I dont know what was so hard to understand about my last post. It was quite a simple statement.Quote:
And I find your standpoint hard to make out. I already described in post #29 the difference between technical and artistic macro photography, believe me, it is VAST. Technical photography aims to convey maximum objective visual information, any personal viewpoint in terms of light and shade, differential focus, departure from neutral color, etc. is absolutely taboo! Feel free to disagree, it would help if you quoted from your personal experience with visual examples.
I do disagree.
Who are you or anyone else for that matter to describe what is truly art? Art comes from the heart and is seen differntly by everyone.
As I stated ; It dosent matter how you arrive at the image, it is simply the beauty one finds in the image. I find most of Shaws work very artitic, and yes it is also very technical. So what? The beauty is in the eye of those looking upon it.
My problem lies with trying to pigeonhole what one precieves as artistic.
A US senator being aksed questions about censorship on CNN had this to say.
Question: Mr. Senator, can you describe to us what you precieve to be pornographic?
Answer: I can't describe to you in words. What I can tell you, is I know it when I see it.