Re: [APML] Skill [was: Foveon Chip]

[stephen pitt <lthuedk@pe.net>]

Tom & Lou Krajci wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "stephen pitt" <lthuedk@pe.net>
> To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 2:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [APML] Skill [was: Foveon Chip]
>
> > If one were limited to achromatic, manually-guided results but employed
> cutting
> > edge software manipulations, he could still produce solid compositions for
> > himself.  But beyond that point..............
>
> >...Can astrophotography be artistic? Yes.  Art in the Fine sense?
> Absolutely not.............
>
> Sigh.  This is one of the reasons why I lean toward amateur science.  I can
> quantify my results when I do photometry.  (See:
> http://overton.tamu.edu/aset/krajci/ for some photometry examples.)  Culture
> and value-laden terms in 'Fine Art' discussions and other chaff are
> separated from the wheat...so to speak.

Point taken, and by your example I might liken my amateur interests.  I could
never presume my astrophotography to be anything but an amateurs' interest.

>

>
>
> While this all may be great fodder for endless discussion, and perhaps even
> degree awarding in some academic circles...I'm bowing out.  Why?  It's clear
> outside, and there are several target stars I want to make photometric
> measurements on.
>
> By any chance...were you one of the judges at last night's Olympic Pairs
> Figure Skating medal event?  ;-)

Now, I know you missed my point.  I was aghast at the blatant favoritism shown
the Russians at the expense of the finest choreography I've ever seen on ice.
Had I been part of the Russian team, I would have given-rather forcefully-my
gold to the Canadians.  In the alternative, my head would have hung in disgrace,
as the Russians' clearly demonstrated.

>
>
> >...There has always been controversy concerning photography as an artform.
> Usually
> > though, it originates from the side lacking experience in Fine Art.
>
> Whatever that is.  (I know...his response will be, as the Red Hot Chili
> Peppers sang:  "If you have to ask, you'll never know!"  ;-)

Well, I'm impressed by your open-mindedness, but it actually required years of
studio work, before which, I never knew the differences; that levels of art do
exist.  That's why the terms, "high art, pop art, illustrative art" exist.  For
example, the story-telling aspect of the illustration, and why it can never be
Fine Art, even though some of the elements of FA are used in its creation.

At the very top of the 2-d heap, resides the line drawing.  This simple Fine Art
form has been regarded as the most refined and truthful statement an artist can
make-particularly, when done all-at-once (alla prima).

I continue to evolve, but I know the distinctions earlier stated.   My
understanding of the limitations in general photography comes from experience in
both disciplines.  Photography is challenging, fun, technical, and somewhat
monetarily fruitful, but is artistically stifling.  Hardly is this interest of
any controversey to me.

>
>
> Tom Krajci
>
> PS.  As someone else's email signature line says:  Eschew obfuscation!  ;-)

Fine Art hides nothing.  Stephen Pitt

>
>
> --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>




--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>