Thanks, Jens. I thought maybe Helmut had further commented about his "art" remark. Wondered if the comment might have been his conclusion on the subject, in which case, I was interested in his reasoning.
Jack --- Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Helmuts answer was very elegant - and perhaps within the > concept of > "the art of conversation". > He didn't say photography was art - or it wasn't. What he said was > really, > that he did not want to discuss if photography is or isn't art - thus > didn't > want to answer. > > I do not consider myself an artist. I dont' consider most photography > art. > Of course some of it is - at least to some people. What is art to > you may > not be art to me. And vise versa. > > I can perhaps define art. But that definition may only apply to me. > That's perhaps what Helmut meant too. I can't say that I disagree. > > Regards > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 8. februar 2006 00:43 > Til: [email protected] > Emne: RE: OT: Helmut Newton > > > > > > I don't want to start a whole big thing about whether or not > > photography is "art". Far as I'm concerned it is and that's > > "settled law". Helmut's "answer" is a bit oblique for me and > > since you don't disagree, care to comment further? Thanks! > > > > Define "art" > > -- > Cheers, > Wittgenbob > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
