Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?  (Read 18800 times)

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #40 on: November 25, 2014, 05:32:30 pm »

Here's the thing, jjj.

I don't care what you think. If you want to go check the truth value of some side remark I made, a couple of moments with google will provide loads of evidence that I am right. Page after page after page of "We asked so and so artists why they do it and they said..." with not one of the artists saying "to create a legacy" or anything equivalent.

Since you are too lazy to even bother with that, you obviously don't care whether what I say is true or not.

What you CARE about is winning an argument on the internet.

I don't. I don't care what you think, or what you believe. Go ahead, you win. Go collect your trophy, and the cash prize that goes with making snotty remarks on the internet.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #41 on: November 26, 2014, 06:31:23 pm »

"Surrealism lies at the heart of the photographic enterprise: in the very creation of a duplicate world, of a reality in the second degree, narrower but more dramatic than the one perceived by natural vision."  

I  think the definition needs to be that of "surrealism" rather than photography.  The root of the word is "sur" (beyond) "realism", and I think it is this precise definition, rather than an art movement, that Sontag refers to.

amolitor surely meant the art movement, when he wrote "Given that HCB was a surrealist…"


IMO, one cannot accurately consider photography to be realistic.

I take it you're referring to Reality not Realism :-)

Let's go further and agree with Gerhard Richter --

"I don't mistrust reality, of which I know next to nothing. I mistrust the picture of reality conveyed to us by our senses, which is imperfect and circumscribed. Our eyes have evolved for survival purposes. The fact that they can also see stars is pure accident."
« Last Edit: November 26, 2014, 07:04:31 pm by Isaac »
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #42 on: November 27, 2014, 03:45:04 am »

Here's the thing, jjj.

I don't care what you think. If you want to go check the truth value of some side remark I made, a couple of moments with google will provide loads of evidence that I am right. Page after page after page of "We asked so and so artists why they do it and they said..." with not one of the artists saying "to create a legacy" or anything equivalent.

Since you are too lazy to even bother with that, you obviously don't care whether what I say is true or not.

What you CARE about is winning an argument on the internet.

I don't. I don't care what you think, or what you believe. Go ahead, you win. Go collect your trophy, and the cash prize that goes with making snotty remarks on the internet.

I think you need to tuck your defensiveness back in your pants and stay with the conversation.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #43 on: November 27, 2014, 08:37:15 am »

I do not. jjj has been slapped down and now we can move on.
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #44 on: November 27, 2014, 11:54:56 am »

I think you need to tuck your defensiveness back in your pants and stay with the conversation.
Perhaps I should have said "Offensiveness".  The more you rant, the more offensive you become; jjj much less so.  So why don't you take it to the woodshed and let the adults continue  the conversation?
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2014, 12:56:36 pm »

Do you plan to reprimand jjj who a) started it with an obvious troll and b) followed up by cursing at me? Among other sins already mentioned.

Or is it pretty much just me you're not friends with?
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #46 on: November 27, 2014, 01:55:18 pm »

…stay with the conversation.

Don't feed trolls. Feed the conversation.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #47 on: November 28, 2014, 02:40:53 pm »

I think trying to comb the idea of the surreal apart from the art movement is an error in this case. HCB was surely sophisticated enough to not be a slavish devotee of a specific group of people, but was surely open minded and creative enough to be influenced by their take on an underlyng ideas and to make something new of them (both the ideas and the influences).

Photography, especially as pursued by HCB, is a radically different medium from, say, painting. The methods of the surrealist painters would have been almost useless to him.

ETA: That said, when I say "HCB was a surrealist" I mean rather more than "HCB was a photographer and photographers are surrealists"

I mean that HCB enjoyed a good visual joke, a peculiar juxtaposition of objects in the frame, random-seeming echoed shapes and lines. This leans more in the direction of "surrealist art movement" than in the direction of "photos are 'beyond-real'".

« Last Edit: November 28, 2014, 02:52:30 pm by amolitor »
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #48 on: December 18, 2014, 10:32:51 am »

I do not. jjj has been slapped down and now we can move on.

No, you ranted. Not the same thing at all.

Do you plan to reprimand jjj who started it with an obvious troll
Someone not agreeing with your assertions is not a troll, they simply have a difference of opinion. You need to chill out out and stop confusing your opinion with facts.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #49 on: December 18, 2014, 11:04:37 am »

Here's the thing, jjj.

I don't care what you think. If you want to go check the truth value of some side remark I made, a couple of moments with google will provide loads of evidence that I am right. Page after page after page of "We asked so and so artists why they do it and they said..." with not one of the artists saying "to create a legacy" or anything equivalent.

Since you are too lazy to even bother with that, you obviously don't care whether what I say is true or not.
Really? So where's the link to this 'proof' of what you think is the case. I don't know what you googled to prove a negative. Which is in fact rather difficult to do.  :-\
Here's a thing, people create art for a whole host of reasons, some of which won't be to create a legacy, some will. Also there may be multiple reasons why people create art. But I very much doubt any of them will be producing art and not hoping others appreciate their work, even after they've gone. The thing about creating stuff that others like, is that it is a way of being remembered/gaining a sort of immortality. This way you do not simply disappear once friends and grandkids die.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #50 on: December 18, 2014, 12:55:38 pm »

Luckily for me, I said:

"The number of artists who did it mainly for fame, for immortality, for a legacy is.. pretty small."

rather than "there are no artists ..." and I have given you a method for proving what I actually said in literally a matter of seconds. And yet you continue to contest it, pointlessly.

You are a mere coup-counter, unwilling to either admit defeat or simply, gracefully, let your humiliation fade quietly away.


Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #51 on: December 18, 2014, 01:13:30 pm »

the adults

I believe you are able to lock a discussion you start…
Logged

mezzoduomo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #52 on: December 18, 2014, 08:55:39 pm »

I believe you are able to lock a discussion you start…

I thought this was the case.
Isaac: Do you know how this is done? I can't seem to find the method.
Thx.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #53 on: December 18, 2014, 09:45:19 pm »

If you started the topic you should find a Lock link in the bottom left corner.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #54 on: December 22, 2014, 06:34:50 am »

Luckily for me, I said:

"The number of artists who did it mainly for fame, for immortality, for a legacy is.. pretty small."

rather than "there are no artists ..." and I have given you a method for proving what I actually said in literally a matter of seconds. And yet you continue to contest it, pointlessly.

You are a mere coup-counter, unwilling to either admit defeat or simply, gracefully, let your humiliation fade quietly away.
No idea why you think I'm humiliated, just because you like to rant at me. You have a different view that all.
BTW - You haven't proved what you claimed to be the case. You did however then claim to have found proof of your previous claim, but didn't show it.
Why should I simply agree with you just because you keep claiming something, but never show any actual evidence for? It simply comes across as your viewpoint with no sign of any facts.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2014, 09:40:38 am »

I told you got to prove it yourself. You don't care to follow simple directions? I don't need to provide evidence, and you'd just dismiss it anyways since that's what trolls do.

Also, you never did respond on the point of

'Where did I tell people not to bother?'

Which was your original beef. You seem to be stuck on this side note about artist motivation, about which you are also demonstrably wrong. Classic troll move. Change the topic when you're down to be wrong. Still, I'd love to see you try to back up your original complaint. Mostly because it would be funny.
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #56 on: December 22, 2014, 09:52:12 am »

Enough, already!  I'm locking the topic.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up