The Art

[Petraio Prime]

: it's art because of the manner of its production. All art must be 'hand-made' to be art:.

I believe this is wrong

That's the problem. You don't understand that.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Now we're back on track. You are citing an old, outdated, obsolete convention. Furthermore, the photographer is an active agent in the process of making a photograph: all the way from determining the scene that the lens renders, to the final product, the print.

Modern convention dictates that some (not all) photography can be art. Corollary: some, not all painting can be art. The fact is, we are all appealing to authority...albeit different authorities. Your argument is no stronger than that of the dissenters.

It's not old or obsolete. I'm pointing out that if you claim that there is self-expression in photography (which I deny to begin with, but never mind that for now) and that's what makes it art, then what makes the Egyptian statues and carvings art, when they are not the product of self-expression?

Your claim is that some photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct? My claim is simple: it's art because of the manner of its production. All art must be 'hand-made' to be art:

Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated any necessary condition for what makes anything art.

Further, I never agreed (nor disagreed) that the Egyptian works are art. In fact, I provided plausible conditions that may in fact disqualify them as art, taking into account the prevailing beliefs about religion and royalty at the time they were made.

Do you see the bold 'if' there? How could you miss it?

 

[usayit]

: it's art because of the manner of its production. All art must be 'hand-made' to be art:.

I believe this is wrong

That's the problem. You don't understand that.

No the problem is your understanding. This would be so much easier if you just accept what I say.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I believe this is wrong

That's the problem. You don't understand that.

No the problem is your understanding. This would be so much easier if you just accept what I say.

But you lack authority and gravitas. Roger Scruton and I have that.

 

[usayit]

That's the problem. You don't understand that.

No the problem is your understanding. This would be so much easier if you just accept what I say.

But you lack authority and gravitas. Roger Scruton and I have that.

I don't think you do.. I think you are B.S'ing. What I have is agreement with academically accepted and credible resource (which you provided).

 

[Petraio Prime]

No the problem is your understanding. This would be so much easier if you just accept what I say.

But you lack authority and gravitas. Roger Scruton and I have that.

I don't think you do.. I think you are B.S'ing. What I have is agreement with academically accepted and credible resource (which you provided).

But the philosopher Roger Scruton has specifically discussed, and wrote an article entitled Why Photography is Not Art, and gave a thorough argument. Philosophy trumps art history.

 

[usayit]

But you lack authority and gravitas. Roger Scruton and I have that.

I don't think you do.. I think you are B.S'ing. What I have is agreement with academically accepted and credible resource (which you provided).

But the philosopher Roger Scruton specifically discussed, and wrote an article entitled Why Photography is Not Art, and gave a thorough argument. Philosophy trumps art history.

His opinion is without merit. Saying Philosophy trumps history is utterly ignorant.

 

[Infidel]

Your claim is that some photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated any necessary condition for what makes anything art.

Further, I never agreed (nor disagreed) that the Egyptian works are art. In fact, I provided plausible conditions that may in fact disqualify them as art, taking into account the prevailing beliefs about religion and royalty at the time they were made.

Do you see the bold 'if' there? How could you miss it?

I should have quoted more selectively.

 

[Infidel]

Philosophy trumps art history.

False. I can play too: Infidel trumps Petraio Prime.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Your claim is that some photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated any necessary condition for what makes anything art.

Further, I never agreed (nor disagreed) that the Egyptian works are art. In fact, I provided plausible conditions that may in fact disqualify them as art, taking into account the prevailing beliefs about religion and royalty at the time they were made.

Do you see the bold 'if' there? How could you miss it?

I should have quoted more selectively.

Thank you for admitting it.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I don't think you do.. I think you are B.S'ing. What I have is agreement with academically accepted and credible resource (which you provided).

But the philosopher Roger Scruton specifically discussed, and wrote an article entitled Why Photography is Not Art, and gave a thorough argument. Philosophy trumps art history.

His opinion is without merit. Saying Philosophy trumps history is utterly ignorant.

It's not merely opinion, it's argument, and you can't just dismiss argument; you have to refute it.

 

[Infidel]

Your claim is that some photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct?

Do you see the bold 'if' there? How could you miss it?

I should have quoted more selectively.

Thank you for admitting it.

I suppose possess the gravitas it takes to admit when I'm mistaken .

 

[Petraio Prime]

I should have quoted more selectively.

Thank you for admitting it.

I suppose possess the gravitas it takes to admit when I'm mistaken .

I make it a point never to be mistaken.

 

[usayit]

But the philosopher Roger Scruton specifically discussed, and wrote an article entitled Why Photography is Not Art, and gave a thorough argument. Philosophy trumps art history.

His opinion is without merit. Saying Philosophy trumps history is utterly ignorant.

It's not merely opinion, it's argument, and you can't just dismiss argument; you have to refute it.

You do all the time... and now you are complaining?


Ok here is a refute. Art is subjective and subject to many definitions. You assert that there is only one definition.. You are wrong. I only need to show one example. According to Paul Anderson, in his book, The Fine Art of Photography, fine art is “any medium of expression which permits one person to convey to another an abstract idea of lofty emotion”. Why don't you give us Scrutom's definition of art, because I believe it is different too.

 

[Infidel]

I make it a point never to be mistaken.

Quoted for posterity.