The Art

[usayit]

Oh like adding in "Its just jargon"...

Let me flush it out for you...

Next you are going to argue that "art" referring to photographs in a page layout doesn't really mean "art"...

So everyone here needs to be like primitives and "be enlightened".
Along with all the professional "artists" and "Engineers" involved with page layout.
Along with all the interior decorators that refer to photographs as "wall art".
.. etc...

You may think my logic is lacking but at least I have the dictionary as the foundation.. not some ego pushed opinion.

you've just talked yourself into a circle...


Next..


About this time.. in the old days.. my buddies that like to debate would have just laughed. and ordered another cold one. Never mind the fact that you completely ignored my other comments regarding holes in your argument... which is something you do often in this thread with other responses.

its been fun.. really.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Oh like adding in "Its just jargon"...

Let me flush it out for you...

Next you are going to argue that "art" referring to photographs in a page layout doesn't really mean "art"...

So everyone here needs to be like primitives and "be enlightened".
Along with all the professional "artists" and "Engineers" involved with page layout.
Along with all the interior decorators that refer to photographs as "wall art".
.. etc...

You may think my logic is lacking but at least I have the dictionary as the foundation.. not some ego pushed opinion.

you've just talked yourself into a circle...


Next..


About this time.. in the old days.. my buddies that like to debate would have just laughed. and ordered another cold one. Never mind the fact that you completely ignored my other comments regarding holes in your argument... which is something you do often in this thread with other responses.

So are you familiar with printer's jargon, or aren't you? It seemed you needed me to add that.

In page layout programs (PageMaker, Quark Express, etc.) copy and 'art' are handled differently. 'Art' consists of graphic files such as TIFF files, JPEG files, or other graphic files. It can be a photograph or anything else, but what matters is the kind of file it is. Text uses fonts (True Type or Type 1). Everything on a page is either a graphic file (art) or copy (text). 'Art' can easily be expanded or contracted as it is a graphic. Text has to be kerned, sized, spell-checked, etc. They are completely different things. Text (copy) is not in a separate file but part of the page.

These terms help to identify the parts of a page.

 

[table1349]

Except I would like to see PP directly answer the question. None of his normal self styled philosophical ramblings, but direct answers to the questions in blue as you asked. For I have yet to see any proof of what PP continues to repeat, over and over.

The fine arts are (this is not a matter for debate):

Painting
Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
Architecture
Engraving

(and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)

When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.

The fact that you don't like the way words are properly used is irrelevant.

The fact that you have been misinformed or poorly informed in the past about the meanings of certain words is irrelevant.

The fact that you didn't or don't know something doesn't make it false.

I rest my case. You ignored the question and instead regurgitated more of the same old song and dance that is out of tune and by now out of fashion.

You indicate that only Painting, Sculpture, Architecture & Engraving are the only fine arts and it is not matter for debate. Says who. Show me the proof. PUT UP or SHUT UP.

You bragged in another thread of having your masters in philosophy and now you lay claim to the exclusive knowledge of the use of words in their proper manner. Do you have a degree inlinguistics as well? Do you also write thesis' on linguistics? Funny, I don't remember linguistics in my philosophy class.

I also don't remember seeing you as one of the contributors to the Oxford English Dictionary. I actually find your reference laughable in regards to the meaning of words since you have blatantly ignored the accepted meanings posted by others in this thread.

The language we Americans call English is one of the poorest languages on the face of the planet for pure communication. However one word that has not lost it's meaning over the span of time or continents is hypocrite.

The fact that you cannot or will not accept that which has already been accepted and defined is irrelevant. Your pseudo intellectualism is boorish and frankly what you espouse is nothing more than piffle and balderdash. The fact that you try to create meaning to your own liking does not make them true.

Or to put it in terms that anyone who live in the 60's in the U.S. could relate. You are the Dr. Zachary Smith of this thread.

Sorry, the remake movie just doesn't live up to the television show in my opinion, however the special effects were spectacular.

 

[Petraio Prime]

The fine arts are (this is not a matter for debate):

Painting
Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
Architecture
Engraving

(and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)

When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.

The fact that you don't like the way words are properly used is irrelevant.

The fact that you have been misinformed or poorly informed in the past about the meanings of certain words is irrelevant.

The fact that you didn't or don't know something doesn't make it false.

I rest my case. You ignored the question and instead regurgitated more of the same old song and dance that is out of tune and by now out of fashion.

You indicate that only Painting, Sculpture, Architecture & Engraving are the only fine arts and it is not matter for debate. Says who. Show me the proof. PUT UP or SHUT UP.

You bragged in another thread of having your masters in philosophy and now you lay claim to the exclusive knowledge of the use of words in their proper manner. Do you have a degree inlinguistics as well? Do you also write thesis' on linguistics? Funny, I don't remember linguistics in my philosophy class.

I also don't remember seeing you as one of the contributors to the Oxford English Dictionary. I actually find your reference laughable in regards to the meaning of words since you have blatantly ignored the accepted meanings posted by others in this thread.

The language we Americans call English is one of the poorest languages on the face of the planet for pure communication. However one word that has not lost it's meaning over the span of time or continents is hypocrite.

The fact that you cannot or will not accept that which has already been accepted and defined is irrelevant. Your pseudo intellectualism is boorish and frankly what you espouse is nothing more than piffle and balderdash. The fact that you try to create meaning to your own liking does not make them true.

Or to put it in terms that anyone who live in the 60's in the U.S. could relate. You are the Dr. Zachary Smith of this thread.

Sorry, the remake movie just doesn't live up to the television show in my opinion, however the special effects were spectacular.

It so happens I have published two articles on translation theory in Semiotica, and am well read in semiotics. I am also working on translations of three books on Nietzsche.

If you have reason to doubt my claims to competence, please announce them now.

If you want some insight, please read the opening introduction to History of Art by Janson. The first thing he says is that at the very least art is something tangible made by human hands.

That disqualifies photography right off the bat.

I have repeated this here in this thread many times.

 

[usayit]

Photography shares creativity with art because, by its very nature, it necessarily involves the immagination. Any photograph, even a casual snapshot, represents both an organizational experience and the record of a mental image. The subject and style of a photograph thus tell us about hte photographer's inner and outer worlds. Furthermore, photography participates in the same seek-and-find process as painting or sculpture. Photographers may not realize what they respond to until after they see the image in printed form. To understand phtography's place in the history of art, we must recognize the medium's particular strengths and inherent limitations.

 

[Derrel]

"piffle and balderdash"...that's good stuff! Gotta' love the Dr. Zachary Smith reference as well... http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...ploads/2009/07/dr-smith-lost-in-space.jpg&t=1

I wonder if Lost in Space could possibly be art....hmmm...I wonder what the philosopher king might say about that...

 

[Petraio Prime]

Photography shares creativity with art because, by its very nature, it necessarily involves the immagination. Any photograph, even a casual snapshot, represents both an organizational experience and the record of a mental image. The subject and style of a photograph thus tell us about hte photographer's inner and outer worlds. Furthermore, photography participates in the same seek-and-find process as painting or sculpture. Photographers may not realize what they respond to until after they see the image in printed form. To understand phtography's place in the history of art, we must recognize the medium's particular strengths and inherent limitations.

No, this is all false.

 

[usayit]

Photography shares creativity with art because, by its very nature, it necessarily involves the immagination. Any photograph, even a casual snapshot, represents both an organizational experience and the record of a mental image. The subject and style of a photograph thus tell us about hte photographer's inner and outer worlds. Furthermore, photography participates in the same seek-and-find process as painting or sculpture. Photographers may not realize what they respond to until after they see the image in printed form. To understand phtography's place in the history of art, we must recognize the medium's particular strengths and inherent limitations.

No, this is all false.

Oops.. I forgot to mention.

This is from "History of art: the Western tradition By Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson"

So I guess you don't agree with Horst Janson huh?



Next..

 

[Petraio Prime]

Photography shares creativity with art because, by its very nature, it necessarily involves the immagination. Any photograph, even a casual snapshot, represents both an organizational experience and the record of a mental image. The subject and style of a photograph thus tell us about hte photographer's inner and outer worlds. Furthermore, photography participates in the same seek-and-find process as painting or sculpture. Photographers may not realize what they respond to until after they see the image in printed form. To understand phtography's place in the history of art, we must recognize the medium's particular strengths and inherent limitations.

No, this is all false.

Oops.. I forgot to mention.

This is from "History of art: the Western tradition By Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson"

So I guess you don't agree with Horst Janson huh?



Next..

Absolutely not. He is dead wrong if he's saying photographs are works of art.Why? Because photographs don't satisfy the basic requirements outlined in the quote by Janson I gave earlier. Photographs are not "something tangible made by human hands".

Photographs are not a record of a "mental image". They record what is in front of the lens, period.

 

[KenC]

Are you guys still going on about "art"? Don't you ever sleep or actually photograph anything? Just shoot what makes you happy or what you can sell. "Art" is only a label affixed after the fact by critics or art historians trying to justify their existence.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Are you guys still going on about "art"? Don't you ever sleep or actually photograph anything? Just shoot what makes you happy or what you can sell. "Art" is only a label affixed after the fact by critics or art historians trying to justify their existence.

I just get tired of photographers who feel they are ennobled by calling their work 'art', as if making art were the highest endeavour of man. It isn't. Dentistry is.

So, listen up, folks:

Art is no better than photography
Artists are no better than photographers
Calling yourself and artist when you are a photographer is like calling yourself a riveter when you're a carpenter.

If you really want to impress people, tell them you're a dentist.

:lmao:

 

[usayit]

No, this is all false.

Oops.. I forgot to mention.

This is from "History of art: the Western tradition By Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson"

So I guess you don't agree with Horst Janson huh?



Next..

Absolutely not. He is dead wrong if he's saying photographs are works of art.Why? Because photographs don't satisfy the basic requirements outlined in the quote by Janson I gave earlier. Photographs are not "something tangible made by human hands".

Photographs are not a record of a "mental image". They record what is in front of the lens, period.

Dude you are hopeless... you latch on to anything that meets your fancy and reject/ignore the rest even when faced with your own references and established zero foundation on which to stand on.

This non-art major computer geek (I haven't even read the book) just pointed to a passage contrary to your stance from the very reference you brought up... even then you choose to be ignorant. An entire chapter (27th one) in that book is dedicated to photography and you latch on to a non-specific single line in the intro.

You are portray yourself as the learned one in this field of study and all you can teach me is "He is wrong because I said so". You are pathetic....

All that I have up on you are years of exposure to a group of friends trained in the "art of debate" from which I was subjected to over Thursday and Friday beer at the local pub. Even that modest experience betters your stance.


Nothing more to say.. and nothing here to learn.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Oops.. I forgot to mention.

This is from "History of art: the Western tradition By Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson"

So I guess you don't agree with Horst Janson huh?



Next..

Absolutely not. He is dead wrong if he's saying photographs are works of art.Why? Because photographs don't satisfy the basic requirements outlined in the quote by Janson I gave earlier. Photographs are not "something tangible made by human hands".

Photographs are not a record of a "mental image". They record what is in front of the lens, period.

Dude you are hopeless... you latch on to anything that meets your fancy and reject/ignore the rest even when faced with your own references and established zero foundation on which to stand on.

This non-art major computer geek (I haven't even read the book) just pointed to a passage contrary to your stance from the very reference you brought up... even then you choose to be ignorant. An entire chapter (27th one) in that book is dedicated to photography and you latch on to a non-specific single line in the intro.

You are portray yourself as the learned one in this field of study and all you can teach me is "He is wrong because I said so". You are pathetic....

All that I have up on you are years of exposure to a group of friends trained in the "art of debate" from which I was subjected to over Thursday and Friday beer at the local pub. Even that modest experience betters your stance.


Nothing more to say.. and nothing here to learn.

Some people don't recognize the contradictions in their own work. I laid out the contradictions earlier.

If you think that 'self-expression' is necessary for something to be 'art', well 99% of the art that has ever been created does not contain self-expression. Do you want to throw away 99% of the history of art? All those Egyptian statues?

Do you?

Is this art? Yes? No?

Yes, of course it is.

These works are highly stylized within an Egyptian artistic tradition, and are not concerned at all with "self-expression". They express cultural and political motifs.

OK, so maybe that isn't a criterion after all, innit?

You can't have it both ways. Janson can't either.

So, why are they art?

 

[Infidel]

If you have reason to doubt my claims to competence, please announce them now.

Biggest reason: This is the internet.

We're in a discussion about your opinion vs. essentially everyone else's. Competence really has little to do with something so subjective.

Nevertheless, when you write things like "No, this is all false", assert yourself as having more authority than others on an internet forum, state that you're right because you've repeated yourself several times, people may start to doubt your credibility.

When you cite your publication record (in a field that is loosely-at-best related to the topic at hand) curious minds start to wonder. Regarding your publications, the cold hard fact is that the 5-year average impact factor of Semiotica is less than 0.2. Yes, that's a decimal before the 2. I honestly didn't think impact factors were even calculated if they were that low.

All this really means is that semiotics is a teeny tiny field and that in all likelihood, no one ever cited your articles (maybe you cited your first article in your second article)...how much significance are we to ascribe to this accomplishment of yours?

Maybe people wouldn't treat you with so much hostility if you made any attempt to view the issue from their points of view. Instead you insist on invalidating the opinions of everyone else with your own opinions, making some dubious claim to being an expert.

 

[Infidel]

Is this art? Yes? No?

Yes, of course it is.

Umm, they're photographs. :lmao: