Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/06/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Le 6 juin 11 ? 21:14, George Lottermoser a ?crit : > > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:09 PM, philippe.amard wrote: > >> With me? > > with anyone at all > >> I don't know George - this one does - photography is versatile :-) > > I agree that photography is versatile. > It seems to me so versatile within its own realm > that it need not "mimic" other visual art forms; > certainly not to the point where > one can hardly determine whether it is a "photograph" > or > a "photograph of a painting." > Did I say it looked like a painting? quoting myself : "I clicked it large, and rolled my chair a yard from the screen, as I would move in a museum before a painting I like - this photo is great Mariela :-)" I used the word painting in my simile (as I ... like), and "photo" for Mariela's contribution I think. I can't see what the isue is here, honest :-( But your question remains, co-substantial with the origins of modern (oil) painting (Hockney's theory), and later, those of photography as we know it. >> And my tastes are catholic ... > > not sure what that means. > Look at the first two senses of the word ;-) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/catholic Amiti?s Philippe > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >