Digital BW, The Print

I have resisted jumping into (piling onto?) this discussion because (for me)
it wasn't going anywhere.  Sweeping pronouncements about "this is valuable
and that isn't" don't get me very far- it all depends upon the context.

Communication with others requires clarity, clarity requires contemplation,
study, and experimentation.  Communication with oneself may indeed devolve
into navel gazing, or "personal therapy;"  on the other hand it is the
corner stone of successful communication with others.

Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, MA 

on 10/27/01 6:24 AM, Julian Thomas wrote:

... the work is a potential engagement that
only becomes art when viewed. I agree that for me communication is a part of
art. Otherwise, it becomes a kind of personal therapy. IMO.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Spragens" <t.spragens@...>
To: <digitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: ART and LIFE


> > > The act of creation without an audience is an act of
> > > self-gratification.
> >
> > The act of creation without an audience is an act of self-expression.
>
> An expression to whom, or what? To oneself (which is what I'm calling an
act of self-
> gratification)? An imposition of will over materials (which gets druidic)?
In my mind, art requires
> communication, and communication is a transmission of something not
previously realised,
> connections not made before. In this sense, it is possible to communicate
with oneself, but I still
> find this a self absorption.
>



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