X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Google-Thread: f996b,5eeaeb40d0c561bf
X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-12-14 09:48:21 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!adfpc.amp.uni-hannover.de!nobody
From: Andreas Freise <adf@mpq.mpg.de>
Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art
Subject: Re: Paschimottanasana
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 18:47:31 +0100
Organization: Universitaet Hannover
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <jrqfta.7bn.ln@adfpc.amp.uni-hannover.de>
References: <at7msp$118t8l$1@ID-154218.news.dfncis.de>
 <3DF88652.1F600DE5@hotbrev.com> <8dedta.opk.ln@adfpc.amp.uni-hannover.de>
 <atdm6l$1309sk$1@ID-102694.news.dfncis.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.75.235.112
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de 1039888098 13664 130.75.235.112 (14
 Dec 2002 17:48:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Dec 2002 17:48:18 GMT
X-Face: 
 %XhMERdBemohx4TB/zw0f`1Y%d}y10tjY4RjzCc&DWou4VZc;7iz#f3F8a-V|hA9Ief>mYBeoVep0^f#tV{;TrhZPPKPLwl^F&mypu*u0*YcWt0P}%kYb~C..+}_[2!%&THVkvA8c0:"~[\*~0O*$\1zDa5eIlG
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:21085

On 13 Dez 2002 Joaquim G�ndara wrote:
[...]
>> 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.

I should have known that "proof by example" never works. However,
my point was that is doesn't matter how much work is involved, not
that photographers don't work.

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

True. I just didn't like the troll-like way of bringing it up. 

:)
Andreas

-- 
________________________________________________ http://www.ascii-art.de