Hi Tom,
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:38:16 -0500, Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
> I was thinking the other day, why do we talk so much about
> cameras and so little about photography? My conclusion was that
> it is hard to talk about something that is so essensually
> visual. A glance at a photo can tell us an immense amout about
> the skill and artistic ability of a photographer, but talking
> never really does.
Well, I'd have to toss in that photography, as opposed to cameras, is
also much more tied into the photographer's and viewers' psyches' ...
they're a lot more subjective than even the color renditions of various
lenses. And that's part, maybe a really large part, of why they're so
difficult to discuss.
Ever notice how often those sorts of discussions turn into flame wars
or battles of "my pee-pee is bigger than yours" or "you're not crap if
you don't do it my way" or something similar? In large part, it's
because every one of us means something different when we try to use
language to describe the visceral feelings we get from any sort of
"art". And there are a million (or more) ways to approach any sort of
"art". And, apparently, darned near every human being is an art
"expert". If you don't believe them, just ask them. :-)
TTYL, DougF
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
