There were worse ones in the past, but well that's past.
Graywolf wrote:
Me thinks you have not spent much time around "Artsy" types. Would be poets make make the worst snapshooters look like experts. And at least we do not pschoanalyse each others photos.
graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -----------------------------------
UncaMikey wrote:
--- 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
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx
