MFA?

Photography not only ISN'T art, it CANNOT BE art.

ROTFL!!


Is it a joke?
Yes, you can have a roll film or a digital sensor and you're not an
artist.
Yes, everyone can buy water colours, or oil colours and not to be a
Caravaggio or an artist.
Yes you can have a Hassie and not to be a photographer but a mere mice
shooter...

BUT
in the same time *you can do art* with scraps, wood, air, corn flakes,
tints, pictures, fire, or everything you live in.

Arts are around you. you are not going around art, sorry.


I think that you have a slightly deformed way of thinking about arts.
in my semplified order: You can shoot over an emulsion or sensor, you
can shoot pictures, you can do near perfect pictures but wthout a
*quid*, you can give some feelings with pictures, you can tell with your
pics, you're a master photographer, you do art with photography. Tje
last comprehend all of this and much more, because someone starts from a
simple photography and finish on *materico*, as we say in Italy.
But is always a simplification...

(I have a degree in arts and I live with arts since i was born... my
sister is one of best graffiti-art girl in Italy for example...)

Ciao!!


--
Ed io imparo.

jjs wrote:
At first glance you seem to be saying that art must conform
to some political neccessity.

I was not trying to say that.


Can you elaborate and tell us what photographs fulfill your
requisites?

It was not my requisites.

Put it this way. Postmodernism thinks ''interesting'' art has an
interesting relationship to a group of ''consumers''.

No photography meets the necessary criteria for 'art'.

There are necessary conditions and sufficient conditions for something
to be 'art'. Photography doesn't meet either.

A crayon drawing by a 3-year old meets the necessary conditions, but
not the sufficient conditions. It is therefore not 'art'.

No, they're not. Photographs are made by a lens.

"Jörgen Persson" wrote in message
...
jjs wrote:
At first glance you seem to be saying that art must conform
to some political neccessity.

I was not trying to say that.


Can you elaborate and tell us what photographs fulfill your
requisites?

It was not my requisites.

Put it this way. Postmodernism thinks ''interesting'' art has an
interesting relationship to a group of ''consumers''.

Postmodernism is a self-serving mess that yields easily to lightweight
scholarship. It's a dark corner of mad yackings in the halls of discourse
analysis. I will guess that you are referring to the idea that western art
is defined by an elite to serve themselves, and to that I would largely
agree. I posted earlier that art was largely determined by historians,
curators and critics. But that's only a guess.

It is up to you to be more specific.

yeah I've honestly watched this group go down so much that I troll a
lot, got sick of killfiltering half the people that post so now i just
hang out on mailing lists None of that kinda crap on there...
usually




On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 03:24:39 GMT, Gregory Blank
wrote:

In article ,
Some Dude wrote:

plonk.

add wood to the fire it never goes out.

Guess you got tired of the signal to noise ratio as well.

Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

How so? Have you done that? Have you torn to shreds the poor work of
major scholars?

On 12/7/2004 9:44 AM Tom Phillips spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/7/2004 8:49 AM jjs spake thus:

wrote:

I supplied a philosophical criterion of what can be art. Photography
CANNOT be art. It doesn't meet the criteria. Photography is exactly
like a fossil, and a fossil cannot be art.

Please look to Man Ray for photographs that speak to the art world. I am
certain that will just ruin your day.

Um, are you referring to his photographs or his photo*grams*? Two different
animals, one art, one not.

Photograms _ARE_ photographs. No difference.

My advice is, don't flaunt your ignorance; learn to live with it. It's not
becoming.



--
Don't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/7/2004 9:44 AM Tom Phillips spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/7/2004 8:49 AM jjs spake thus:

wrote:

I supplied a philosophical criterion of what can be art. Photography
CANNOT be art. It doesn't meet the criteria. Photography is exactly
like a fossil, and a fossil cannot be art.

Please look to Man Ray for photographs that speak to the art world. I am
certain that will just ruin your day.

Um, are you referring to his photographs or his photo*grams*? Two different
animals, one art, one not.

Photograms _ARE_ photographs. No difference.

My advice is, don't flaunt your ignorance; learn to live with it. It's not
becoming.

From someone who apparently has neither photographs or
photograms worth showing. Stop yaking about art and
put up or shut up. All you do is trash other people
continually. So, let's see your work, see if your
art matches your mouth...

In article , Tom Phillips
wrote:

From someone who apparently has neither photographs or
photograms worth showing. Stop yaking about art and
put up or shut up. All you do is trash other people
continually. So, let's see your work, see if your
art matches your mouth...

I seriously doubt the brother of Michael Scarpetti has any talent
what so ever.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918