Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Miscellaneous Topics and more > Photo Books / Mags / Articles / Blogs

Photo Books / Mags / Articles / Blogs This is the place to talk about Photo Books, Photography Magazines, Photography Articles, as well as specialized Photo booksellers. Some books are a lot better than others, so it really does make a difference which ones you buy!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 05-24-2007   #26
mhv
Registered User
 
mhv's Avatar
 
mhv is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montréal
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc-A.

Obviously, you don’t care. Baumgarten, old crap. But Currie, Davies or Wolstertoff (whose work I appreciate btw) are not in the same ballpark as Kant. Where do you study ?
You know, I don't get your point of view. What would be so wrong about disagreeing with Kant or Baumgarten, about considering that their model of aesthetics may be flawed? Yeah, I know the "it's not because it's old that it's crap" rengaine, there's good stuff in Aristotle, no mistakes. But to consider that Kant is the ultimate authority in aesthetics is like considering Plato the ultimate authority on ethics.

I study at McGill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc-A.
Thanks for the lecture. So you mean the trivial fact that we blabla about a topic which is art, and you hold that that blabla is knowlegde about this topic. Interesting. The problem is that you’re mixing the issues and you think that all which relates in one way or another to art has someting to do with aesthetics. That's very weak. For instance, the moral role of the artist in a society, is not an aethetic issue, but a sociological one.
Give me a break! Aesthetics is pretty much an umbrella term nowadays, it's not specifically Baumgarten's "sensory cognition". Right, the role in society is not aesthetics, boo-hoo I made a mistake.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc-A.
Btw I’m so impressed by big words : ontology wow ! Let me put it straight : ontology of artworks is bullsh*t (in H. Frankfurt’s sense). I know it’s trendy to reawaken ontology when contemporary theories have nothing serious to say about art, politics, society, ethics …etc. But it's useless. Well, like Rawls, I try to understand politics without ontology ; like Carnap, I try to understand logics without ontology or metaphysics … etc.
You always postulate an ontology of one kind or another in a discussion about art. Obviously you don't care. Type vs. Token? Reactionary crap. Performance vs. Artifact? Pedant merde bovine by stuffy old farts. Yes, yes, absolutely useless, I must agree with you.

Oh, and maybe you should not use big words like metaphysics and combine them with other big words like logic. Maybe someone like you would scold you for using them while failing to impress him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc-A.
Yep, that’s exactly what I understood … again common sense. That’s why I said : « meaning is accessible to rational human being through language ». And that’s why language is, and will remain, the primary paradigm of signification, as Leibniz put it (again I put aside theories of perceptual meaning which don’t concern aesthetics).
So perception is irrelevant to aesthetics? Recognition of shapes is irrelevant? That's interesting, to say the least... Smoke doesn't have a meaning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc-A.
Yep, that’s Pierce’s definition of an iconic sign. So what ? Icons are only one way to produce meaning, or to represente signification, or to derive significance. There are also indices and symbols, which don't "depict" objects by resemblance ; go and read again Pierce. There is no reason to think that photography is only about icon and not symbol. Btw Pierce's theory, as great as it is, is only one semiotic theory. Do you want to discuss iconography vs ideography?
That's the point: images are taken to be fundamentally iconic signs by most semiotics theories. I don't care if Peirce considers rubber ducks to be symbols or the index of his grandmother, but pictures are not icons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc-A.
Thanks, I really need a Companion for students.
Maybe you do.

Last edited by mhv : 05-24-2007 at 07:52.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2007   #27
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
 
Marc-A.'s Avatar
 
Marc-A. is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Paris (France)
Age: 37
Posts: 1,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhv
You know, I don't get your point of view. What would be so wrong about disagreeing with Kant or Baumgarten, about considering that their model of aesthetics may be flawed? Yeah, I know the "it's not because it's old that it's crap" rengaine, there's good stuff in Aristotle, no mistakes. But to consider that Kant is the ultimate authority in aesthetics is like considering Plato the ultimate authority on ethics.
Did I say something like that? Humm I don't think so. But you can't make philosophy if you don't bear in mind the kantian distinction between theoretical, practical and teleological judgments (judgment about "taste", aesthetic judgments belong to this kind). You can contest this distinction, but you have to be cautious.
BTW, I don't see why you can't consider Plato as the ultimate authority in ethics. This year, I gave 5 lectures of 3 hours on Plato and especially on Er, in the last book of Republic, His realism is not obsolete, though I don't agree with his method of ethics (I'm more humian on the subject).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhv
I study at McGill.
Good university; have good colleagues there and in Montreal Uni.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhv
Give me a break!
I will, don't worry. If you hadn't been that pedant "uh Barthes is laughable" I wouldn't have noticed your comment. There are a lot of interesting comments around here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mhv
You always postulate an ontology of one kind or another in a discussion about art. Obviously you don't care.
No you don't always postulate an ontology (apply Ockham's razon here) . I won't make a lecture, but if you don't know please stop being categoric and start to be modest. Apply Socrates' motto.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mhv
So perception is irrelevant to aesthetics? Recognition of shapes is irrelevant? That's interesting, to say the least... Smoke doesn't have a meaning?
Did I say that? I don't see your argument, but anyway ...

Thanks for the conversation.

Marc
__________________
My Flickr

My PBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2007   #28
mhv
Registered User
 
mhv's Avatar
 
mhv is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montréal
Posts: 301
Meh, forums arguments always end up in misunderstanding. Let's leave it there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2007   #29
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
 
fgianni's Avatar
 
fgianni is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Birmingham (UK)
Age: 51
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhv
Meh, forums arguments always end up in misunderstanding. Let's leave it there.
Why? It was starting to be quite amusing!
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2007   #30
mhv
Registered User
 
mhv's Avatar
 
mhv is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montréal
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by fgianni
Why? It was starting to be quite amusing!
You must be one of these popcorn-munching heated thread audience, aren't you?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2007   #31
sepiareverb
-
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,138
He, and most of this thread are just over my head. And I ain;t ashamed to admit it! I just tried reading it again a few months ago- still nothing.

Sontag will grace my reading table again next, see how I fare this time around. I also read this in school, but don't recall any of it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2007   #32
Steve Bellayr
Registered User
 
Steve Bellayr's Avatar
 
Steve Bellayr is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,759
Man, these Europeans take their philosophy seriously. Over here on the other side of the pond we mostly read the sports section and look at the photos. Duh.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2007   #33
sepiareverb
-
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,138
What is this 'read' you speak about?
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What's your "camera roadmap" Magnus Rangefinder Photography Discussion 150 12-12-2012 09:26
Rich Silfver and "Camera and Coffee" leica M2 fan Rangefinder Photography Discussion 10 12-12-2006 15:17
When is the next Toronto "camera show"? iggers Rangefinder Photography Discussion 3 08-16-2005 07:21



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:47.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.