>>But photographs can't accommodate the kind of aesthetic immersion which good
paintings and drawings can.
>>Not because they offer less of an opportunity for "filling-in" but because
the photographer cannot draw a line or fine tune an edge, hue, or tone. (CM)
>That's like saying that a tuba cannot produce the languorous sound of an
oboe--not because a tuba offers less of an opportunity for filling in, but
because it cannot draw out a seductive note or indolent tone.(MB)
-----------
Perhaps that's why the tuba is included less often in orchestration - but I
think a more obvious analogy would be bass drum and violin.
>Photographs can produce effects that paintings and drawings cannot, and can
"accommodate the kind of aesthetic immersion" that good paintings and drawings
cannot. (MB)
For one thing, I doubt that's true. And for another, my experience is that
the effects a photograph can produce are not only different, but also less
desirable than what is possible from painting or any of the other arts that
you mentioned (dance, symphonic music, sculpture), all of which allow for
greater aesthetic control than a camera.
Ansel Adams may well have insisted that "the photo was made in the developing
tray and he controlled that" , but the tones in his prints still seem muddy to
me, compared with how Rembrandt, Goya, or Daumier can make black and gray
feel like delicious colors.
Perhaps you don't taste those colors or perhaps you don't miss them when they
are absent.
But I do.
____________________________________________________________
Save hundreds on an Unsecured Loan - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUQ98dxliMXktnS3r7fgJuqu
JLcgqBFEmHgc2TmopWw8szDpxtUkw/
