Marilyn's Mail <marilyn@rglobal.net> writes: > "John Shaw's point was for technical accuracy both in > exposure control and composition." > ------------------------------------------------ > (Are memorable art and a memorable photograph the same thing?) Hmm. Here are two answers that might come in useful: Answer 1: "Yes" Answer 2: "No" > I haven't been following all the discussion about reviewing the Photoforum > gallery , but I do think I read in an earlier post something that made me > think all photographs are expected to equal "art". Well, the trouble is, what is art? Making a really good record photo of a plant leaf is an art in itself; doesn't that make the result a work of art? So define art appropriately, and get whatever answer you like. I feel that this sort of discussion inevitably ends as navel-gazing (for which I learnt a *really* good Latin word the other day, but I've forgotten it already). Fwiw, I think that many of John Shaw's photographs are very definitely works of art, even though they are almost entirely "just" record shots of the natural world. (They *are* art, for goodness sake, because one element of them is composition, and that's a whole chapter in that book Christiane recommended, which is definitely about art.) > > I can't agree with that (maybe that's where the problem with our reviewing > originates - each photograph is expected to be a piece of art). I don't really think this is true (I don't really think there *is* a "problem" with the reviewing); most reviewers are able to see that some photographs are intended to be "read" differently from others, and by and large comment appropriately. Sorry, mustn't ramble: I feel you are taking the meaning of "art" too narrowly. Brian Chandler ---------------- geo://Sano.Japan.Planet_3 Jigsaw puzzles from Japan at: http://imaginatorium.org/shop/
