--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some comments in the article may make for interesting and spirited
> discussion.
In all the discussions I've read and heard about photography-as-art,
there is one difference between photography and the other arts that I
haven't seen mentioned: everyone has done it. Jillions of people are
carrying around cameras and snapping away.
A poet or composer or painter or sculptor does not have to struggle
amidst vast hordes of amateurs superficially practising the same craft.
I am not sure of the significance of this, if any.
I tend to agree with jens and mishka, photography seems to have the
most lasting effect when it merely captures life-as-it-is-lived rather
than tries to be something else.
If there had been a single camera in existence for one brief month in
Italy in, say 1545, whom would we have wanted to take pictures?
Michelangelo or an energetic, workaday photojournalist?
*>UncaMikey
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
