer intelligence without wisdom is bad then what is sheer wisdom without intelligence?
> 
> Some believe that common sense and wisdom are one of the same (Me included).    As wisdom allows us to use intelligence/knowledge properly.   Friends of mine "feel" that all the problems in present day society can be linked to a focus on intelligence (schooling of math, science, etc) but a lack of focus on wisdom (Philosophy for example is rarely part of high school curriculum)
Click to expand...


I see a distinction between wisdom and common sense.  In college I had a roommate that was very intelligent. He had a 4.0 GPA his entire life.  However he didn't have the common sense God gave a turnip.  He was a pre med student and as far as his abilities to learn the various subjects necessary he was quite capable.  

In real world life situations he was dumber than a rock.  He never learned how to cope with life with other humans.  Was he wise about his chosen field of medicine, you bet.  But his understanding of common things in life was all but non existent.  I guess I see common sense in humans being more closely related to knowing right from wrong and being able to act on that knowledge.


----------



## Flash Harry

I watched a TV show about Bondi beach lifeguards yesterday, the sea was pretty rough with a 2-3metre swell, a Doctor, new immigrant, non swimmer disappeared, the lifeguard was unsure whether he'd simply got out of the water while he wasn't looking, 2 and1/2 hours later the docs wife and 18 year old son report him missing, a search recovered his body. There is no link between intelligence and common sense, if you can't swim common sense would tell you to stay out of the water, obviously this intelligent individual didn't possess this basic survival instinct we call common sense. H


----------



## usayit

gryphonslair99 said:


> I see a distinction between wisdom and common sense.  In college I had a roommate that was very intelligent. He had a 4.0 GPA his entire life.  However he didn't have the common sense God gave a turnip.  He was a pre med student and as far as his abilities to learn the various subjects necessary he was quite capable.
> 
> In real world life situations he was dumber than a rock.  He never learned how to cope with life with other humans.  Was he wise about his chosen field of medicine, you bet.  But his understanding of common things in life was all but non existent.  I guess I see common sense in humans being more closely related to knowing right from wrong and being able to act on that knowledge.



What you describe is common sense versus intelligence.. is it not?  Your friend is very intelligent and capable maintaining a 4.0 GPA, finishing pre-med, understanding medicine, and acquiring more knowledge.   Doesn't it require wisdom to know right from wrong?

It is my opinion that Wisdom includes but not limited to

* the root of morals
* ability to determine right and wrong
* the ability to apply intelligence properly

It is the foundation of a healthy society.   A society in which wisdom is abundant can thrive even though its progress forward (advancements in technology for example) can be slow. 

Can an wise individual be also corrupt?  (IMO, No).  Can an intelligent individual be also corrupt? (IMO, yes)


----------



## Overread

gryphonslair99 said:


> I'm not convinced that elephants pass down memories.  I suspect that they have a very innate natural instinct.  Just as migratory birds know when to fly north or south depending on the season as well as returning to the same location.  Just my opinion though.
> 
> As man gained in intelligence he lost not only his much stronger senses of smell and hearing, but I suspect we also lost a lot of our inborn instincts necessary to survive.



I'm more convinced that when we developed our own language and started to live sedentary life that did not rely upon wilderness surivial we started to blind ourselves to the other languages on the earth. Its been shown time and time again that animals do have a linguistic component to their lives and I greatly suspect that this language could be far more extensive than we understand it to be. We still call birdsong a song and we like to listen - fewer people understand that each song contains a message and - if studied - can be understood. We tend to associate basic/simplistic meaning to these forms of communication because we only understand them at a basic level when in fact they could contain complex variations that we are blind to. 

As for elephants passing down memories its got nothing to do with instinct and far more to do with learning from the other herd members - something that areas of Africa are suffering from because of the loss of many of the larger matriarch members of elephant herds. No matriarch means no passing down of historical pathways to the younger generations = which means you eventually get herds of younger elephants effectively lost in the wilderness - which tends to result in them hitting human settlements and farms.


----------



## ann

becareful usayit. here is a quote you used above   (Philosophy for example is rarely part of high school curriculum)


----------



## Warren Peace

Wow, this thread is boring now.  :er:


----------



## KmH

O|||||||O said:


> So, what exactly do you propose is stopping the plane from moving forward? As long as the brakes are off, the plane will move (and become airborne).
> 
> The ground speed doesn't matter. Air speed does.


Exactly, and because the of the conveyor belt, the airplane isn't moving and there is no airflow over the wings.

It won't take off.


----------



## KmH

Time does not move at a constant rate.


----------



## usayit

KmH said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what exactly do you propose is stopping the plane from moving forward? As long as the brakes are off, the plane will move (and become airborne).
> 
> The ground speed doesn't matter. Air speed does.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and because the of the conveyor belt, the airplane isn't moving and there is no airflow over the wings.
> 
> It won't take off.
Click to expand...


You missed it .. conveyor belt has zero impact on air speed thus the plane is capable of forward movement regardless.  Stop thinking of the plane as a car.. car generates forward motion be exerting on the ground while plane exerts force on air.  Conveyor does not impact air.  The answer is in the thread and the links have a detailed explanation and the video the experiment.

Plane will fly


----------



## usayit

Maybe this will help

Swimmer in a pool.. swimming at the surface.  Conveyer belt at the bottom of the pool spinning in the opposite direction of the swimmer.  Wil the swimmer make forward progress?

Yes.  Conveyor belt does not impact the fluid (water) which the swimmer exerts force on to swim forward.  Its the same for the plane... except air is the fluid


----------



## usayit

Double post


----------



## Josh66

THE WHEELS ARE NOT WHAT MAKES A PLANE MOVE.

The engines (jet or prop, doesn't matter), produce thrust.  That pushes the plane through the air.  The wheels have no 'motor'.  There's just a bearing that can spin freely in either direction.

If this conveyor belt were running, the wheels would just have to spin a little faster (airspeed of the plane, plus the speed of the conveyor belt).  As long as the bearings didn't burn up, nothing would stop them from spinning as fast as they needed to.

EDIT

I really do want to help you understand this - I'm not trying to be an ass...

OK, imagine a treadmill or conveyor belt or something...  Now imagine that you have a toy plane...

Lets say the belt is going 10mph (the speed doesn't even matter...  I said 10mph just for the sake of having a number.)...  Take the toy plane and just stick it on the belt, and HOLD IT THERE.  See how the wheels just spin, even though the plane isn't actually going anywhere?

Now, push the plane forward.  See how you can still push it forward with your hand (thrust), and the wheels just spin a little bit faster (speed of the belt, plus the speed of the plane)?  That is exactly what would happen.  The plane will keep moving, and the wheels will just spin a little bit faster.

The ONLY thing the conveyor belt will be doing is turning the wheels.  It DOES NOT MATTER how fast the wheels are spinning - it has no impact on the speed of the plane.


----------



## Josh66

usayit said:


> Doesn't it require wisdom to know right from wrong?
> 
> It is my opinion that Wisdom includes but not limited to
> 
> * the root of morals
> * ability to determine right and wrong
> * the ability to apply intelligence properly


I'm pretty sure everyone knows the difference between right & wrong, no matter how 'wise' they are.  Some people just don't really care one way or the other, some people do wrong things because they know (or think they do) that they can get away with it.  I think they all 'know' that it's wrong though.


----------



## Overread

O|||||||O said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it require wisdom to know right from wrong?
> 
> It is my opinion that Wisdom includes but not limited to
> 
> * the root of morals
> * ability to determine right and wrong
> * the ability to apply intelligence properly
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure everyone knows the difference between right & wrong, no matter how 'wise' they are.  Some people just don't really care one way or the other, some people do wrong things because they know (or think they do) that they can get away with it.  I think they all 'know' that it's wrong though.
Click to expand...


Right and wrong depends upon how you were raised and upon what you define as right and wrong. To some the idea of killing another human is the height of evil - for others its a way of life and they think nothing of killing an outside who might threaten their way of life.


----------



## Josh66

Overread said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it require wisdom to know right from wrong?
> 
> It is my opinion that Wisdom includes but not limited to
> 
> * the root of morals
> * ability to determine right and wrong
> * the ability to apply intelligence properly
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure everyone knows the difference between right & wrong, no matter how 'wise' they are.  Some people just don't really care one way or the other, some people do wrong things because they know (or think they do) that they can get away with it.  I think they all 'know' that it's wrong though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right and wrong depends upon how you were raised and upon what you define as right and wrong. To some the idea of killing another human is the height of evil - for others its a way of life and they think nothing of killing an outside who might threaten their way of life.
Click to expand...

But they still KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.  Their version of 'wrong' might be different than yours, but there is a distinction, and they know where it is.  Some people just choose to ignore it.
(Maybe killing someone from a rival clan is perfectly fine, but stealing a goat from a neighbor is punishable by death...?  There would still be the concept of right & wrong, the only differences would be what was on which list.)

I do agree that it has a lot to do with how you were raised though...
For example; for most people, stealing is wrong.  For some people, stealing is a way to survive.

I think though, even for the people to whom stealing is OK and just a part of life, they still have a concept of 'wrong'.  Stealing just isn't on that list.  They would still know when they've done something 'wrong'...


----------



## Infidel

pgriz said:


> OK, let's try this:
> 
> Imagine you've got a plane sitting on a runway. This runway, however, is special - it's a conveyor belt that senses the motion of the airplane's wheels.  So, as soon as the airplane starts its engines and gets enough thrust to move the wheels, the conveyor belt senses this movement and rolls back the same amount that the wheels move forward.  Will this plane ever leave the ground? (for purposes of this discussion, assume all frictional effects of wheels, tires, and conveyors, are null).



The specific wording here, in relation to wheel speed, not aircraft speed yields a paradox.

Found this nice explanation: The Straight Dope: An airplane taxies in one direction on a moving conveyor belt going the opposite direction. Can the plane take off?


			
				Cecil Adams said:
			
		

> This language leads to a paradox: If the plane moves forward at 5 MPH, then its wheels will do likewise, and the treadmill will go 5 MPH backward. But if the treadmill is going 5 MPH backward, then the wheels are really turning 10 MPH forward. But if the wheels are going 10 MPH forward . . . Soon the foolish have persuaded themselves that the treadmill must operate at infinite speed.   Nonsense. The question thus stated asks the impossible -- simply put, that A = A + 5 -- and so cannot be framed in this way. Everything clear now? Maybe not. But believe this: The plane takes off.


----------



## Josh66

Infidel said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's try this:
> 
> Imagine you've got a plane sitting on a runway. This runway, however, is special - it's a conveyor belt that senses the motion of the airplane's wheels.  So, as soon as the airplane starts its engines and gets enough thrust to move the wheels, the conveyor belt senses this movement and rolls back the same amount that the wheels move forward.  Will this plane ever leave the ground? (for purposes of this discussion, assume all frictional effects of wheels, tires, and conveyors, are null).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The specific wording here, in relation to wheel speed, not aircraft speed yields a paradox.
> 
> Found this nice explanation: The Straight Dope: An airplane taxies in one direction on a moving conveyor belt going the opposite direction. Can the plane take off?
> 
> 
> 
> Cecil Adams said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This language leads to a paradox: If the plane moves forward at 5 MPH, then its wheels will do likewise, and the treadmill will go 5 MPH backward. But if the treadmill is going 5 MPH backward, then the wheels are really turning 10 MPH forward. But if the wheels are going 10 MPH forward . . . Soon the foolish have persuaded themselves that the treadmill must operate at infinite speed.   Nonsense. The question thus stated asks the impossible -- simply put, that A = A + 5 -- and so cannot be framed in this way. Everything clear now? Maybe not. But believe this: The plane takes off.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What many people fail to understand is that the wheels are in NO WAY connected to the engines.

The conveyor belt could be moving at ANY speed, and the wheels will just spin to match it (plus the forward speed of the plane).

The RPM of the wheels and the RPM of the prop/turbine are in no way related.

The wheels are just free-spinning.  They will spin at whatever speed they have to in order to match the speed of the conveyor belt.

And yes - the way that is worded, the speed of the conveyor belt and the speed of the wheels would both become infinite.  That still doesn't change the fact that IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL.  The speed of the wheels means NOTHING!


----------



## Josh66

OK.

Instead of a plane taking off, imagine a plane landing.  On an aircraft carrier.

Lets pretend that we have a special plane that needs very little forward speed to stay in the air...

Lets say that the carrier is moving AWAY from the plane at 30kts, and that the plane has to be flying 30kts to get enough lift to stay in the air.

There is no wind at all on this day.

If the plane and the carrier are both traveling at 30kts in the same direction, they would not be moving in relation to each other.  To the people standing around on the deck, the plane would appear to just be hanging there, 'stuck' in the air.

Then the plane touches down on the deck, without changing speed.  It shuts the engines down the second the wheels touch down...  To the people on deck, it would appear to have just lowered straight down onto the deck.

Same thing as taking off, just in reverse.

If it were possible for the carrier to move faster than the minimum speed for the plane to take off, a plane just sitting on the deck with the engines off and the brakes on would become airborne.
(It would most likely lose stability and crash shortly after that, but the wheels would still leave the ground.)


----------



## Infidel

FYI, I understand the principal. I was just pointing out that the wording in the original example can lead to interesting misunderstandings.


----------



## KmH

The wheels are connected to the airplane, meaning that the speed of the wheels is governed by any forward motion of the airplane, regardless if the wheel speed is caused by direct drive, like a car, or movement of the airframe caused by jet or propeller engines.

Since the conveyor belt constant matches the wheel speed, but in the opposite direction, the airplane doesn't actually have any forward motion.

The speed of the airplanes wheels means EVERYTHING in the scenario postulated.

Once the airplane does get airborne, the wheels stop moving.


----------



## pgriz

The fun thing about this airplane thread is that if you read the wording of the question very carefully, you will realize that the actual behavior of the conveyor is to keep the wheels stationary, as the airplane gains speed.  Other than affecting the wheels, the conveyor has no influence on the airplane as there is no energy transfer between the wheels and the plane.

If you&#8217;re not sure, imagine that you put a chalk-mark on one of the wheels at the point it touches the conveyor (while the whole thing is stationary).  Heck, while you&#8217;re at it, put a chalk mark on the conveyor belt as well.  Now rev up the engines (doesn&#8217;t matter whether it is prop or jet or rocket, or rubber-band), and let the plane start moving forward.  If you are looking at the chalk mark on the wheel, it will start moving backwards.  Now the conveyor senses this and moves in the opposite sense of the wheel, which returns the chalk-mark back to its original point.  Net effect, the conveyor is now moving forward at the same speed as the plane.  This continues as the plane accelerates, with the conveyor matching the acceleration of the airplane.  At a certain point, the airplane becomes airborne, the wheels no longer contact the conveyor, and the conveyor, not having any idea what the wheels are doing, stops (or keeps on going at the same speed if you&#8217;re inclined to think this way).

The way most people read this tread initially, they think that the conveyor moves in the opposite direction of the plane (not the wheels), in effect bringing it back to the same point (as seen by an observer standing off the conveyor to the side).  As pointed out earlier, if there was power transmission between the airplane and the wheels (as for a geared vehicle), then that would in fact be the case that the forward motion of the vehicle would be cancelled by the backward motion of the conveyor.  However, if the wheels are free-wheeling, then there would be no loss of energy (through the wheels), and the airplane would accelerate and eventually take off.

A similar discussion occurs when we ask the question:  &#8220;How come really smart people do really dumb things?&#8221;  But that&#8217;s a Dr.Phil question&#8230;


----------



## usayit

I'm not sure how many different ways it can be explained by several people with two links + video to the experiment before it crosses into being hopeless.

You have two different systems.

1) wheels in contact with the conveyor belt.   Only horizontal forces are applied.   Zero vertical forces are applied (until lift is achieved)
2) The plane, its jet propulsion, fluid (air).  

System 1 and 2 are isolated from each other until lift is achieved.  This is because the wheels are not influenced by the jet and the brakes are off.  They spin freely.

For system 1, a similarity would be a person in a house pushing on a wall horizontally.  The harder the person pushes the harder the wall pushes back (newton law).  As long as the forces are equal no movement is achieved.   As long as the wheels and the conveyor belt are matched in speed, no movement is achieved.  This we agree on.

Here is where the misunderstanding starts.  For system 2, a similarity would be the house (with the person inside pushing on a wall) is placed on a flat bed truck.  Forces are applied to the system1 as a whole from outside the system.  If the truck moves, the whole house and person pushing on the wall must also move.  If the jet applies force, the whole plane and wheels must also move.   The movement of the plane + opposite movement of the conveyor belt is 100% translated into the rotational speed of the wheels.

In other words,

Before thrust:  
Rotational velocity of the wheels = velocity of the conveyor belt.

After thrust:  
Rotational velocity of the wheels = velocity of the conveyor belt + velocity of the aircraft.

In the after thrust equation, it is impossible for the "rotational velocity of the wheels" to equal the "velocity of the conveyor belt" unless you drive the value of "velocity of the aircraft" to zero. 

In summary, 
The ONLY way for wheels and conveyor belt to match speed is if they are an isolated system with no outside forces being applied.  This can only be achieved if the engines of the plane are OFF.  The post specifically mentions thrust.  Once thrust is achieved,  The system containing the wheels and conveyor belt must change... meaning the wheels must spin faster in order to allow forward motion.  Thrust, wheels, and conveyor belt in a single static system Does Not Exist.


----------



## usayit

pgriz said:


> A similar discussion occurs when we ask the question:  How come really smart people do really dumb things?  But thats a Dr.Phil question



I've been a drunk discussion about this... (funny eh)  the conclusion we as a group agreed on goes like this

1) Smart people can do dumb things
2) Dumb people can do dumb things
3) Dumb actions are driven by inappropriate assessments and assumptions.
4) Smart people are more likely to make the correct assessments and assumptions more frequently.

Conclusion:  Dumb people make inappropriate assessments and assumptions more frequently.  Smart people do it less frequently but are more stubborn when it comes to admitting the mistakes in their assessment and assumptions because it doesn't happen enough.


----------



## table1349

usayit said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see a distinction between wisdom and common sense.  In college I had a roommate that was very intelligent. He had a 4.0 GPA his entire life.  However he didn't have the common sense God gave a turnip.  He was a pre med student and as far as his abilities to learn the various subjects necessary he was quite capable.
> 
> In real world life situations he was dumber than a rock.  He never learned how to cope with life with other humans.  Was he wise about his chosen field of medicine, you bet.  But his understanding of common things in life was all but non existent.  I guess I see common sense in humans being more closely related to knowing right from wrong and being able to act on that knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you describe is common sense versus intelligence.. is it not?  Your friend is very intelligent and capable maintaining a 4.0 GPA, finishing pre-med, understanding medicine, and acquiring more knowledge.   Doesn't it require wisdom to know right from wrong?
> 
> It is my opinion that Wisdom includes but not limited to
> 
> * the root of morals
> * ability to determine right and wrong
> * the ability to apply intelligence properly
> 
> It is the foundation of a healthy society.   A society in which wisdom is abundant can thrive even though its progress forward (advancements in technology for example) can be slow.
> 
> Can an wise individual be also corrupt?  (IMO, No).  Can an intelligent individual be also corrupt? (IMO, yes)
Click to expand...


The way I look at it, intelligence is a measure of a persons ability to learn.  Wisdom is the ability to understand and apply what is learned. 
Common sense is an inborn knowledge specific to the human race.  It is what we have and use that is the leftover from our ancient ancestors.  In animals we call them instincts, such as a salmons ability to find and return to the same stream and location to spawn.  Ours were developed for the needs of humans.

Can a wise man be corrupt.  Ask any politician. :mrgreen: Ok seriously, 
How about the person that is "street wise?"  They are wise in the ways of survival in their environment including the criminal element of that environment.


----------



## table1349

usayit said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A similar discussion occurs when we ask the question:  How come really smart people do really dumb things?  But thats a Dr.Phil question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been a drunk discussion about this... (funny eh)  the conclusion we as a group agreed on goes like this
> 
> 1) Smart people can do dumb things
> 2) Dumb people can do dumb things
> 3) Dumb actions are driven by inappropriate assessments and assumptions.
> 4) Smart people are more likely to make the correct assessments and assumptions more frequently.
> 
> Conclusion:  Dumb people make inappropriate assessments and assumptions more frequently.  Smart people do it less frequently but are more stubborn when it comes to admitting the mistakes in their assessment and assumptions because it doesn't happen enough.
Click to expand...


Please allow me to edit your post as I see it.

1) Smart people do dumb things
2) Dumb people do dumb things
3) Dumb actions are driven by inappropriate assessments and assumptions.
4) Smart people are more likely to make the correct assessments and assumptions more frequently.
5) Smart people doing dumb things are dumber than dumb people doing dumb things as the smart people should have known better.  They compound their dumb action, sort of like interest on a savings account. :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Josh66

KmH said:


> The wheels are connected to the airplane, meaning that the speed of the wheels is governed by any forward motion of the airplane, regardless if the wheel speed is caused by direct drive, like a car, or movement of the airframe caused by jet or propeller engines.


The wheels being connected to the plane just mean that they won't fall off when the plane gets airborne...  Yes, their speed is controlled by the forward motion of the plane, which is controlled by the THRUST from the ENGINES.  The plane 'does not care' how fast they are going - it makes no difference in the plane's ability to take off.

OK, lets take the wheels out of the equation.  What if it was a sea plane trying to take off in a very fast current.  Would that plane get airborne?

(yes, it would.)



KmH said:


> Since the conveyor belt constant matches the wheel speed, but in the opposite direction, the airplane doesn't actually have any forward motion.


Basics of Flight

Read that and then get back to me when you find the part that talks about the conveyor belt.

The drag caused by the friction of the wheels touching the ground is not enough to counter the thrust from the engines.  (And that amount of drag is probably very tiny compared to the drag caused by the friction of the air moving over the wing.)



KmH said:


> The speed of the airplanes wheels means EVERYTHING in the scenario postulated.


How?  Why?
Do the engines shut down or something when the wheels get up to 88 mph?



KmH said:


> Once the airplane does get airborne, the wheels stop moving.


That's because they APPLY the BRAKES as the gear goes up.  (I guess they just don't like the idea of the wheels still moving while they're inside the gear well.)

If the gear was still down, and the brakes were off - the wheels would still spin a little.  Probably in the same direction they were going when the plane took off, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be that direction.

If it weren't for the 500mph wind blowing on them, they would come to a rest eventually if they were just left to hang there with no brakes.


----------



## usayit

gryphonslair99 said:


> 5) Smart people doing dumb things are dumber than dumb people doing dumb things as the smart people should have known better.  They compound their dumb action, sort of like interest on a savings account. :lmao::lmao::lmao:



hahahaha :lmao:  You are so right!


----------

