Furthermore, I think, a significant element of any photograph is what was omitted from
the frame as well as what was included in it.
-----Original Message-----
From: PAUL STENQUIST [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: One Sentence
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>
>
>
The photograph is never
> going to replace
> the reality - is never going to surpass it in beauty or in
> ugliness or pain.
>
My point is that a photograph can surpass reality in beauty or ugliness
or pain. So too, fine art. Do you believe that the historic David was
more beautiful than Michaelangelo's rendering of him? A photograph of a
simple flower can be prettier than the flower might actually be. The
colors can be more vibrant, the lighting more refined, the background
thrown out of focus in a way that the human eye can't achieve on its
own. Of course artful photography (which I certainly have not mastered)
is not the only appropriate use of a camera. Recording things exactly as
one sees them is a noble pursuit as well. But neither is necessarily
better than the other. Nor are those of us who attempt to alter reality
unfortunate or sad in any way.
What is truly unfortunate is that so many people have become so
dogmatic about what they believe that they fail to understand or accept
the beliefs of others.
-
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 .
-
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 .
