birds
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 20:27 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:13:55 -0800, in <87vd8ppl4s.fld(a)apaflo.com>, floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: >I would suggest that anyone who does not see art in the >bird pictures of Andrew-Zuckermans is not an artist, but >just a photographer. His work is not "standard" >photography, but is art at a level well beyond what most >photography represents. I would suggest that's your opinion, not some universal truth. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and what is art to one person, may not be art to another person, and vice versa. -- John "Nothing is as peevish and pedantic as men's judgments of one another." -Desiderius Erasmus
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 8 Jul 2010 20:27 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:39:32 -0400, in ><4c3653e5$0$5533$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" ><peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >>news:8hob36l4a6pfmhpoppsj4gk3s4jtpn7bju(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:31:18 -0700 (PDT), in >>> <6c81b637-16dd-4a90-9a66-13563acefea6(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, Val >>> Hallah <michaelnewport(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1293029/Birds-Andrew-Zuckermans-high-definition-photographs-new-book.html >>> >>> Amazing images, but a bit garish for my taste, more science than art. >> >>I am trying to craft my comment, artfully. >> >>Science is certainly on of the uses of photography. While there may very >>well be art in a science shot, the lack of art does not make it an >>uninteresting shot. >> >>I think the shots were excellent if considered as an accurate representation >>of the birds involved. > >Fair enough, but I see them as more technical than art, because the >lighting is so flat -- I'm more attracted to natural highlights and >shadows. But your lack of artistic talent and ability to even appreciate art does not reflect at all on the art of someone like Andrew Zuckermans (a fellow who actually does have real credentials, has exhibited internationally, has written three books, and has won many awards for his art). What your comment indicates is that you don't know "art" if you see it. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 20:35 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:27:33 -0800, in <87pqyxpki2.fld(a)apaflo.com>, floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: >John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>Fair enough, but I see them as more technical than art, because the >>lighting is so flat -- I'm more attracted to natural highlights and >>shadows. > >But your lack of artistic talent and ability to even >appreciate art does not reflect at all on the art of >someone like Andrew Zuckermans (a fellow who actually >does have real credentials, has exhibited internationally, >has written three books, and has won many awards for his >art). > >What your comment indicates is that you don't know "art" >if you see it. Your insulting and disparaging style indicates things that I'm too polite to mention. You really are a piece of work. -- John "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 8 Jul 2010 20:37 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:13:55 -0800, in <87vd8ppl4s.fld(a)apaflo.com>, >floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: > >>I would suggest that anyone who does not see art in the >>bird pictures of Andrew-Zuckermans is not an artist, but >>just a photographer. His work is not "standard" >>photography, but is art at a level well beyond what most >>photography represents. > >I would suggest that's your opinion, not some universal truth. >Art is in the eye of the beholder, and what is art to one person, >may not be art to another person, and vice versa. If you'd done even a slight bit of research on just who you are talking about, you'd know that my opinion is a modest one compared to the number of awards and the long list of credentials that Andrew-Zuckermans has hanging on his wall. Name one independent source that qualifies *you* to decide what level of art Andrew-Zuckermans can create? You can't even make a half decent photograph! Andrew-Zuckermans' first book of photography is in it's forth printing since publication less tha three years ago! Frankly, your claim that it isn't "art" is hilarious; and serves only to show that you do not understand art any better than you understand photography. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 20:39
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:37:28 -0800, in <87lj9lpk1j.fld(a)apaflo.com>, floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: >John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:13:55 -0800, in <87vd8ppl4s.fld(a)apaflo.com>, >>floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: >> >>>I would suggest that anyone who does not see art in the >>>bird pictures of Andrew-Zuckermans is not an artist, but >>>just a photographer. His work is not "standard" >>>photography, but is art at a level well beyond what most >>>photography represents. >> >>I would suggest that's your opinion, not some universal truth. >>Art is in the eye of the beholder, and what is art to one person, >>may not be art to another person, and vice versa. > >If you'd done even a slight bit of research on just who >you are talking about, you'd know that my opinion is a >modest one compared to the number of awards and the long >list of credentials that Andrew-Zuckermans has hanging >on his wall. > >Name one independent source that qualifies *you* to >decide what level of art Andrew-Zuckermans can create? >You can't even make a half decent photograph! >Andrew-Zuckermans' first book of photography is in it's >forth printing since publication less tha three years >ago! > >Frankly, your claim that it isn't "art" is hilarious; >and serves only to show that you do not understand art >any better than you understand photography. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and what is art to one person, may not be art to another person, and vice versa. Your insulting and disparaging style indicates things that I'm too polite to mention. You really are a piece of work. -- John "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman |