I especially like your "discussing weather photography" ;-)
In this forum, I find it slightly more appropriate that simply discussing
weather :-)
Joking apart, I fully agree with you Jens. I've always been very mistrustful
of self-asserting artists.
I believe that one should try to be a good artisan in his/her field. An
excellent artisan, can be recognized as an artist (only by others). One
asserting to be an artist and acting that way (or, probably, as an artist is
supposed to act) is an actor playing the artist.
And now the question could be: Can an actor be an artist? Yes, if he/she is
not playing the artist. Next question: Can an actor playing the artist still
be an artist? Why not? So what's the point in all this mess? I truly don't
know.
Dario
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: OT: Helmut Newton
Bob W: wrote (I was the one who didn't disagree):
I don't want to start a whole big thing about whether or not
>> photography is "art". Far as I'm concerned it is and that's
>> "settled law". Helmut's "answer" is a bit oblique for me and
>> since you don't disagree, care to comment further? Thanks!
I guess I already have:
I don't see myself as an artist, but as a photographer. I'm not trying to
be
an artist. I'm trying to be a good photographer. I realy don't care if
it's
art or not.
Weather this or that is art is up to the spectators to decide, I believe.
To
me art is what is commonly recognised as art. It's not for the artist to
decide. If I do a really nice photograph, others can decide for themselves
if it's art or not.
What is percieved as art to me may not be art to others. And vise versa.
To
me most photography is not art. Some of it is.
I could say the same about painting, movies, litterature, music etc. I
don't
see my self as an artist, but if some people see of my work as art, it's
fine with me. I just think of it as photography. I guess Helmut Newton
felt
the same way.
Helmut Newton obviously didn't want to discuss weater his (or other
photographers work) was art or not. I agree with him - that this should
not
be discussed. Discussing weather photography is art or not doesn't make
sence.
Regards
Jens
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 8. februar 2006 10:27
Til: [email protected]
Emne: Re: Re: OT: Helmut Newton
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2006/02/07 Tue PM 11:45:50 GMT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: OT: Helmut Newton
"Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't want to start a whole big thing about whether or not
>> photography is "art". Far as I'm concerned it is and that's
>> "settled law". Helmut's "answer" is a bit oblique for me and
>> since you don't disagree, care to comment further? Thanks!
>
>Define "art"
You can't. That's *why* it shouldn't be used! ;-)
BTW: The local supermarket now has a device with which they can take
your digital image file and "print" it on a cake in colored icing. So
"good taste" *can* be discussed with regards to photography.
Hmmmm. Not sure about that. Although the one "I" produced created much
hilarity, so could be said to have gone down well in one sense, the cake
was
bloody awful.
m
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
