Define 'art'... Surely it's all about context? Can we really say that a photograph (whether taken on a phone, or a 5x4 view camera) is not art?! Is it not a piece of work produced in response to an emotion or passing event, which seemed worth recording, documenting, or representing? I'm not sure that the definition of art can be so narrow as to only encompass painting, drawing or sculpture... Jonathan Jonathan turner Photographer T: 07796470573 E: pictures@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx W: www.Jonathan-turner.com -- Sent from my iPhone On 18 Oct 2014, at 11:09, Dan Mitchell <danmdan3842@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > OK, let's talk about "ART" then - my opinion is that photographs are seldom "art" - they are what they are, photographs, nice photos., brilliant photos., perhaps even "artistic" in content; but rarely "ART" in the manner of a drawing, painting, or sculpture, where the author needs ability way beyond pressing a shutter button. I realise that some members of this august body feel differently, especially when the photo. is taken on "real" film in something big rather than in a camera phone with only 41 M pixels to its name. > > At my age now I'm too old, and too frail, to handle a view camera, a 4x5, or even a Hasselblad, but with the wonders of modern electronics I can always have a 41M pixel camera with me (Nokia 1020, produces even raw images) whose weight I hardly notice. I have no illusions that I'm producing 'ART", I hope my regular contributions, which will indeed continue as long as Andrew choses to publish them, are pleasing images. > > But still I occasionally use film; my latest use being in a Canon 7 with f/1.4 lens, but that will no more produce art than any other of my few vintage real cameras - it's the "seeing-eye" of the person behind the lens which is the only thing that matters. > > We are in danger in this little group of discouraging prospective new/young members if we, too often, get all arty-farty, saying things like "Phone photography has gotten so simple that any boob with $300 can become a photo hero" - as if phone photography was, somehow, some sort of inferior activity. > > Ok guys, there it is, I've said my piece - over to you now. > > > Dan (the phone photographer formerly known as Dan Mitchell, once, even, 40 years ago having gained a Uk ARPS distinction) > > > ******************************************* > > > > On 18 Oct 2014, at 04:01, List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> From: Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: PHOTOFORUM digest 6633/obscenities. >> Date: 17 October 2014 13:51:27 BST >> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> From: Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: Feck it! >> Date: 17 October 2014 13:53:29 BST >> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> And Dan, in case you have not noticed, very few folks on this list seem to be expressing their views on photography, save for Andrew Sharpe and Emily Ferguson, neither of whom seem to notice that the way for a photographer to survive in this world is to sell their art. Andrew likes to add that most work is boring, not including his own. Phone photography has gotten so simple that any boob with $300 can become a photo hero. >> >> On Oct 17, 2014, at 4:08 AM, Dan Mitchell <danmdan3842@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >
