[Leica] Re: Photography - a serious art form anymore?

[tim at kairosphoto.com (Tim Atherton)]

> to communicate. .One difference between painting, sculpture, music and
> photography is very obvious. In those mediums the creators waste little
> if any time discussing pigments, brush lengths, mixing mud or who makes
> their violin strings. I almost doubt photography will every reach that
> stage.
not at all obvious - in fact quite erroneous.

I know concert level flautists who obsess over whether a flute by my old
friend Albert Cooper is, the best, and exactly what curve in the headpiece
makes for the sweetest sound and whether gold or golden alloy is preferred

Same for painters - I can't count how many tedious discussions I've heard on
pigments and acrylics - brands and blends, as well as brushes.

I Rembrandts time serious industrial espionage took place in the Low
Countries to discover the exact make up of certain pigments - bribes were
paid, threats were made - the scientific and technical aspects were the
subject of endless conjecture and letters.

Studio potters (whose work is considered art rather than craft) will equally
often spend a good amount of time on the science and composition of glazes
as well as types of clay - get a couple pf them drunk and the debate goes on
for hours.

Then there are photographers who make the most wonderful art by sticking to
always sticking to Tri-X320 @200 developed in D23 with the lens almost
always closed down to f64, like Sugimoto - the technical aspect is minimal
and simple.