Peter wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <kenthz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:us6dnb177Y-hYXfanZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Peter wrote:
>>
>>> "Roy Jose Lorr" <kenthz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:GZ6dnc2ibOv0kHTanZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>> Joel wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> And it could be hundred(s) of millions of dollars, I can't
>>>>> remember. I
>>>>> don't remember seeing the camera (?) to know how big it was, but an
>>>>> article
>>>>> and few samples. I believe it was film camera, but I may be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is not with the technology but in the way approach has
>>>> deteriorated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you complaining that once we're free of the tyranny of the
>>> expense of film, some of us are becoming more experimental in our
work?
>>
>>
>> No. I'm saying that gimmick has replaced experiment.
>
>
>
> OK, that's a fair comment. I suspect that since the first cave drawings
> appeared, some no talents have tried to replace art with "gee whiz"
> special effects. Simply because some do this, is no reason to try to
> socially ban all such attempts.
> As a prior poster pointed out, photography is often thought of strictly
> as a medium for recording a snapshot in time. According to this line,
> any manipulation is heresy. Whether and to what extent I accept
> manipulation depends upon the purpose for creating the image.
> Similarly there is a vast difference between a "I've been there"
> postcard and an artistic interpretation. If the latter includes a
> manipulation, so be it.
Art is a window to the soul, as cave paintings express so well. When
manipulation is the rule, art is soulless cartoon fantasy.
|
