On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:45:51AM -0500, CollinB wrote: > When a medium belongs exclusively to the artists then it remains an art > form.
The only people who are bigger wankers than self proclaimed artists, are the people who debate about what qualifies as art. Photos can be used to express beauty, express information or express emotion. If a photo accomplishes the goal of the photographer, subject or audience, it doesn't matter whether someone else thinks that it is art or not. > But popularity, it seems, destroys art. (eg, the mobile went from an art > form to a baby crib toy) The only thing popularity destroys is the opportunity for pretentiousness. > Kodak is to blame for the change in photography and that was about a century > ago. > > There is a remnant of photographic art. Some here do it quite well. Others > of us just try hard. And some of us don't give a shit, we just like playing with our toys. If we get pretty pictures in the process, so much the better. > > Art is more than the individualism of the eye of the beholder. > Such pomo definitions destroy all meaning. > Art is a rigorous creation, an image which speaks clearly. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Larry Colen [email protected] http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
