Croce wrote:
I\'m gone you and your puritans please do as you will.
When your argument is weak, instead call your opponent names. It may make you feel better. :-)
lukeb wrote:
Look at his site and tell me where he says or even implies anything about the voracity of the photograph?
The photograph might express voracity, but it is veracity that interests us here. ;-)
Though you might seem some connections to voracity in the following description of the word found in one place: Synonyms: voracious, gluttonous, rapacious, ravenous
These adjectives mean having or marked by boundless greed: a voracious reader of history; a gluttonous consumer of fine foods; a rapacious acquirer of competing businesses; a politician ravenous for power. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/voracity)
Hmmm...
lukeb wrote:
Encontrar a alguien más para tratar de impresionar.
Oh, Google translation say to try to find someone else to impress... ;-)
Finally, (hah!), the issue of veracity (though perhaps not voracity) is always significant when it comes to photography. (Note please that I did not write that photographs must be \"true\" - I wrote that the issue of veracity is important.)
While those who think about photography and photographs and perception don\'t question the fact that the photograph can never be wholly truthful, virtually all observers begin their consideration of a photograph by asking what the photograph \"captures.\" By definition (virtually) all photographs begin with real things in the real world, and the majority of photographs we see attempt to offer some truth about those real things.
To suggest that the issue of \"truth\" isn\'t an issue in a photograph is incredibly naive or perhaps intentionally misleading. Take Jerry Eulsmann\'s wonderful and fantastic black and white photographs, for example. They are fantastical manipulations of real photographs (done in the darkroom, for those who aren\'t familiar with them), and they create a world far more imaginative and \"unreal\" than anything that we have considered here. They are beautiful and compelling and mystical photographs.
A few things:
1. No one complains that Uelsmann\'s photographs \"aren\'t real\" or that he \"manipulates\" the photographs - yet his manipulations are inherently obvious to anyone. (Lik\'s seem obvious to photographers, but might the overlooked by members of \"the public,\" especially if they read his explanation.) Why? Because Uelsmann\'s work has complete integrity - the photographs are exactly what the photographs are and there is no need to mislead the viewer. They are \"believable\" (he made them just the way you think he did) and honest and work without any attempt to puff them up into something other than what they are. (The point: manipulation is not wrong.)
2. Yet, the photographic connection to the \"real,\" in the form of the use of images that were originally \"captured\" photographically is critical to making Uelsmann\'s photographs work. One could paint the images that Uelsmann created photographically, but the effect would be entirely different because of how we respond differently to a photograph and our underlying assumption that it began with real things and real people. (The point: the connection that photography has to the \"real\" is not irrelevant.)
3. Unless the point of one\'s art is to mislead viewers - in other words, it is some sort of \"conceptual art\" project about fooling people - there is a problem when the photographer abuses the trust of viewers who assume that the unreal thing must be an extraordinary example of the \"real\" by making up an exciting story that appears to intentionally mislead them into accepting the untruth as truth. It is doubly a problem when the value of the \"photograph\" comes largely from the (falsely created) impression that it captures one of the most powerful and real experience that a person might have. (The point: When an artists claims to know and portray special truths, honesty and integrity are important.)
All of this is my wordy attempt to (yet again) try to make the point about truthfulness and integrity and honesty - things that are usually thought to be core values of art.
For the record, I have absolutely nothing at all against artists who make money from their work. I think this is a good thing, and I would love to see more excellent photographers in all photographic genres profit from their genuine, compelling, and beautiful work. I\'d be happy to see Uelsmann sell work for the same prices that Lik claims to get...
Croce wrote:
I\'m gone you and your puritans please do as you will.
When your argument is weak, instead call your opponent names. It will make you feel better. :-)
lukeb wrote:
Look at his site and tell me where he says or even implies anything about the voracity of the photograph?
The photograph might express voracity, but it is veracity that interests us here... ;-)
lukeb wrote:
Encontrar a alguien más para tratar de impresionar.
Oh, Google translation say to try to find someone else to impress... ;-)
Finally, (hah!), the issue of veracity (though perhaps not voracity) is always significant when it comes to photography. (Note please that I did not write that photographs must be \"true\" - I wrote that the issue of veracity is important.)
While those who think about photography and photographs and perception don\'t question the fact that the photograph can never be wholly truthful, virtually all observers begin their consideration of a photograph by asking what the photograph \"captures.\" By definition (virtually) all photographs begin with real things in the real world, and the majority of photographs we see attempt to offer some truth about those real things.
To suggest that the issue of \"truth\" isn\'t an issue in a photograph is incredibly naive or perhaps intentionally misleading. Take Jerry Eulsmann\'s wonderful and fantastic black and white photographs, for example. They are fantastical manipulations of real photographs (done in the darkroom, for those who aren\'t familiar with them), and they create a world far more imaginative and \"unreal\" than anything that we have considered here. They are beautiful and compelling and mystical photographs.
A few things:
1. No one complains that Uelsmann\'s photographs \"aren\'t real\" or that he \"manipulates\" the photographs - yet his manipulations are inherently obvious to anyone. (Lik\'s seem obvious to photographers, but might the overlooked by members of \"the public,\" especially if they read his explanation.) Why? Because Uelsmann\'s work has complete integrity - the photographs are exactly what the photographs are and there is no need to mislead the viewer. They are \"believable\" (he made them just the way you think he did) and honest and work without any attempt to puff them up into something other than what they are. (The point: manipulation is not wrong.)
2. Yet, the photographic connection to the \"real,\" in the form of the use of images that were originally \"captured\" photographically is critical to making Uelsmann\'s photographs work. One could paint the images that Uelsmann created photographically, but the effect would be entirely different because of how we respond differently to a photograph and our underlying assumption that it began with real things and real people. (The point: the connection that photography has to the \"real\" is not irrelevant.)
3. Unless the point of one\'s art is to mislead viewers - in other words, it is some sort of \"conceptual art\" project about fooling people - there is a problem when the photographer abuses the trust of viewers who assume that the unreal thing must be an extraordinary example of the \"real\" by making up an exciting story that appears to intentionally mislead them into accepting the untruth as truth. It is doubly a problem when the value of the \"photograph\" comes largely from the (falsely created) impression that it captures one of the most powerful and real experience that a person might have. (The point: When an artists claims to know and portray special truths, honesty and integrity are important.)
All of this is my wordy attempt to (yet again) try to make the point about truthfulness and integrity and honesty - things that are usually thought to be core values of art.
For the record, I have absolutely nothing at all against artists who make money from their work. I think this is a good thing, and I would love to see more excellent photographers in all photographic genres profit from their genuine, compelling, and beautiful work. I\'d be happy to see Uelsmann sell work for the same prices that Lik claims to get...
Croce wrote:
I\'m gone you and your puritans please do as you will.
When your argument is weak, instead call your opponent names. It will make you feel better. :-)
lukeb wrote:
Look at his site and tell me where he says or even implies anything about the voracity of the photograph?
The photograph might express voracity, but it is veracity that interests us here... ;-)
lukeb wrote:
Encontrar a alguien más para tratar de impresionar.
Oh, try to find someone else to impress... ;-)
Finally, (hah!), the issue of veracity (though perhaps not voracity) is always significant when it comes to photography. (Note please that I did not write that photographs must be \"true\" - I wrote that the issue of veracity is important.)
While those who think about photography and photographs and perception don\'t question the fact that the photograph can never be wholly truthful, virtually all observers begin their consideration of a photograph by asking what the photograph \"captures.\" By definition (virtually) all photographs begin with real things in the real world, and the majority of photographs we see attempt to offer some truth about those real things.
To suggest that the issue of \"truth\" isn\'t an issue in a photograph is incredibly naive or perhaps intentionally misleading. Take Jerry Eulsmann\'s wonderful and fantastic black and white photographs, for example. They are fantastical manipulations of real photographs (done in the darkroom, for those who aren\'t familiar with them), and they create a world far more imaginative and \"unreal\" than anything that we have considered here. They are beautiful and compelling and mystical photographs.
A few things:
1. No one complains that Uelsmann\'s photographs \"aren\'t real\" or that he \"manipulates\" the photographs - yet his manipulations are inherently obvious to anyone. (Lik\'s seem obvious to photographers, but might the overlooked by members of \"the public,\" especially if they read his explanation.) Why? Because Uelsmann\'s work has complete integrity - the photographs are exactly what the photographs are and there is no need to mislead the viewer. They are \"believable\" (he made them just the way you think he did) and honest and work without any attempt to puff them up into something other than what they are. (The point: manipulation is not wrong.)
2. Yet, the photographic connection to the \"real,\" in the form of the use of images that were originally \"captured\" photographically is critical to making Uelsmann\'s photographs work. One could paint the images that Uelsmann created photographically, but the effect would be entirely different because of how we respond differently to a photograph and our underlying assumption that it began with real things and real people. (The point: the connection that photography has to the \"real\" is not irrelevant.)
3. Unless the point of one\'s art is to mislead viewers - in other words, it is some sort of \"conceptual art\" project about fooling people - there is a problem when the photographer abuses the trust of viewers who assume that the unreal thing must be an extraordinary example of the \"real\" by making up an exciting story that appears to intentionally mislead them into accepting the untruth as truth. It is doubly a problem when the value of the \"photograph\" comes largely from the (falsely created) impression that it captures one of the most powerful and real experience that a person might have. (The point: When an artists claims to know and portray special truths, honesty and integrity are important.)
All of this is my wordy attempt to (yet again) try to make the point about truthfulness and integrity and honesty - things that are usually thought to be core values of art.
For the record, I have absolutely nothing at all against artists who make money from their work. I think this is a good thing, and I would love to see more excellent photographers in all photographic genres profit from their genuine, compelling, and beautiful work. I\'d be happy to see Uelsmann sell work for the same prices that Lik claims to get...
Croce wrote:
I\'m gone you and your puritans please do as you will.
When your argument is weak, instead call your opponent names. It will make you feel better. :-)
lukeb wrote:
Look at his site and tell me where he says or even implies anything about the voracity of the photograph?
The photograph might express voracity, but it is veracity that interests us here... ;-)
lukeb wrote:
Encontrar a alguien más para tratar de impresionar.
Oh, try to find someone else to impress...
Finally, (hah!), the issue of veracity (though perhaps not voracity) is always significant when it comes to photography. (Note please that I did not write that photographs must be \"true\" - I wrote that the issue of veracity is important.)
While those who think about photography and photographs and perception don\'t question the fact that the photograph can never be wholly truthful, virtually all observers begin their consideration of a photograph by asking what the photograph \"captures.\" By definition (virtually) all photographs begin with real things in the real world, and the majority of photographs we see attempt to offer some truth about those real things.
To suggest that the issue of \"truth\" isn\'t an issue in a photograph is incredibly naive or perhaps intentionally misleading. Take Jerry Eulsmann\'s wonderful and fantastic black and white photographs, for example. They are fantastical manipulations of real photographs (done in the darkroom, for those who aren\'t familiar with them), and they create a world far more imaginative and \"unreal\" than anything that we have considered here. They are beautiful and compelling and mystical photographs.
A few things:
1. No one complains that Uelsmann\'s photographs \"aren\'t real\" or that he \"manipulates\" the photographs - yet his manipulations are inherently obvious to anyone. (Lik\'s seem obvious to photographers, but might the overlooked by members of \"the public,\" especially if they read his explanation.) Why? Because Uelsmann\'s work has complete integrity - the photographs are exactly what the photographs are and there is no need to mislead the viewer. They are \"believable\" (he made them just the way you think he did) and honest and work without any attempt to puff them up into something other than what they are. (The point: manipulation is not wrong.)
2. Yet, the photographic connection to the \"real,\" in the form of the use of images that were originally \"captured\" photographically is critical to making Uelsmann\'s photographs work. One could paint the images that Uelsmann created photographically, but the effect would be entirely different because of how we respond differently to a photograph and our underlying assumption that it began with real things and real people. (The point: the connection that photography has to the \"real\" is not irrelevant.)
3. Unless the point of one\'s art is to mislead viewers - in other words, it is some sort of \"conceptual art\" project about fooling people - there is a problem when the photographer abuses the trust of viewers who assume that the unreal thing must be an extraordinary example of the \"real\" by making up an exciting story that appears to intentionally mislead them into accepting the untruth as truth. It is doubly a problem when the value of the \"photograph\" comes largely from the (falsely created) impression that it captures one of the most powerful and real experience that a person might have. (The point: When an artists claims to know and portray special truths, honesty and integrity are important.)
All of this is my wordy attempt to (yet again) try to make the point about truthfulness and integrity and honesty - things that are usually thought to be core values of art.
For the record, I have absolutely nothing at all against artists who make money from their work. I think this is a good thing, and I would love to see more excellent photographers in all photographic genres profit from their genuine, compelling, and beautiful work. I\'d be happy to see Uelsmann sell work for the same prices that Lik claims to get...
Croce wrote:
I\'m gone you and your puritans please do as you will.
When your argument is weak, instead call your opponent names. It will make you feel better. :-)
lukeb wrote:
Look at his site and tell me where he says or even implies anything about the voracity of the photograph?
The photograph might express voracity, but it is veracity that interests us here... ;-)
lukeb wrote:
Encontrar a alguien más para tratar de impresionar.
Oh, try to find someone else to impress...
Finally, (hah!), the issue of veracity (though perhaps not voracity) is always significant when it comes to photography. (Note please that I did not write that photographs must be \"true\" - I wrote that the issue of veracity is important.)
While those who think about photography and photographs and perception don\'t question the fact that the photograph can never be wholly truthful, virtually all observers begin their consideration of a photograph by asking what the photograph \"captures.\" By definition (virtually) all photographs begin with real things in the real world, and the majority of photographs we see attempt to offer some truth about those real things.
To suggest that the issue of \"truth\" isn\'t an issue in a photograph is incredibly naive or perhaps intentionally misleading. Take Jerry Eulsmann\'s wonderful and fantastic black and white photographs, for example. They are fantastical manipulations of real photographs (done in the darkroom, for those who aren\'t familiar with them), and they create a world far more imaginative and \"unreal\" than anything that we have considered here. They are beautiful and compelling and mystical photographs.
A few things:
1. No one complains that Uelsmann\'s photographs \"aren\'t real\" or that he \"manipulates\" the photographs - yet his manipulations are inherently obvious to anyone. (Lik\'s seem obvious to photographers, but might the overlooked by members of \"the public,\" especially if they read his explanation.) Why? Because Uelsmann\'s work has complete integrity - the photographs are exactly what the photographs are and there is no need to mislead the viewer. They are \"believable\" (he made them just the way you think he did) and honest and work without any attempt to puff them up into something other than what they are. (The point: manipulation is not wrong.)
2. Yet, the photographic connection to the \"real,\" in the form of the use of images that were originally \"captured\" photographically is critical to making Uelsmann\'s photographs work. One could paint the images that Uelsmann created photographically, but the effect would be entirely different because of how we respond differently to a photograph and our underlying assumption that it began with real things and real people. (The point: the connection that photography has to the \"real\" is not irrelevant.)
3. Unless the point of one\'s art is to mislead viewers - in other words, it is some sort of \"conceptual art\" project about fooling people - there is a problem when the photographer abuses the trust of viewers who assume that the unreal thing must be an extraordinary example of the \"real\" by making up an exciting story that appears to intentionally mislead them into accepting the untruth as truth. It is doubly a problem when the value of the \"photograph\" comes largely from the (falsely created) impression that it captures one of the most powerful and real experience that a person might have. (The point: When an artists claims to know and portray special truths, honesty and integrity are important.)
All of this is my wordy attempt to (yet again) try to make the point about truthfulness and integrity and honesty - things that are usually thought to be core values of art.
For the record, I have absolutely nothing at all against artists who make money from their work. I think this is a good thing, and I would love to see more excellent photographers in all photographic genres profit from their genuine, compelling, and beautiful work.
Croce wrote:
I\'m gone you and your puritans please do as you will.
When your argument is weak, instead call your opponent names. It will make you feel better. :-)
lukeb wrote:
Look at his site and tell me where he says or even implies anything about the voracity of the photograph?
The photograph might express voracity, but it is veracity that interests us here... ;-)
lukeb wrote:
Encontrar a alguien más para tratar de impresionar.
Oh, try to find someone else to impress...
Finally, (hah!), the issue of veracity (though perhaps not voracity) is always significant when it comes to photography. (Note please that I did not write that photographs must be \"true\" - I wrote that the issue of veracity is important.)
While those who think about photography and photographs and perception don\'t question the fact that the photograph can never be wholly truthful, virtually all observers begin their consideration of a photograph by asking what the photograph \"captures.\" By definition (virtually) all photographs begin with real things in the real world, and the majority of photographs we see attempt to offer some truth about those real things.
To suggest that the issue of \"truth\" isn\'t an issue in a photograph is incredibly naive or perhaps intentionally misleading. Take Jerry Eulsmann\'s wonderful and fantastic black and white photographs, for example. They are fantastical manipulations of real photographs (done in the darkroom, for those who aren\'t familiar with them), and they create a world far more imaginative and \"unreal\" than anything that we have considered here. They are beautiful and compelling and mystical photographs.
A few things:
1. No one complains that Uelsmann\'s photographs \"aren\'t real\" or that he \"manipulates\" the photographs - yet his manipulations are inherently obvious to anyone. (Liks seems obvious to photographers, but might the overlooked by \"the public.\") Why? Because Uelsmann\'s work has complete integrity - the photographs are exactly what the photographs are and there is no need to mislead the viewer. They are \"believable\" (he made them just the way you think he did) and honest and work without any attempt to puff them up into something other than what they are. (The point: manipulation is not wrong.)
2. Yet, the photographic connection to the \"real,\" in the form of the use of images that were originally \"captured\" photographically is critical to making Uelsmann\'s photographs work. One could paint the images that Uelsmann created photographically, but the effect would be entirely different because of how we respond differently to a photograph and our underlying assumption that it began with real things and real people. (The point: the connection that photography has to the \"real\" is not irrelevant.)
3. Unless the point of one\'s art is to mislead viewers - in other words, it is some sort of \"conceptual art\" project about fooling people - there is a problem when the photographer abuses the trust of viewers who assume that the unreal thing must be an extraordinary example of the \"real\" by making up an exciting story that appears to intentionally mislead them into accepting the untruth as truth. It is doubly a problem when the value of the \"photograph\" comes largely from the (falsely created) impression that it captures one of the most powerful and real experience that a person might have. (The point: When an artists claims to know and portray special truths, honesty and integrity are important.)
All of this is my wordy attempt to (yet again) try to make the point about truthfulness and integrity and honesty - things that are usually thought to be core values of art.
For the record, I have absolutely nothing at all against artists who make money from their work. I think this is a good thing, and I would love to see more excellent photographers in all photographic genres profit from their genuine, compelling, and beautiful work.
Croce wrote:
I\'m gone you and your puritans please do as you will.
When your argument is weak, instead call your opponent names. It will make you feel better. :-)
lukeb wrote:
Look at his site and tell me where he says or even implies anything about the voracity of the photograph?
The photograph might express voracity, but it is veracity that interests us here... ;-)
lukeb wrote:
Encontrar a alguien más para tratar de impresionar.
Oh, try to find someone else to impress...
Finally, (hah!), the issue of veracity (though perhaps not voracity) is always significant when it comes to photography. (Note please that I did not write that photographs must be \"true\" - I wrote that the issue of veracity is important.)
While those who think about photography and photographs and perception don\'t question the fact that the photograph can never be wholly truthful, virtually all observers begin their consideration of a photograph by asking what the photograph \"captures.\" By definition (virtually) all photographs begin with real things in the real world, and the majority of photographs we see attempt to offer some truth about those real things.
To suggest that the issue of \"truth\" isn\'t an issue in a photograph is incredibly naive or perhaps intentionally misleading. Take Jerry Eulsmann\'s wonderful and fantastic black and white photographs, for example. They are fantastical manipulations of real photographs (done in the darkroom, for those who aren\'t familiar with them), and they create a world far more imaginative and \"unreal\" than anything that we have considered here. They are beautiful and compelling and mystical photographs.
A few things:
1. No one complains that Uelsmann\'s photographs \"aren\'t real\" or that he \"manipulates\" the photographs - yet his manipulations are inherently obvious to anyone. (Liks seems obvious to photographers, but might the overlooked by \"the public.\") Why? Because Uelsmann\'s work has complete integrity - the photographs are exactly what the photographs are and there is no need to mislead the viewer. They are \"believable\" (he made them just the way you think he did) and honest and work without any attempt to puff them up into something other than what they are.
2. Yet, the photographic connection to the \"real,\" in the form of the use of images that were originally \"captured\" photographically is critical to making Uelsmann\'s photographs work. One could paint the images that Uelsmann created photographically, but the effect would be entirely different because of how we respond differently to a photograph and our underlying assumption that it began with real things and real people.
3. Unless the point of one\'s art is to mislead viewers - in other words, it is some sort of \"conceptual art\" project about fooling people - there is a problem when the photographer abuses the trust of viewers who assume that the unreal thing must be an extraordinary example of the \"real\" by making up an exciting story that appears to intentionally mislead them into accepting the untruth as truth. It is doubly a problem when the value of the \"photograph\" comes largely from the (falsely created) impression that it captures one of the most powerful and real experience that a person might have.
All of this is my wordy attempt to (yet again) try to make the point about truthfulness and integrity and honesty - things that are usually thought to be core values of art.
For the record, I have absolutely nothing at all against artists who make money from their work. I think this is a good thing, and I would love to see more excellent photographers in all photographic genres profit from their genuine, compelling, and beautiful work.
