Re: OT But is it art?
I find the essayist's snoopy metaphor silly and demeaning. And while he admits to an Adams renaissance, t's clear that he doesn't understand the artistry of Adams' work and how he was able to bend light in the darkroom to idealize a scene. He seems dismissive of the zone system, a a way of working that redefined photographic excellence. The writer continues to demonstrate his lack of photographic knowledge in asserting that an f64 aperture results in both optimum depth of field and clarity. Depth of field, yes. Clarity, no. Art takes many forms, and the elitists of every generation are always anxious to dismiss the heroes of a previous era. But Adams, like his literary siblings, Whitman and Thoreau, will still be revered when some of the pretentious crap that now passes for artful photography has long been forgotten. Paul On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:42 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me searching for > something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that I've run across: > that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his output is kitsch rather > than art; that his belief in beauty above all rather then social relevance, > left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. > > So I located this excellent essay: > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ansel-adams-but-is-it-art-749574.html > > Criticism of AA seems to boil down to a fashion thing. It seems to be safe to > like Adams again. :) > > -bmw > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
The essay includes another bit of nonsense to which I should have called attention. He writes, "Adams's wilderness studies are the staple of the gift store rather than the cutting-edge art gallery, " ' This is simply untrue. Most major art museums in the United states, including the Met, the Getty, and the Chicago Art Institute have Adams prints in their collections. Paul On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:14 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > I find the essayist's snoopy metaphor silly and demeaning. And while he > admits to an Adams renaissance, t's clear that he doesn't understand the > artistry of Adams' work and how he was able to bend light in the darkroom to > idealize a scene. He seems dismissive of the zone system, a a way of working > that redefined photographic excellence. The writer continues to demonstrate > his lack of photographic knowledge in asserting that an f64 aperture results > in both optimum depth of field and clarity. Depth of field, yes. Clarity, no. > > Art takes many forms, and the elitists of every generation are always anxious > to dismiss the heroes of a previous era. But Adams, like his literary > siblings, Whitman and Thoreau, will still be revered when some of the > pretentious crap that now passes for artful photography has long been > forgotten. > > Paul > On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:42 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > >> Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me searching for >> something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that I've run across: >> that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his output is kitsch rather >> than art; that his belief in beauty above all rather then social relevance, >> left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. >> >> So I located this excellent essay: >> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ansel-adams-but-is-it-art-749574.html >> >> Criticism of AA seems to boil down to a fashion thing. It seems to be safe >> to like Adams again. :) >> >> -bmw >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 9/19/2011 6:14 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I find the essayist's snoopy metaphor silly and demeaning. And while he admits to an Adams renaissance, t's clear that he doesn't understand the artistry of Adams' work and how he was able to bend light in the darkroom to idealize a scene. He seems dismissive of the zone system, a a way of working that redefined photographic excellence. The writer continues to demonstrate his lack of photographic knowledge in asserting that an f64 aperture results in both optimum depth of field and clarity. Depth of field, yes. Clarity, no. Doesn't that depend on the focal length? Whether you're using a 6mm lens on a point and shoot, 30mm on an APS, 50mm on a 35mm, or 300mm on an 8x10? -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > On 9/19/2011 6:14 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> I find the essayist's snoopy metaphor silly and demeaning. And while he >> admits to an Adams renaissance, t's clear that he doesn't understand the >> artistry of Adams' work and how he was able to bend light in the darkroom to >> idealize a scene. He seems dismissive of the zone system, a a way of working >> that redefined photographic excellence. The writer continues to demonstrate >> his lack of photographic knowledge in asserting that an f64 aperture results >> in both optimum depth of field and clarity. Depth of field, yes. Clarity, no. > Doesn't that depend on the focal length? Whether you're using a 6mm lens on > a point and shoot, 30mm on an APS, 50mm on a 35mm, or 300mm on an 8x10? Yes it does. But even on a "normal" 300 mm lens for 8x10, f64 is a small ap and will cause diffusion. It's definitely not optimum in that regard. > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Sep 19, 2011, at 10:20 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > >> On 9/19/2011 6:14 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >>> I find the essayist's snoopy metaphor silly and demeaning. And while he >>> admits to an Adams renaissance, t's clear that he doesn't understand the >>> artistry of Adams' work and how he was able to bend light in the darkroom >>> to idealize a scene. He seems dismissive of the zone system, a a way of >>> working that redefined photographic excellence. The writer continues to >>> demonstrate his lack of photographic knowledge in asserting that an f64 >>> aperture results in both optimum depth of field and clarity. Depth of >>> field, yes. Clarity, no. >> Doesn't that depend on the focal length? Whether you're using a 6mm lens on >> a point and shoot, 30mm on an APS, 50mm on a 35mm, or 300mm on an 8x10? > > Yes it does. But even on a "normal" 300 mm lens for 8x10, f64 is a small ap > and will cause diffusion. It's definitely not optimum in that regard. Further research reveals that diffusion varies with format size, not focal length. f64 on 8x10 is said to be approximately equivalent to f8 on 35 mm film, so it's safe to day that diffusion isn't a problem at that aperture, yet it's not necessarily correct to say that f64 produces optimum clarity. But this is a small point. Overall, I felt that the essayist didn't demonstrate a firm grasp of photographic principles. Paul >> >> -- >> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 9/19/2011 7:34 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Sep 19, 2011, at 10:20 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 9/19/2011 6:14 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I find the essayist's snoopy metaphor silly and demeaning. And while he admits to an Adams renaissance, t's clear that he doesn't understand the artistry of Adams' work and how he was able to bend light in the darkroom to idealize a scene. He seems dismissive of the zone system, a a way of working that redefined photographic excellence. The writer continues to demonstrate his lack of photographic knowledge in asserting that an f64 aperture results in both optimum depth of field and clarity. Depth of field, yes. Clarity, no. Doesn't that depend on the focal length? Whether you're using a 6mm lens on a point and shoot, 30mm on an APS, 50mm on a 35mm, or 300mm on an 8x10? Yes it does. But even on a "normal" 300 mm lens for 8x10, f64 is a small ap and will cause diffusion. It's definitely not optimum in that regard. Further research reveals that diffusion varies with format size, not focal length. f64 on 8x10 is said to be approximately equivalent to f8 on 35 mm film, so it's safe to day that diffusion isn't a problem at that aperture, yet it's not necessarily correct to say that f64 produces optimum clarity. But this is a small point. Overall, I felt that the essayist didn't demonstrate a firm grasp of photographic principles. Diffusion or diffraction? It was my understanding that diffraction happens at any opaque edge within a range that is determined by the wavelength. Therefore the larger the aperture the smaller the percentage of it that will be subject to the effects of diffraction. f/64 on a 320 mm lens would be an aperture of 5mm, which would be the same as f/10 on a 50mm lens or f/8 on a 40mm. I suppose that it's possible that the angle of incidence of the light beams hitting the aperture could affect the amount of diffraction, and therefore it's not a linear function that diffraction becomes a problem with apertures of 2mm or smaller in diameter. It's also been roughly 30 years since I took a course in either physics, or field equations, so I could be completely off base. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 9/19/2011 7:50 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 9/19/2011 7:34 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Sep 19, 2011, at 10:20 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 9/19/2011 6:14 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I find the essayist's snoopy metaphor silly and demeaning. And while he admits to an Adams renaissance, t's clear that he doesn't understand the artistry of Adams' work and how he was able to bend light in the darkroom to idealize a scene. He seems dismissive of the zone system, a a way of working that redefined photographic excellence. The writer continues to demonstrate his lack of photographic knowledge in asserting that an f64 aperture results in both optimum depth of field and clarity. Depth of field, yes. Clarity, no. Doesn't that depend on the focal length? Whether you're using a 6mm lens on a point and shoot, 30mm on an APS, 50mm on a 35mm, or 300mm on an 8x10? Yes it does. But even on a "normal" 300 mm lens for 8x10, f64 is a small ap and will cause diffusion. It's definitely not optimum in that regard. Further research reveals that diffusion varies with format size, not focal length. f64 on 8x10 is said to be approximately equivalent to f8 on 35 mm film, so it's safe to day that diffusion isn't a problem at that aperture, yet it's not necessarily correct to say that f64 produces optimum clarity. But this is a small point. Overall, I felt that the essayist didn't demonstrate a firm grasp of photographic principles. Diffusion or diffraction? It was my understanding that diffraction happens at any opaque edge within a range that is determined by the wavelength. Therefore the larger the aperture the smaller the percentage of it that will be subject to the effects of diffraction. f/64 on a 320 mm lens would be an aperture of 5mm, which would be the same as f/10 on a 50mm lens or f/8 on a 40mm. I suppose that it's possible that the angle of incidence of the light beams hitting the aperture could affect the amount of diffraction, and therefore it's not a linear function that diffraction becomes a problem with apertures of 2mm or smaller in diameter. It's also been roughly 30 years since I took a course in either physics, or field equations, so I could be completely off base. None of which has anything to do with whether the author knows diddly about photography, the artistic appeal of Ansel Adams photography, or whether anyone who spends too much time worrying about such things beyond whether they like a particular photograph, or not, and why, is a tosser. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> > Diffusion or diffraction? > It was my understanding that diffraction happens at any opaque edge within a > range that is determined by the wavelength. Therefore the larger the > aperture the smaller the percentage of it that will be subject to the > effects of diffraction. > > f/64 on a 320 mm lens would be an aperture of 5mm, which would be the same > as f/10 on a 50mm lens or f/8 on a 40mm. > > I suppose that it's possible that the angle of incidence of the light beams > hitting the aperture could affect the amount of diffraction, and therefore > it's not a linear function that diffraction becomes a problem with apertures > of 2mm or smaller in diameter. > > It's also been roughly 30 years since I took a course in either physics, or > field equations, so I could be completely off base. Aperture values are ratios, not absolute values. f/64 on LF is going to be a different size than f/64 on 35mm. On a 320mm lens, f/64 has an aperture diameter of 5mm. On a 50mm lens, f/64 would have an aperture diameter of .78mm. (This doesn't account for the fact that the aperture blades aren't necessarily at the nodal point in a lens, and you are talking about a simple lens, reality is a bit messier.) Your numbers are completely wonky. > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 2011-09-19 22:52, Larry Colen wrote: None of which has anything to do with whether the author knows diddly about photography, the artistic appeal of Ansel Adams photography, or whether anyone who spends too much time worrying about such things beyond whether they like a particular photograph, or not, and why, is a tosser. To answer the original question, it ain't art until the viewer says it's art. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:02 PM, David Parsons wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >>> >> Diffusion or diffraction? >> It was my understanding that diffraction happens at any opaque edge within a >> range that is determined by the wavelength. Therefore the larger the >> aperture the smaller the percentage of it that will be subject to the >> effects of diffraction. >> >> f/64 on a 320 mm lens would be an aperture of 5mm, which would be the same >> as f/10 on a 50mm lens or f/8 on a 40mm. >> >> I suppose that it's possible that the angle of incidence of the light beams >> hitting the aperture could affect the amount of diffraction, and therefore >> it's not a linear function that diffraction becomes a problem with apertures >> of 2mm or smaller in diameter. >> >> It's also been roughly 30 years since I took a course in either physics, or >> field equations, so I could be completely off base. > > Aperture values are ratios, not absolute values. f/64 on LF is going > to be a different size than f/64 on 35mm. > > On a 320mm lens, f/64 has an aperture diameter of 5mm. On a 50mm > lens, f/64 would have an aperture diameter of .78mm. (This doesn't > account for the fact that the aperture blades aren't necessarily at > the nodal point in a lens, and you are talking about a simple lens, > reality is a bit messier.) > > Your numbers are completely wonky. 320mm/64 = 5mm, 50mm/10 = 5mm, 40mm/8 = 5mm How is that wonky? -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
I agree with Paul! Jack - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Cc: Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 7:34 PM Subject: Re: OT But is it art? On Sep 19, 2011, at 10:20 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > >> On 9/19/2011 6:14 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >>> I find the essayist's snoopy metaphor silly and demeaning. And while he >>> admits to an Adams renaissance, t's clear that he doesn't understand the >>> artistry of Adams' work and how he was able to bend light in the darkroom >>> to idealize a scene. He seems dismissive of the zone system, a a way of >>> working that redefined photographic excellence. The writer continues to >>> demonstrate his lack of photographic knowledge in asserting that an f64 >>> aperture results in both optimum depth of field and clarity. Depth of >>> field, yes. Clarity, no. >> Doesn't that depend on the focal length? Whether you're using a 6mm lens on >> a point and shoot, 30mm on an APS, 50mm on a 35mm, or 300mm on an 8x10? > > Yes it does. But even on a "normal" 300 mm lens for 8x10, f64 is a small ap > and will cause diffusion. It's definitely not optimum in that regard. Further research reveals that diffusion varies with format size, not focal length. f64 on 8x10 is said to be approximately equivalent to f8 on 35 mm film, so it's safe to day that diffusion isn't a problem at that aperture, yet it's not necessarily correct to say that f64 produces optimum clarity. But this is a small point. Overall, I felt that the essayist didn't demonstrate a firm grasp of photographic principles. Paul >> >> -- >> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:02 PM, David Parsons wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >>> Diffusion or diffraction? >>> It was my understanding that diffraction happens at any opaque edge within a >>> range that is determined by the wavelength. Therefore the larger the >>> aperture the smaller the percentage of it that will be subject to the >>> effects of diffraction. >>> >>> f/64 on a 320 mm lens would be an aperture of 5mm, which would be the same >>> as f/10 on a 50mm lens or f/8 on a 40mm. >>> >>> I suppose that it's possible that the angle of incidence of the light beams >>> hitting the aperture could affect the amount of diffraction, and therefore >>> it's not a linear function that diffraction becomes a problem with apertures >>> of 2mm or smaller in diameter. >>> >>> It's also been roughly 30 years since I took a course in either physics, or >>> field equations, so I could be completely off base. >> >> Aperture values are ratios, not absolute values. f/64 on LF is going >> to be a different size than f/64 on 35mm. >> >> On a 320mm lens, f/64 has an aperture diameter of 5mm. On a 50mm >> lens, f/64 would have an aperture diameter of .78mm. (This doesn't >> account for the fact that the aperture blades aren't necessarily at >> the nodal point in a lens, and you are talking about a simple lens, >> reality is a bit messier.) >> >> Your numbers are completely wonky. > > 320mm/64 = 5mm, 50mm/10 = 5mm, 40mm/8 = 5mm > > How is that wonky? Because you are comparing different apertures and calling them the same. The physical opening may be the same, but you are dealing with different focal lengths and formats, and that changes the characteristics of the aperture. Diffraction limits depends on your image/sensor size. Larger formats can stop down much farther before diffraction becomes an issue. > > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT But is it art?
From: Bruce Walker Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me searching for something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that I've run across: that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his output is kitsch rather than art; that his belief in beauty above all rather then social relevance, left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. Could be worse. "They" could have accused him of being the "KEN Rockwell" of photogs ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
I'm sure I would enjoy seeing the photo galleries of any Ansel Adams critic. "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt There are those who think that anyone/thing which attains "popular" acclaim must be crap. This is sometimes true (Budweiser) and sometimes not (songs written by McCartney/Lennon). Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT But is it art?
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > Paul Stenquist > > I find the essayist's snoopy metaphor silly and demeaning. And while he > admits to an Adams renaissance, t's clear that he doesn't understand > the artistry of Adams' work and how he was able to bend light in the > darkroom to idealize a scene. He seems dismissive of the zone system, a > a way of working that redefined photographic excellence. The writer > continues to demonstrate his lack of photographic knowledge in > asserting that an f64 aperture results in both optimum depth of field > and clarity. Depth of field, yes. Clarity, no. > > Art takes many forms, and the elitists of every generation are always > anxious to dismiss the heroes of a previous era. But Adams, like his > literary siblings, Whitman and Thoreau, will still be revered when > some of the pretentious crap that now passes for artful photography has > long been forgotten. > I think you're misreading the article. I think Bruce is right about it being a fashion thing, but I think his characterisation of the critics of AA is a strawman, not what they actually claim. I read the article as pointing out the mainstream thinking among the chattering classes about Adams, then going on to give a different perspective by placing him squarely in the American tradition of sublime landscape painting and writing. As for Darren's comment in a different reply about critics, this is exactly their function - to explain the works, suggest where they belong in whatever tradition, and then perhaps to give a personal comment about the work, one that's informed by a broad knowledge about the subject. Seemed like a fairly reasonable article to me, given that it was just a review for a newspaper. The thing about f/64 isn't important - it's not a technical article for photographers. B > Paul > On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:42 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > > > Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me > searching for something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that > I've run across: that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his > output is kitsch rather than art; that his belief in beauty above all > rather then social relevance, left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. > > > > So I located this excellent essay: > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ansel-adams-but-is- > it-art-749574.html > > > > Criticism of AA seems to boil down to a fashion thing. It seems to be > safe to like Adams again. :) > > > > -bmw > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT But is it art?
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > Darren Addy > > I'm sure I would enjoy seeing the photo galleries of any Ansel Adams > critic. > I think you've misunderstood the function of critics. Are you suggesting that noone should criticise something unless they have personally done better? That would be absurd. [...] > > There are those who think that anyone/thing which attains "popular" > acclaim must be crap. This is sometimes true (Budweiser) and sometimes > not (songs written by McCartney/Lennon). And there are those who think that anything popular must be good, and anything difficult must be pretentious and elitist. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Bob W wrote: > I think you've misunderstood the function of critics. Are you suggesting > that noone should criticise something unless they have personally done > better? That would be absurd. I am suggesting that I personally value Accomplishment, no matter how small, over Criticism (no matter how highly-regarded). The function of critics is to provide an opinion for those with an insufficient mental capacity to form one of their own. "Like all other perennial human activities, criticism exists because it gives pleasure to those who perform it." Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT But is it art?
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > Darren Addy > > I think you've misunderstood the function of critics. Are you > suggesting > > that noone should criticise something unless they have personally > done > > better? That would be absurd. > > I am suggesting that I personally value Accomplishment, no matter how > small, over Criticism (no matter how highly-regarded). > > The function of critics is to provide an opinion for those with an > insufficient mental capacity to form one of their own. that's probably the most arrogant thing I've ever read on the PDML. Congratulations. > "Like all other > perennial human activities, criticism exists because it gives pleasure > to those who perform it." > > Darren Addy > Kearney, Nebraska > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Bob W wrote: >> The function of critics is to provide an opinion for those with an >> insufficient mental capacity to form one of their own. > > that's probably the most arrogant thing I've ever read on the PDML. > Congratulations. But you can't be SURE until you read a critic that says so. : ) Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 20/09/2011 12:35 PM, Bob W wrote: that's probably the most arrogant thing I've ever read on the PDML. Dammit Bob, does this mean I have to revert back to being the list dickweed? -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
Darren Addy wrote: > I'm sure I would enjoy seeing the photo galleries of any Ansel Adams critic. > > "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the > strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them > better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, > whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives > valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is > not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually > strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great > devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows > in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he > fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall > never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor > defeat." - Theodore > Roosevelt > > There are those who think that anyone/thing which attains "popular" > acclaim must be crap. This is sometimes true (Budweiser) and sometimes > not (songs written by McCartney/Lennon). > > > Darren Addy > Kearney, Nebraska > Nice quote and I'll agree to that last statement. :-) Budweiser still goes better with pizza than anything non-beer. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT But is it art?
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > William Robb > > > > that's probably the most arrogant thing I've ever read on the PDML. > > > Dammit Bob, does this mean I have to revert back to being the list > dickweed? > you're gonna need to pick up the pace a bit, I think B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 11-09-20 2:11 PM, Bob W wrote: From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist I find the essayist's snoopy metaphor silly and demeaning. And while he admits to an Adams renaissance, t's clear that he doesn't understand the artistry of Adams' work and how he was able to bend light in the darkroom to idealize a scene. He seems dismissive of the zone system, a a way of working that redefined photographic excellence. The writer continues to demonstrate his lack of photographic knowledge in asserting that an f64 aperture results in both optimum depth of field and clarity. Depth of field, yes. Clarity, no. Art takes many forms, and the elitists of every generation are always anxious to dismiss the heroes of a previous era. But Adams, like his literary siblings, Whitman and Thoreau, will still be revered when some of the pretentious crap that now passes for artful photography has long been forgotten. I think you're misreading the article. I think Bruce is right about it being a fashion thing, but I think his characterisation of the critics of AA is a strawman, not what they actually claim. Well, perhaps not words as strong as kitsch, but there's this remark from no less than HCB himself: William Turnage: Well, he and Edward Weston ...were both criticized because they weren't photographing the social crisis of the 1930s, and Cartier-Bresson said that, "The world is going to pieces and Adams and Weston are photographing rocks and trees" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/filmmore/pt.html [Vicki Goldberg] "In the 1960s, art lost faith in beauty too, preferring Campbell's soup cans and rows of bricks to sunsets," Goldberg writes. "At the same time, people were becoming aware that the land Adams found so achingly beautiful scarcely existed outside his photographs any longer." She repeats this notion later on: "In fact, a good part of the wilderness that is left exists mainly in Ansel Adams's photographs, which is what most people see anyway—landscapes not of earth but of emulsion." Kenneth Brower does an admirable and thorough job of fending off all of Adam's critics, including an accidental critic: John Szarkowski ... http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/07/brower.htm I read the article as pointing out the mainstream thinking among the chattering classes about Adams, then going on to give a different perspective by placing him squarely in the American tradition of sublime landscape painting and writing. As for Darren's comment in a different reply about critics, this is exactly their function - to explain the works, suggest where they belong in whatever tradition, and then perhaps to give a personal comment about the work, one that's informed by a broad knowledge about the subject. Seemed like a fairly reasonable article to me, given that it was just a review for a newspaper. The thing about f/64 isn't important - it's not a technical article for photographers. B Paul On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:42 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me searching for something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that I've run across: that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his output is kitsch rather than art; that his belief in beauty above all rather then social relevance, left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. So I located this excellent essay: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ansel-adams-but-is- it-art-749574.html Criticism of AA seems to boil down to a fashion thing. It seems to be safe to like Adams again. :) -bmw -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 9/20/2011 11:35 AM, Bob W wrote: From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Darren Addy I think you've misunderstood the function of critics. Are you suggesting that noone should criticise something unless they have personally done better? That would be absurd. I am suggesting that I personally value Accomplishment, no matter how small, over Criticism (no matter how highly-regarded). The function of critics is to provide an opinion for those with an insufficient mental capacity to form one of their own. that's probably the most arrogant thing I've ever read on the PDML. Congratulations. While both of those statements are markworthy, neither is entirely correct. Since I'm too cheap to pay for cable, I don't get any TV reception at my house, so I have very little idea what movies are playing, or worth watching. I find that the movie critics in the local entertainment magazines very helpful. For example if Lisa Jensen rates a move three stars (out of four) and then complains about excessive pyrotechnics, or some other way in which it is politically correct, I'll probably enjoy it. One or two stars with the same commentary, I won't. Four stars and extolling it's artistic virtues, or political correctness, and I won't particularly enjoy it, though my girlfriend might. These movie critics help me optimize my spending, on movies that I'll enjoy. I suspect that if I were considering plopping down $100, or even $K5 on a pair of concert tickets, I'd particularly want some idea whether I'd enjoy the show. And, lets face it, every time one of us comments on another's photo, we're being critics. Note, however, in the case of the stairway to nowhere, each version appealed to different people for different reasons. Frankly, I don't really care whether what Adams did was art, craftsmanship, or obsessive technical masturbation, I'd rather see some beautiful, soulless craftsmanship than a steaming ugly pile of art. I think that it's all too easy for people to forget the significance, 60 or 70 years later, of things that at the time were state of the art, whether it's an Adams print or a Jimi Hendrix guitar solo. It's quite possible that Mark could take his big Sony, drive out to glacier point and take photos where the prints rival the technical quality of pictures that Adams took 65 years ago, lugging 50 pounds of gear down a dirt path, and then hand processing the film and prints in the darkroom. If I nail the exposure of a photo, that's usually because I bracket the hell out of it, and chimp the histogram. Adams would do so in one exposure, metering the various portions of the scene and then adjusting the processing of the film. I barely understand the zone system, he bloody well invented it. Similarly, just because I can plug 9.8 into 1/2At^2, and calculate how far a rock will fall in t seconds, that doesn't make me Isaac Freakin' Newton. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 9/20/2011 11:56 AM, Tom C wrote: Nice quote and I'll agree to that last statement. :-) Budweiser still goes better with pizza than anything non-beer. I'll keep that in mind. I've never enjoyed it with anything else non-beer. Generally, when I've had it I've been sadder budweiser. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 9/20/2011 11:52 AM, William Robb wrote: On 20/09/2011 12:35 PM, Bob W wrote: that's probably the most arrogant thing I've ever read on the PDML. Dammit Bob, does this mean I have to revert back to being the list dickweed? You're the list dickweed? I thought I was the list dickweed and you were the list asshole. Now I'm confused. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 9/20/2011 12:05 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Kenneth Brower does an admirable and thorough job of fending off all of Adam's critics, including an accidental critic: John Szarkowski ... http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/07/brower.htm I wonder how much of Adams' work is underappreciated by not seeing the original prints, but only seeing it on posters on office walls, or perhaps on the web. Kind of like watching Star Wars via VHS on a 12" CRT TV in 2000, versus watching it in the theater in July 1977. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Sep 20, 2011, at 13:56, Tom C wrote: > > Nice quote and I'll agree to that last statement. :-) Budweiser still > goes better with pizza than anything non-beer. > Cheap white wine from a box - with ice cubes - works for me! I have no class. -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
Bob W wrote, in repsonse to Darren Addy: >> I am suggesting that I personally value Accomplishment, no matter how >> small, over Criticism (no matter how highly-regarded). >> >> The function of critics is to provide an opinion for those with an >> insufficient mental capacity to form one of their own. > >> "Like all other >> perennial human activities, criticism exists because it gives pleasure >> to those who perform it." >> >> Darren Addy >> Kearney, Nebraska >> > > that's probably the most arrogant thing I've ever read on the PDML. > Congratulations. > I guess I'm arrogant too then. :-) It's one thing to view something with a critical eye as in one definitition of the word critical - "characterized by careful analysis and judgment". Too often the words of critics more often resemble this definition - "tending to find fault; censorious". I do believe that in the world of what I would call 'professional critique', many critics do so as a mechanism to boost their own egos by devaluing the work of others (and make money by expressing an opinion that generates a reaction). And many people turn to them for opinion because they're either unable or unwilling to expend the effort to exercise 'careful analysis and judgement' of their own, or feel unqualified. I have an acquaintance who fancies himself a movie director though he's never sold anything commercially. I've found I've stopped discussing movies I like because I watch a movie to be entertained. He watches a movie to critique it, and that takes all the fun out of it. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT But is it art?
> I wonder how much of Adams' work is underappreciated by not seeing the > original prints, but only seeing it on posters on office walls, or > perhaps on the web. Kind of like watching Star Wars via VHS on a 12" > CRT TV in 2000, versus watching it in the theater in July 1977. > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) I've seen his work in original prints, and I think he's over-rated. That doesn't mean I think he's bad or that I don't like his stuff, it means I think he's over-rated. I note that few people have seen originals of Leonardo da Vinci, Botticelli, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Turner, Picasso, Monet, Hopper, Cartier-Bresson, or the exotic woman draped over the branch of a tree, but they don't seem to be underappreciated. It seems like special pleading when people say you have to see the originals of Adams' work, especially when his estate exerts such tight control over the quality of the printing in his books and posters. I have some of his books, and they are excellently printed. It suggests to me that the technical qualities are seen as more important than the 'art', and that may be why he doesn't receive the attention from the art establisment that some people think he deserves. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT But is it art?
> > I have an acquaintance who fancies himself a movie director though > he's never sold anything commercially. I've found I've stopped > discussing movies I like because I watch a movie to be entertained. He > watches a movie to critique it, and that takes all the fun out of it. > > Tom C. That may be because of his approach rather than criticism in general. Since starting my French cinema class last year I've found that I enjoy all films far more than I ever did before because I watch them with a critical eye rather than 'just' to be entertained - it adds a new dimension to my enjoyment. Some of the films we've watched can be quite hard work, but the analysis and criticism itself is enjoyable, and we learn a lot so that we can appreciate the films even if we don't enjoy them. My approach generally is to make notes and come to my own conclusions about them, write my essay, then read what other critics have to say, and listen carefully to our prof when she gives her analysis. This is always very enriching. The same approach works for pretty much anything - photography, paintings, theatre, literature, whatever. That's the true function of critics. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 20/09/2011 1:25 PM, Larry Colen wrote: You're the list dickweed? I thought I was the list dickweed and you were the list asshole. Now I'm confused. We don't actually have an official list asshole at the moment. I transferred to the Dickweed department a while back, and left the position open. If you think you are qualified for the job, I suppose you could have it, I haven't seen all that many people vying for it.. I didn't think it paid well, but there was, sometimes, a certain amount of satisfaction. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 20/09/2011 1:37 PM, Larry Colen wrote: I wonder how much of Adams' work is underappreciated by not seeing the original prints, I saw an original (signed by St. Ansel himself) print of Moonrise over Hernandez in a gallery in Santa Fe. I was struck by the depth and sheer richness of the tonality of the print. I also noted that the crosses in the graveyard were just a smidge out of focus -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT But is it art?
> -Original Message- > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > William Robb > Sent: 20 September 2011 22:58 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: OT But is it art? > > On 20/09/2011 1:25 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > > > > > > You're the list dickweed? I thought I was the list dickweed and you > were > > the list asshole. Now I'm confused. > > > > > We don't actually have an official list asshole at the moment. > I transferred to the Dickweed department a while back, and left the > position open. > If you think you are qualified for the job, I suppose you could have > it, > I haven't seen all that many people vying for it.. > I didn't think it paid well, but there was, sometimes, a certain amount > of satisfaction. > while we're on the subject of critics and assholes, you might enjoy the following from critic and art-lover Kenneth Tynan: "The buttocks are the most aesthetically pleasing part of the body because they are non-functional. Although they conceal an essential orifice, these pointless globes are as near as the human form can ever come to abstract art." B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Sep 20, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Bob W wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of >> William Robb >> Sent: 20 September 2011 22:58 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: OT But is it art? >> >> On 20/09/2011 1:25 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> You're the list dickweed? I thought I was the list dickweed and you >> were >>> the list asshole. Now I'm confused. >>> >>> >> We don't actually have an official list asshole at the moment. >> I transferred to the Dickweed department a while back, and left the >> position open. >> If you think you are qualified for the job, I suppose you could have >> it, >> I haven't seen all that many people vying for it.. >> I didn't think it paid well, but there was, sometimes, a certain amount >> of satisfaction. >> > > while we're on the subject of critics and assholes, you might enjoy the > following from critic and art-lover Kenneth Tynan: "The buttocks are the > most aesthetically pleasing part of the body because they are > non-functional. Although they conceal an essential orifice, these pointless > globes are as near as the human form can ever come to abstract art." Now there's a critic who knows his shit. Paul > > B > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
Cheeky bastard. On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Bob W wrote: > >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of >>> William Robb >>> Sent: 20 September 2011 22:58 >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: OT But is it art? >>> >>> On 20/09/2011 1:25 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> You're the list dickweed? I thought I was the list dickweed and you >>> were >>>> the list asshole. Now I'm confused. >>>> >>>> >>> We don't actually have an official list asshole at the moment. >>> I transferred to the Dickweed department a while back, and left the >>> position open. >>> If you think you are qualified for the job, I suppose you could have >>> it, >>> I haven't seen all that many people vying for it.. >>> I didn't think it paid well, but there was, sometimes, a certain amount >>> of satisfaction. >>> >> >> while we're on the subject of critics and assholes, you might enjoy the >> following from critic and art-lover Kenneth Tynan: "The buttocks are the >> most aesthetically pleasing part of the body because they are >> non-functional. Although they conceal an essential orifice, these pointless >> globes are as near as the human form can ever come to abstract art." > > Now there's a critic who knows his shit. > Paul > >> >> B >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
What a bum! On 11-09-20 8:35 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: Cheeky bastard. On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Sep 20, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Bob W wrote: while we're on the subject of critics and assholes, you might enjoy the following from critic and art-lover Kenneth Tynan: "The buttocks are the most aesthetically pleasing part of the body because they are non-functional. Although they conceal an essential orifice, these pointless globes are as near as the human form can ever come to abstract art." Now there's a critic who knows his shit. Paul B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:09:47PM +0100, Bob W wrote: > > while we're on the subject of critics and assholes, you might enjoy the > following from critic and art-lover Kenneth Tynan: "The buttocks are the > most aesthetically pleasing part of the body because they are > non-functional. Although they conceal an essential orifice, these pointless > globes are as near as the human form can ever come to abstract art." > Much the same could be said of boobies ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
Apparently to some the butt is art. Jack - Original Message - From: Bruce Walker To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Cc: Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:37 PM Subject: Re: OT But is it art? What a bum! On 11-09-20 8:35 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > Cheeky bastard. > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Paul Stenquist > wrote: >> On Sep 20, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Bob W wrote: >> >> >>> while we're on the subject of critics and assholes, you might enjoy the >>> following from critic and art-lover Kenneth Tynan: "The buttocks are the >>> most aesthetically pleasing part of the body because they are >>> non-functional. Although they conceal an essential orifice, these pointless >>> globes are as near as the human form can ever come to abstract art." >> Now there's a critic who knows his shit. >> Paul >> >>> B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
Indeed. Many biologist believe that human women have permanently engorged breasts to simulate the cleavage of the buttocks when we began to walk upright. I believe this happened initially with Homo Erectus. On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:56 PM, John Francis wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:09:47PM +0100, Bob W wrote: >> >> while we're on the subject of critics and assholes, you might enjoy the >> following from critic and art-lover Kenneth Tynan: "The buttocks are the >> most aesthetically pleasing part of the body because they are >> non-functional. Although they conceal an essential orifice, these pointless >> globes are as near as the human form can ever come to abstract art." >> > > Much the same could be said of boobies ... > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > Indeed. Many biologist believe that human women have permanently > engorged breasts to simulate the cleavage of the buttocks when we > began to walk upright. I believe this happened initially with Homo > Erectus. FINALLY we have an explanation for the source of the expression "I don't know if you are coming or going." Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 21/09/2011 5:31 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: Indeed. Many biologist believe that human women have permanently engorged breasts to simulate the cleavage of the buttocks when we began to walk upright. I believe this happened initially with Homo I always thought it was to do with being able to keep their balance. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT But is it art?
From: "Bob W" I think you've misunderstood the function of critics. Are you suggesting that noone should criticise something unless they have personally done better? That would be absurd. Is it informed criticism or uninformed criticism? I understand and appreciate the value of the former. But, there is by far too damn much of the latter. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
From: Larry Colen On 9/20/2011 11:52 AM, William Robb wrote: On 20/09/2011 12:35 PM, Bob W wrote: that's probably the most arrogant thing I've ever read on the PDML. Dammit Bob, does this mean I have to revert back to being the list dickweed? You're the list dickweed? I thought I was the list dickweed and you were the list asshole. Now I'm confused. Only now? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
The reason Adams' work seems kitsch is that he defined the genera, and any critic who thinks that social relevance defines "Art" should be taken out and shot immediately. On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me searching for something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that I've run across: that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his output is kitsch rather than art; that his belief in beauty above all rather then social relevance, left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. So I located this excellent essay: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ansel-adams-but-is-it-art-749574.html Criticism of AA seems to boil down to a fashion thing. It seems to be safe to like Adams again. :) -bmw -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Sep 24, 2011, at 10:08 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > The reason Adams' work seems kitsch is that he defined the genera, and any > critic who thinks that social relevance defines "Art" should be taken out and > shot immediately. Well said, Peter. Paul > > On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: >> Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me searching for >> something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that I've run across: >> that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his output is kitsch rather >> than art; that his belief in beauty above all rather then social relevance, >> left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. >> >> So I located this excellent essay: >> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ansel-adams-but-is-it-art-749574.html >> >> >> Criticism of AA seems to boil down to a fashion thing. It seems to be safe >> to like Adams again. :) >> >> -bmw >> > -- > > Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a > lengthily search. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
Interestingly, Google has decided to bracket this thread (in my Gmail account) with "Buy Banksy Prints" ads from www.veramararts.com. Reminding me to tell you that if you have not yet seen the Banksy produced movie "Exit Through the Gift Shop" then you really owe it to yourself to see it. Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
Then the first one up against the wall will be HCB himself. "The world is going to pieces and Adams and Weston are photographing rocks and trees." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/filmmore/pt.html If you didn't wade through the entire thread you likely missed this. -bmw On 11-09-24 10:08 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: The reason Adams' work seems kitsch is that he defined the genera, and any critic who thinks that social relevance defines "Art" should be taken out and shot immediately. On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me searching for something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that I've run across: that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his output is kitsch rather than art; that his belief in beauty above all rather then social relevance, left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. So I located this excellent essay: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ansel-adams-but-is-it-art-749574.html Criticism of AA seems to boil down to a fashion thing. It seems to be safe to like Adams again. :) -bmw -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
HBC was a photographer and an activist, In the context of the time, I'd cut him a little slack. However it doesn't mean I have to give his opinion any more weight. At the time Photography was not really considered an Art, more of a craft. On 9/25/2011 6:15 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: Then the first one up against the wall will be HCB himself. "The world is going to pieces and Adams and Weston are photographing rocks and trees." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/filmmore/pt.html If you didn't wade through the entire thread you likely missed this. -bmw On 11-09-24 10:08 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: The reason Adams' work seems kitsch is that he defined the genera, and any critic who thinks that social relevance defines "Art" should be taken out and shot immediately. On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me searching for something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that I've run across: that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his output is kitsch rather than art; that his belief in beauty above all rather then social relevance, left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. So I located this excellent essay: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ansel-adams-but-is-it-art-749574.html Criticism of AA seems to boil down to a fashion thing. It seems to be safe to like Adams again. :) -bmw -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
I don't care who said it, it is an ignorant and arrogant comment, unworthy of a great artist. Dan Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: > Then the first one up against the wall will be HCB himself. > > "The world is going to pieces and Adams and Weston are photographing rocks > and trees." > -- Henri Cartier-Bresson > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/filmmore/pt.html > > If you didn't wade through the entire thread you likely missed this. > > -bmw > > On 11-09-24 10:08 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: >> >> The reason Adams' work seems kitsch is that he defined the genera, and any >> critic who thinks that social relevance defines "Art" should be taken out >> and shot immediately. >> >> On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: >>> >>> Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me searching >>> for something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that I've run >>> across: that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his output is kitsch >>> rather than art; that his belief in beauty above all rather then social >>> relevance, left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. >>> >>> So I located this excellent essay: >>> >>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ansel-adams-but-is-it-art-749574.html >>> >>> Criticism of AA seems to boil down to a fashion thing. It seems to be >>> safe to like Adams again. :) >>> >>> -bmw >>> >> -- >> >> Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to >> avoid a lengthily search. >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
HCB had trouble getting things in focus. That's okay, because he worked in an entirely different genre than Adams. But his critique is simply bullshit. Evidence of a small mind and a big ego. Paul Paul On Sep 25, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > I don't care who said it, it is an ignorant and arrogant comment, > unworthy of a great artist. > > Dan > Dan Matyola > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: >> Then the first one up against the wall will be HCB himself. >> >> "The world is going to pieces and Adams and Weston are photographing rocks >> and trees." >> -- Henri Cartier-Bresson >> >> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/filmmore/pt.html >> >> If you didn't wade through the entire thread you likely missed this. >> >> -bmw >> >> On 11-09-24 10:08 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: >>> >>> The reason Adams' work seems kitsch is that he defined the genera, and any >>> critic who thinks that social relevance defines "Art" should be taken out >>> and shot immediately. >>> >>> On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me searching for something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that I've run across: that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his output is kitsch rather than art; that his belief in beauty above all rather then social relevance, left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. So I located this excellent essay: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ansel-adams-but-is-it-art-749574.html Criticism of AA seems to boil down to a fashion thing. It seems to be safe to like Adams again. :) -bmw >>> -- >>> >>> Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to >>> avoid a lengthily search. >>> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
He's still human and entitled to any opinion. The 'greats' may have been contemporaries, but they wouldn't necessarily like each other or their work. It's really no different than someone saying why have a space program when there are homeless people here on Earth. Or why do anything for foreigners, when there are homeless people here in America. On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > I don't care who said it, it is an ignorant and arrogant comment, > unworthy of a great artist. > > Dan > Dan Matyola > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: >> Then the first one up against the wall will be HCB himself. >> >> "The world is going to pieces and Adams and Weston are photographing rocks >> and trees." >> -- Henri Cartier-Bresson >> >> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/filmmore/pt.html >> >> If you didn't wade through the entire thread you likely missed this. >> >> -bmw >> >> On 11-09-24 10:08 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: >>> >>> The reason Adams' work seems kitsch is that he defined the genera, and any >>> critic who thinks that social relevance defines "Art" should be taken out >>> and shot immediately. >>> >>> On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: Talk about Ansel Adams (see "A door to nowhere" thread) had me searching for something about a repeated criticism of Ansel Adams that I've run across: that he's the Normal Rockwell of photogs; that his output is kitsch rather than art; that his belief in beauty above all rather then social relevance, left him on the bottom rung of fine arts. So I located this excellent essay: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ansel-adams-but-is-it-art-749574.html Criticism of AA seems to boil down to a fashion thing. It seems to be safe to like Adams again. :) -bmw >>> -- >>> >>> Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to >>> avoid a lengthily search. >>> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 25/09/2011 2:40 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: I don't care who said it, it is an ignorant and arrogant comment, unworthy of a great artist. Quite often, the great artists are both ignorant and arrogant. They are, after all, merely differently gifted versions of ourselves, and they have, by dint of their gift, more reason than most to be arrogant. Why should someone who can slap paint on a canvas in a pleasing way, or press a button on a little black box at the right time be any less of a human being than anyone else? Besides, it might have been said in jest. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On Sep 25, 2011, at 20:52 , William Robb wrote: > On 25/09/2011 2:40 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: >> I don't care who said it, it is an ignorant and arrogant comment, >> unworthy of a great artist. >> > Quite often, the great artists are both ignorant and arrogant. > They are, after all, merely differently gifted versions of ourselves, and > they have, by dint of their gift, more reason than most to be arrogant. > Why should someone who can slap paint on a canvas in a pleasing way, or press > a button on a little black box at the right time be any less of a human being > than anyone else? > Besides, it might have been said in jest. I'll second Robb's explanation. San Francisco in the 60s. One of my good friends, an amazing artist, at that time using gesso and Rapidographs of the smallest wire, was drawing complex miniature scenes on poster board that at first and from a distance seemed to be a portrait, or a Haight street scene. Once you stepped in and studied it, you became enthralled in the internal goings on. He has since moved on, and grown into painting, sculpture, studied in France and God knows where else. He never went to school after high school. After failing as a real estate magnate (never started) and drug distributor, he never had another job. Everything was his art, and being social enough to the right people who would buy his works, or send him on his way to travel and paint, sculpt, etc.. I stopped by his studio some 20 years ago when I was in San Francisco for MacWorld, thinking how great it would be to catch up after a long absence. Found him working on the largest piece of jade I'd ever seen (could have been something similar, but he told me jade) that a woman had shipped to him to do with as he saw fit for her. He had fashioned it generally as the bust of a Roman warrior, wearing a helmet with a crest that was tall in front, small at the back. The crest consisted of a dozen elephants, each one smaller than the one in front. Each was topped with the large, covered hathi howdah the Maharaja would use, the drapings from that were detailed in bas-relief. Inside of each was a person sitting on a supported pillow. The person was about 1/2 inch tall and smaller, but had details on the face of a nose, eyes, mouth, and topped with a hat. The rest of the helmet was similarly detailed, as was what showed of his garment. The skin was smooth and flawless. As I remarked on the piece, Jim blasted me with a long tirade about how I had graduated from art school, but had wasted my talents by working for "the man", learning about technology, a turncoat to the art world, a useless turd on the face of the earth. Followed by, "Get out!". That sound like a true artist? http://www.artwithin.com/art/d0/a19/ He used to be on Facebook. Not there anymore. I don't know if he is still alive. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian http://gallery.me.com/jomac -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
Joe, I guess you didn't look like much of a prospect to buy his artworks. No other reason to be rude. Regards, Bob S. On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Joseph McAllister wrote: > On Sep 25, 2011, at 20:52 , William Robb wrote: > >> On 25/09/2011 2:40 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: >>> I don't care who said it, it is an ignorant and arrogant comment, >>> unworthy of a great artist. >>> >> Quite often, the great artists are both ignorant and arrogant. >> They are, after all, merely differently gifted versions of ourselves, and >> they have, by dint of their gift, more reason than most to be arrogant. >> Why should someone who can slap paint on a canvas in a pleasing way, or >> press a button on a little black box at the right time be any less of a >> human being than anyone else? >> Besides, it might have been said in jest. > > I'll second Robb's explanation. > > San Francisco in the 60s. One of my good friends, an amazing artist, at that > time using gesso and Rapidographs of the smallest wire, was drawing complex > miniature scenes on poster board that at first and from a distance seemed to > be a portrait, or a Haight street scene. Once you stepped in and studied it, > you became enthralled in the internal goings on. He has since moved on, and > grown into painting, sculpture, studied in France and God knows where else. > He never went to school after high school. After failing as a real estate > magnate (never started) and drug distributor, he never had another job. > Everything was his art, and being social enough to the right people who would > buy his works, or send him on his way to travel and paint, sculpt, etc.. > > I stopped by his studio some 20 years ago when I was in San Francisco for > MacWorld, thinking how great it would be to catch up after a long absence. > Found him working on the largest piece of jade I'd ever seen (could have been > something similar, but he told me jade) that a woman had shipped to him to do > with as he saw fit for her. He had fashioned it generally as the bust of a > Roman warrior, wearing a helmet with a crest that was tall in front, small at > the back. The crest consisted of a dozen elephants, each one smaller than the > one in front. Each was topped with the large, covered hathi howdah the > Maharaja would use, the drapings from that were detailed in bas-relief. > Inside of each was a person sitting on a supported pillow. The person was > about 1/2 inch tall and smaller, but had details on the face of a nose, eyes, > mouth, and topped with a hat. The rest of the helmet was similarly detailed, > as was what showed of his garment. The skin was smooth and flawless. > > As I remarked on the piece, Jim blasted me with a long tirade about how I had > graduated from art school, but had wasted my talents by working for "the > man", learning about technology, a turncoat to the art world, a useless turd > on the face of the earth. Followed by, "Get out!". > > That sound like a true artist? http://www.artwithin.com/art/d0/a19/ > > He used to be on Facebook. Not there anymore. I don't know if he is still > alive. > > Joseph McAllister > Pentaxian > > http://gallery.me.com/jomac > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
From: Bob Sullivan Joe, I guess you didn't look like much of a prospect to buy his artworks. No other reason to be rude. Regards, Bob S. Some people don't need a reason. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art?
On 9/26/2011 2:04 AM, Joseph McAllister wrote: On Sep 25, 2011, at 20:52 , William Robb wrote: On 25/09/2011 2:40 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: I don't care who said it, it is an ignorant and arrogant comment, unworthy of a great artist. Quite often, the great artists are both ignorant and arrogant. They are, after all, merely differently gifted versions of ourselves, and they have, by dint of their gift, more reason than most to be arrogant. Why should someone who can slap paint on a canvas in a pleasing way, or press a button on a little black box at the right time be any less of a human being than anyone else? Besides, it might have been said in jest. I'll second Robb's explanation. San Francisco in the 60s. One of my good friends, an amazing artist, at that time using gesso and Rapidographs of the smallest wire, was drawing complex miniature scenes on poster board that at first and from a distance seemed to be a portrait, or a Haight street scene. Once you stepped in and studied it, you became enthralled in the internal goings on. He has since moved on, and grown into painting, sculpture, studied in France and God knows where else. He never went to school after high school. After failing as a real estate magnate (never started) and drug distributor, he never had another job. Everything was his art, and being social enough to the right people who would buy his works, or send him on his way to travel and paint, sculpt, etc.. I stopped by his studio some 20 years ago when I was in San Francisco for MacWorld, thinking how great it would be to catch up after a long absence. Found him working on the largest piece of jade I'd ever seen (could have been something similar, but he told me jade) that a woman had shipped to him to do with as he saw fit for her. He had fashioned it generally as the bust of a Roman warrior, wearing a helmet with a crest that was tall in front, small at the back. The crest consisted of a dozen elephants, each one smaller than the one in front. Each was topped with the large, covered hathi howdah the Maharaja would use, the drapings from that were detailed in bas-relief. Inside of each was a person sitting on a supported pillow. The person was about 1/2 inch tall and smaller, but had details on the face of a nose, eyes, mouth, and topped with a hat. The rest of the helmet was similarly detailed, as was what showed of his garment. The skin was smooth and flawless. As I remarked on the piece, Jim blasted me with a long tirade about how I had graduated from art school, but had wasted my talents by working for "the man", learning about technology, a turncoat to the art world, a useless turd on the face of the earth. Followed by, "Get out!". That sound like a true artist? http://www.artwithin.com/art/d0/a19/ Actually? Yes, but I don't have a very high opinion of people in general, let alone artists. He used to be on Facebook. Not there anymore. I don't know if he is still alive. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian http://gallery.me.com/jomac -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT But is it art? (diffraction)
On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:30 PM, David Parsons wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> >> On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:02 PM, David Parsons wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > Diffusion or diffraction? It was my understanding that diffraction happens at any opaque edge within a range that is determined by the wavelength. Therefore the larger the aperture the smaller the percentage of it that will be subject to the effects of diffraction. f/64 on a 320 mm lens would be an aperture of 5mm, which would be the same as f/10 on a 50mm lens or f/8 on a 40mm. I suppose that it's possible that the angle of incidence of the light beams hitting the aperture could affect the amount of diffraction, and therefore it's not a linear function that diffraction becomes a problem with apertures of 2mm or smaller in diameter. It's also been roughly 30 years since I took a course in either physics, or field equations, so I could be completely off base. >>> >>> Aperture values are ratios, not absolute values. f/64 on LF is going >>> to be a different size than f/64 on 35mm. >>> >>> On a 320mm lens, f/64 has an aperture diameter of 5mm. On a 50mm >>> lens, f/64 would have an aperture diameter of .78mm. (This doesn't >>> account for the fact that the aperture blades aren't necessarily at >>> the nodal point in a lens, and you are talking about a simple lens, >>> reality is a bit messier.) >>> >>> Your numbers are completely wonky. >> >> 320mm/64 = 5mm, 50mm/10 = 5mm, 40mm/8 = 5mm >> >> How is that wonky? > > Because you are comparing different apertures and calling them the > same. The physical opening may be the same, but you are dealing with > different focal lengths and formats, and that changes the > characteristics of the aperture. Diffraction limits depends on your > image/sensor size. Larger formats can stop down much farther before > diffraction becomes an issue. My premise was that diffraction was an edge effect and that the ratio of edge to area was the critical factor. If that was the case, then it is the physical size of the aperture that is critical, not the f/stop, and therefore my math was correct. You didn't explain why it wasn't correct, just said that it wasn't. It is, however, explained at: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm Technical Note: Since the physical size of the lens aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/22 is a larger aperture at 200 mm than at 50 mm), why doesn't the size of the airy disk vary with focal length? This is because the distance to the focal plane also increases with focal length, and so the airy disk diverges more over this greater distance. As a result, the two effects of physical aperture size and focal length cancel out. Therefore the size of the airy disk only depends on the f-stop, which describes both focal length and aperture size. The term used to universally describe the lens opening is the "numerical aperture" (inverse of twice the f-stop). There is some variation between lenses though, but this is mostly due more to the different design and distance between the focal plane and "entrance pupil." The above page also explains diffraction limiting in similar terms as the calculation for Depth of Field, i.e. circle of confusion, based on sensor resolution, viewing distance etc. APS-C (1.5x) at 10.8 MP, f/11 has a pixel size of 5.9um, circle of confusion and airy disk of 14.7 um 35mm at 24.9 MP has pixel size of 5.9, coc and ad of 14.7um An 8x10 with 1420 MP, f/ll has a pixel size of 5.9um, coc and ad of 14.7um An 8x10 with a 42 MP sensor, f/64 has a pixel size of 34.1um, coc and ad of 85.2um. The short answer is that it's not the physical diameter of the aperture, nor the physical size of the sensor that matters, but the f/stop and the resolution of the sensor (or film). The reason that you can use a higher f/stop with large format has nothing to do with the size of the sensor, or the length of the lens, just the size of the individual pixels (or grains). -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
