An expressed mutual respect for points made will always facilitate a stimulating discussion. An apparent disregard or correcting exchange will only last 'til someone feels they have "won".
Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
