Dario wrote: One asserting to be an artist and acting that way (or, probably, as an artist is supposed to act) is an actor playing the artist.
Very well pu, Dario - the actor is actually a great "image" :-) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 11. februar 2006 00:07 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Re: OT: Helmut Newton I especially like your "discussing weather photography" ;-) In this forum, I find it slightly more appropriate that simply discussing weather :-) Joking apart, I fully agree with you Jens. I've always been very mistrustful of self-asserting artists. I believe that one should try to be a good artisan in his/her field. An excellent artisan, can be recognized as an artist (only by others). One asserting to be an artist and acting that way (or, probably, as an artist is supposed to act) is an actor playing the artist. And now the question could be: Can an actor be an artist? Yes, if he/she is not playing the artist. Next question: Can an actor playing the artist still be an artist? Why not? So what's the point in all this mess? I truly don't know. Dario ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:27 PM Subject: Re: Re: OT: Helmut Newton > Bob W: wrote (I was the one who didn't disagree): > 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! > > > I guess I already have: > I don't see myself as an artist, but as a photographer. I'm not trying to > be > an artist. I'm trying to be a good photographer. I realy don't care if > it's > art or not. > > Weather this or that is art is up to the spectators to decide, I believe. > To > me art is what is commonly recognised as art. It's not for the artist to > decide. If I do a really nice photograph, others can decide for themselves > if it's art or not. > What is percieved as art to me may not be art to others. And vise versa. > To > me most photography is not art. Some of it is. > I could say the same about painting, movies, litterature, music etc. I > don't > see my self as an artist, but if some people see of my work as art, it's > fine with me. I just think of it as photography. I guess Helmut Newton > felt > the same way. > > Helmut Newton obviously didn't want to discuss weater his (or other > photographers work) was art or not. I agree with him - that this should > not > be discussed. Discussing weather photography is art or not doesn't make > sence. > Regards > Jens > > > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 8. februar 2006 10:27 > Til: [email protected] > Emne: Re: Re: OT: Helmut Newton > > > >> >> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 2006/02/07 Tue PM 11:45:50 GMT >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: OT: Helmut Newton >> >> "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> 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" >> >> You can't. That's *why* it shouldn't be used! ;-) >> >> BTW: The local supermarket now has a device with which they can take >> your digital image file and "print" it on a cake in colored icing. So >> "good taste" *can* be discussed with regards to photography. >> > Hmmmm. Not sure about that. Although the one "I" produced created much > hilarity, so could be said to have gone down well in one sense, the cake > was > bloody awful. > > m > > > ----------------------------------------- > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software > Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information > > >
