Perspicacious, eh? Sweaty? grin.
No one's mentioned photography's magic dirty little
secret: What you choose to show is vital. What percentage
of your shots would you show on PUG, for example?
For me, right now, selecting shots to scan/keep is
the real magic. I mean, you should see some of
Hi, Lon,
From a post of mine from last night, on another thread:
I'm gradually learning
that taking photographs is only a small part of this endeavor. Choosing what
to show is just as important.
Ha!!
Seriously, you're right. When one shoots a coupla rolls a week, the photos add up.
It's
Holy cats, you're pushing all my buttons tonight, Marnie. :-)
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
I think you possibly you may have missed the ironic tone in my post and
missed my other comments in other posts. Unless you are being ironic also. ;-) Or
very deliberately making a point.
Such as IMHO, it is art
Doug,
I am going to postscript myself to be very, very clear. Sometimes I am not
clear.
Despite the fact that I think art is very, very subjective -- in both the
creation and the response to it, I think people like feedback. And some
critiquing can be of real value. And the creator can always
Hi,
Tuesday, September 23, 2003, 4:31:55 PM, you wrote:
Time to get into the fray.
I have long disagreed with the concept that something is art simply because
someone calls it art. The lady urinating in the bucket would be a good
example of it. I'm slowly revising my position. People can
Well, Bob,
This is at least the third post you've made on these threads. Maybe it is a
waste of time, but I find it interesting and somewhat seductive.
Watching Monday Night Football is a spectacular waste of time, too, but millions
do it anyway! vbg
Yeah, we're arguing Angels on the Head of
Hi,
I entirely agree.
Bob
Tuesday, September 23, 2003, 10:32:11 PM, you wrote:
Well, Bob,
This is at least the third post you've made on these threads. Maybe it is a
waste of time, but I find it interesting and somewhat seductive.
Watching Monday Night Football is a spectacular waste of
Well, I now have a bit of time, so I can respond to the original post, with a
couple of more thoughts that I didn't mention when I answered Paul's post
directly. I'll try my best not to repeat anything (but no promises) g.
First, I think one should remember that one doesn't simply become an
Whether one is an artist or not is, I think, simply a matter of intent.
If ones intent is to produce art than one is an artist. Now I am willing
to admit that becoming a good artist, much less a great one, can take
years or even decades of hard work, but whether one is an artist is
simply a
Come on, Tom,
It's never as simple as that.
That is never a simple concept...
g
cheers,
frank
graywolf wrote:
major snippage It is as
simple as that.
--
Hell is others
-Jean Paul Sartre
But, seriously, Tom,
Geez, you know, I wish I could express myself as well in these sorts of discussions
as some. I'm just not articulate when it comes to things artistic. Unfortunately
for this list, that won't stop me from trying... g
On the whole, your thesis makes sense. There are a
Hi,
Monday, September 22, 2003, 10:24:34 PM, you wrote:
Whether one is an artist or not is, I think, simply a matter of intent.
If ones intent is to produce art than one is an artist. Now I am willing
to admit that becoming a good artist, much less a great one, can take
years or even
At 05:34 PM 9/22/2003 +0200, Feroze Kistan wrote:
With the recent thread about evaluating photgraphs, I thought I'd share this
with the list.
Regards,
Feroze
The Painter's Mistakes
-snip-
Great story that offers a lot of food for thought. I may be reading into
it too much, but I'd take the
Whatever the intention of the creator of a piece, the viewer must have a say
as to
whether a piece is art or not. If a piece is not art, how can its creator be
an
artist? And why can't art be produced by a non-artist?
I'm really confused now...
cheers,
frank
IMHO, it is art is if the
criticism. in my case, it was crude and demeaning alterations.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pdml [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:34 AM
Subject: Evaluating Photographs - long
With the recent thread about evaluating
Well, as I said earlier, I wonder then if something can be art, regardless of the
intention of it's creator.
Conversely, I'd wonder about something that only it's creator considers art, and no
one else. That could end up being a very narrow definition of art.
I can't help but think that some
16 matches
Mail list logo
