Re: [Leica] image quality has nothing to do with art but photography isn't necessarily art

["Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy" <watteau@krakow.neurosoft.net>]

Hello, Kyle :)

> while photography _can_ be art, it can also not be art. and from a purely
> technical POV image quality can be quantified along the lines of correct
> exposure, printing, clarity, resolution, etc.

yes, but this is Leica Users Group, not Leica Testers Group :)

> in fact, most photographs are
> decidedly not art and never presumed to be so. there are also a large
> number of photographs which were intended to be art and are only very bad
> art.

There is also a lot of photographs assumed being an art, but not being art.

IF photography is a way to communicate / show personal point of view / whatever,
then quality does not matter as long as ideas can be communicated. Even a bad
quality photograph can be a good photography, if only enough number of 
viewers can understand information behind it. but IF photography is
a way to DESCRIBE / store information about world, as complete as it could,
then yes, quality does matter a lot, and every technical fault grabs
away a significant portion of data...
CONCLUDING: Leica users call themselves artists, but are nitpicky when
it comes to the quality. Is this shizo behaviour? Or trying to make 
Perfect Art? You decide.. :)

Best :)
- -----                                
                                St.
                     (Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy)
              http://www.geocities.com/Stanislaw_Stawowy
            Echelon/Carnivore lines: Bob Black, Hakim Bey, 
           Ralph Klein, Sabotage in the American Workplace