>----- Original Message ----- >From: "Marco Alpert" > >> Frankly, it seems to me that there are some of the unsual assumptions >> here about what exactly constitutes "fine art" photography (as a >> category - quality evaluations aside). Whose idea of "fine" art? As >> opposed to what other kind of art? (This kind of bugs me in the same >> way all those articles and workshops about "Mastering the Fine Print" >> used to bug me. "Fine Print" seemed to be code for "like Ansel Adams or >> John Sexton or Howard Bond" or whomever, with the annoying presumption >> that anything else was therefore less than "Fine.") To respond to >> something Tom C asked in another message, no, I don't believe that the >> subjectivity of a majority = objectivity of a sort. > > >Is an apple better than an orange? >Would you change your answer if the apple was rotten? > >William Robb
There are many 'Fine Art' renditions of rotten apples. Powell
