Re: Copyright issues: What if you photograph someone with a copyrighted tattoo?

[P.J. Alling]

Then having read his recommendations, I became quiet peeved, as he runs 
roughshod over fair use in several cases.


On 11/1/2015 11:32 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:
I don't see how that's different than photographing a Copyrighted 
poster.  No real interesting questions here at all, the law is pretty 
much black letter.


On 10/31/2015 2:21 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

Some interesting questions arise!
http://improvephotography.com/35091/copyright-nightmare-taking-photos-of-people-with-tattoos/ 









--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Copyright issues: What if you photograph someone with a copyrighted tattoo?

[P.J. Alling]

I don't see how that's different than photographing a Copyrighted 
poster.  No real interesting questions here at all, the law is pretty 
much black letter.


On 10/31/2015 2:21 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

Some interesting questions arise!
http://improvephotography.com/35091/copyright-nightmare-taking-photos-of-people-with-tattoos/

  



--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Copyright issues: What if you photograph someone with a copyrighted tattoo?

[Mark Roberts]

Some interesting questions arise!
http://improvephotography.com/35091/copyright-nightmare-taking-photos-of-people-with-tattoos/

 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Copyright issues: What if you photograph someone with a copyrighted tattoo?

[Bob W-PDML]

I can't see the difference between photographing someone with tattoos and 
someone wearing clothes that someone else has designed, or a street containing 
buildings and billboards, and tons of other shit that's copyright. Sounds to me 
like a lawyer trying to drum up some spurious business.

B

> On 31 Oct 2015, at 18:22, Mark Roberts  wrote:
> 
> Some interesting questions arise!
> http://improvephotography.com/35091/copyright-nightmare-taking-photos-of-people-with-tattoos/
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
> www.robertstech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Copyright issues: What if you photograph someone with a copyrighted tattoo?

[Igor PDML-StR]

Mark: thanks, that's an interesting article.

Bob: I don't know how it works on your side of the pond, but in the US, 
sculptures in a photo MAY BE and often ARE covered by copyright.

There have been several cases in the past decade or so.
See e.g. this case: 
http://www.sculpture.org/documents/scmag05/may_05/webspecs/grant.shtml

It looks like it is different in Canada:
http://www.photoattorney.com/update-on-lawsuit-against-photographer-for-photo-of-sculpture/

If you read that second reference above, you'll see that you can 
photograph and paint (on your own media! ;-) ) public buildings without 
copyright infringements.


As for clothes, I know much less about that area.
There is much lower level of copyright protection in the fashion design 
(if at all). You can read e.g. this document:

http://copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

HTH,

Igor



 Bob W-PDML Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:38:41 -0700 wrote:

I can't see the difference between photographing someone with tattoos and 
someone wearing clothes that someone else has designed, or a street 
containing buildings and billboards, and tons of other shit that's 
copyright. Sounds to me like a lawyer trying to drum up some spurious 
business.



B


On 31 Oct 2015, at 18:22, Mark Roberts  wrote:

Some interesting questions arise!
http://improvephotography.com/35091/copyright-nightmare-taking-photos-of-people-with-tattoos/


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Copyright issues: What if you photograph someone with a copyrighted tattoo?

[Steve Cottrell]

It won't be long before you'll have to pay a fee just to see a building
in the street. Google-glass style glasses will note your gaze and charge
accordingly. Rich bastards will have 180 degree f.o.v. lenses to take in
all the copyrighted architecture as you walk down the street. Careful
not to trip over the poorer folk like me who'll have blinkers taped to
the sides of mine.

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Production
--
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Copyright issues: What if you photograph someone with a copyrighted tattoo?

[Mark Roberts]

Igor PDML-StR wrote:

>Mark: thanks, that's an interesting article.
>
>Bob: I don't know how it works on your side of the pond, but in the US, 
>sculptures in a photo MAY BE and often ARE covered by copyright.
>There have been several cases in the past decade or so.
>See e.g. this case: 
>http://www.sculpture.org/documents/scmag05/may_05/webspecs/grant.shtml
>It looks like it is different in Canada:
>http://www.photoattorney.com/update-on-lawsuit-against-photographer-for-photo-of-sculpture/
>
>If you read that second reference above, you'll see that you can 
>photograph and paint (on your own media! ;-) ) public buildings without 
>copyright infringements.
>
>As for clothes, I know much less about that area.
>There is much lower level of copyright protection in the fashion design 
>(if at all). You can read e.g. this document:
>http://copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

Also, in the case of the Mike Tyson tattoo, the issue is Trademark
rather than copyright, so different laws apply.

Overall  the advice given in the article seems pretty sensible. In the
U.S, at least, the copyright owner can't sue unless the copyright has
been registered with the copyright office (and within 90 days of
"publication", which would mean when it appeared on the person on whom
it was applied).

 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Copyright issues: What if you photograph someone with a copyrighted tattoo?

[Igor PDML-StR]

Actually, here is the latest bill that I can find that covers fashion 
design protection:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3523/text
And here is its discussion in Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/01/03/protecting-fashion-designs/
This bill was meant as a replacement for the 2006 one previously 
referenced by me. As far as I understand, it still has not been enacted 
by the Senate.


It turns out that EU and European countries provide better protection 
for the fashion design:

http://www.cardozoaelj.com/2014/09/19/protecting-fashion-a-comparative-analysis-of-fashion-design-copyright-protection-in-the-u-s-and-europe/
That article discusses several other examples that might be of interest to 
inquisitive minds.


Igor

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015, Igor PDML-StR wrote:




Mark: thanks, that's an interesting article.

Bob: I don't know how it works on your side of the pond, but in the US, 
sculptures in a photo MAY BE and often ARE covered by copyright.

There have been several cases in the past decade or so.
See e.g. this case: 
http://www.sculpture.org/documents/scmag05/may_05/webspecs/grant.shtml

It looks like it is different in Canada:
http://www.photoattorney.com/update-on-lawsuit-against-photographer-for-photo-of-sculpture/

If you read that second reference above, you'll see that you can photograph 
and paint (on your own media! ;-) ) public buildings without copyright 
infringements.


As for clothes, I know much less about that area.
There is much lower level of copyright protection in the fashion design (if 
at all). You can read e.g. this document:

http://copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

HTH,

Igor



Bob W-PDML Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:38:41 -0700 wrote:

I can't see the difference between photographing someone with tattoos and 
someone wearing clothes that someone else has designed, or a street 
containing buildings and billboards, and tons of other shit that's copyright. 
Sounds to me like a lawyer trying to drum up some spurious business.



B


On 31 Oct 2015, at 18:22, Mark Roberts  wrote:

Some interesting questions arise!
http://improvephotography.com/35091/copyright-nightmare-taking-photos-of-people-with-tattoos/




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Eactivist]

Googled, cool.

Marnie aka Doe  :-)

In a message dated 1/27/2014 7:42:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
p...@paper-ape.com writes:
on 2014-01-26 23:10 eactiv...@aol.com  wrote
 Interesting. Never heard of that, at  all.

see if your  library has any books of Man Ray's work  


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[John]

Wasn't really about photography though. It was all about museums  curators.

On 1/26/2014 1:59 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

I read it thoroughly. It was worth my while.

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:38 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:

I skimmed it, there may actually be a new thought in there, but it's not
worth my while to find out.


On 1/26/2014 11:18 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:


An article in today’s Times that’s relevant to recent discussions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/arts/design/with-cameras-optional-new-directions-in-photography.html?_r=0

“The iPhone, the scanner and Photoshop are yielding a daunting range of
imagery, and artists mining these new technologies are making documentation
of the actual world seem virtually obsolete.




--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the
crazy, crazier.

  - H.L.Mencken


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Aahz Maruch]

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:

 Go you one better -- What is reality?

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Lessee -- five million quatloos to the first person who identifies the
author.
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  *   *   *
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Paul Stenquist]

Philip K. Dick, a science fiction writer.

On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:

 On Sun, Jan 26, 2014, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
 
 Go you one better -- What is reality?
 
 Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
 
 Lessee -- five million quatloos to the first person who identifies the
 author.
 -- 
 Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  *   *   *
 Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[John]

Reality: It's a nice place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there.

On 1/27/2014 4:28 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote:

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:


Go you one better -- What is reality?


Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Lessee -- five million quatloos to the first person who identifies the
author.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[J.C. O'Connell]

Reality is living in one of the 48 states that dont have legalized 
recreational marijuana.




On 1/27/2014 5:04 PM, John wrote:

Reality: It's a nice place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there.

On 1/27/2014 4:28 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote:

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:


Go you one better -- What is reality?


Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Lessee -- five million quatloos to the first person who identifies the
author.






--
J.C. O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
--


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[steve harley]

on 2014-01-26 23:10 eactiv...@aol.com wrote

Interesting. Never heard of that, at  all.


see if your library has any books of Man Ray's work


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

What is a Photograph?

[Paul Stenquist]

An article in today’s Times that’s relevant to recent discussions: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/arts/design/with-cameras-optional-new-directions-in-photography.html?_r=0

“The iPhone, the scanner and Photoshop are yielding a daunting range of 
imagery, and artists mining these new technologies are making documentation of 
the actual world seem virtually obsolete.
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[J.C. O'Connell]

Same goes for what is a movie?

--
J.C. O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
--


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Bob W]

On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:26, J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
 
 Same goes for what is a movie?
 

That one's easy. It's a sequence of photographs replayed at 14fps.

On the other hand, you could, like André Bazin, ask what is cinema? Or you 
could go further, as the French cineastes do, and ask what is France? And from 
there you must ask what is French cinema?

Here begins a lifetime of fascinated bafflement as you find yourself leaving 
the salle de projection scratching your head and asking the real question, WTF 
was that all about?

B
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Mark Roberts]

Bob W wrote:

On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:26, J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
 
 Same goes for what is a movie?
 

That one's easy. It's a sequence of photographs replayed at 14fps.

On the other hand, you could, like André Bazin, ask what is cinema? 
Or you could go further, as the French cineastes do, and ask what is 
France? And from there you must ask what is French cinema?

Here begins a lifetime of fascinated bafflement as you find yourself 
leaving the salle de projection scratching your head and asking the 
real question, WTF was that all about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbAohexT0Ho

 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Bob W]

On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:40, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
 
 Bob W wrote:
 
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:26, J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
 
 Same goes for what is a movie?
 
 That one's easy. It's a sequence of photographs replayed at 14fps.
 
 On the other hand, you could, like André Bazin, ask what is cinema? 
 Or you could go further, as the French cineastes do, and ask what is 
 France? And from there you must ask what is French cinema?
 
 Here begins a lifetime of fascinated bafflement as you find yourself 
 leaving the salle de projection scratching your head and asking the 
 real question, WTF was that all about?
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbAohexT0Ho
 

Ah, oui - très influencé par Cauliflower Mon Amour. I have forwarded zat to my 
French Cinema group.

B
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Bob W]

On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:34, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
 
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:26, J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
 
 Same goes for what is a movie?
 
 That one's easy. It's a sequence of photographs replayed at 14fps

Ahem, 24fps. Slo-mo is frowned upon.

B

 On the other hand, you could, like André Bazin, ask what is cinema? Or you 
 could go further, as the French cineastes do, and ask what is France? And 
 from there you must ask what is French cinema?
 
 Here begins a lifetime of fascinated bafflement as you find yourself leaving 
 the salle de projection scratching your head and asking the real question, 
 WTF was that all about?
 
 B

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[J.C. O'Connell]

On 1/26/2014 11:34 AM, Bob W wrote:

On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:26, J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net wrote:

Same goes for what is a movie?


That one's easy. It's a sequence of photographs replayed at 14fps.

On the other hand, you could, like André Bazin, ask what is cinema? Or you 
could go further, as the French cineastes do, and ask what is France? And from 
there you must ask what is French cinema?

Here begins a lifetime of fascinated bafflement as you find yourself leaving 
the salle de projection scratching your head and asking the real question, WTF 
was that all about?

B

As long as Brigitte Bardot was in it, I dont care.

--
J.C. O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
--


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Eactivist]

Go you one better -- What is reality?

My definition:  a  photograph is art and/or documentary or somewhere in 
between. (Thinking of the  Photojournalism thread.)

Physical objects are easy. A chair is a chair. A  photo of a chair is a 
photo of a chair. 

But what is a war/a protest march/an airplane crash/a massive flood/a  
political meeting? And what are photographs of those events? 

It all  becomes subjective rather quickly.

Marnie aka Doe ;-)  I've never  been able to come up with a good definition 
for reality, myself.

In a  message dated 1/26/2014 9:06:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
p...@web-options.com  writes:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:34, Bob W p...@web-options.com  wrote:
 
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:26, J.C. O'Connell  hifis...@gate.net wrote:
 
 Same goes for what is  a movie?
 
 That one's easy. It's a sequence of photographs  replayed at 14fps

Ahem, 24fps. Slo-mo is frowned upon.

B
 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[knarf]

I think my head's going to explode.

cheers,
frank

eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
Go you one better -- What is reality?

My definition:  a  photograph is art and/or documentary or somewhere in

between. (Thinking of the  Photojournalism thread.)

Physical objects are easy. A chair is a chair. A  photo of a chair is a

photo of a chair. 

But what is a war/a protest march/an airplane crash/a massive flood/a  
political meeting? And what are photographs of those events? 

It all  becomes subjective rather quickly.

Marnie aka Doe ;-)  I've never  been able to come up with a good
definition 
for reality, myself.

In a  message dated 1/26/2014 9:06:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
p...@web-options.com  writes:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:34, Bob W p...@web-options.com  wrote:
 
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:26, J.C. O'Connell  hifis...@gate.net
wrote:
 
 Same goes for what is  a movie?
 
 That one's easy. It's a sequence of photographs  replayed at 14fps

Ahem, 24fps. Slo-mo is frowned upon.

B
 

“Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[P.J. Alling]

I skimmed it, there may actually be a new thought in there, but it's not 
worth my while to find out.


On 1/26/2014 11:18 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

An article in today’s Times that’s relevant to recent discussions: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/arts/design/with-cameras-optional-new-directions-in-photography.html?_r=0

“The iPhone, the scanner and Photoshop are yielding a daunting range of imagery, and 
artists mining these new technologies are making documentation of the actual world 
seem virtually obsolete.



--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, 
crazier.

 - H.L.Mencken


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Bruce Walker]

I read it thoroughly. It was worth my while.

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:38 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
 I skimmed it, there may actually be a new thought in there, but it's not
 worth my while to find out.


 On 1/26/2014 11:18 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

 An article in today’s Times that’s relevant to recent discussions:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/arts/design/with-cameras-optional-new-directions-in-photography.html?_r=0

 “The iPhone, the scanner and Photoshop are yielding a daunting range of
 imagery, and artists mining these new technologies are making documentation
 of the actual world seem virtually obsolete.



 --
 A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the
 crazy, crazier.

  - H.L.Mencken



 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.



-- 
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Stanley Halpin]

On Jan 26, 2014, at 1:26 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think my head's going to explode.
 
 cheers,
 frank
 

Hold on Frank - I’ll be right over to take a photo of that event… I suspect it 
will be a subjective interpretation.

stan

 eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
 Go you one better -- What is reality?
 
 My definition:  a  photograph is art and/or documentary or somewhere in
 
 between. (Thinking of the  Photojournalism thread.)
 
 Physical objects are easy. A chair is a chair. A  photo of a chair is a
 
 photo of a chair. 
 
 But what is a war/a protest march/an airplane crash/a massive flood/a  
 political meeting? And what are photographs of those events? 
 
 It all  becomes subjective rather quickly.
 
 Marnie aka Doe ;-)  I've never  been able to come up with a good
 definition 
 for reality, myself.
 
 In a  message dated 1/26/2014 9:06:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
 p...@web-options.com  writes:
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:34, Bob W p...@web-options.com  wrote:
 
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:26, J.C. O'Connell  hifis...@gate.net
 wrote:
 
 Same goes for what is  a movie?
 
 That one's easy. It's a sequence of photographs  replayed at 14fps
 
 Ahem, 24fps. Slo-mo is frowned upon.
 
 B
 
 
 “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel
 
 
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[knarf]

I'll take a selfie of the event. That will be subject too.

But it will be a representation of a real event...

:-)

Cheers,
frank

Stanley Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote:

On Jan 26, 2014, at 1:26 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think my head's going to explode.
 
 cheers,
 frank
 

Hold on Frank - I’ll be right over to take a photo of that event… I
suspect it will be a subjective interpretation.

stan

 eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
 Go you one better -- What is reality?
 
 My definition:  a  photograph is art and/or documentary or somewhere
in
 
 between. (Thinking of the  Photojournalism thread.)
 
 Physical objects are easy. A chair is a chair. A  photo of a chair
is a
 
 photo of a chair. 
 
 But what is a war/a protest march/an airplane crash/a massive
flood/a  
 political meeting? And what are photographs of those events? 
 
 It all  becomes subjective rather quickly.
 
 Marnie aka Doe ;-)  I've never  been able to come up with a good
 definition 
 for reality, myself.
 
 In a  message dated 1/26/2014 9:06:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
 p...@web-options.com  writes:
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:34, Bob W p...@web-options.com  wrote:
 
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:26, J.C. O'Connell  hifis...@gate.net
 wrote:
 
 Same goes for what is  a movie?
 
 That one's easy. It's a sequence of photographs  replayed at 14fps
 
 Ahem, 24fps. Slo-mo is frowned upon.
 
 B
 
 
 “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel
 
 
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.

“Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[knarf]

Meant to say it will be subjective, too...

Cheers 
frank

Stanley Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote:

On Jan 26, 2014, at 1:26 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think my head's going to explode.
 
 cheers,
 frank
 

Hold on Frank - I’ll be right over to take a photo of that event… I
suspect it will be a subjective interpretation.

stan

 eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
 Go you one better -- What is reality?
 
 My definition:  a  photograph is art and/or documentary or somewhere
in
 
 between. (Thinking of the  Photojournalism thread.)
 
 Physical objects are easy. A chair is a chair. A  photo of a chair
is a
 
 photo of a chair. 
 
 But what is a war/a protest march/an airplane crash/a massive
flood/a  
 political meeting? And what are photographs of those events? 
 
 It all  becomes subjective rather quickly.
 
 Marnie aka Doe ;-)  I've never  been able to come up with a good
 definition 
 for reality, myself.
 
 In a  message dated 1/26/2014 9:06:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
 p...@web-options.com  writes:
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:34, Bob W p...@web-options.com  wrote:
 
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:26, J.C. O'Connell  hifis...@gate.net
 wrote:
 
 Same goes for what is  a movie?
 
 That one's easy. It's a sequence of photographs  replayed at 14fps
 
 Ahem, 24fps. Slo-mo is frowned upon.
 
 B
 
 
 “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel
 
 
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.

“Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Eactivist]

We aim to please.

Marnie aka Doe ;-)  

In a message dated 1/26/2014 10:26:53 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
knarftheria...@gmail.com writes:
I think my head's going to  explode.

cheers,
frank

eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
Go you  one better -- What is reality?

My definition:  a   photograph is art and/or documentary or somewhere in

between.  (Thinking of the  Photojournalism thread.)

Physical objects  are easy. A chair is a chair. A  photo of a chair is a

photo  of a chair. 

But what is a war/a protest march/an airplane  crash/a massive flood/a  
political meeting? And what are  photographs of those events? 

It all  becomes subjective  rather quickly.

Marnie aka Doe ;-)  I've never  been  able to come up with a good
definition 
for reality,  myself.

In a  message dated 1/26/2014 9:06:21 A.M. Pacific  Standard Time, 
p...@web-options.com  writes:
On 26 Jan 2014,  at 16:34, Bob W p...@web-options.com  wrote:
  
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:26, J.C. O'Connell   hifis...@gate.net
wrote:
 
 Same  goes for what is  a movie?
 
 That one's easy. It's  a sequence of photographs  replayed at 14fps

Ahem, 24fps.  Slo-mo is frowned upon.

B
 

“Analysis kills  spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss  Mail  List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to  UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the  directions.  


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jan 26, 2014, at 1:03 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:

 Go you one better -- What is reality?
 
 My definition:  a  photograph is art and/or documentary or somewhere in 
 between. (Thinking of the  Photojournalism thread.)
 

And according to some of the art museum curators interviewed for the Times 
article, it doesn’t necessarily involve a camera or lens. An example would be a 
photographic image made by arranging objects on a scanner, then printing the 
resulting digital file. But no one is really trying to provide a firm answer, 
just raising the question. 

Paul


 Physical objects are easy. A chair is a chair. A  photo of a chair is a 
 photo of a chair. 
 
 But what is a war/a protest march/an airplane crash/a massive flood/a  
 political meeting? And what are photographs of those events? 
 
 It all  becomes subjective rather quickly.
 
 Marnie aka Doe ;-)  I've never  been able to come up with a good definition 
 for reality, myself.
 
 In a  message dated 1/26/2014 9:06:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
 p...@web-options.com  writes:
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:34, Bob W p...@web-options.com  wrote:
 
 On 26 Jan 2014, at 16:26, J.C. O'Connell  hifis...@gate.net wrote:
 
 Same goes for what is  a movie?
 
 That one's easy. It's a sequence of photographs  replayed at 14fps
 
 Ahem, 24fps. Slo-mo is frowned upon.
 
 B
 
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Eactivist]

Yes I found that part intriguing. Hadn't thought  about it, now I might try 
it. (i.e. scanner image/collage).

Marnie aka  Doe :-)  It was an interesting article, Paul.

In a message dated  1/26/2014 1:27:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
pnstenqu...@comcast.net  writes:
And according to some of the art museum curators interviewed for the  Times 
article, it doesn't necessarily involve a camera or lens. An example would  
be a photographic image made by arranging objects on a scanner, then 
printing  the resulting digital file. But no one is really trying to provide a 
firm  answer, just raising the question. 

Paul  


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[P.J. Alling]

I think that putting leaves or other items on a sensitized material and 
exposing to light, used to be called something like photogram.  There 
was a scientific play kit that came with plastic negatives a frame 
to hold the paper and of course a light sensitive paper that turned sort 
of purple when exposed to the sun.  I don't remember if there was some 
way to fix the image as I got the kit when I was approximately 10 
years old.


On 1/26/2014 4:34 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:

Yes I found that part intriguing. Hadn't thought  about it, now I might try
it. (i.e. scanner image/collage).

Marnie aka  Doe :-)  It was an interesting article, Paul.

In a message dated  1/26/2014 1:27:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pnstenqu...@comcast.net  writes:
And according to some of the art museum curators interviewed for the  Times
article, it doesn't necessarily involve a camera or lens. An example would
be a photographic image made by arranging objects on a scanner, then
printing  the resulting digital file. But no one is really trying to provide a
firm  answer, just raising the question.

Paul





--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, 
crazier.

 - H.L.Mencken


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What is a Photograph?

[Eactivist]

Interesting. Never heard of that, at  all.

Marnie   Still amused by exploding heads, subject  photographs of said 
event, and/or selfies of said event, which will be an actual  objective event. 
Or something like that. :-)

In a message dated 1/26/2014  3:18:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
webstertwenty...@gmail.com writes:
I  think that putting leaves or other items on a sensitized material and  
exposing to light, used to be called something like photogram.  There  
was a scientific play kit that came with plastic negatives a frame  
to hold the paper and of course a light sensitive paper that turned sort  
of purple when exposed to the sun.  I don't remember if there was some  
way to fix the image as I got the kit when I was approximately 10  
years old.

On 1/26/2014 4:34 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
 Yes  I found that part intriguing. Hadn't thought  about it, now I might  
try
 it. (i.e. scanner image/collage).

 Marnie aka   Doe :-)  It was an interesting article, Paul.

 In a message  dated  1/26/2014 1:27:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
  pnstenqu...@comcast.net  writes:
 And according to some of the art  museum curators interviewed for the  
Times
 article, it doesn't  necessarily involve a camera or lens. An example 
would
 be a photographic  image made by arranging objects on a scanner, then
 printing  the  resulting digital file. But no one is really trying to 
provide a
  firm  answer, just raising the question.

  Paul




-- 
A newspaper is a device for making the  ignorant more ignorant, and the 
crazy,  crazier.

- H.L.Mencken


--  
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail  List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to  UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the  directions.  


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: what makes a photograph art...

[Bob W]

Hi,

[...]
 
 There is another definition that I'd like to bring to the 
 consideration of honorable assembly.
 
 Art is something you remember after being exposed to.
 
[...]
 
 The point being, if you're exposed to something that makes you think
and/or feel different and you remember it some time after the show - 
 it is definitely (good) art.
 

first time I've thought a kick in the balls might be art...

Bob

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[DagT]

På 8. mai. 2005 kl. 09.53 skrev Bob W:
Hi,
[...]
There is another definition that I'd like to bring to the
consideration of honorable assembly.
Art is something you remember after being exposed to.
[...]
The point being, if you're exposed to something that makes you think
and/or feel different and you remember it some time after the show -
it is definitely (good) art.
first time I've thought a kick in the balls might be art...
It depends on the shoes

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

 first time I've thought a kick in the balls might be art...

Yes of course. Art, Martial Art... wink

-- 
Boris

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: Bob W 
Subject: RE: what makes a photograph art...


first time I've thought a kick in the balls might be art...
It needs to be done with a certain amount of style to make it that far.
William Robb

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Frantisek]

BW Personally, I have never really understood why people feel the need to
BW categorise things as art or not-art, or even as good, bad and indifferent
BW art. I would rather approach the object or performance in question, and
BW examine my own reaction to it, the reactions of other people, and its effect
BW on the world. This is what really matters, not its art status.

Extremely well said!

Thanks.

Frantisek

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!
Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a 
while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing 
 The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains 
some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 
'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not 
necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

art pleases the eye
My be, and then again may be not.
art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
Sometimes.
art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
It might.
art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
We usually think this way. But not always.
I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?
Neither agree nor disagree.
William Robb said: Art tends to invoke an emotional response of some 
sort from the person it is inflicted on. which would be the closest of 
the opinions I would really agree with.

I think art (of any kind) is something that takes you out of your 
routine. If you watch a good movie (good in a sense of good art) you 
start thinking of something you never considered before. If you look at 
good photograph (again in a sense of art), you feel something you don't 
usually feel (beauty of model's eyes, pain of homeless, etc).

There is another definition that I'd like to bring to the consideration 
of honorable assembly.

Art is something you remember after being exposed to.
Let's say I've been looking at Frank's photos he made for the jazz band. 
I can readily recall one or two. So, Frank, for me you created some art. 
I can easily recall some photos Jostein showed in my camera club. So, 
Jostein, you win. I can easily recall some of Shel's work too. I can 
continue the list, but that's not the point.

The point being, if you're exposed to something that makes you think 
and/or feel different and you remember it some time after the show - 
it is definitely (good) art.

That would be my shot at the subject.
Boris.
P.S. Frank, Jostein, Shel - please don't thank me, will you? I brought 
you here merely as some examples...

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Rob Studdert]

On 6 May 2005 at 7:34, Tom Reese wrote:

 art pleases the eye
 
 art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
 
 art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
 
 art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
 
 I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
 definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

what makes a photograph art...? 

the image it holds


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

what makes a photograph art...

[Tom Reese]

Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a 
while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing 
 The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains 
some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 
'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not 
necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

art pleases the eye
art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

Tom Reese

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Paul Stenquist]

That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works 
hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony. 
It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or 
straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between 
personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it 
is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well, 
it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other 
layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different 
pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work 
endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great 
art: a classic.
Paul
On May 6, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Tom Reese wrote:

Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book 
a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called 
Developing  The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That 
book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes 
a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and 
are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

art pleases the eye
art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

Tom Reese

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Kenneth Waller]

They all work for me.


Thanks for posting.
Kenneth Waller

-Original Message-
From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: what makes a photograph art...

Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a 
while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing 
  The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains 
some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 
'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not 
necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

art pleases the eye

art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony

art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life

art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

Tom Reese





PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Tom Reese]

Paul Stenquist replied to my message about art definitions:
That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works 
hanging on the walls of the world's museums.

Agreed. We could also debate whether a great many of those works are 
actually art. G

Art can create disharmony. It can provoke and inspire chaos.
That's an interesting thought. An image can definitely do that. Can an 
image that does so be considered art? Those who support the Mapplethorpe 
type confrontational art would probably say that it can. I'm not so sure.

It can be ambiguous or straightforward and clear.
The ambiguity definition is the most interesting to me and it's probably 
why I wrote the message asking the question. That requirement is IMO the 
most challenging to us as photographers. I love the idea of ambiguity 
but it isn't easy to pull off in nature photography. After thinking 
about it for a while, I've come to realize that the art that I 
personally find most interesting does have some ambiguity to it. I 
definitely believe that art should cause the viewer to pause and think. 
Ambiguity is definitely something I want to explore in my work.

And of course there's a difference between personal art and universal 
art. If I create something that I love, it is at least personal art.

I have a lot of images that I love but I wouldn't call them art. They're 
beautiful to look at but I don't know if there's anything there beyond 
the eye candy. My opinion is that an image has to be more than eye candy 
to be considered art.

If the rest of humankind embraces it as well, it is universal art. In 
between those two extremes there are other layers. Different cultures 
are moved by different words, different pictures. The only real test of 
great universal art is time. If a work endures and speaks to every 
generation, one can say that it is great art: a classic.

Agreed.
Thanks for the reply Paul. I appreciate your different point of view.
Tom Reese

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Tom Reese]

Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
There was a time when art was reduced to include any and all 
expressions and the term really became meaningless.  There was nothing 
to distinguish art from non-art.  It was wholely subjective.

I don't know if the term is meaningless. There is a lot of wiggle room 
in the definition and I agree that it is subjective. That's what makes 
the question so interesting (to me at least).

The definition has changed with time too. I never studied art history 
but I'm dimly aware of the various movements: cubism, immpressionism 
etc. Some of those movements met with resistance where the initial 
reaction was look at that crap! but they've since been embraced.

That brings up another question 
Can something be art if nobody recognizes it as such?
To that I'd say Yes, given the original intent and the character of 
the product.

I agree. Many of the painters who are now revered met with complete 
indifference or worse during their lifetime.

Thanks for the reply.
Tom Reese

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[UncaMikey]

--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work 
 endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great 
 art: a classic.

Oh goody, I love these types of discussions -- aesthetics!  My
background and attitudes about art are shaped more by writing, painting
and music than photography, but I think the basic principles apply.

I agree with Paul, time is the only true test.  I believe art
challenges, rearranges, annoys, disrupts, makes the
viewer/reader/audience think about things in ways they would not have
otherwise.  Art makes you squirm.

Perhaps this is the divide between pop art and true art:  the
former reassures and comforts, the latter reaches beyond the known and
actually enlarges our concept of what is reality.  Norman Rockwell is
pop art and will be forgotten except as an artifact of his time. 
Giotto, after 800 years, still startles.

As for photography, I don't think there has been enough time for us to
know whether any of it will survive as art.  I have my doubts.

*UncaMikey

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

RE: what makes a photograph art...

[Jens Bladt]

Tom wrote:
 Do you disagree with any of them?

Well, yes, I do.
The two first - about pleasing the eye and creating harmony out of to
chaos - are certainly not true.
Lots of art is not pleasing at all and may also be chaotic and does in fact
the opposite.

I guess the sentenses can be seen as examples of what some believe can
define art.

To me art is a stament, that  - in a creative and expressive way - sums up
essential facts or points of views, askes questions, challenges your point
of views or your imagination etc. - about an issue of (human) interest.

I guess the general concept of art also changes over time.
A few centuries ago, making a portrait (painting) that actually looked like
the real person, was considered to be art.
It's not realy anymore. Since photography was invented (even though painters
were using lenses as early as the 17'th century), painters were forced to
make abstract art (among other things) - paintings that doesn't look too
much like the real world - paintings that was more than just a
photographic recording.

A nice sculpture (like some of Michelangelos famous ones) are really just
recordings of what humans look like. Like a photograph/photographic
recording. To me recordings can sometimes be art, if they at the same time
contains a statement, a point of view or perhaps a feeling.

At the end of the day, art is what people consider to be art.

BTW:
A few years back, a Danish home owner filled up his garden with all kinds of
garbage, old furniture, rubbish of all kinds. It looked like a permanent
garage sale or the city dump. The neighbours and the city council wanted him
to clean up his property. The guy then claimed that, it was a work of art!
It took the authorities years to get him to remove this junk from his
garden.

All the best
Jens







Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. maj 2005 13:35
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: what makes a photograph art...


Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a
while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing
  The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains
some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph
'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not
necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

art pleases the eye

art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony

art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life

art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

Tom Reese

RE: what makes a photograph art...

[Jens Bladt]

Paul wrote:
Different cultures are moved by different words, different
pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time

Isn't this self contradicting?
I agree with the first sentence. Not the second.
If cultures come and go, so does the art works of these cultures. Diffent
cultures will have different artistic values.
To some extend at least.

I agree that some art works may have universal value. To humans, anyway :-).




Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. maj 2005 14:06
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: what makes a photograph art...


That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works
hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony.
It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or
straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between
personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it
is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well,
it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other
layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different
pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work
endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great
art: a classic.
Paul
On May 6, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Tom Reese wrote:

 Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book
 a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called
 Developing  The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That
 book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes
 a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and
 are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

 art pleases the eye

 art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony

 art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life

 art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction

 I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these
 definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

 Tom Reese

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Frantisek]

Friday, May 6, 2005, 2:06:28 PM, Paul wrote:
PS That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works
PS hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony.
PS It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or 
PS straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between
PS personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it
PS is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well,
PS it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other
PS layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different
PS pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work
PS endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great
PS art: a classic.
PS Paul

Hi Paul, you wrote in nicely. Especially the last part. For me, art
has a transcendental quality. Perhaps I am a platonist :)

Frantisek

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Frantisek]

TR Art can create disharmony. It can provoke and inspire chaos.

TR That's an interesting thought. An image can definitely do that. Can an
TR image that does so be considered art? Those who support the Mapplethorpe
TR type confrontational art would probably say that it can. I'm not so sure.

How about Hieronymus Bosch? Or at least that's how his works look to
me. Or you could add many other classic paintings. Are all aspects of
Bosch pleasing ? I think not.

Good light!
   fra

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[P. J. Alling]

Art is painful to look at
 

Art is disruptive of normality
 


Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life
 


Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated.
 

Based on these definitions, Art is a guy.  It's early in the morning,  
He needs a shave.

mike wilson wrote:
From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/05/06 Fri AM 11:34:48 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: what makes a photograph art...
Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a 
while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing 
 The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains 
some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 
'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not 
necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

art pleases the eye
   

Art is painful to look at
 

art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
   

Art is disruptive of normality
 

art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
   

Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life
 

art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
   

Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated.
 

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

Tom Reese
   

No.
The above statement is art.
-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

 


--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Scott Loveless]

On 5/6/05, Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Art.  Hmmm.  Good question.
 
 There was a time when art was reduced to include any and all expressions 
 and the term really became meaningless.  There was nothing to distinguish art 
 from non-art.  It was wholely subjective.
 
 It's sometimes confused with content.  Anything can be done in either 
 artfully or in a plain and sloppy manner.
 


I completely agree.  One of my favorite novelists, John Gardner, wrote
an entire book about the morality of fiction, entitled appropriately
On Moral Fiction.  While the book is specific to writing, he
addresses art in general.  Quoting from the book: Almost all modern
art is tinny, commercial, and immoral.  Let a state of total war be
declared not between art and society but between the age-old enemies,
real and fake.  He goes on to define art.  (My copy is in a box
somewhere, but if I can find it within the lifespan of this thread,
I'll try to provide more.)  This statement, made long before On Moral
Fiction was published sums up his (and my) views on art:  There is a
notion, which has to do with the romantic hero image, that writing is
pure genius, and you can't teach it Bread Loaf, in fact, has been
going for a very long time and has a very good record of helping
extremely talented writers to become solid artists.

 As best I can understand it ...
 Art is a qualitative expression of developed, matured skills.
 

As far as I'm concerned, you've hit the nail on the head, Collin.  Well said.

 That brings up another question 
 Can something be art if nobody recognizes it as such?
 To that I'd say Yes, given the original intent and the character of the 
 product.

-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

--
You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman

RE: what makes a photograph art...

[pnstenquist]

The two sentences are contradictory only when taken out of context, as you have 
done here. My original post suggested that there is spectrum of art, ranging 
from the personal, to the culturally exclusive, to the universal. Before one 
can conclude that a specific work is indeed both great and universal, it must 
past the test of time. Culturally specific art, on the other hand, is 
significant in a specific time and place. it is the art of the moment.
Paul


 Paul wrote:
 Different cultures are moved by different words, different
 pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time
 
 Isn't this self contradicting?
 I agree with the first sentence. Not the second.
 If cultures come and go, so does the art works of these cultures. Diffent
 cultures will have different artistic values.
 To some extend at least.
 
 I agree that some art works may have universal value. To humans, anyway :-).
 
 
 
 
 Jens Bladt
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
 
 
 -Oprindelig meddelelse-
 Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sendt: 6. maj 2005 14:06
 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
 Emne: Re: what makes a photograph art...
 
 
 That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works
 hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony.
 It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or
 straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between
 personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it
 is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well,
 it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other
 layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different
 pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work
 endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great
 art: a classic.
 Paul
 On May 6, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Tom Reese wrote:
 
  Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book
  a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called
  Developing  The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That
  book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes
  a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and
  are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:
 
  art pleases the eye
 
  art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
 
  art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
 
  art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
 
  I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these
  definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?
 
  Tom Reese
 
 
 
 

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Doug Brewer]

It's time for everyone to go out and rent Pecker, don't you think, Shel?
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[P. J. Alling]

Great Art transcends culture...
Jens Bladt wrote:
Paul wrote:
 

Different cultures are moved by different words, different
pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time
   

Isn't this self contradicting?
I agree with the first sentence. Not the second.
If cultures come and go, so does the art works of these cultures. Diffent
cultures will have different artistic values.
To some extend at least.
I agree that some art works may have universal value. To humans, anyway :-).

Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. maj 2005 14:06
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: what makes a photograph art...
That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works
hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony.
It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or
straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between
personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it
is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well,
it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other
layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different
pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work
endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great
art: a classic.
Paul
On May 6, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Tom Reese wrote:
 

Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book
a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called
Developing  The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That
book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes
a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and
are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:
art pleases the eye
art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?
Tom Reese
   


 


--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[William Robb]

Art tends to invioke an emotonal response of some sort from the person it is 
inflicted on.

William Robb

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Shel Belinkoff]

LOL  ABSOLUTELY!  (And to think I almost deleted this message.  Thanks
for the chuckle)

BTW, the DVD has a nice special feature that discusses the making of the
photos used in the movie.

Shel 


 [Original Message]
 From: Doug Brewer 

 It's time for everyone to go out and rent Pecker, don't you think, Shel?

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Kenneth Waller]

Based on these definitions, Art is a guy.  It's early in the morning,  
He needs a shave.

 and he's single...

Kenneth Waller

-Original Message-
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: Re: what makes a photograph art...




Art is painful to look at
  

Art is disruptive of normality
  


Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life
  


Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated.

  


Based on these definitions, Art is a guy.  It's early in the morning,  
He needs a shave.

mike wilson wrote:

From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/05/06 Fri AM 11:34:48 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: what makes a photograph art...

Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a 
while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing 
  The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains 
some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 
'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not 
necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

art pleases the eye



Art is painful to look at

  

art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony



Art is disruptive of normality

  

art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life



Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life

  

art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction



Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated.

  

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

Tom Reese



No.

The above statement is art.

-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information



  



-- 
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx




PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[P. J. Alling]

More likely than not.
Kenneth Waller wrote:
Based on these definitions, Art is a guy.  It's early in the morning,  
He needs a shave.
   

 and he's single...
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: what makes a photograph art...
 

Art is painful to look at
Art is disruptive of normality
   

 

Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life
   

 

Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated.

   

Based on these definitions, Art is a guy.  It's early in the morning,  
He needs a shave.

mike wilson wrote:
 

From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/05/06 Fri AM 11:34:48 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: what makes a photograph art...
Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a 
while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing 
The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains 
some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 
'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not 
necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

art pleases the eye
  

 

Art is painful to look at

   

art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
  

 

Art is disruptive of normality

   

art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
  

 

Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life

   

art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
  

 

Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated.

   

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

Tom Reese
  

 

No.
The above statement is art.
-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


   


 


--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[John Francis]

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:49:50AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
 
 
 
 Art is painful to look at
  
 
 Art is disruptive of normality
  
 
 
 Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life
  
 
 
 Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated.
 
  
 
 
 Based on these definitions, Art is a guy.  It's early in the morning,  
 He needs a shave.

And if you don't like him, it's your fault - not his.

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[DagT]

The first two defines the opposite to what I see as art.  The pleasing, 
boring things that are only aimed at telling us that everything is 
alright, and tries to distract us from the fact that there is more to 
life.

The other two are closer, but they still don´t cover the art that 
starts a process, makes you realize something new, even making you 
change your mind.  Then it has to be irritating, controversial, but not 
necessarily political.

DagT
På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 13.34 skrev Tom Reese:
Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book 
a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called 
Developing  The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That 
book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes 
a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and 
are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

art pleases the eye
art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

Tom Reese

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[DagT]

På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 15.58 skrev UncaMikey:
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work
endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great
art: a classic.
I agree with Paul, time is the only true test.  I believe art
challenges, rearranges, annoys, disrupts, makes the
viewer/reader/audience think about things in ways they would not have
otherwise.  Art makes you squirm.
I´m not so sure about the test of time.  Sometimes art can have an 
important impact, as some of it did in the late sixties, and loose it´s 
relevance when the work is done.

Even Monet was controversial once, now many of us find it boring, just 
another pretty picture.

DagT

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Shel Belinkoff]

Doesn't make it any less art, though.  If you find it boring does that mean
it's no longer art, or a work of importance?  Is Peter Max's work no longer
art?  Is Warhol's soup can any less (or more) than it once was.

Sensibilities and culture change with time.  Many things fall in and out of
favor, but does changing favor change the object from what it was to
something else?

Shel 


 [Original Message]
 From: DagT 

 I´m not so sure about the test of time.  Sometimes art can have an 
 important impact, as some of it did in the late sixties, and loose it´s 
 relevance when the work is done.

 Even Monet was controversial once, now many of us find it boring, just 
 another pretty picture.

 DagT

RE: what makes a photograph art...

[Bob W]

There are several very good and accessible books around which discuss this
question. I can recommend these:

The Art Question Nigel Warburton
But is it Art? Cynthia Freeland
Philosophy of Art Noel Carroll

I probably have some others knocking around, but can't be bothered to get up
and look for them.

The first of these is particularly well written and argued. Warburton is a
professor of philosophy at the Open University here in the UK, and has
written several excellent books. He is easy to read without being
condescending and without missing stuff out.

All of these books review historical attempts to answer this question, and
explain why they have failed, and why it is really the wrong question to be
asking.

It's impossible to answer the specific question 'what makes a photograph
art' because it presupposes a workable definition of art. And there isn't
one. If there was, nobody would still be asking.

Personally, I have never really understood why people feel the need to
categorise things as art or not-art, or even as good, bad and indifferent
art. I would rather approach the object or performance in question, and
examine my own reaction to it, the reactions of other people, and its effect
on the world. This is what really matters, not its art status.

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

 -Original Message-
 From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: 06 May 2005 12:35
 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
 Subject: what makes a photograph art...
 
 Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography 
 Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended 
 another one called Developing
   The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book 
 contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what 
 makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by 
 Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the 
 definitions:
 
 art pleases the eye
 
 art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
 
 art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
 
 art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
 
 I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
 definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?
 
 Tom Reese
 
 
 
 
 

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Kenneth Waller]

Art, needs to be in a frame. That way we know when the Art stops  the wall 
begins.
-Frank Zappa

VBG

Kenneth Waller

-Original Message-
From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: what makes a photograph art...

The first two defines the opposite to what I see as art.  The pleasing, 
boring things that are only aimed at telling us that everything is 
alright, and tries to distract us from the fact that there is more to 
life.

The other two are closer, but they still don´t cover the art that 
starts a process, makes you realize something new, even making you 
change your mind.  Then it has to be irritating, controversial, but not 
necessarily political.

DagT

På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 13.34 skrev Tom Reese:

 Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book 
 a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called 
 Developing  The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That 
 book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes 
 a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and 
 are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

 art pleases the eye

 art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony

 art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life

 art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction

 I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
 definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

 Tom Reese







PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[DagT]

That´s my point.  Monet may still be art, as well as Warhol, even if 
the test of time says otherwise.

The test of time only tells us about the current trends and views on 
history, not about the value or definition of art.

DagT
På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 20.08 skrev Shel Belinkoff:
Doesn't make it any less art, though.  If you find it boring does that 
mean
it's no longer art, or a work of importance?  Is Peter Max's work no 
longer
art?  Is Warhol's soup can any less (or more) than it once was.

Sensibilities and culture change with time.  Many things fall in and 
out of
favor, but does changing favor change the object from what it was to
something else?

Shel

[Original Message]
From: DagT

I´m not so sure about the test of time.  Sometimes art can have an
important impact, as some of it did in the late sixties, and loose 
it´s
relevance when the work is done.

Even Monet was controversial once, now many of us find it boring, just
another pretty picture.
DagT

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Graywolf]

Ah, reading this thread, I finally get it, Art is annoying!
GRIN!
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
DagT wrote:
The first two defines the opposite to what I see as art.  The pleasing, 
boring things that are only aimed at telling us that everything is 
alright, and tries to distract us from the fact that there is more to life.

The other two are closer, but they still don´t cover the art that starts 
a process, makes you realize something new, even making you change your 
mind.  Then it has to be irritating, controversial, but not necessarily 
political.

DagT
På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 13.34 skrev Tom Reese:
Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book 
a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called 
Developing  The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That 
book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes 
a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and 
are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

art pleases the eye
art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

Tom Reese




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 5/4/2005

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Jack Davis]

In other words, an image need only elicits a glandular
reaction in order to qualify as art.
Don't they all?

Jack


--- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:49:50AM -0400, P. J.
 Alling wrote:
  
  
  
  Art is painful to look at
   
  
  Art is disruptive of normality
   
  
  
  Art questions, reduces and simplifies our
 experience of life
   
  
  
  Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated.
  
   
  
  
  Based on these definitions, Art is a guy.  It's
 early in the morning,  
  He needs a shave.
 
 And if you don't like him, it's your fault - not
 his.
 
 



Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Graywolf]

Also, it seems that, Art is pretentious!
Actually I think that anything the person who produced it thinks is art, is art. Now 
whether it is Good Art is another question altogether. On the other hand my 
father was Art, it said so on his birth certificate. Come to think of it he was often 
pretentious, and annoying too.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Graywolf wrote:
Ah, reading this thread, I finally get it, Art is annoying!
GRIN!

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 5/4/2005

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[DagT]

Good art may be annoying, bad art is pretentious, pretty and boring...
DagT
På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 21.14 skrev Graywolf:
Also, it seems that, Art is pretentious!
Actually I think that anything the person who produced it thinks is 
art, is art. Now whether it is Good Art is another question 
altogether. On the other hand my father was Art, it said so on his 
birth certificate. Come to think of it he was often pretentious, and 
annoying too.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Graywolf wrote:
Ah, reading this thread, I finally get it, Art is annoying!
GRIN!

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 5/4/2005

RE: what makes a photograph art...

[Jens Bladt]

Well, art is much more than pictures and can't always be framed - like
music, sculpture, architecture, litterature, poetry, dancing, movies,
theatre, jewellery, computer art etc. etc.

Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. maj 2005 20:22
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: what makes a photograph art...


Art, needs to be in a frame. That way we know when the Art stops  the wall
begins.
-Frank Zappa

VBG

Kenneth Waller

-Original Message-
From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: what makes a photograph art...

The first two defines the opposite to what I see as art.  The pleasing,
boring things that are only aimed at telling us that everything is
alright, and tries to distract us from the fact that there is more to
life.

The other two are closer, but they still don´t cover the art that
starts a process, makes you realize something new, even making you
change your mind.  Then it has to be irritating, controversial, but not
necessarily political.

DagT

På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 13.34 skrev Tom Reese:

 Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book
 a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called
 Developing  The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That
 book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes
 a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and
 are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

 art pleases the eye

 art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony

 art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life

 art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction

 I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these
 definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

 Tom Reese







PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: DagT 
Subject: Re: what makes a photograph art...


Good art may be annoying, bad art is pretentious, pretty and boring...
So by your definition, good art must also be ugly?
William Robb

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Cotty]

On 6/5/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:

Personally, I have never really understood why people feel the need to
categorise things as art or not-art, or even as good, bad and indifferent
art. I would rather approach the object or performance in question, and
examine my own reaction to it, the reactions of other people, and its effect
on the world. This is what really matters, not its art status.

Righteous!!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[P. J. Alling]

John Francis wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:49:50AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
 

Art is painful to look at
Art is disruptive of normality
 

Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life
 

Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated.

 

Based on these definitions, Art is a guy.  It's early in the morning,  
He needs a shave.
   

And if you don't like him, it's your fault - not his.
 

Only in his mind...
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[DagT]

På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 22.30 skrev William Robb:
- Original Message - From: DagT Subject: Re: what makes a 
photograph art...


Good art may be annoying, bad art is pretentious, pretty and boring...
So by your definition, good art must also be ugly?
Only if it isn´t annoying .-)
But as you know it´s not that simple.  Definitions like this can only 
be a game with words, since art itself would loose it´s interest once 
you could define it with a simple phrase.

DagT

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[P. J. Alling]

Defiantly single...
Graywolf wrote:
Ah, reading this thread, I finally get it, Art is annoying!
GRIN!
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
DagT wrote:
The first two defines the opposite to what I see as art.  The 
pleasing, boring things that are only aimed at telling us that 
everything is alright, and tries to distract us from the fact that 
there is more to life.

The other two are closer, but they still don´t cover the art that 
starts a process, makes you realize something new, even making you 
change your mind.  Then it has to be irritating, controversial, but 
not necessarily political.

DagT
På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 13.34 skrev Tom Reese:
Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop 
book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called 
Developing  The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That 
book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what 
makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. 
Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

art pleases the eye
art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

Tom Reese





--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Fwd: what makes a photograph art...

[frank theriault]

Hmmm.  I'll try sending this again.  I sent it this morning, but I
never got it back, it's not in the archives, and no one responded to
it (the latter not being particularly telling g):

-- Forwarded message --
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: May 6, 2005 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: what makes a photograph art...
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net


On 5/6/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 art pleases the eye

Some of the most moving art I've seen (including photos) is repulsive and ugly.

 art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony

Some art seems to me to be chaotic by it's very nature (Abstract Expressionism?)

 art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life

Some art confuses me all to hell.  Mind you, it might be argued that
such art may make ~me~ look at life differently.  I would say that art
may force or encourage or allow me to clarify, intensify or enlarge my
experience of life;  I think that such revelations may be internal to
me, but that the art is something of a catalyst.

 art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Some art seems pretty straightforward,
yet it may still be considered art.

 I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these
 definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

I gotta say, while this is interesting, I'm back to my old bugaboo of
not really knowing what the hell art is (other than the old, I know
it when I see it).  It seems to be so very far beyond definition, and
for every definition or collection of definitions one can find, there
always seem to be exceptions, modifications, caveats that make the
statements, if not meaningless, then at least less than satisfactory.

That's why I continue to resist being thought of as an artist
(beyond the pretentiousness that comes with that term).  I'm a
photographer, I take photos, and if anyone wants to see some of what I
do as art, I'm fine with that.  If someone else wants to see
snapshots, I'm also good with that.

But this isn't about me.

About the all I can say about art is that it's a form of communication
that seeks to explain the world and the universe and our experience
within, in ways that may not be expressed or expressable in other
ways.  Poor definition, I know, but this morning, that's the best I
can do.

cheers,
frank

--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.  -Henri Cartier-Bresson


-- 
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Bob Blakely]

A frame.
Regards,
Bob...

A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory.

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Bob Blakely]

But what about bad art? It won't stand the test of time, but it's still 
called art - just not good art. If it has a frame, it's art.

Regards,
Bob...

A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory.
From: UncaMikey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work
endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great
art: a classic.
Oh goody, I love these types of discussions -- aesthetics!  My
background and attitudes about art are shaped more by writing, painting
and music than photography, but I think the basic principles apply.
I agree with Paul, time is the only true test.  I believe art
challenges, rearranges, annoys, disrupts, makes the
viewer/reader/audience think about things in ways they would not have
otherwise.  Art makes you squirm.
Perhaps this is the divide between pop art and true art:  the
former reassures and comforts, the latter reaches beyond the known and
actually enlarges our concept of what is reality.  Norman Rockwell is
pop art and will be forgotten except as an artifact of his time.
Giotto, after 800 years, still startles.
As for photography, I don't think there has been enough time for us to
know whether any of it will survive as art.  I have my doubts.

Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Bob Blakely]

Every art has it's accepted display.
For photographs, paintings, drawings, etc., it's a frame.
For sculpture, it's a pedestal.
For music, dancing, theatre, etc., it's a stage.
For literature, poetry, etc., it's a binding.
For jewelry, it's a finger.
etc.
Regards,
Bob...

A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory.
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Well, art is much more than pictures and can't always be framed - like
music, sculpture, architecture, litterature, poetry, dancing, movies,
theatre, jewellery, computer art etc. etc.

Re: Fwd: what makes a photograph art...

[UncaMikey]

--- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 About the all I can say about art is that it's a form of
 communication
 that seeks to explain the world and the universe and our experience
 within, in ways that may not be expressed or expressable in other
 ways.  Poor definition, I know, but this morning, that's the best I
 can do.

Quite good, Frank.  I like it.  But I was hoping that you would simply
edit your sig line, and say Art is a bourgeois concept. And then we
could pretend we were sitting around a table in a cafe in Paris in
1904, drinking absinthe and eagerly working on the draft of an Artists'
Manifesto.

*UncaMikey

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: Fwd: what makes a photograph art...

[frank theriault]

On 5/6/05, UncaMikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 Quite good, Frank.  I like it.  But I was hoping that you would simply
 edit your sig line, and say Art is a bourgeois concept. And then we
 could pretend we were sitting around a table in a cafe in Paris in
 1904, drinking absinthe and eagerly working on the draft of an Artists'
 Manifesto.

To hell with drafting any manifestos.  I'd be happy to be sitting on
the Left Bank, boozing it up...

vbg

cheers,
frank


-- 
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

RE: what makes a photograph art...

[Peter Williams]

 -Original Message-
 From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
 

This one seems to have very limited application.
There is so much art that isn't about order and harmony.

-- 
Peter Williams