On Sep 14, 2007, at 3:06 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Exactly. I didn't say beauty defines art. I said something beautiful > is worth looking at..
But you still haven't suggested what allows you to recognize what is beautiful. > I said something that is beautiful CAN be art, just as a great > composition CAN be art. A consensus that something is beautiful > doesn't make it art. A consensus, over time, that something is > artful, however, is a certain indication of aesthetic value. You are > again cherry picking. Cherry picking, no. I'm trying to have a discussion and looking for a criteria that allows on to separate what is art vs what is not. Sorry if you think that is difficult, but I haven't found it in your statement yet. > I never said that art has to be beautiful, only that the beautiful > can be art. Two different things. Go back and read more carefully. That's a useful distinction. > No. You suggested I said that. I never did. But of course you have to > win every discussion. We all know that. So it's pointless to go on > and on with you. Let's not go down the path of a personal insult. I thought we were having an interesting discussion. There is nothing to "win" here. >> I posit that: >> >> 1: Art is intentional and has affect. >> >> 2: Great photographs capture a likeness, are executed with technical >> expertise, express emotion, or convey information. >> >> 3: There are many great photographs in the world. Most of them are >> not art, but some are. How they differ is in how they are conceived >> and how they exhibit affect or influence the viewer. >> >> 4: Likewise there is much great art in the world. Most of it is not >> photographs, but some is. Of that subset of art which is photographs, >> many are not great photographs by the definition above, but that they >> are art can be discerned on the basis of their intent and affect. >> > > There's enough obfuscation in your definition to make it bullet > proof. So be it. I though the notions I posed were fairly simply stated and reasonably clear, a set of notions to explore. What is about them is obfuscation? what do you take issue with? Again, there's nothing here to "win". I'm enjoying the discussion of something other than how many lines of resolution a particular sensor might have, or whether it would be more sensible to buy a Nikon or Canon over a Pentax. The definition of art and great photographs are elusive and complex things, worthy of discussion. What in my positing are you uncomfortable with? Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
