In <4.3.2.7.2.20020324220404.03ee3c90@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, on 03/24/02 at
10:59 PM,
"John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>One of my frustrations within the fine arts community is encountering a
>few [IMO snobs] who define "art" as something that has properties and
>meaning beyond pure representation; then define photography as being
>purely representational (it can *never* be anything more than that);
>then proceed to assert: therefore, photography is *not* and *never*
>will be art. This is a non-argument. The formal logic is sound (its
>structure) which makes it deceptive; the informal logic (its content)
>is fallaciously founded on premises with completely arbitrary
>definitions.
I thought that this silly notion was buried decades ago. Do you still
run across dinosaurs who mouth such tommyrot? I think that if anyone I
encountered mouthed such imbecilities I would reply that he or she
needs to be raped by a toreador. Let them figure that one out!
Equally annoying to me are the photographers of great talent who, in
showing their works, cannot resist talking about them in such
transcendental terms that what they say has little or no relevance to
the photographs they're related to. I suspect that upon semiotic
analysis their signal content might hover near zero. I waste very little
time on such fools as well. Let the photos speak!
---------------------------------------------
les clark / edgewater, nj / usa
---------------------------------------------
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|