Is photography art? Be honest.
>>4527330Artists are given a thin chance to prove themselves. If they cannot pass, they move to photography to cope. If photography was accessible and affordable in Hitler's time, maybe he would not have committed the atrocities he did.
>>4527330Camera operation is not an art in the classical sense. The camera is a tool to produce an image. The image produced by a camera can absolutely be a form of visual media. This is especially true if you were to produce a physical print from the negative.If I drew/painted someone's portrait so well that it was completely indistinguishable from a photograph would that be considered art or no?
>>4527333I should say that the image a camera produces can absolutely be used to make art with.
>>4527330It's a middle artNever highSometimes low
>>4527336Why cant it ever be a high art?
>>4527337It's just creative journalism. Simple as.
>>4527336What about street? Is rape art?
>>4527341Rape is art if you use it as a cudgel against the patriarchy like Gaspar Noé. It is unacceptable in every other case.
>>4527341Have you ever played sengoku rance? It's not art. It's kino.
>>4527338I can absolutely be more than creative journalism.
>>4527332>Implying the savior of Europe did anything wrong.
tricky one. you're not truly creating anything, just capturing things already in existence. but there is definitely a requirement of skill, involvement of personal twist/style etc which all result in a photo providing the same visual pleasure that a painting provides for example.
>>4527355>a requirement of skill
>>4527330I'll biteLargely the question of whether photography or anything else is art is a debate for people who don't actually practice photography. It only seeks to rank images from a viewers perspective as a substitute to actual culture.For example, this anon ranks artworks based on which media is used, regardless of the artworks themselves. This cannot be done out of actual interest for art, since if ever we were to make paintings pass for photograph, someone using this logic would disregard the art in favor of his ranking system. >>4527336(lack of interest for art result in absence of culture)>>4527338This other anon offers a more thought out opinion, but still abide to a strict categorization of artworks, saying nothing is created with photography:>>4527355This comes from a valid reasoning, as a photograph is largely the outcome of what was standing in front of the camera. But capturing a realistic image on the sensor of a digital camera is only a tiny, recent part of what photography is. Many photographers refined their printing technique for years, and it would be absurd to tell them that they are "not creating anything" when they are producing a physical object they spent thousands of hours fine tuning to fit their exact vision. Its also clearly unfair to anyone doing staged photography.It's understandable why there is this inferiority complex in photography. The skill needed to achieve a realistic image using photography is almost inexistant today, while it could take thousands of hours using painting. But actual photographers do spend thousands of hours refining their art. Usually, like me, because they like it. It matters very little to me whether anyone considers what I do art. The pursuit of creating beauty and communicating my vision is enough. That is also what I'm seraching for in other's people "art", or not, lmao.P.S: If you're a digital photographer, do yourself a favor. Buy a cyanotype kit and print your favorite photo.
>>4527378noooo I forgot to add this photo to the post
>>4527330>is something X? >never give a definition for XKind of makes all the discussion pointless
>>4527330I'll just quote myself: photography can be art but it doesn't have to. Intent matters and a monkey with a CCTV camera isn't an artist even if some frames captured along the way are interesting to look at. Winogrand is an example of non-art photography for the most part. He had some art pictures where he was obviously directing, but for the most part he did the photographic equivalent of dumpster diving and then showing some "gems" he found along the way (only well regarded by (((critics))) because of the lore surrounding them)
>>4527382You fool, the discussion IS the definition
>4527388nophoto yapping>/pol/ user gets drunk>lands on /p/many such casessad
>>4527330>ITT Americans who suffered an India-tier school system that did not teach them to differentiate between 'objective' and 'subjective', opinion or fact...It's funny to share little gems like this thread with my friends from other countries that have career paths other than slave or mcdonalds. Look at you all, trying to define art and seperate it into tiers as if you're not just pissing into the wind... as if you will change even one mind... as if you, the amazon worker from south dakota will be the man that finally brings an objective definition to art. Retardation must be really endless sisyphean suffering, I pity you.
>>4527400>Of course I know what art is, I learned the definition in school
>>4527400>friends from other countries that have career pathsyeah its either waiter in cdmx (caba has no jobs) or post office worker
>>4527401It's okay, no one expects you to be able to read. But you're welcome to re-read my post over and over again until you get the message. Because it looks like you haven't really parsed the words. One one at a time lil bro :D
>>4527403>Troll post full of frustration seething against a strawman constructed because America lives rent free in his head>1 sentence answer trying hard to extract the relevance of the post to the current conversation>NOOOOOO you didn't get it you were supposed to also insult Americans and orange man on the photography board
>>4527403>>4527400>Trust the experts to define art, which can not have an objective definitionLet me guess, you also believe in "objective" ethics?There's the philosophical definition of art, which is a matter of metaphysics and endless debate because there are no objective value systems without something resembling religion, be it gods, karma, vibrational energies, or whatever. The only way art can have a correct definition is if you first enact a theocracy. I will, can, and do go as far as saying that you can not actually have artistic integrity if you are a materialist atheist. Meaning is an illusion.And then there's art as a market, in which case the philosophy is marketing, and was never real. It's nothing more than customer consensus, and customers telling future customers how to properly demand new products without confusing the supply chain (which doubles as a dumping ground for the family embarrassments of the parasite class). This latter one is what you get from "the experts" in "school" and the formalism surrounding it is entirely to justify how the parasite class uses art to pretend their stupid children are actually successful. In this case art is clearly worthless and it is a total waste of time to care about. It's just the parasite classes preferences in home decor.
>>4527404>>4527406>americans: reads a post about how trying to define art is stupid>"duhhh!!!! deyz sayin dey no the meaning of art u guisee!!!!"Lol. Lmao, even.
>>4527401>>4527404You know these anons were mentally raped because they're feebily trying to copy the poster they're replying to with laughing images. Immitation sure is the sincerest form of flattery, but also the sincerest form of melty!
>>4527406>The only way art can have a correct definition is if you first enact a theocracywtf I love the Vatican now, Deus Vult!
>>4527407>anti-intellectual thirdworldistLet me guess, you actually fell for the bald faced lie that arabs are native to "palestine" and the pharisees are somehow settler colonialists in their ethnic homeland?
>>4527407>>4527408
>>4527330>the obtuse cuckold is still getting btfo in 2026lmao
>>4527410>american coping
>>4527330If the "establishment" hangs it on a wall in a gallery, it's art. Art is what The State determines through training and legitimizing in an academy setting. This applies to those producing "art" or using their "trained" skills to determine what "is" art. Everyone just eats scraps off their table.
>>4527504>t. cucked npc
>>4527330Art is the communication of another persons perception.
>>4527537So your post is technically art?
>>4527539It could be if that's you how perceive it.
>>4527540I thought you were communicating another persons perception.
>>4527545esl
>>4527562>ESL doesn't know how or when to capitalize letters.KEK
>>4527389Nope, it's just pointless yapping unless people have common definition to work withIf you were right, we should see a coherent definition emerging from this discussion, but I don't see that
>>4527537this
>>4527330Photography is art, but not everything captured with a camera is photography.
>>4527564>If you dont use capital letters on the internet then you cant speak englishwhat?
>>4527692You heard me, bitch.
Yes but not all art is equal.Major arts require an initiation and training at a young age, the rest doesn't. Guess where photography lies.
>>4527696ok reddit
>>4527704Reddit obsessed lil chuddie seething kek
>>4527705>no full stopESL
>>4527708Dammit you got me good with that one. I guess we are both ESL now, fellow brownie.
>>4527330Photographs can be art but not all photographs are art by default. Same with paintings, video games, sculptures etc.
>>4527717>constantly thinking about jeetsngmi
>>4527953>>4527676What makes the difference between whether or not its art?You guys keep leaving out the part that actually matters
>>4527978Art is made, not merely taken. That is the difference.
>>4527979What do you mean by "made" and "taken"? What's the difference?
>>4527980The artist is an active subject with a vision. The snapshotter is just pressing a button. He could be replaced by a monkey or a cl*nker. The only art in the later is the con, where they come up with some bullshit after the fact to pretend their stuff had meaning.
>>4527978Garry Winogrand makes art. He selects only the best photos he takes to tell a story.This tripfag doesn't even take photos and constructed all of his opinions around excusing his low IQ hatred of every photographer that succeeded while he didn't, while sparing the few safe boring ones he likesThere's your difference
>>4527987It's actually jarring to see snapshot spelled out as such on this board.What category do I fit in if I take my camera for travel and shit but still try and make things look nice? Even if it's just abusing UWA distortion or intentionally trying to take a clean subject/background?
>>4527996"actually takes photos" which actually makes you more of an authority on the subject than the neo-nazi retard you replied to
>>4527996If you're actually putting some thoughtful intent into it it's obviously photography. The mere act of abusing UWA for a certai effect qualifies.
>>4527998>deciding to use a focal length for its look makes it photographyoh, so you are a winogrand enjoyerthe man was a notorious lens autist who thought of lenses in terms of aesthetics instead of "light gathering equivalence" like the common gearfag. one of his favorites ended up being an f3.5 just because he liked the way the photos looked.
>>4528000Why is that monkey holding a chimpanzee?
>>4528004It's art, courtesy of the greatest 20th century photographer. Garry Winogrand.Art doesn't make you ask"What was the intent behind this? Is this really creative? Can I grade this like a teacher grading homework? How much effort was required? is this just luck, or a REAL composition" Art makes you ask"Why"
>>4528000>I like the pictures this lens takes. Im going to stick with it.>Noooooo the charts say THIS lens is the correct choice! I think you have the two mixed up chartfags are soulless gearfags.
>>4528007nice reading comprehension
>>4528009My B
>>4527330>I left a snarky remark on this guy's post and he block meWhat was he expecting?
>>4528006>Art doesn't make you ask what was the intent behind itdude I'm sorry you might have never seen art
>>4528000>>4528006Phonesnap tier garbage. I get it, you think it's art because it's black and white or something. Slop slurpers will slurp slop.
>>4528049If you care about intent, you don't know art. >>4528060I think it's art because I think it's art. And you're a retard because you're retarded.
>>4527978To me art is a skillful expression of oneself that has the power to evokes emotion in the viewer. For other people this definition could be slightly different and I don't even think it matters at all.
Film photography can be art. Digital photography is never art. All art requires limitations. The modern digital camera is without limitations.
>>4528244>All art requires limitations.>The modern digital camera is without limitations.Dynamic range is still a limitation. And what if I put a manual lens on my digital camera and lock the ISO to 100? Would I be creating art then? Your take is absolutely retarded. I guess Michelangelo didn't create any art because he didn't use wooden sticks to chisel his granite. Steel and iron tools are without limitations.
>>4528339Go to bed bro.
>>4528342It's 10am here and I'm procrastinating.Let me flip the screen shut on my digital camera and only use the vewfinder for that TrUE AnAlOg FeEL. Look Ma! I'm creating art now! Not enough? Well I'm only gonna shoot 36 pics before taking a 3 minute break to scratch my balls. Exposure preview in my EVF is cheating? Ok, I can disable that too. Am I an artist now? Your analog photos go through a lab that uses a digital scanner to create your JPGs so you can post them to Instagram. Those scans are altered by digital algorithms to produce those "real analog colors". What you actually see in the end is no different than what Fuji cameras do with their "Film Simulations". To get a true analog photo you'd have to have them printed oldschool way on photographic paper. Nobody does that anymore and even then the paper stock affects your colors a lot. And no, editing your "digital" photos is not cheating. Almost all well known analog photographers would doge and burn their prints like crazy. None of that shit is unaltered. Shooting analog is fun but autists like you give the hobby a bad name.
>>4528244>art requires limitationsI see your point but>The modern digital camera is without limitations.This doesn't make any logical sense. First it's a medium limitation, since you don't make music, sculpture, or write books with a digital camera. It's even ultra limited within photo as it's completely unable to print an image by itself. And of course focale, resolution, etc, all limit digital cameras.>Film can be art but not digitalRetarded gearfag take. Art is about the practice and the exhibition, not the fucking camera. Segregating what is art based on the tool used to produce it is peak slave morality. Film is le good so it's art, digital is le bad so not art. It's downright eerie knowing some people are consciously enforcing these kinds of silly flowcharts that decide for them what to think about art or other things. I'm saying all that shooting exclusively film myself.
>>4528345Woah 10am is too late for you consider going to bed a 8am lmfao your post is the definition of autism. No one makes a print in the darkroom. Are you serious lil bro?
Photography is documentation, not art
>>4528390Explain how documentation cannot also be art? What if the limitation that a camera can only "document" reality is what makes photography art in the first place? Do we cry about painting because it is simply placing pigment on a canvas?
>>4528394Nta. Documentation and archiving is just the capture and storage of data. Record keeping, if you will.Extrapolate that concept to visual moments in time, and you get photography. The vast majority of photography is this.Unlike other anon, I actually do think art is "possible" with a camera. Definitely not the norm. Absolutely not achievable with the majortiy of people using a camera. But, if you intentionally curate or influence a photo in a way that evokes a significant emotional or mental response from someone, then the photo is artistic. Simply having a subject, background, and it looking pretty are not sufficent to pass for art. Emphasis on significant. Plenty of retard normies go "waow" if you show them a properly exposed shot of some random landmark that's been done a hundred-thousand times before that.
>>4528405The vast majority of painting is not art either, and especially by your definition.
>>4528412Correct.I can not fling paint at a canvas and call it art. My toddler finger painting doesn't count either for the same reason. Intent, conviction, and execution are all equal measure.
>>4528405I agree with this to the exception that I think art is a scale not a binary property. I would say any "retard normie" can make art with a camera if they make the effort of thinking through something they want to express and make basic effort for the photo to express it. I think it's a bit easy to say that it's not art because if only normies go waow. If there is truly such a thing as normies, it's only natural they'd be sensitive to different form of art than an intellectual 4chan poster like me. Maybe it's "bad" art because it's shallow or something, but why would it not be art?
>>4528405>Explain how documentation cannot also be art?Notice how you didn't actually answer the question asked.
>>4528405I don't think it has to successfuly communicate anything. What really matters is whether or not the creator influenced the image in any meaningful way other than pressing the button. For example if you are Gregory Crewdson's assistant in charge of taking the picture, you're not doing art. But Crewdson is. Because he made the picture that's being captured. He is the photographer. Similarly, the people who crafted things for him to fulfill his vision may well be artists too, depending on their vision being relevant. For example if you have to get something that looks like foam on water then whoever is in charge of that effect has to know how to make it look the way it has to.
>>4527400God, imagine unironically being this nihilistic, pessimistic, defeatist, and conformal. I'm so fucking glad I'm not a European. What a miserable existence.
>>4528389>No one makes a print in the darkroom.???
>>4528441You misread my post and my post was also confusingly phrased.
>>4528345>Nobody prints anymoreactually we do
>>4527330Are you asking me for my opinion on this, or yours?
>>4528244Limitations aren't what makes film photography art, is the darkroom manipulations. An exposure is just a mere canvas for the artist to work on.
>>4528813"art" is not a stat you level up by doing more work>+1 intent +1 intent>CROPPED AND LEVELED! +4 intent>ART LEVEL UPit's not a video gamenot a sportyou can do almost 0 work and still end up with art
>>4528877I didn't say anything about intent, I said manipulation. The pictorialists were right.
>>4528813>>4528879You can absolutely make art without manipulating the exposed image. Also Stieglitz was a kike in bed with proto-MoMA.
>>4528879>it cant be art unless you mess with itTrying desperately to put photography on the level of painting by playing in photoshopJust paint>>4528885It doesn't matter. Photography is a middling art and the only criteria is human vision was required to select the photo. You can't make it more art by doing more work or claiming to prove "more intent". In the end you're still just presenting a reproduced image and all that matters is the message people take from it.>muh "kikes"If your argument requires complaining about jews, you don't have an argument.
>>4528901It wasn't the argument, it was a mention in passing you jew rat. >Photography is a middling art and the only criteria is human vision was required to select the photoThen it follows the artist would be the curator, not the photographer. And therefore someone browsing Google Street View and picking what he likes could be said to be doing the art of photography. Which is absurd, just like your entire ideological framework for this.As Adams said, you don't take a photograph. You make it.If you're merely taking the picture, then you're not doing photography.
>>4528909>Curiously, doing photography is not actually doing photography, in fact, real photography starts exactly at the criteria i set to exclude dozens of successful famous photographers that I dislike because many of them are JewishOh wow so incel adams dodged and burned a bit yeah garry winogrand NEVER did that (oh wait, he was also a darkroom autist) thats why his photo of rocks and leaves is more arter sure
>>4528916I'm not arguing about the darkroom. I'm arguing about crafting the picture before the exposure even happens. Winogrand infamously left behind thousands of undeveloped pictures. It's anti-photography. It's rolling the dice and what you get is some garbage that only gets shilled because of his connections. Life's too short to waste it on winoslop.
>>4528918>i waited for sunset>thats real photography!I don't think you're smart enough to get this.it doesn't matterit's not a sportit's not a video gameit's not a testphotography does not require certified sick camera skills and it doesn't matter if you discarded 1000 rolls of motion blurred photos or shoots you knew you wouldn't like (if anything, discarding a roll without developing it is a sign of being more self conscious...)what matters is the interaction between the viewer and the work, and the fact that photography is inherently at the intersection of journalism and theatre.^if this sentence alone doesn't click for you, it's no wonder you're fucking retarded enough to be a nazi. you don't have a brain.
>>4528923If no one sees a piece of art, does it cease to be art? In your retarded vision, it does.It's degenerate, external-validation driven, effeminate and jewish.
>>4528931>Despite the arts being male dominated and based on publication for all history, the most important part of art being the audience instead of "meeting my arbitrary standards for intent" is suddenly "effeminate"Read through this slowly. Baby steps. Think hard.A great man is measured by the mark he leaves on history.A woman measures a man by how much he impresses her personally according to fluctuating standards that have less to do with intellectual rigor and more to do with which people she does and does not like.Which one of these describes you?
>>4528938You mean a historical character, not "a great man". Your post is a gigantic fallacy.
>>4527330That is an extremely narrow definition of art, and sadly this person isn’t the one to establish that definition. Nobody knows what art is, but people will fight tooth and nail nail to say their medium IS art and someone else’s ISNT in order to legitimize their own outputs. We all should know by now that a signed toilet is just as much art as a Rembrandt.
>>4528945>We all should know by now that a signed toilet is just as much art as a Rembrandt.That's just jewish subversion to get back at the Greeks.
>>4528943>great men aren't real actually, they're a social constructmaybe the real subversive revisionists were your kind all along
>>4528947Not only great men are measured by the mark they leave on history. Terrible men too.Was Jack the Ripper a great man? Or just a murderous kike?
>>4528951You're not very smart if you thought this was an own.Jack the ripper is indeed measured by the mark he left on history. As a mentally ill serial killer, probably an englishman high on drugs. That's not a great mark so he's not a great man.
>>4528953>probably an englishman high on drugsoy vey, Aaron Kosminski the EnglishmanYour entire argument is fallacious. Some great men are ignored by history, others maligned by it because it's written by the victors who go as far as criminalizing investigation. A few are celebrated as the great men they were.
>>4528957>Great men are ignored by historyIn other words, they didn't do much good but you personally like them because they pass your vibe check and don't give you the ick
>>4527330it's photography
>>4528960>ignoring the "some"Fucking retard. Did circumcision cause you brazenness in lying or were those just your hyhyl genes?
>>4528969Concession acceptedConfirmed: Garry Winogrand was actually a better photographer than Ansel Adams. Engaging with life, freezing fleeting microseconds in time, and calling it the ultimate expression of photography as itself > waiting for sunsets, accurately reproducing them, and calling it a higher form of art.Face it. Winogrand wasn't just an artist, his work was the peak of groupe f/64's ethos and redefined photography for decades to come.
>>4528971Guess I'll post the pasta...Street "photography" is the dullest franchise in the history of photography.Seriously, each shot following random people from some urban hellscape as they endure their suicide-inducing environment is indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the genre’s only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of black and white, all to make life unmagical, to make action seem inert.Perhaps the die was cast when street "photographers" decided unauthorized candid snaps were the way to go; they made sure the genre would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody - just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for their books. Street "photography" might be anti-human (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-aesthetic genre in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.>a-at least the photos were clever though"No!"The juxtaposition is dreadful; each street book is terrible. As I look at each one, I notice that every time a the opportunity appears the snappers take a picture of someone making it seem like their head is the one on a sign and showing their legs or vice-versa. Then, some picture of a puddle, an umbrella or a hobo. Art!I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that pattern was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. The street snapper's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that they have no other style of communicating. I once read a lavish, loving review of the genre by the same Elliott Erwitt. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are enjoying street photography at 21 or 22, then when they get older they will go on to enjoy Elliott Erwitt." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you consume street photography you are, in fact, trained to consume Elliott Erwitt.
>>4528986Pasta = concession
>>4528989There's nothing to concede, you didn't make any real argument. Maybe go read some of Plato's and Aristotle's works if you want to have a chance at forming a relevant argument.
>>4528992This post further cements my suspicions that cANON is either Iranian, Serbian or Azeri
>>4528993Keep digging, maybe one day you'll find your precious dox
>>4529000He's not trying to doxx you idiotHe's mocking you by comparing you to unaccomplished thirdies who reference random old texts they think will impress people without bearing the fruits of the intelligence themselves
>>4528997Somehow you've made an even stupider post than the "photography is just reproduction" so it cant be an art post. Really fantastic job bro.Now go ahead and please enlighten us all about how a hobby cannot be art.
>>4529006>the fruits of intelligence
>>4529017Bold of you to assume the people doing this cared about their people's prosperity and not seizing power permanently by creating a problem that can only be solved by tyranny. The people literally demanded the complete opposite of this and voted entirely on the promise of "no new wars" when kamala was explicitly saying war with iran was on the table (after the DNC ousted every moderate lol)iran is, indeed, destroyed. reduced to religiously motivated coastal pirates. the middle east can no longer offer the world their oil because iranians hilariously destroyed that infrastructure instead of striking israel (weird innit). guess who controls the remaining supply? additionally a famine has been imposed on south asia and most of africa, and europe has been severel weakened so russia has an easy win ahead of them.americans are going to get vanned not as front line soldiers but as oil field workers. you're witnessing a communist takeover and the great american realignment (wherein you will realize israel funneling american tech to china was not a hostile act)
>>4529022>iran is, indeed, destroyedlol>reduced to religiously motivated coastal piratesMore revenge motivated I'd argue, even their atheists want payback and a nuke now>the middle east can no longer offer the world their oil because iranians hilariously destroyed that infrastructure instead of striking israel (weird innit). guess who controls the remaining supply?What would striking Israel give them other than trigger the Samson option and getting themselves wiped? Iranians showed the world they're the smartest in this conflict.Gas prices is how they take the beast down. They rode the tiger for 47 years.
>>4529026Bro… he kinda btfo you. The US just engineered total indian death and created the conditions for ending democracy in the states and you’re focusing on the arbitrary price gouging in fuel markets. If iran literally did nothing and appeased the US immediately nothing would have changed for another 4-8 years and they would claim to be champions of global stability. The losers in this war are people who didnt want the US to turn into a dictatorship.
>>4529040>arbitrary price gouging in fuel markets.migger cope is amazing lolthere's oil scarcity thanks to a war of choice and the prices reflect that. The economy is melting down. America lost most of their bases and proved itself to be a paper tiger. And soon enough Iran will have a nuclear weapon, thanks to the Don who made the ideal of avoiding nukes as devised by Ali Khamenei a nontenable position.
>>4529054>i-iran won actually just look at the gas prices>it's over for the US because... gas prices>guys why is trump, who has historically opposed aiding ukraine, posting about allying with russia and cutting off russian diesel>guys why did putin turn his back on his ally iran because he likes israel more>oh no they were actually playing 5d chess
>>4529106*european dieselreally thoyou have no idea how good this has been going for the elite
>>4529107The elite sure, the American populace and superpower status not so much. Losing influence by the hour. Have you seen the bond yields?There's a conspiracy theory that claims the war is a scapegoat for the crisis that was already brewing with the clanker bubble and other stuff.
>>4529113>Superpower statusBuddy we expended some wunderwaffe waging a lazy war and have most of our forces on standy we'll be fineWhen a country has the power to conventionally carpet bomb the entirety of the houthi rebels in an evening and has never actually been above "war crimes" you must assume they are not letting loose because they're playing a game you're not aware of.
>>4529121Does carpet bombing win a war? Didn't you guys carpet bomb Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq? What was the last war the US managed to win? We know the USSR won WWII. By the time America entered the theater the war was already won.
>>4529125Houthi disruption to shipping could be significantly minimized at very little cost, and a deal could be made cucking out a bit ot the houthis. Won? No, they'd come back or we'd have to destroy way more than the world would sit by and watch be destroyed. The US doesn't seem to care that much regardless because houthis strangling europe is exacerbating what the US tried to induce.I have to admit, actually taking iran out would be much harder or require some serious war crimes, but it seems the strategy was to provoke them into losing their cool to kickstart a global resource crisis at the expense of american consumers and then exploit the resulting geopolitical instability for profit, re-alignment, and famines bordering on genocide.
>>4527330YES
>>4530028C. 1991 - CINCINNATI, OHIO. USA
>>4529125>VietnamWe had won Vietnam, millions of VC killed, leftie boomer retards forced us to leave. Of course a smaller force will "win" if retards make us evacuate all our forces from the battlefield.Did you "win" when your bully's mom called him to dinner after he beat you up?
>>4530497>Did you "win" when your bully's mom called him to dinner after he beat you up?America was the one beat up though, did you win when so many of you left in caskets or with disabilities many of them mental? All for what?At least the cinema we got from it is a silver lining
>>4531505>so many of you left in casketsLet's see...>American casualties: fewer than 60k>Vietnamese casualties: over 1.1 million Yeah, we were the "ones who got beat up".
>>4531657>much K/D ratio60k dead, 300k wounded, 30% of the troops addicted to pot and 10% to heroin, soldiers killing their superiors, and a dead president for a war of choice across the ocean with nothing to show for it except the side you wanted to win losing and your entire army being sacrificed isn't what winning looks like
>>4527337Because it has low intentionality. Think about high art like painting. Every single molecule of paint has to be placed there by the artist on purpose. That's a lot more intention than taking a photo
>>4532121Have you ever seen a Crewdson photograph? Have you ever seen a film?
>>4532121>t. has never seen photos by Alex Keighley, Leonard Misonne, Norman Gryspeerdt, Alfred Horsley Hinton, Hans Watzek, Heinrich Kuehn, Hugo Henneberg, Frederick H. Evans, P.H. Emerson, George Davison, Robert Demachy, Edward Steichen, David Asch, Paul Lewis, Alvin Langdon Coburn, Celine Lagarde, Jose Ortiz-Echague, Lynn Geesaman, Charles Job, Edward Hatrvig, Constant Puyo, Josef Sudek, James Craig Annan, or Gene Laughter (to name just a few)
>>4532123>>4532133the photographer simply can't ever control as much as a painter or writer or sculptor. I'm not saying that it isn't art at all btw, I like all this stuff. A photo will always be a document of something that existed. It is design more than art. If it is these things then it is not the purely just the expression of the artist
>>4532160Why not? What makes documentation of reality fundamentally less artistic than placing pigment on canvas? What if my painting is indistinguishable from a photograph? Can the constraint of only being able to photograph "what is there" be what enables photography to be art?It's sort of a strange claim because there are many ways to alter reality when captured through a lens and then printed. I believe a print can absolutely become it's own distinct entity rather than just a documentation of reality or what was there.
>>4532160k3kThe photographer can determine what is there. In fact cinema, tableaux vivants, still life, editorial photography and similar genres are where photography reaches its peak as an art.
>>4532163I Explained already, it's intentionality. You can't place every pixel on an image intentionally the way you can place every pigment on a canvas. Again I didn't say it's not art at all. But most arts are in some part design which is not the same as art. For example fashion and furniture is mostly design because it must be functional but there is still some amount of art in it. Similarly a photo must show you something that existed. That's why AI cannot ever be photography no matter how convincing it looks. >>4532166You agree with me then. More intentionality elevates the art. Every medium has a ceiling in how intentional you can be with it. That's why stuff like drip painting is slop. You barely make any decisions.
>>4532170>You can't place every pixel on an image intentionally the way you can place every pigment on a canvas.But you can place every beam of light intentionally and that's all that matters. The painter didn't place the threads on the canvas just like the photographer didn't place the pixels on the sensor.
>>4532170I dont think an arbitrary intentionality scale is the right way to look at how artistic something is. With photography like still life you essentially have the ability to control every pixel or grain depending on how you place objects, illuminate them, what film/lens you choose, how you decide to print them etc. I could easily say that our finite supply of different pigments means painting lacks a certain intentionality that editing a photograph on a computer has, or that stone carvings must be made with stone when a photographer can use any object to produce their work. Does that make them less artistic than photography?
>>4532160>photo has less control than paintingThe scene could be staged. The contents could be added with photo manipulation. The esthetic could be entirely made in post or in print. The reason we don't is because the edge of photography over all the other arts is how the image always comes from something the camera witnessed. When you stage everything, your photo loses impact because you're losing this quality. I agree however with your original argument that painting have usually more incarnation than photos (i.e they require a higher level of intentionality in the craft), I'm just pointing out this is not an argument to say it's lesser art. It's a different approach with a different point.>A photo will always be a document of something that existed.I never really understand this "document" insult that is thrown on photography to discard it as not an art. A document in the sense of a record pf what was, can be entirely fake. Think of a documentary on history with re-enacters, it is entirely made up yet it's a document. Think of a movie, for the sake of the argument a movie that didn't necessitate any special effects life the big short, it's footage is as real as the history documentary yet its not a document, it's art. When people say photo is documentation, I wonder quite frankly have you had the curiosity to explore the possibility the media gives you? Is such a photo from Wolfang Tillman, created in a darkroom with special lights or whatever he used, really document of something that existed? Are photographers who assemble entirely abstract still nature scenes like Maisie Cousins also documenting something that existed even though they created it from scratch just for the purpose of photographing it? Is the craft of photographers like Leonard Misonne, who dedicated his life to mastering the effects of printing techniques to make images painterly and made a point to never share the negatives, "documenting"? That's quite an unfair criticism.
>>4532123I have seen Crewdson photos and they suck ass. You can add as much intent as you want, but if your intent is all wack then you'll produce wack stuff. It's as simple as that. Crewdson has boomer sensibilities. You must never forget that the vast majority of people have really bad taste, and you must never conflate more intent/control with closeness to art. You're missing a key part of the puzzle.
>>4532207You may think they are bad, but it's undeniable they are art. That's the nuance.
>>4532210I don't think they are art. Art isn't effort. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Crewdson wants to signify "remember that movie you watched? yeah it's like that"
>>4532179You have control but if there's a lens or film that you want to use that doesn't exist then you just have to settle. That's a level of intention that's locked. I'm pretty sure you can get any color out of paint
>>4532184Maybe "lesser art" sounds insulting but I don't think that is really a bad thing. Photography is good and people should do it. I simply think there is a lot of design in it which is not the same as art. For example if you want to take a picture of a bridge you have to design a camera angle that it will look good at. You can't emotionally move and do something spontaneous like in painting and sculpture. Btw there is also nothing wrong with design. Concerning documentation I get what you're saying and I don't mean it as an insult. Photography directly captures photons that existed, therefore documenting something real. Of course a movie or something is "fake" but you did actually document something that existed. When you get into intense darkroom stuff and staging that muddies the waters. But if you think that extra level of intention elevates the art then we don't really disagree much.I think the world would be a better place if creatives that aren't pursuing academic, emotional, high art, which is incredibly hard to do and takes a specific kind of person, would just chill out about being a "real artist"
>>4532220It's not effort, it's intent.I think the accusation you want to level against Crewdson is that his art is dishonest photography. I don't agree but it's a valid argument. To argue it's not art it's to argue against the self-evident fact that his work was minuciously shaped by his vision. >>4532223Again see >>4532178Also, Vantablack.
>>4532225I think incarnation is a much better term than intentionality because it's easy to argue you don't need to paint yourself every mm2 of an image for it to be fully intentional, you just need to want whatever is in her to be there. Conversely I'm sure not every brush stroke of every painting is fully envisioned and meant, although it does offer you this possibility yes. Yes we agree that painting usually has a higher level of incarnation than photography, and that it makes a stronger art form again usually, because even using this criteria some photographs have more incarnation than some paintings especially when it comes to modern art.I see your point on design and I also agree.But I think if you came all this way with a sound logical reasoning, you have to be careful not to cheapen it by concluding it makes it a lesser art. First, it will feed many stupid arguments about photography not being art here. Second and most important, if you take this reasoning further it becomes absurd. Are you saying cinema is lesser than painting then? Are you saying that (European) comics are higher than painting since it offers both the possibility of graphic expression and text? This is in my opinion completely meaningless. All we can say is that photography offers the possibility for many to be hands-off with their end result, and if some know to turn this into a statement and some others refuse it entirely and treat the sensor or the print as a canvas, most don't.
>>4532255cont.>>4532225Regarding photography only "documenting". This idea that photography offers you to start from an established scene the camera captured we agreed often results in less incarnation, more design, or however you want to call it. But it doesn't make it "documenting". Of course some photographers documented and presented it as art but pretending the whole art form is documenting is again so unfair to many masters who created a world of their own using photography. Recording photons is not what makes something documenting. What makes something documenting, is the intention to offer insight over an objective reality external to the document itself. Like any good definition it exists on a scale, as being products of our material reality it is impossible to produce something meaningful that is not referring to an objective reality of some sort. But that still clarifies why photos taken to sell a house are documenting (they are meant to offer insight about how the house looks) while Maisie Cousins photographs are not, they are meant to be independent objects that refer mainly to themselves as works of art. Even taking an artist that obviously include some level of documentation in his photography, organizing them by place, you are missing everything of the artwork when you see a Micheal Kenna photograph and think, "this is only documenting what was in front of the camera at the time". This image is obviously the result of the artist's intention, and he made an image possibly no one ever saw standing right at the same place on the same day.
>>4532230Okay, I intend to make better images than Crewdson or anyone else. Behold my art! My point here is that you need effort to make your intent a reality. Crewdson puts in a lot of effort to make his dull visions come to life, and they say very little. I wouldn't really classify it as art.
>>4532255Stop fingering the fucking flower you freak
>>4532255Can foids not turn everything into coomer slop? What a degenerate way to be, no wonder they loved uncle T-bone until they were told to get the ick
>>4532286Edward Weston was a moid and did it first, incel
>>4532282make me>>4532286Isn't it ironic you're accusing women to lack free will while you talk like a 13 yo tiktok feed
>>4532300>ironicFuck off empress paplatrine, go get tested or something
>>4532306>not plaplatrinezoomer iq is at all time lows
>>4532307Pap as in pap smear, you walking biohazard
>>4532309Plap plap plap plap get AIDS get AIDS
>>4532220Cope
>>4527330Art is Beauty, so...When you see something ugly, you're not forced to consider it art, even if other people call it art.
>>4536920It is not.
>>4536920It is>>4536922Your bad ideas come from france and jews, the kings of bad ideas>monsieur, *poetic, romantic rant about principles and made up nonsense*>oy vey your lack of intersectional appreciation is ethically inconsistent with you liking both chocolate and sauerkraut Art is beauty made with human skillSimple as
>>4536933:D
>>4536920>>4536933An ugly tour de force is art. Pic rel, "the face of war" by Salvador Dali.
>>4536933>Art is beauty>Doesn't define beautyMust be so peaceful to be you
Art? Definitely. Fine-art? There's a Wikipedia article of fine-art photography, so I suppose
>>4536966cANON inconsistency momenthttps://meadowsmuseumdallas.org/exhibitions/dalis-aliyah/
>>4537085>inconsistency
most professional photography is just utilitarian that's whole separate thingbut does an average hobby photographer really care about producing art that much?I personally just take pictures of cool things I like and find pretty or interesting or just want to preserve a memory. I wouldn't exactly call it art.
>>4528405>evokes a significant emotional or mental response from someonein a way a photobook is more art than any single photobecause think about it the photos themselves may not be planned or intentionally trying to achieve a responsebut crafting a book is much more intentional and artisticI agree that most photos are not artbut, they can be used to create art
>>4528918and to this i say that winogrand is an artisthe purposely has a method he randomly shoots but he purposely curates and creates art from randomness
>>4537664>art from randomnesslol
>>4528345>To get a true analog photo you'd have to have them printed oldschool way on photographic paper. Nobody does that anymoreSorry pal, there's people that shoot on film outside the instagramslop portra/gold shooters.
>>4527330Using a camera itself, not really. However framing and lighting can be argued as art.
>>4527330>Is photography art? Be honest.If you get paid to do it, yes. Art is just a rich guy paying you to document reality. How close you get to it looking real means how good you are. Why would someone pay you to take photos when there is a camera in their phone? I have no idea. Probably because it's somewhere dangerous that they do not want to go.
>>4527330Yes. If photographers are artists then I am an artist. If only one photographer makes art then it is me. If no photographer makes art then I am dead.
>>4527330>>4527388I have a better question... is it photography if you "cartoonify" it with AI? Sounds to me like it's the ultimate mark of the nophoto
>>4537791Jewish post
>>4538720>multi thread meltyk3k
>>4538720Having done that myself a few times when I fuck a photo real bad, I'd say it's still a photograph and remains so until the picture doesn't represent the light imaged on the camera sensor.
>>4538784*fuck up, lol
>>4538784>>4538785The original was a photo, the cartoonified version is just a reimagined simulacrum. If instead of AI it was a painting you wouldn't call it a photo would you? A lot of recent painters used photos as their base, some highly influential ones even. Maybe even graphic design would apply rather than photo. Mixed media perhaps. But I never claimed to post a photo when I posted the AI.
>>4538796You would have done a hand sketch or posted a mosaiced version if you cared about the people. Feeding them to an AI is indefensible. You protect them and yourself from anons (for good reason) but don't care about exposing them to our potential overlords? What is wrong with you?
>>4538796You are a dog fucker who crops stolen images to generate AI slop>>4538919>>4538887You are a dog fuckerLeave /p/Having you around is like having a convicted child rapist at a partyLeave
>>4538995Do you really think all AIs are interconnected? If that were the case those people would be screwed with or without me. The chick was wearing some airpods or similar, the dude was immersed in smartphoneland. It's naive to even entertain the thought their likeness isn't all over social media. Some paranoia is healthy but your threat model treats everything at the same critical level. You're probably leaving some blind spots to the actual threats because of how scared of everything you are. >>4539014If that were the case I wouldn't bother doing the AI step.>You are a dog fuckerYou're wishcasting. >Having you around is like having a convicted child rapist at a partyLike having you at a party then? Have a seat.
>>4539032shut up dogfucker>nooo i just like to watch. for eugenics reasons. im a nazi!you are a dog fucker now fuck off
>>4539048I'm not interested in watching or dog fucking. You could trick them into getting mass sterilizations too as an alternative. The whole thing started because sick fucks were trying to force the idea that white women fuck dogs. And they were accusing my darling Karen too. I guess that makes me have something in common with her, being falsely accused by imageboard riffraff.
>>4539055This is some serious excuse making for someone who said “how can it be rape if they’re offering themselves as fuck toys to their furry companions”Normal nazis just want to shoot brown people or slip sterilization genes into covid vaccines for the goyim. You are making excuses for a weird ass fetish and dreaming of a world where bestiality is normal.
>>4527330Pictorialism is art
>>4539055Is karen your tulpa?
>>4539056Maybe you shouldn't go around accusing white women of dogfucking when most of the offenders are nonwhites. You said I wanted dogs to be abused and raped. I don't see how that would be the case if the dog is the initiator. It would be rape if the dog were being unleashed in the unwilling like Israelis do with Palestinian prisoners. Or if the dog were forced into the act. That is the argument, if you think arguing that makes me a dogfucker your fucked in the head yourself. >>4539059Just a Scottish actress I love watching perform.
>>4539060>I’m not a dogfucker, I just think bestiality is alright if the animal initiates and isn’t hurt, dogs specifically, shove my fetish into absurdly unrelated topics, and get stalkerish around /p/s dog ownersYou’re the one who kept being a sex pest towards the husky owners arent you
>>4539065I said it isn't rape, not that "it's alright". Idk about anyone being a sex pest towards the husky owners
>>4539067Cope dogfucker>dogfucker>/pol/yp>literally never posted one single photo>AI slopper>gearfaggotGet the fuck off /p/
>>4539060Thank you for, yet again, reiterating your belief that bestiality is not rape.Please GET THE FUCK OFF OUR BOARDYOU HAVE LITERALLY NEVER POSTED ONE SINGLE PHOTOWHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE
>>4539069It's easy to prove I have posted several photos before. Therefore you don't have a case.>>4539070You seem to be a brainlet who doesn't understand basic logic so you formulate incoherent attempts at argumentation. You shouldn't need a Venn diagram to understand basic shit like rape and bestiality being two separate independent things that can but don't always overlap. Let me remind you that exact disability also stunted your development of an understanding of how photography and art interact. Photography and art are two separate things, you can have one without the other. Or both at the same time.And again, you don't have a case. I have literally posted several photos.
>>4539141>sentient being putting non-sentient being into unnatural sexual act>not rape
>>4539152>putting>non-sentientNeither of those has anything to do with the hypothetical situation being argued. Non-sentient beings are things like sponges. Living beings with no nervous system or other ways to experience sensation.Is a garden gnome that gets humped by a horny dog putting the dog into an unnatural sex act? Or are dogs simply disgusting horny creatures that put themselves into such acts?
>>4539141Nophoto dogfucker, spare us your literal pilpulLeave
>>4539156>demanding consistent logic instead of non-sequiturs is pilpulIt's the antithesis of pilpul you kike, k3k
>>4539154A garden gnome is not a lifeform. Why are you like this? You are sick. Get help.
>>4539157Simply say“animals can not consent and having sex with them is wrong”(This is the opposite of what you keep saying)Post a photo(This is the opposite of what you usually do)Or get off /p/, please
>>4539166>animals can not consent and having sex with them is wrongWe're animals though so I can see how you'd twist such a quote.If anything I'll say humans having sex with beasts is wrong. Now, are nonwhites humans or beasts? There's the real question. The devil's in the details.Also consent applies to the passive side of the act, to say the initiator doesn't consent to what it's doing is simply absurd.>(This is the opposite of what you usually do)>usually See, now you have something resembling a point. It's a true statement at least.
>>4539206You are literally incapable of just calling bestiality unconditionally wrong holy shit
>but she initiated!>Yeah, yeah, get in the fucking cruiser.>i did nothing wrong! she made the first move!>Bark does not mean yes, you sick fuck.>sir please do not do this i have to defend /p/ from fujifilm users tomorrow...>Get in the fucking cruiser.
>>4539215>You are literally incapable of just calling bestiality unconditionally wrong holy shitI literally did, just not for the absurd "consent" reasons.Bestiality injures human dignity.
>>4539220This is the exact kind of bullshit excuse a zoophile eventually gives when pressured>oh its not that important just a bit of lost dignity in privateNo, it's raping an animal.Say it. Bestiality is rape.
>>4539221I won't because it can be rape but doesn't have to. This isn't just my opinion but pretty much every judge's.Just look at what the charges are in the high profile bestiality cases involving females having sex with dogs. It's things like "lewd acts with an animal", not "rape".
>>4539222So as far as you're concerned, bestiality isn't truly wrong, it's just embarrassing? You haven't changed your opinion at all, you've just masked it with vague horseshit about dignity.You are a dog fucker. Dog fucker.
>>4539223No anon, dignity isn't about shame. Bestiality gets its name from lowering the human to the level of a beast. If you engage in bestiality you're becoming one flesh with a beast during the act. It's abhorrent.
>>4527330It's like people who can only sing versus those who can write music and sing. Both are artists but one is definitely harder to find success in than the other.
>>4539230>zoophile can't say bestiality is rape>can ramble about philosophical nonsense that has no weight in realityYou don't even believe this shit about dignity. You sit indoors all day and cry about fujifilm on 4chan. It's easy for you to say this because you don't believe it.it is incredibly hard for you to say bestiality is rape, because you would be admitting you fantasize about raping animals.Just say it. Bestiality is rape. This is not a dialogue with you. This is a public humiliation.
>>4539235No anon, I won't say it because it's not true. Same as I won't generically say photography is art. I can say cinema or tableaux are art, but not photography.
>animals can consent and i will never say they can’t. its just embarrassing to fuck them (good thing I’m already a loser, baby)>-cinefag
>>4539257I never said they can consent, I said it's an absurd standard. If a demented retard fucks a woman but she let him and even bared herself for him to have his way with him, can you truly claim anyone got raped? The retard got what he wanted, the woman got what she wanted.
>>4539258>to have his way with herFixed that
>>4539257>he can't consent, you raped him by not stopping him from fucking you>anon to a woman who was fucked by a retard she wanted to get fucked by
Cinefag is gladly defending interspecies sex with animals lmfao what a faggot. >your honor, the horse was really into me and practically backed into me like a dumptruck. She could have caved in my ribs at any time! I merely lost some izzat, I mean, dignity. Surely this is an ethical concern, but not a criminal one. -cinefag>The court sentences you to twenty years without parole. -societyThe only two sources for the image he used here are sites for lewd my little pony fanfiction lmfao
>>4539261Go figure, the brony refuses to call bestiality rape, just “a loss of dignity”
>>4539260>>4539258A dog is not like a retarded person. You need to learn what consent, especially informer consent, actually means. You are one small decision away from arguing that some pedophilia is ok. And knowing you, you probably believe that already. Which is why when anons rightfully called you a dogfucker, you began projecting and calling everyone a pedophile at random.
>>4539261>The court sentences you to twenty years without parole. -societyNot for rape though, for bestiality.>The only two sources for the image he used here are sites for lewd my little pony fanfiction lmfao>he doesn't know about barneyfagLook at the replies retard, I even said tm in the post.In case he's reading, iobyfyrtm>>4539262Anon, go to the sharty and learn about tm>>4539264>A dog is not like a retarded person.Yes it is, for the consent argument. It's a subject who will never be able to consent.>You are one small decision away from arguing that some pedophilia is ok.I'm far away from that. A child will be an adult one day so the inability to consent isn't permanent. It's like fucking someone in a coma or someone you got drunk or drugged.>at random.If you falsely accuse me I'm going to assume you're guilty of something worse than you're accusing me of. So it's not a huge leap to assume someone falsely accusing me of fucking dogs is trying to hide the fact that he fucks children.
>"bestiality isn't rape, and I fantasize about women offering themselves as "fuck toys to their furry companions" while making constant excuses that broadly define bestiality as non-harmful but embarrassing behavior. why are people accusing me of being a dogfucker? slander! they must be pedophiles!" -cinefag, todayIronically cinefag, historically, was constantly hounding doghair huskyfag et al accusing them of fucking their dogs. Huskyfag in turn pointed out that cinefag acted a lot like a known zoophile troll from /an/, including his bigfoot obsession. Hm.
>>4539267Saying it isn't rape isn't the same as making excuses for it. Even if there's a penalty for it.You have a problem with logic and your argument classifies every punishable crime and misdemeanor of rape, as seen in this post >>4539261. If I went to Tim's home, lured his dog into a truck and then sold it and got caught, I'd be charging with stealing an animal and selling it. But according to your argument, that would make it rape because I would get jail time for it. You are unable to argue coherently, appeals to emotion are all you have.
>>4539269Having sex with something that can't consent is rapeRape is sex without being given consent. That's it.You have repeatedly said that bestiality is not rape and only relates to nonsense like "injuring human dignity", a lesser thing than "forcing sexual relations upon the inherently powerless, unwilling and oblivious" that can be more easily handwaved since it does not exist in the physical and is a pure rhetorical tool, unlike sexual assault, which is a physical and behavioral reality with broader and purely negative implications for how, for example, you might treat the elderly, women and children because you've already gladly associated "forcing sexual relations on the inherently powerless, unwilling, and oblivious" with pleasure.The dignity argument on the other hand is easily reframed entirely, and could be respun into being one with nature and the universality of sentience instead, because that which does not exist means nothing, and that which means nothing can mean anything. Whoever justifies his morals with nothing that could mean anything has no morals under the surface. It is snake-like reasoning for intellectual weasles.
>>4539267>including his bigfoot obsession. Hm.I think I found cinefag's channelhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npswv7Zh8sg
I bet cANON is glad to have the pressure taken off himself for once.
>>4539271>Whoever justifies his morals with nothing that could mean anything has no morals under the surface. It is snake-like reasoning for intellectual weasles.That's precisely what "consent" is, some slimy concept that shifts definitions depending on the agenda of the one using it.Human dignity is a lot less slimy and is the basis of basic rights of the person. Under your definition all sex acts involving (You) are rape, because you're clearly too retarded to consent.>>4539272If this rage-baiting, well-poisoning retard were telling the truth, that'd be a clear case of rape. Not about consent but about coercion. And yet not a crime because you can't judge a beast. He's just jealous of Paterson and Gimlin who got one on film.
>>4539271To give you one more example, if you and your sister have consensual sex it's definitely not rape. But it is an abhorrent crime against nature.Consent was created by moral relativists to justify their own degeneracy.
>>4539141You're the one getting the interactions wrong. Because your definition of photography is wrong. You think street is photography but not art and other nonsense. All photography is art, but street isn't photography. Because it isn't art. The Venn diagram isn't one where you intersect photography and art. It's one where you intersect images recorded from light and art. The intersection is photography. The rest of art are all the non photographic arts from painting to literature and music. The rest of images recorded from light are things like snapshits including street, journalism, CCTV footage and anything that doesn't involve artistic intent. It's not that complicated if you don't fall for the (((establishment))) lies.
>>4539273I actually hate that they derailed a good thread to discuss the ethics of bestiality.
>>4539289>noooooo you should let them call you a dogfucker and take itFor some reason you thought this would put you in the moral high ground
>>4539294You called them pedo and yet they didn't derail the thread denying it. In fact I don't think they denied it at all. Maybe they're a pedo but most likely they realized the futility of such a "debate" which doesn't even have anything to do with the board.
>>4539287Your definition of photography is flawed and that's why your categories are all fucked up but at least your points are coherent. Can't say the same for the ones that say street photography is art. >images recorded from light That's photography. Simple as. >>4539295>In fact I don't think they denied it at allBingo. If they were innocent they would defend their innocence just like me.
Philosophy is fucking bullshit, if we executed people for being insufferable they'd be first in line. This thread perfectly summarizes why the ones who executed Socrates and Galileo did nothing wrong.
>>4539296Part of a crop gets shade from a tree and is greener as a result. A car exposed to sunlight gets yellowing on its acryllic headlight lenses. There's some object right above it too, its shade burns its shape on the car roof. A civil engineer gets a tan on his forearms and neck where no clothing or helmet protects him from the sun. Those are images recorded from light. Is that photography?>>4539298Brainlet
>>4539300>pretending to not understand things to make discourse impossibleHow leftish
>>4539298>leadt deranged philosophy hater
>>4539301Answer the question and stop beating around the bush
>>4539303With all due respectFUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME
>>4539275>consent is fake>”dignity” (perpetually moving target) is realSure and you’ve found horse pussy aryan, trad, and dignifiedFucking zoophile faggot>>4539278You dont need to erase consent as a whole to say “no one in their right mind would” and erase consent conditionally
>>4539294You ARE a dog fucker, dog fucker>How can it be rape if they’re offering themselves as fuck toys to their furry companions?You said this. Dog fucker.
>>4539296Innocent people dont get defensive by definitionDefensiveness and cope is guilt manifest
>>4539313>consent is fakeIn its current iteration it is. In fact it's one of the quickest moving among targets, they even allow retroactive widthdrawal nowadays in some jurisdictions.>perpetually moving target>logos is a perpetually moving targetWithout getting into the murky waters of the AI debate I don't see how human dignity is a moving target.>>4539315I said that and above you can see the arguments for it. The situation being discussed is some female merely not stopping the dog from having its way with her. Not even after the Mr. Hands case did the legislators think of calling it rape, are you going to call them animal fuckers too? This bill was a reaction to the Mr. Hands case, and hilariously enough it lets me simultaneously btfo you and cANON (on the definition of photography issue).https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=16.52.205>(d) "Photographs" or "films" means the making of a photograph, motion picture film, videotape, digital image, or any other recording, sale, or transmission of the image.cANON forever btfo>>4539316>innocent people just let others slander themk3k
>>4539332>consent is fake because feminismI honestly believe now more than ever that you are a dogfucker
What a coincidence cinefag bases morality on something he has none of>human dignityIf you search this term on desuarchive.org/an it brings up pages of him arguing about bestiality btw
>>4539332>are you going to call the (((judges, lawyers, and politicians))) who had to be forced to ban bestiality by a high profile case dogfuckers too?Yes.
>>4539334I looked it up, hilariously enough they're talking about laws against bestiality. So once again, the lawmakers agree with me. And there's even a tedpilled post searching that. I don't post on /an/.The ones arguing against the concept of human dignity and laws based on it are unironically arguing for dogfucking so take the L and keep it.It's obvious that human dignity would almost exclusively come up in bestiality arguments if you're searching an animal board. A board that exists for containing trash.Someone so against the concept as you are likely comes from /lgbt/ or other degenerate boards.Just like on /p/ it should bring up street photography threads, because the justification for doing it is disregarding the human dignity of others. Reminder that I was bashed in this same thread for respecting the human dignity of the people who were in my photo and cartoonifying them. You have to believe others lack human dignity to take photos of them and spread them around without them having a say in it especially in a place like this. It's psychopathic behavior.
>>4539335Are you unironically arguing they intended bestiality to be allowed?
>>4539336Human dignity is made up shit, m8o. A vegan /an/ retard could call it more dignified to marry a horse. It only functions when paired with trad larper bullshit. Consent and sexual assault are real. No functional civilization has based morals on something as vague as dignity. Always material harm or divine mandate diginity is an argument brought up by coping zoophiles because they know its fake and gay.
>>4539338You fail to understand what the concept of human dignity is, it's literally what separates humans from lesser beings.Even Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics are based on implicit human dignity. You should unironically read a book before trying to argue about things you obviously can't grasp at a basic conceptual level. Vegans are retards without a coherent system, egalitarians. Egalitarianism is a poisonous ideology that has tragically infected the west and can be easily be used to defend the most despicable things imaginable. It is the basis of cultural marxism. To treat unequal things equally is a great injustice.
>>4539341He is right, however, that "human dignity" is made the fuck up especially as a moral weight.Your core argument remains "bestiality isn't rape, it's just injurious to dignity".It's not a functional argument, it's borderline religious, and you clearly don't believe in human dignity because you spend your entire life on a 4chan board for a hobby you don't engage in.
>>4539341humans are separated naturally, through the self evident fact we are us. dignity here is false specifically because it is compatible with inversion and exception, especially since it is defined with poetic rambling and manifesto writing rather than by anything concrete. a zoophile such as yourself could privately hold the belief, with a touch of misogyny, that some animals are more dignified mates than women. Its basically what a coping zoophile would give as a reason because they cant understand normal people see it the same way they see raping a sleeping woman or a child. A zoophile cant see how its wrong materially, cant see how its wrong as behavioral/cultural hygiene, and cant stand the idea ofit being wrong because God said so, so it must be about some dated pagan philosophy that can be twisted to mean anythingconsent and assault are so concrete you see regret rape as self evidently absurddignity on the other hand is closer to faith than knowledge
>>4539348>>4539353Anon, a beast can't possibly have human dignity because it has no logos and will have no logos. You're thinking of some vernacular definition of dignity to come up with this bullshit. You really are out of your depth discussing this. The basic premises of discourse are foreign to you.I mean, even according to St. Thomas Aquinas the loss of human dignity caused by certain sins is enough to make killing such human beings not contrary to morals. Human dignity is the fundamental value of the human being, it's not what you're probably thinking of which is probably closer to the concept of decency.
>>4539353Very true, it's pagan faith on display here.They invented a ghostly trait to justify their morals in absence of the almighty. Peak pagan.>we will have morals for ANY reason but G-d's command and G-d's will manifest as the universeThe fact that bestiality is materially wrong is absurd to the pagan. For it to be materially wrong, material reality would align with Leviticus, and it would be further proof of G-d's truth. To the pagan, sin must instead be spiritually wrong according to their idolater priests. And when it is spiritually wrong according to idolater priests, it is not wrong at all.
This thread has confirmed the suspicions I had for years now: cinefag and possibly cANON are infiltrators from frogtwitter
>>4539355>>4539353You guys should just have a photo battle to solve this once and for all. Stop signs, building corners, people's backs, or rocks and leaves? Which subject will you guys fight it out over?
>>4539355>you're not operating in my framework, you're just rejecting itIt's because your framework is garbage.Bestiality is wrong because your creator said don't do it and ordered the universe such that it is self evidently harmful. It is rape, violent sexual assault of the defenseless, and it is the moral hygiene equivalent of bathing in sewage.Even if a woman presents herself it is a sexual assault, the exploitation of an animals automatic instinct which will leave them behaviorally confused. "Human dignity" (shit some retards made up) doesn't factor into this. You must admit that it is materially wrong, because the material is created by that which created you, and reflects your creators will. If you fail to understand that what your creator forbade is materially wrong and claim it is materially right and only an ethical failure, you have done as lucifer and redefined good and evil for yourself.
>>4539358I don't even use twitter, schizo>>4539360Since you're pretending to be Christian show me where in the Bible it says bestiality is rape. You keep pretending everything that is immoral is rape for some weird reason.Cicero talked about human dignity before Christ was born.>Even if a woman presents herself it is a sexual assault, the exploitation of an animals automatic instinct which will leave them behaviorally confused. The animal being allegedly confused isn't why bestiality is wrong, it's wrong because it lowers the woman to beast status. You seem to miss the fact that I keep saying nonwhite female. I don't call them women for a reason.
>>4539361>Pretending to be christianSorry I don't fall for roman fanfiction. Christianity is hellenized judaism and essentially pagan, and pagans tend towards seeing the world in terms of social status since they worship identifiable human/humanlike figures as their superiors. Of course a christian would carry the "human dignity" concept forward. I don't even buy it.>it's wrong because it lowers the woman to beast status (loss of dignity)And this approach is unacceptable specifically because cultures where it doesn't are conceivable, just as it is conceivable for different cultures to justify homosexuality being an expression of dignity or an assault on dignity, each insisting on the nobility of their belief. In fact, bestiality was common among the pagan originators of the concept of human dignity. Human dignity is fluid, cultural, and allows people to justify a surprising amount of bad behavior since it inevitably leads to an honor system.I base morality on what is, because what is is what was created and allowed to be by G-d. In reality, it is sexual assault of an animal, rape, and can not be defined in any other way. Animals mating instincts are literally just chemicals and are not subject to what little higher will they have, rather, they obey the olfactory bulb. Bestiality is necessarily wrong, and it is generally observable that the only good thing zoophiles are capable of is dying as virgins, otherwise their behavior causes widespread harm, and correlates with them harming people more readily. Almost like it goes against the design of the universe. Like whatever willed the universe to be, made this objectively wrong, and has told those who have free will not to do it.Saying "bestiality is rape" is an affirmation of this. Why can't you do it?
There are 4 tiers of moral thought>tier 4: non-human>behavior nearly indistinguishable from pure instinct and modulated by conditioning>pre-wired for a certain life, can't learn much, malfunctions if basic functions are conditioned on incorrect stimuli>may have some thought, but it's not complex enough to apply beyond the next 15 seconds>tier 3: primitive people, cave civilizations, hunter gatherers, early tribal humans. low IQ>abstract language, long term memory, foresight>more adaptable to novel information, capable of learning from others instead of relying on its own experience>basic religion, personification of things and creatures>"stealing is wrong because if someone catches me i will be punished" >"no, stealing is right if you're hungry">"i hope crow gods eat all the thieves">tier 2: early modern humans, stone city builders, farmers, nomadic herders. medium to decently high IQ, >beginnings of higher thought. cinefag is here. the brain is developed enough to model other peoples minds and use social consequences to define morality instead of just obvious consequences like being told off and beaten up.>recognizable religion, personification of concepts>"stealing is wrong because it is below me to steal" >"actually, to steal from an enemy is noble, for he has taken from you. it would be lowering yourself not to steal from your enemy, basically the same as letting them rob you.">tier 1: modern humans, technologically advanced civilizations, capable of spaceflight, decently high to very high IQ>full development of higher thought. other humans minds, the present, and the future state of the world are more easily modeled. the human brain is a universe simulator. all people with knowledge can agree certain actions can not be allowed and others must be encouraged. >high religion, god is a single transcendent being that is the first cause of the universe>"stealing is theft">"indeed"
>>4527330Yes.
>>4539363>tier 2: early modern humans>"actually, to steal from an enemy is noble">cinefag is hereThat tracks. He was telling people to steal cameras from ICE protesters and journalists covering said protests. I doubt any of his gear is really his own gear, and any photos he posts are probably stolen ones from their storage
>>4539375cinefag confirmed romanian
