Hi,
Kant, Heidegger, Husserl, Peirce and all the rest of them still had to
live in the real world...
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant,
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Schopenhauer and
Funny...
Tom C.
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 08:17:40 +
Hi,
Kant, Heidegger, Husserl, Peirce and all the rest of them still had to
live in the real world...
Immanuel
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:16:51 -0500 (EST), John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect you are thinking of a Dave Berg The Lighter Side Of ...
strip - it sounds far more like his style than like Don Martin.
You are correct, Sir!!
Thanks, John, it was The Lighter Side of... and it was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/25/2005 4:36:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, k
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will add to this resend, that you are equating universal object truth with
external reality. A common mistake.
I'm intrigued. Since you brought it up, what's the difference?
In a message dated 2/8/2005 9:49:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you confusing belief with reality maybe? What we perceive, what we
believe, and what is reality may be 3 different things. But it would be
very strange to think there is no reality without a perception
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
7.) I don't debate (at least anymore and at least not on the Net).
I've been
involved in too many knock down and drag out usenet/list -- mainly
usenet --
conversations to find it amusing or entertaining anymore. I also
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
7.) I don't debate (at least anymore and at least not on the Net).
I've been
involved in too many knock down and drag out usenet/list -- mainly
usenet -- conversations to find it amusing or entertaining
Yeah, but if you steadfastly hold to the viewpoint that nothing is real,
what is there to debate? :) Sorry Marnie, being a smart***.
Tom C.
William Robb wrote:
If you are not willing to debate it, you should probably keep it to
yourself.
KW wrote:
Exclamation point!
What an avant-garde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/8/2005 9:49:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you confusing belief with reality maybe? What we perceive, what we
believe, and what is reality may be 3 different things. But it would be
very strange to think there is no
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:16:51 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, but if you steadfastly hold to the viewpoint that nothing is real,
what is there to debate? :) Sorry Marnie, being a smart***.
We can say smartass on this list. At least ~I~ can say smartass... vbg
BTW, WRT to all
Frank wrote:
BTW, WRT to all this is reality really real? discussion, I remember
reading somewhere (but I'll be damned if I can remember ~where~) that
for all his talk about being and nothingness, when Heidegger walked in
a room and saw a chair, he knew damned well that the chair really was
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:03:55 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah... well during the Super Bowl party at a neighbor's house, my 13-year
old son decided to pull the chair out from under me when I returned from
refeshing my wine glass. I consequently sat on the floor dribbling my wine
dad.
Tom C.
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:21:45 -0500
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:03:55 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah... well during the Super Bowl
In a message dated 2/8/2005 3:21:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, but if you steadfastly hold to the viewpoint that nothing is real,
what is there to debate? :) Sorry Marnie, being a smart***.
Tom C.
=
Another thing I never said.
I said that believe all
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:29:31 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip He's a pretty good kid overall, just reaching
that age where he *perceives* himself to be almost as smart as dear old dad.
What was that Don Martin strip in the old Mad Magazines? I can't
remember it's name, but I do
In a message dated 2/8/2005 2:54:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
7.) I don't debate (at least anymore and at least not on the Net).
I've been
involved in too many knock down
Hey Marnie... I was just yanking your chain... that's why there was a
smiley.
I still don't believe ALL truths are subjective however...
Tom C.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19
-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:37:35 EST
In a message dated 2/8/2005 3:21:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, but if you steadfastly hold to the viewpoint that nothing is real,
what is there to debate? :) Sorry Marnie
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:05:51 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This thread reminds me of a junior college philosophy class.
Hell, it's not nearly up to ~that~ level! g
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Yeah... well during the Super Bowl party at a neighbor's house, my
13-year old son decided to pull the chair out from under me when I
returned from refeshing my wine glass. I consequently sat on the
floor
What? I don't have any recollection.
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:18:59 -0600
- Original Message - From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
What? I don't have any recollection.
I can well believe that...
b...
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:16:44 -0600, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
What? I don't have any recollection.
I can well believe that...
b...
I think you guys should take your sordid little
Purely medicinal...
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:16:44 -0600
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is
allowed?
What? I
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Purely medicinal...
BTW, was I drooling too?
b...
frank theriault mused:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:29:31 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip He's a pretty good kid overall, just reaching
that age where he *perceives* himself to be almost as smart as dear old dad.
What was that Don Martin strip in the old Mad Magazines? I can't
: what is allowed?
7.) I don't debate (at least anymore and at least not on the Net).
I've been
involved in too many knock down and drag out usenet/list -- mainly
usenet -- conversations to find it amusing or entertaining anymore.
I also think debate
about religion/politics/belief systems
On 26/1/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
Wow, you give your wife a salary? Not to many do, usually just an
allowance at
best. Do you deduct FICA and Taxes?
Oh boy. Gw, you meet my mrs and you better have some Hedex ready
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People,
fra: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
To me, a photograph presented as the truth is always a lie, since
it always represents the photographers personal representation of
something
Quoting frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:56:32 -0500, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
frank, i agree with you 99%, wxcept this part, which i find a bit
strange
(strange that someone has this kind of expectations of the second oldest
profession)
This is my part,
i thought that professional mother, that is someone who is paid
for giving births, by a third party, is a pretty recent invention.
i would say, it's the second oldest hobby :)
best,
mishka (father of one, no memberships whatsoever)
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:06:16 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
ft maniplation should be allowed. A bit of dodging and burning,
ft cropping, that's about it. Even tilting is verboten, AFAIK.
Tilting? Does that mean that all of my PJ photographs (which are even
more tilted that all Kratochvil's g) are useless now :-( ?
Or did you mean some other tilting? :)
Motherhood is not a profession, nobody pays for that (grin). Generally the
oldest profession is considered to be prostitution, and the second oldest to be
spying. I guess I can see where reportage could be equated to spying. BTW,
prostitution is common amongst the other primates too.
graywolf
Graywolf, taking his life in his hands, said,
Motherhood is not a profession, nobody pays for that (grin).
I'm guessing that you've never been married vbg. I've been paying a mom for
33 years, and she's worth every penny.
Wow, you give your wife a salary? Not to many do, usually just an allowance at
best. Do you deduct FICA and Taxes?
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graywolf, taking his life in his hands, said,
Hi,
Well put, Bob W.
Thankyou.
I personally believe there is an ultimate truth, an
ultimate reality.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by an 'ultimate' truth. I was talking
about external / objective reality / truth.
I'm informed that it's a common mistake to equate objective truth with
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:57:32 +0100, Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ft maniplation should be allowed. A bit of dodging and burning,
ft cropping, that's about it. Even tilting is verboten, AFAIK.
Tilting? Does that mean that all of my PJ photographs (which are even
more tilted that all
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:06:16 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what it's worth, if anything, I agree with Frank.
snip
I would have thought that agreeing with me is worth ~something~... LOL
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:06:16 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what it's worth, if anything, I agree with Frank.
However, I thought *motherhood* was the second oldest profession.
ERNR
mother of two
NPPA member
Eleanor,
NPPA? National Proud Parents' Association?
]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:52:42 +
Hi,
Well put, Bob W.
Thankyou.
I personally believe there is an ultimate truth, an
ultimate reality.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by an 'ultimate' truth
Quoting frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:06:16 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what it's worth, if anything, I agree with Frank.
However, I thought *motherhood* was the second oldest profession.
ERNR
mother of two
NPPA member
Nachricht-
Von: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. Januar 2005 13:03
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
first, you didn't answer the question: why media wouln't work any more
without that goal?
second, yes, there are two kinds of journalism
]
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
...
That's what i menat. I just thought is was send privatley by mistake.
Sorry if not.
Michael
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Januar 2005 02:21
An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed
fra: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the
photographers personal representation of something.
In other words
@pdml.net
Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
- Original Message -
From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the
photographers personal representation of something.
In other words
In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:50:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's what happens when you try to argue the solipsistic position.
It's incoherent. There's a lesson to be learned there!
===
We have to agree to disagree. I think the nature of reality remains,
Comments below
fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 1/24/2005 2:58:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
writes:
And I do agree that it is confusing that I sometimes switch from my
perspective to the opponents. To simplify things: To me, a photograph
is always a lie,
Hi,
Just to confuse things... Your above statement implies that there is some
objective truth. Something concrete out there that is true. And that
subjectivity, by its very nature, because it is one person's viewpoint, is a
lie. I
believe, however, that there is no objectivity --no
Hi,
An opinion presented as the truth can be a lie.
Hmm, well, not sure about that. An opinion is not a matter of fact, so
it's rather hard to present one as a truth or a lie. E.g. Picasso was
the best artist since Leonardo da Vinci. This is a matter of opinion.
By definition it's neither true
In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:48:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To me, a photograph presented as the truth is always a lie, since it always
represents the photographers personal representation of something.
DagT
==
More concise, better explained. Of course, we
fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:48:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To me, a photograph presented as the truth is always a lie, since it always
represents the photographers personal representation of something.
DagT
==
More
or
newsmagazines.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Januar 2005 00:37
An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
- Original Message -
From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed
The fact that human beings and animals can successfully survive on a
daily basis makes it a pretty good bet that our senses and the
representations of the world the brain constructs from them has some
meaningful relation to what's actually going on in nature. The human
ability to extent this
Slanting (editorializing news articles) has been going on since the first
broadside was printed. Anyone who doesn't realize that is pretty gullible.
Actually it is pretty hard to write anything without your own biases creeping
in, so it is not always deliberate.
You used to (40-50 years ago) be
I read the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The truth, as you say,
is somewhere in between.
Paul
Slanting (editorializing news articles) has been going on since the first
broadside was printed. Anyone who doesn't realize that is pretty gullible.
Actually it is pretty hard to
Actually I don't mind biased news as long as the bias is acknowledged.
Graywolf wrote:
Slanting (editorializing news articles) has been going on since the
first broadside was printed. Anyone who doesn't realize that is pretty
gullible.
Actually it is pretty hard to write anything without your
Hi,
That's what happens when you try to argue the solipsistic position.
It's incoherent. There's a lesson to be learned there!
===
We have to agree to disagree. I think the nature of reality remains, as yet,
undiscovered.
The observer affects the observed.
Your position is
In a message dated 1/25/2005 10:53:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your position is inconsistent. One the one hand you claim to believe
that there is no external reality. On the other you claim that the
observer affects the observed. These positions are incompatible. If
In a message dated 1/25/2005 10:53:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your position is inconsistent. One the one hand you claim to believe
that there is no external reality. On the other you claim that the
observer affects the observed. These positions are incompatible. If
one, what
many scientists, philosophers and theologians, as well as the comman man
have been trying to achieve since the beginning of time as we know it?
Tom C.
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Date
That's not strange. Without that goal media wouln't work any more.
Michael
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Januar 2005 01:57
An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
frank, i agree with you 99%, wxcept
An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Betreff: Re: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Slanting (editorializing news articles) has been going on since the
first
broadside was printed. Anyone who doesn't realize that is pretty
gullible. Actually it is pretty hard to write anything without your own
biases
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:56:32 -0500, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
frank, i agree with you 99%, wxcept this part, which i find a bit strange
(strange that someone has this kind of expectations of the second oldest
profession)
This is my part, to which Mishka refers:
On the other hand, if I
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:01:18 -0500, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TRUTH?
But we weren't arguing about truth. We were arguing about how much
manipulation of a photo is acceptable or allowed.
And, the answer is, it depends. For photojournalism, very little
maniplation should be allowed.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:54:27 -0600, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Exactly what are we arguing about, anyway? This seems pretty
simple
and straightforward to me.
You've had legal
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:24:56 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't agree. No inconsistency to me. And if you boil it down -- I think what
I originally said was that there was no universal objective truth. Only
subjective truth.
But, some things are objectively true. G.W. Bush
as we
know it?
Tom C.
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:54:19 +
Hi,
That's what happens when you try to argue the solipsistic position.
It's incoherent. There's
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
To me, a photograph presented as the truth is always a lie, since
it always represents the photographers personal representation of
something.
This is a representation of my dogs lying on the floor
interesting: i have always considered NYT to be quite conservative (in
good sense).
best,
mishka
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:52:43 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The truth, as you say,
is somewhere in
between.
Paul
-discuss@pdml.net
Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
frank, i agree with you 99%, wxcept this part, which i find a bit
strange (strange that someone has this kind of expectations of the
second oldest
profession)
On the other hand, if I pick up a newspaper, I expect that what's
damn lawyer!
:)
but, even given all the fine print, i still find the presumption
overly optimistic.
as a side note, maybe some people here have noticed that in my country
there were elections (which have finally ended in an inauguration) not that
long time ago. and i have to say that the
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:52:37 -0500, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
interesting: i have always considered NYT to be quite conservative (in
good sense).
best,
mishka
It is.
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
The New York Times is among the most liberal papers in the United
States. The paper hasn't endorsed a Republican for president in close
to a century. Its politics are almost always at odds with those of the
Journal. Whether one supports the opinions of the Times' editors or
not, it's a worthy
In a message dated 1/25/2005 4:36:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, k
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will add to this resend, that you are equating universal object truth with
external reality. A common mistake.
I'm intrigued. Since you brought it up, what's the difference? This
isn't a trap, I really
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:36:34 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/25/2005 4:36:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, k
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will add to this resend, that you are equating universal object truth with
external reality. A common mistake.
I'm
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:09:49 -0500, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
damn lawyer!
:)
but, even given all the fine print, i still find the presumption
overly optimistic.
as a side note, maybe some people here have noticed that in my country
there were elections (which have finally ended in
In a message dated 1/25/2005 7:59:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just wanted to know what the difference (in your mind) is between a
universal objective truth, and external reality (terms that you used),
as I really didn't know what you were talking about without some
, but in a way, every journalist should be
willing to stay at the trouth. He shoult try.
Michael
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. Januar 2005 02:53
An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Betreff: Re: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
why?
mishka
Now that we are speaking about looking away and do's don'ts. Lets
get ethical:
Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (i mean:
worked hard in photoshop) a picture?
Examples:
- adding grain digitally ;-)
- putting objects in or taking them out of a picture
- changing
around.
Michael
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Montag, 24. Januar 2005 12:11
An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Answers below:
fra: Michael Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now that we are speaking about
Answers below:
fra: Michael Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now that we are speaking about looking away and do's don'ts. Lets
get ethical:
Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (i mean:
worked hard in photoshop) a picture?
No. Any photograph is already manipulated, from
something that wasn't real. Could the orapple be shown in an article about
fruit, and gene technology?
DagT
fra: Michael Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dato: 2005/01/24 ma PM 12:42:03 CET
til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
emne: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
I can't agree with you.
I know
Michael wrote:
Now that we are speaking about looking away and do's don'ts. Lets
get ethical:
Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (I mean:
worked hard in Photoshop) a picture?
My opinion is that like a lot of ethical questions it depends on the
intended use.
I would
Quoting Michael Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (i mean:
worked hard in photoshop) a picture?
Yes and no.
It all depends on the context the pic is presented in.
If a photo is presented to be authentic, or unmanipulated, it puts a trust
@pdml.net
emne: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
I can't agree with you.
I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even been
cut out of images because of political reasons. But does that give as a
carte blanche to manipulate pictures without telling anybody about it?
I give you a practical
is still a lie.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Michael Heim
Subject: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
I can't agree with you.
I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even
been
cut out of images because of political reasons. But does that give
as a
carte blanche
: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
I can't agree with you.
I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even
been
cut out of images because of political reasons. But does that give
as a
carte blanche to manipulate pictures without telling anybody about
it?
I give
Hi,
Monday, January 24, 2005, 7:44:52 PM, pnstenquist wrote:
And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable.
Would anyone say that Dali's work was not artful, although it
mimiced reality while twisting it to suit the artist's intention?
Paul
Dali's work isn't a lie. He wasn't
Based on your definition of a lie, one must draw an arbitrary line. Although
Dali mimiced reality, most of his work (but not all) departed sufficiently from
the real to make it unmistakably surreal. But how much evidence does the artist
have to offer in order to escape the lie? Are painters who
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable.
The telling of beautiful, untrue things is the proper aim of art
- Oscar Wilde
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Hi,
Monday, January 24, 2005, 8:28:05 PM, pnstenquist wrote:
Based on your definition of a lie, one must draw an arbitrary
line.
Why?
Although Dali mimiced reality, most of his work (but not all)
departed sufficiently from the real to make it unmistakably surreal.
So what? It doesn't mean
I said:
Art should never be subject to arbitrary rules.
Bob added:
That sounds to me like an arbitrary rule.
HAR! Then I guess we agree.
Hi,
Monday, January 24, 2005, 8:28:05 PM, pnstenquist wrote:
Based on your definition of a lie, one must draw an arbitrary
line.
Why?
pictures
truthful since they are what the lens saw.
Obfuscating the truth is still a lie.
William Robb
- Original Message - From: Michael Heim
Subject: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
I can't agree with you.
I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even been
cut out
Hi,
Monday, January 24, 2005, 10:56:18 PM, DagT wrote:
Sure, but who cares where the lie is made, before, after or during the
exposure.
And I do agree that it is confusing that I sometimes switch from my
perspective to the opponents. To simplify things: To me, a photograph
is always a
- Original Message -
From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the
photographers personal representation of something.
In other words, a photograph is a representation of the photographers
: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:23:56 +
Hi,
Monday, January 24, 2005, 10:56:18 PM, DagT wrote:
Sure, but who cares where the lie is made, before, after or during the
exposure.
And I do agree that it is confusing that I sometimes switch from my
perspective
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:43:12 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My own two eyes always 'represent my own personal representation of
something' to my brain. If this is the definition of a lie then to discuss
the ability of a photo to lie is moot.
Well, here's the bottom line:
Photography
frank, i agree with you 99%, wxcept this part, which i find a bit strange
(strange that someone has this kind of expectations of the second oldest
profession)
On the other hand, if I pick up a newspaper, I expect that what's
being reported should be grounded in facts, and represent that which
TRUTH?
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
frank theriault wrote:
Exactly what are we arguing about, anyway? This seems pretty simple
and straightforward to me.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
