MFA?

There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on every post.

He obviously knows nothing about logic, optics, physics, or chemistry.

Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for incompetence.

Hey, look, U.C., let's stay civil in this group, OK? You don't need to hurl
insults, and clearly none of us needs to see them. Photography is a mellow
and intriguing profession for some and hobby for the rest of us. We can
share knowledge, views, and opinions without vindictiveness or passing
judgment on one another, can't we? If you need to indulge in such--as you
have here--please find another space.


"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...
There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on
every post.

He obviously knows nothing about logic, optics, physics, or chemistry.

Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for
incompetence.

"Jean-David Beyer" wrote in message
...
Unfair to criticise an inanimate object for the shortcomings of its
operator.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.


My Apologies ;~)

Jim Phelps wrote:

: "Uranium Committee" wrote in message
: om...
: There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on
: every post.
:
: He obviously knows nothing about logic, optics, physics, or chemistry.
:
: Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for
: incompetence.

: Why would you need to know any of the above four disciplines for a Masters
: in Fine Art?

: Aren't you one of those who profess Photography isn't "Art"?

: Something should be shutdown due to incompetence, but methinks it's your
: computer!

This newsgroup is far more informational when we all ignore him.


--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Uranium Committee wrote:
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
.com...

There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on
every post.

He obviously knows nothing about logic, optics, physics, or chemistry.

Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for
incompetence.

Why would you need to know any of the above four disciplines for a Masters
in Fine Art?

Aren't you one of those who profess Photography isn't "Art"?


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

If it cannot be art, how is it that some photographs are better than
others? That some can cause a deeply moving experience for the viewer?
That a very few can touch one's very soul?

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 21:15:00 up 1 day, 23:56, 3 users, load average: 4.03, 4.17, 4.14

Uranium Committee wrote:
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
.com...

There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on
every post.

He obviously knows nothing about logic, optics, physics, or chemistry.

Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for
incompetence.

Why would you need to know any of the above four disciplines for a Masters
in Fine Art?

Aren't you one of those who profess Photography isn't "Art"?


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

If it cannot be art, how is it that some photographs are better than
others? That some can cause a deeply moving experience for the viewer?
That a very few can touch one's very soul?

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 21:15:00 up 1 day, 23:56, 3 users, load average: 4.03, 4.17, 4.14

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/4/2004 6:19 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus:

Uranium Committee wrote:
"Jim Phelps" wrote in
message ...

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on
every post.

e obviously knows nothing about logic, optics, physics, or chemistry.

Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for
incompetence.

Why would you need to know any of the above four disciplines for a Masters
in Fine Art?

Aren't you one of those who profess Photography isn't "Art"?

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

If it cannot be art, how is it that some photographs are better than
others? That some can cause a deeply moving experience for the viewer?
That a very few can touch one's very soul?

Lemme jump in here,

No.

snip

David Nebenzahl wrote in message ...
On 12/4/2004 6:19 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus:

Uranium Committee wrote:
"Jim Phelps" wrote in
message ...

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on
every post.

e obviously knows nothing about logic, optics, physics, or chemistry.

Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for
incompetence.

Why would you need to know any of the above four disciplines for a Masters
in Fine Art?

Aren't you one of those who profess Photography isn't "Art"?

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

If it cannot be art, how is it that some photographs are better than
others? That some can cause a deeply moving experience for the viewer?
That a very few can touch one's very soul?

Lemme jump in here, being one of the few folks (on the planet, I'm guessing)
who actually somewhat shares MS's view of photography/art (though I'm not
quite so absolutist about it):

The fact that something moves the viewer doesn't make it art: art requires
other attributes in order to be art. Lots of things can cause "deeply moving
experience[s]", but not all of them are art.

However, even if photographs aren't art (as I believe they are not), there are
certainly many aspects of a photograph that can make one better than another.
Some of these things are fairly well agreed upon by those who take, view and
criticize photographs, while others are, let's say, a lot more subjective.

Which brings me to an issue I've been wanting to raise with regard to this
whole "is photography art?" thing, or more properly, the subject you broached,
the relative merit of photographs. That is a pretty subjective matter, but I
find it interesting that this isn't true certain artforms, particularly music.
In music, there are actually pretty objective standards by which you can
measure ability and competence, which is what happens, for instance, when one
auditions for a position in an orchestra. The judges can pretty well tell
who's "better" than who. (Of course, there are lots of other aspects of music
that are lots more subjective.) I think it's harder, though, to tell whether
one photograph is better than another.

You are obviously trolling here, but just in case you are not I want
to enlighten you. I am not going to claim to be an expert in art
history or critisism, just point to some who are. The whole "is
photography art" debate is as old as the medium itself. You are stuck
in the early part of the last century in your thinking. People who
have the view that photography cannot be art are the same people who
walk into the Abstract Expressionism wing at MoMA and say "I could
paint that!"

David Nebenzahl wrote in message ...
On 12/4/2004 6:19 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus:

Uranium Committee wrote:
"Jim Phelps" wrote in
message ...

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

There is one poster here who has an MFA. He includes it (proudly!) on
every post.

e obviously knows nothing about logic, optics, physics, or chemistry.

Whatever school awarded him this 'degree' ought to be shut down for
incompetence.

Why would you need to know any of the above four disciplines for a Masters
in Fine Art?

Aren't you one of those who profess Photography isn't "Art"?

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

If it cannot be art, how is it that some photographs are better than
others? That some can cause a deeply moving experience for the viewer?
That a very few can touch one's very soul?

Lemme jump in here, being one of the few folks (on the planet, I'm guessing)
who actually somewhat shares MS's view of photography/art (though I'm not
quite so absolutist about it):

The fact that something moves the viewer doesn't make it art: art requires
other attributes in order to be art. Lots of things can cause "deeply moving
experience[s]", but not all of them are art.

However, even if photographs aren't art (as I believe they are not), there are
certainly many aspects of a photograph that can make one better than another.
Some of these things are fairly well agreed upon by those who take, view and
criticize photographs, while others are, let's say, a lot more subjective.

Which brings me to an issue I've been wanting to raise with regard to this
whole "is photography art?" thing, or more properly, the subject you broached,
the relative merit of photographs. That is a pretty subjective matter, but I
find it interesting that this isn't true certain artforms, particularly music.
In music, there are actually pretty objective standards by which you can
measure ability and competence, which is what happens, for instance, when one
auditions for a position in an orchestra. The judges can pretty well tell
who's "better" than who. (Of course, there are lots of other aspects of music
that are lots more subjective.) I think it's harder, though, to tell whether
one photograph is better than another.

You are obviously trolling here, but just in case you are not I want
to enlighten you. I am not going to claim to be an expert in art
history or critisism, just point to some who are. The whole "is
photography art" debate is as old as the medium itself. You are stuck
in the early part of the last century in your thinking. People who
have the view that photography cannot be art are the same people who
walk into the Abstract Expressionism wing at MoMA and say "I could
paint that!"

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
"Jef" wrote in message
om...


Regardless of text books and teachings (they are not always correct as
they are not always current), I believe the definition of art is made by the
viewing population at large. Casual photography at the family reunion is
not art, on this we'll almost all agree. However, photography as a medium
can be art as the population at large has accepted photographs to be art.
Placing photographs in an art museum is one means to prove this test.

Oh, please! That is no 'test'! Photographs need to be maintained,
especially after the photographer has passed away. Who's going to take
care of them?

Photographs are made to be looked at. Where are you going to put
photography so people can see it? An 'art' museum is a convenient
place for exhibiting and preserving photographs. Many photographs that
are simply records of the past (with no pretentions of artistry) are
kept by museums too, simply because museums have the facilities to
keep them in good condition and provide access to them when demanded.

Not every community can support an historical museum, a natural
history museum, and an art museum: so it is not uncommon for a given
facility to serve all these needs.


Third, All,

I did not wish to start the "photography, is it art" question. I am
truly sorry it has degenerated into that topic. Too many emotions and
firmly held beliefs there. Worse than religion or politics. Anyway, what I
was trying to say to UC is that a person with a MFA is more likely to
understand the aesthetics of photography than someone who's major claim to
fame in life is working in a camera store.

I have a BA in Philosophy. I have published at the Ph.D. level. Have
you?

I put myself through college working in a camera store. So what? Some
Ph.D.'s end up as truck drivers.



Jim