So now we are in this art v. photography thing again. I still say art is
in the mind of the artist. If he thinks he is an artist he is. He may be
a good artist, or a bad one, but merely the fact he feels that he is
creating art means he is an artist.
Personally I think artists are silly pretentious people, and it is no
complement to be called one. I would much rather be praised for my
skilled craftsmanship.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Mark Roberts wrote:
K.Takeshita wrote:
Sorry if you interpreted that way. I did not mean that and I never regard
you as a technician. I simply objected to people who argue that the digital
post-processing is art
But it *is* an art. (Or at least it can be, if done well). It's a
different art than photography, but an art none the less.
