lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > Weeeelll, that may not have been fair interpretation of what you > said. - you were, I think, making a case for connoisseur-ship - a > notion I support completely. As with any specialized knowledge > snobbery and factions are involved. The original question had to do > with which was the greater influence art or commercial (meaning > snap-shooters?) photographers . That's more like what I actually said, yes. That art that *has* lasted a long time clearly has good qualities. Not that art that *hasn't*, *doesn't*. > I think many artists gleefully appropriate any technology they > can. Snap-shooters want convenience and simplicity. The digital > camera is the most important achievement since the time photography > reached technical maturity around 1914. How artists use this may > change art and make a significant change in the way everyday people > see art. Absolutely agree with both parts. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
