Science for the Curious Photographer

[toyfel]

Food for thought ......

(Do not read if you are a real artist and hate the idea of trying to explain art with science 🙂)


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/art1.shtml

 

[rbiemer]

Hmm, I need to go back and read all of it--got to head off to work now--but looks interesting at least.
Rob

 

[Chris101]

Didn't Ken Rockwell do the same lecture with his 7 levels of photographers, but without the psychobabble, I mean pseudo-academic trappings?

 

[pmun]

''this is my provisional definition of visual art: Visual art is a human creation that causes pleasure, and by the aesthetic judgment of the human mind it is somehow beautiful or at least stimulating. If this is too general for the photographer, just think of two dimensional, framed images that contain either patterns or representations of the world.''

This isn't just too general for the photographer, it is just too general. It includes people's children, apple computers, cars and a whole host of other things that people wouldn't consider 'visual art'. It's very difficult to define art, but this is poor attempt.

 

[amateriat]

Must be something in the air this week: I came across this earlier today, and the subject isn't all that tangential from the LL piece.


- Barrett

 

[pvdhaar]

Food for thought ......

(Do not read if you are a real artist and hate the idea of trying to explain art with science 🙂)

...

Boy, am I glad you warned me not to read it.. 😀

 

[Matus]

As a "true artist" I did not even read this thread 😉