X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Google-Thread: f996b,5eeaeb40d0c561bf
X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-12-13 14:15:50 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!212.75.92.6!not-for-mail
From: "Joaquim G�ndara" <claw@lords.com>
Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art
Subject: Re: Paschimottanasana
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 23:15:07 +0100
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <atdm6l$1309sk$1@ID-102694.news.dfncis.de>
References: <at7msp$118t8l$1@ID-154218.news.dfncis.de>
 <3DF88652.1F600DE5@hotbrev.com> <8dedta.opk.ln@adfpc.amp.uni-hannover.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.75.92.6
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1039817749 36710292 212.75.92.6 (16 [102694])
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:21072

"Andreas Freise" <adf@mpq.mpg.de> skrev i meddelandet
 news:8dedta.opk.ln@adfpc.amp.uni-hannover.de
> On 12 Dez 2002 Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Why put your initials on a raw conversion?
> [...]
>
> Why bring up this narrow-minded discussion again? Testing?
>
> a) I liked the conversion better than your diddle.
> b) Photography is commonly thought of being a form of art
>    (well, a few pictures) even if the photogrpaher did not build
>    the camera him-/herself.

Although I understand your point, I think your analogy is broken.
What is the converter's equivalent of the photographer's concept of
composition, for example?

While a photographer moves around in a 3D world and tries to capture
all the sights, emotions, smells and whatnot of the scene in a 2D
medium, the pixel->ASCII converter takes a picture and converts it to
another medium. It's more akin to a photographer who only takes photos
of old paintings, or a person who specializes in fiddling with the
settings of a photocopier.

> Are we having the full amount-of-work versus idea-concept-intention
> discussion again? Just wondering.

Is a discussion technically over if you haven't reached any conclusions?
I say we're _still_ having that discussion. :)

--
 OO  Joaquim G�ndara
.||. http://www.Nerd-Boy.net
 bb  jg