birds
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 8 Jul 2010 20:42 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >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. So you can't argue with what I've said, and instead have to claim that the truth is just an insult. Note that whatever insult there is, is not gratuitous. It's exactly what you earned with what you've said. The truth may not be nice, but it is still the truth. In your other article you actually had the audacity to claim that art that you don't like isn't even art! Who's the "piece of work" John? -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 8 Jul 2010 20:55 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >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. So if you don't find it to be pleasing, it isn't even art eh? WRONG! It may or may not be "good" art in your opinion, but the idea that *you* are qualified to decide that something (and indeed, something as highly artistic and widely acclaimed as the bird photography in question) is *not* art is just absurd! >Your insulting and disparaging style indicates things that I'm too >polite to mention. You really are a piece of work. Repeating your mantra looking for sympathy because you've been backed into a logical corner that any 12 year old will recognize isn't going to improve your position. Arguing with false statements that disparage someone who's out debating you is dishonest. You've repeatedly done that John, and it is clear enough that you simply lack integrity. Keep in mind that *you* brought it up, not me. Your comments lead to the resulting statements of *truth* that you consider to be "insulting and disparaging"; but none of my commentary has been gratuitous. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Nervous Nick on 8 Jul 2010 21:02 On Jul 8, 11:10 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-08 08:26:57 -0700, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> said: > > > On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:24:56 +0100, in > > <soCdneCC94ZVcKjRnZ2dnUVZ8qWdn...(a)brightview.co.uk>, bugbear > > <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: > > >> John Navas wrote: > >>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:31:18 -0700 (PDT), in > >>> <6c81b637-16dd-4a90-9a66-13563acef...(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, Val > >>> Hallah <michaelnewp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1293029/Birds-Andre.... > > Amazing > > > > >>> images, but a bit garish for my taste, more science than art. > > >> What's interesting (to me) is that even the web-size versions > >> of the images in the linked-to page look noticeably sharp and crisp. > > > Yes, but artificially so (to my eyes at least). > > To me these seem more like illustration than photograph, very much > along the lines of a Roger Tory Peterson, or Sibley Field Guide. I agree. If nothing more, these photos serve very well as documentary images. -- YOP...
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 21:26 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:42:33 -0800, in <87hbk9pjt2.fld(a)apaflo.com>, floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: >John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>Your insulting and disparaging style indicates things that I'm too >>polite to mention. You really are a piece of work. > >So you can't argue with what I've said, and instead have >to claim that the truth is just an insult. ... How childish. Why do you act like an 8 year old? Your continued insults only serve to make you look worse. Grow up. -- John "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 21:27
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:55:26 -0800, in <87d3uxpj7l.fld(a)apaflo.com>, floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: >John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>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. > >So if you don't find it to be pleasing, it isn't even >art eh? > >WRONG! One last time: 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 "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman |