> Unfortunately this approach has invaded
> photographic education so that unsuspecting innocents have this aberration
> imposed upon them to the extent that photographic degree courses do not produce
> photographers.
It may have "invaded" your education and perhaps the person teaching the
theory was Eric the Red, but you are dead wrong in almost all your
assumptions and analysis. Maybe you should have listened better.
This isn't the first time you've attempted to completely deny theory,
but just as before your arrogant denial is like so much puff and rattle.
Without the decisive arguement or logical objection, your rantings go
nowhere.
If you don't like the topic, why respond at all? If you don't like (or,
more likely, understand) the concept at hand, why work so hard to debunk
it? What's your goal in this theoretical-luddite approach?
"I photograph therefore I am???" or maybe "Me camera, you object"
I've tried to rise to your level of insulting rhetoric, maybe you'll
consider this the next time you foray into an intelligent debate armed
with nothing more than brickbats.
Frankly, I tend to agree that this thread was better served on
Photo-Art. I was too busy to respond for the last week and then this
mess on Alt-Phot. Geesh.
Darryl Baird, "post-photographic ager"
--------------------------------------
Thou shall not disclose.