wet darkroom vs. inkjet

[paulr]

Ret, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't taken an art history class, at least not in the last thirty years, and that you've studied nothing on the topic besides skimming the surface or attempting to validate your prejudices.

The opinions you're expressing echo those of the least educated and most conservative art critics from 100 years ago.

If you're interested in these issues (not just interested in annoying people here) I'm sure we could put together a reading list of some of the significant arti historical statements to this issue.

Your argument is really not with us; it's with all the art historians and major critics and curators of the last several decades. So if you want have a debate, you should at the very least familiarize yourself with the ideas of the opposition. You clearly have no idea the other side has based its argument on.

[ret wisner]

i do not want to learn art history and have not mentioned anything in relation to art history. i work in the field of camera repair .

i want to know why a inkjet can be called a photograph.
i feel that this is not a truthful description

i do not want to learn about art critics, and do not want to be one.

i am not a artist but a camera repair man. the reason for this is that as you mentioned i do not understand the meaning of art/ego

[paulr]

i do not want to learn art history and have not mentioned anything in relation to art history. i work in the field of camera repair .

i want to know why a inkjet can be called a photograph.
i feel that this is not a truthful description

i do not want to learn about art critics, and do not want to be one.

Ret, the points you're arguing fall under the fields of art, art criticism, art history, and the philosophy of art.

But now you claim to have no interest in these issues.

If you have no interest in the isues, then why are you arguing about them (and doing so with people who have studied them)?

Do you really not understand why your approach annoys people?

[Kirk Gittings]

sorry to spoli the fun everyone-Bill, good call, just what I thought too.

"ret wisner" is the repeat offender-alias Pablo Batt-alias Hans Vanguad who has been banned twice before. Same rant, same language, same jihad every time-just the name changes.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Kirk,

His short replies seem to indicate that he is a few minutes short of a perfect negative...

jim k

[Mike Anderson]

sorry to spoli the fun everyone-Bill, good call, just what I thought too.

"ret wisner" is the repeat offender-alias Pablo Batt-alias Hans Vanguad who has been banned twice before. Same rant, same language, same jihad every time-just the name changes.

Wow, he blew his cover again. Hilarious!

...Mike

[paulr]

He must be really bored.

(so must I, for responding)

[KJ Smith]

If you don't feed the Troll's, they go away.

[Bill Burk]

Ret,
I would call the work you've shown art. If your definition of art excludes photographs then I don't agree. If you don't even call it a photograph because the positive was not a light-sensitive material, then I can agree. But what you show is what it took to present in this medium, at least we got to see it. I'd rather see it as a contact print on graded double-weight gloss paper, I bet you would too. I find the watch and arch ceiling a satisfying juxtaposition of man-made curve extremes. Even if you denounce the work and say you were just goofing around, you have made something worth looking at more than once. I would call it art.

[paulr]

I think the question has shifted.
Can trolling be art?
Can going undercover as a mentally disabled person be art?