Give me an example. How many good photos are taken by accident vs the number of good photos taken on purpose. When I get up on a foggy morning and go out and take pictures is it an accident if I capture images that I sell? (my definition of art: if it sells it is art and if it doesn't it is art in waiting)
any fool with a phone these days can take an award winning photo., if happily in the right place at the right time.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Mitchell <danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue, Jan 7, 2014 3:32 am
Subject: Re: PHOTOFORUM digest 6427 - art ? no !
From: Dan Mitchell <danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue, Jan 7, 2014 3:32 am
Subject: Re: PHOTOFORUM digest 6427 - art ? no !
And here I must re-enter the lists, as I have never been convinced, despite what some are seem to be saying, that photography is ever "ART". Art, for me, is e.g. drawing or painting with real paint, whether oil, gouache, egg-tempera, or whatever; or hacking out the "Three Graces" from a huge lump of marble. Photography is something different - as someone has, more or less, said - any fool with a phone these days can take an award winning photo., if happily in the right place at the right time. To the great majority out away from our cloistered world photography is just happy snaps, records of visits, sometimes evidence - but rarely "ART" - very few will have an Ansel Adams print on their walls, and even fewer would ever consider photography arty enough to pay the enormous sums demanded for an A.A. original print. Dan Mitchell danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx On 7 Jan 2014, at 04:01, List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> Be grateful to have some real artists on this list. Art can be offensive at times. Part of the job. >> >> Just some thoughts. >> >> Klaus >>
