On Sep 13, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > Your statement presumes that pleasing equals beautiful, that things > considered beautiful are art, and that a consensus of opinion on the > beauty of something defines it as art. By your definition, everything > can be art, because nearly everything can be pleasing to someone's > eye. > > There is plenty of work out there that is considered art which is not > considered beautiful or pleasing to the eye, from virtually every > major recognized artist. That would seem to make your definition > insubstantial. > > How do you account for this conflict between consensus of art and > your definition of same?
I said no such thing. You're cherry picking. Go back to my original post. I said that there is no single path to successful photography. Interesting subjects, provocative subjects, emotional subjects, great compositions and the merely pleasing or, if you will, the beautiful, can all be worthy subjects. You narrowed the discussion. The paths to great photography are unlimited. That is why it's impossible to develop rules or precise measurements. In regard to subjectivity, nearly all critics of artistic pursuits — whether the genre be painting, music, literature or even that fledging art known as photography — agree that consensus -- or the test of time -- is a valid measure of artistic merit. It's a basic tenet of criticism in all the arts. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
