Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!

[Ray]

And whose to say the that those other photographers didn't have a different artistic vision to Jonathen.  Who are you to say what IS and ISN'T art?  And this really is the crux of this argument.  Art is like postmodernism.  There are, apparantly, no objective truths.  It's all in the interpretation.  Macro photography is just as much art as is any piece of pompuos rubbish you "artists" could come up with.  Clearly ones equipment helps one to portray meaning in ones images.  How much equipment means to one "artist" has no bearing on how much it means to another artist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't see that that's particularly relevant to the discussion.  Whose opinion carries more weight with regard to what is and what isn't art, is another matter entirely. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

As far as I can see, the artistic merit and worth of a work of art has little relevance to the sophistication of the tools used, otherwise we would have a general progression of artistic worth from ancient history to the modern day, with 30,000 year old cave paintings being regarded as total crap and Michael's P45 images (or other photographer's P45 images) at the top of the heap being regarded as the pinnacle of artistic achievement.

If you disagree, then I can only presume that, as regards art, you think that the more modern the art is, the better it is. You're entitled to that opinion.

[bernie west]

If you disagree, then I can only presume that, as regards art, you think that the more modern the art is, the better it is. You're entitled to that opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The point is that it doesn't really matter what I (or you) think (in terms of what is and isn't art).  What matters is who is viewing the art, and their interpretation of it.  Different viewers will have different interpretations.  

I think you might be right about drifting off topic, but to be honest, I can't remember what it is that we are arguing about.

[Ray]

The original capture has significant detail in the shadows, which I deliberately pulled down to accentuate the sense of the castle tower "floating" over a void.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A pile of heavy stones floating!!?? What were you thinking of? You know that heavy stones don't float.

Ah! Artistic license... just like Ken's verbal rendition of a subject titled, "The Camera Dosen't Matter".

[Nick Rains]

A pile of heavy stones floating!!?? What were you thinking of? You know that heavy stones don't float.

Ah! Artistic license... just like Ken's verbal rendition of a subject titled, "The Camera Dosen't Matter".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187854\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This would have to be a severe case of 'lastworditis'

[Ray]

I think you might be right about drifting off topic, but to be honest, I can't remember what it is that we are arguing about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187841\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We're discussing whether or not the sophistication of the tool used significantly contributes to the artistic merit, worth, ultimate price, whatever, of the intentional work of art.

The intransitive verb, 'to matter' means to be important. The opposite, 'to not matter', therefore means to not be important. It doesn't necessarily mean to have no relevance whatsoever.

If Ken has conveyed the idea that the camera has no relevance whatsoever to the photographic result, then he has simply got carried away with his own rhetoric, perhaps a bit like Jonathan with his floating stones.

[Ray]

This would have to be a severe case of 'lastworditis'
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187859\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You mean my point might finally have got home?  

[bernie west]

We're discussing whether or not the sophistication of the tool used significantly contributes to the artistic merit, worth, ultimate price, whatever, of the intentional work of art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now that I am home and have got a grip on myself, it's all coming back to me.  See, earlier I was at work, and had to maintain the pretense that I was actually working, so couldn't give this discussion the attention it deserves

Anyway, i see the OP said this:

What it IS asking/saying is..."Does a technical (or material..ie..more 'expensive) improvement correlate to an aesthetic /artistic improvement".

Aesthetic/Artistic.... either, or both?  I would say that aesthetics while also open to a fair amount of subjectivity is possibly more concrete than art.  Most people give a little "wow" at an impressive sunset, or mountain vista, or whatever.  Rarely would you find someone looking at a colourful sunset say "ho-hum, not beautiful".  It may not be the best sunset a person has ever seen, but most people would acknowledge the inherent beauty in a bright colourful sunset.  Now, photographed as a piece of art, well that might be a different story.

So what I am saying is if we are talking about "art" alone, then this is a different species than aesthetic, or documentary, or scientific imagery.  And infact, I so strongly believe that a good chunk of the art industry is a total wank, that I would almost agree that to produce some of the shite that passes for art, technical excellence of equipment probably often doesn't really matter.

[Nick Rains]

And infact, I so strongly believe that a good chunk of the art industry is a total wank, that I would almost agree that to produce some of the shite that passes for art, technical excellence of equipment probably often doesn't really matter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL, I've been wanting to say this but wasn't brave enough! Good on you.

[Ray]

And infact, I so strongly believe that a good chunk of the art industry is a total wank, that I would almost agree that to produce some of the shite that passes for art, technical excellence of equipment probably often doesn't really matter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In reply to that, Bernie West, I'm going to quote your own previous rhetorical question in this thread.

Who are you to say what IS and ISN'T art?

[bernie west]

In reply to that, Bernie West, I'm going to quote your own previous rhetorical question in this thread.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dammit!

[bernie west]

In reply to that, Bernie West, I'm going to quote your own previous rhetorical question in this thread.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ok, i think i've found an out on this one   Whilst I am obviously opinionated about what is art, in this case I am accepting that certain shite when displayed in a gallery say, is considered art by someone, perhaps even by someone in the "know".  In that case, I am starting from the premise that something IS art, and I personally find it shite.  Either way, what many people might consider art could be often be produced with any old equipment, but more pertinently, with very little technical skill.

How was that for a backtrack?

[bernie west]

LOL, I've been wanting to say this but wasn't brave enough! Good on you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187869\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

us Aussies sometimes just have to tell it like it is  

Having said that, I do respect everyones right to determine what is art to them, and what it does for them.

[Slough]

Relax Colonel Klink..it's only my opinion. I never said it was simple...just that anyone can learn to do it. I dont decide what is art...but if you can't recognise that art exists independant of ones tastes or opinions...then I'm sorry it is you who are the fool...and a bore... and a hack (so there! nyah nyah nan nan nyah) and I wished you started ignoring me a long time ago.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're a hard person to ignore. But it is worth making the effort.

And I don't think Colonel Clink is an appropriate term to use. Jonathan clearly has far more balls than you will ever have.  I might not agree with the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, but I do admire those with the guts to contribute to sorting it out. Unlike a loud mouth such as yourself.

[Slough]

Andrew Rodney has a delightful expression - "Polishing a turd"'.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 

[Slough]

Words have objective meanings, something which images don't.  Images need to be interpreted far more than words do.  Yet another poor argument....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quite the opposite. I photograph fungi in order to show people what each species looks like. A picture can convey the texture of a cap, or a stem, far more eloquently and accurately than words.  

Of course there are also concepts and ideas that can be conveyed better with words.

[Slough]

We're discussing whether or not the sophistication of the tool used significantly contributes to the artistic merit, worth, ultimate price, whatever, of the intentional work of art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well actually no we're not. Art does not really enter into it. The thread title says it all. I do not consider my photography to be art, rather it is a craft, and the merit does depend in part on the tools used. Of course some photography is art, though precious little in my opinion, and I cannot pretend to speak about such photography, as I have no relevant experience.

The intransitive verb, 'to matter' means to be important. The opposite, 'to not matter', therefore means to not be important. It doesn't necessarily mean to have no relevance whatsoever.

If Ken has conveyed the idea that the camera has no relevance whatsoever to the photographic result, then he has simply got carried away with his own rhetoric, perhaps a bit like Jonathan with his floating stones.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Carried away? The entire content and thrust of Ken's article is that the camera makes no difference whatsoever to the quality of the image. He has made statements to that effect throughout his article.

[Slough]

In Crime,Scenes,X-Rays, Australian Wildlife (lol..having a laugh ;-) and  now add  Macro Buggery the camera matters....because it needs to be designed so that anyone can do it (which anyone can).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just goes to show that you are do not have a clue what you are talking about. Whether or not you like the picture I posted (that assessment is subjective) it did require considerable skill acquired over many years, and could not have been taken without specialist equipment. You really need to learn not to make sweeping statements about something of which you clearly have little or no experience and/or knowledge. Perhaps you need to learn to be more open minded and less opinionated.

[bernie west]

Quite the opposite. I photograph fungi in order to show people what each species looks like. A picture can convey the texture of a cap, or a stem, far more eloquently and accurately than words. 

Of course there are also concepts and ideas that can be conveyed better with words.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, but people may not know what your image is until you explain it to them with words.

[DarkPenguin]

So what I am saying is if we are talking about "art" alone, then this is a different species than aesthetic, or documentary, or scientific imagery.  And infact, I so strongly believe that a good chunk of the art industry is a total wank, that I would almost agree that to produce some of the shite that passes for art, technical excellence of equipment probably often doesn't really matter.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is the greatest work of art in the history of mankind ...

[a href=\"http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/05/excremental-value.html]http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/...ntal-value.html[/url]

I can't afford one or I would proudly own one.

[Slough]

Yes, but people may not know what your image is until you explain it to them with words.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The clue was in the second sentence that you quoted:

"Of course there are also concepts and ideas that can be conveyed better with words."

A name is one such concept.