Digital BW, The Print

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Bernie Ess"
><the.sophist@g...> wrote:
>
>
>>  Jerry and Austin,
>>
>>  I´m amazed how long you can discuss about that question.
>
>
>Bernie (and Roger) -- I think they're actually having fun. ;)

I hope they are too, because some of us are now getting dizzy with 
their going on and on in circle.

Austin has the exceptional and wonderful ability to actually like his 
own photographs in their native unaldulterated state! Bless god 
Austin, you are the one in a million that can do that... I wish I 
could make peace with my own pictures, Photoshop tweaked or not.

While I largely share Jerry's views regarding the needs of using 
Photoshop to bring virtually all photographs to the current "fine art 
level" potential, I still wish he would realize that works of art are 
what I call "bilateral relativistic works": they flow from the artist 
context to the viewer's context conveying facts,  emotions, 
sensations, etc. The more intensely these values are conveyed to more 
people, the better the artistic statement. In this endeavour, some 
artists succeed in raising their work to the highest level with 
minimal physical intervention, others labour intensely on their work. 
It seems this distinction is entirely irrelevant: it is only the 
beauty, relevance, sensitivity, etc., of the artistic statement that 
counts, not the sum of efforts that went into its creation.


-- 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Jean-Michel Paris 
<jmparis@...>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]