The debate is always on; what are you thoughts? My background is that of a painter but I am also a science graduate so I suppose I fall between two camps. The how and the why. I think there are great similarities between science and art; one important difference though is that the scientist has to prove his or her ideas to peers according to a prescibed methodology of repeatability, causality and proof whereas the artist's idea and resulting photograph, painting or whatever, is proven by whether it fulfills the criteria set by the artist himself whatever they may be.
what is pinhole about, what does it set out to do and how can it develop? on 13/1/02 7:10 pm, Bill Erickson at erick...@hickorytech.net wrote: > Let me know when the debate starts. I have some thoughts. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ragowaring" <ragowar...@btinternet.com> > To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 6:46 AM > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] A NEW DEBATE > > >> I would like to open up a debate. >> >> I feel it is time we discussed critically what we are doing. Not a >> critiscism of individual works or persons but a debate on our aims, > purposes >> and motivation. We hardly ever talk about why and what we are doing, >> almost always how. >> >> What is more important, style or content? >> >> Are you driven by developing the subject and idea or by the means of >> achieving this through technical innovations? >> >> Some of us are very interested in technique and some in content, obviously >> the two should work together one informing the other, but what do you > think? >> >> Alexis >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list >> Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??????? >> unsubscribe or change your account at >> http://www.???????/discussion/ >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??????? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???????/discussion/
