Digital BW, The Print

At 11:01 AM 5/2/03 -0400, you wrote:


>Alan Zinn wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Do you really think photographers should strive to measure up to the
> >>public perception of the medium and art?
> >>
>WHOA COWBOY!!  You were just saying in another post that this was about
>marketing and labeling.. THAT is about as subject to the market/public
>perception as can be!

Was I saying that? :-)  I said that a dealer might do well to label the 
print in a way that advantages its acceptance.   If "geeeeclaaay sells 
prints - fine!   I was critical of the notion that one should strive to 
make pictures that conform to public acceptance.

  Some  would view shooting pictures through cut-glass ashtrays the nadir 
of creativity.  Art is more about providing a window than making personal 
expressions or being "creative".  What is or is not art is not 
democratic.  That would be a hell of a thing, wouldn't it?  Thomas Kinkade 
World.
The topic was about freaking labeling and some other guys got off track!!

AZ

> >>Do you  really believe
> >>imagination and creativity in any medium, not just photography, is
> >>somehow  measured by the extent that an artist alters conventional sensory
> >>perceptions?
> >>
>If emotions are considered sensory feedback. yes... to a great degree yes..




> >> I should just grab my Holga camera, get some IR film, a
> >>hand-full of PS plug-ins, rough watercolor paper, and by god I'm doing
> >>art!  Oh yea, need to hire a nude model - that's Real Art.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>LOL.. At the other end of the extreme you can just as easily buy paints
>and drip them on a canvas...  Art is in the eye of the beholder not the
>critics, not the creator...  So please end this ceaseless focus upon
>technique and material.. Unless you believe that photographers (under
>your photographic idea) are disinterested objective observers and
>technicians, not artists?
>
>In any case, your trivialized example would be art.. Whether it is GOOD
>art or simply trite crap will be up to viewers.. If it speaks to viewers
>in a way that moves them or re-orients their own perspectives it will be
>good art (whether or not you or I like it)..
>
>We don't call paintings that are trite, "non-art" we call them "trite"
>and uninspired..
>
>First you want objective labels...
>
>Now you seem to be certainly predisposed to rigid definitions of what
>makes it into the little box you label "art."
>
>IMHO: That's amazing tunnel vision for any artist.. Particularly for one
>teaching "art" to others..  I can't see how such opinions would not
>affect/infect students, even in subtle ways.. For me, "art" is about big
>horizons and expression.. Labels are for critics and agents - not for
>artists..
>Keith
>
>
>
>"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
>User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
>Publications), at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
>
>"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
>guys"
>


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us