Re: Taking Random Photos in Long Beach Can Put You in Handcuffs (Really)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 24, 2011.

  1. On Aug 24, 10:08 am, "Jeff Strickland" <> wrote:

    > I'm not certain of the context here, but let's, for the moment, suppose that
    > an oil storage yard might actually be a viable target of those that bring
    > the war on terror to our shores once again. In the advance of such a
    > progression, let's say that the bad guys come around and take pictures of
    > tanks and the proximity they are to the fence line, or the position of
    > valves and pipelines.


    This information is more easily obtained from aerial photos,
    which are easily accessible on the web (google maps, for
    example).

    > These sorts of pictures have no aesthetic value, and the tanks, valves, and
    > pipes are not incidental images in a larger, more panoramic scene that the
    > photographer is attempting to capture. If a police cruiser happens to notice
    > somebody taking pictures, would it not be incumbant upon the officer(s) to
    > at least slow down and say, "hi,"?


    Why? What good could this possibly do?

    Besides, aesthetic value is not an objective measure,
    and photos can have considerable real value that isn't
    aesthetic. For example, the photographer may be working
    on a blog entry (or a whole book) opposing the way we
    build and run refineries, and showing how ugly the
    ones we build now are.

    Strangely enough, many of the cases of people being
    hassled for perfectly legal photography turn out, on
    examination, to be companies trying to avoid being
    portrayed in a bad light -- because any photo of
    a refinery portrays it in a bad light.

    I don't happen to have a refinery photo, but I have
    a nice photo that's basically geometric patterns
    from the beams under a freeway bridge under
    construction. A photo from that spot, with a
    different exposure, would show lots of detail of
    value to somebody planning to use explosives to bring
    that bridge down. But anybody can walk under it
    and look up, too.

    > Until there is an actual instance of somebody's Constitutional rights being
    > abridged, the cops should be looking at this sort of stuff. They wonder
    > about the intrinsic value of photos of bridge pilings enough to ask
    > questions of those who would take such a picture, and we (as a society)
    > don't mind. We, as a society, tolerate Grandma being groped at the airport.
    > I'm not a big fan of Granny Gropers, but if this is allowable behavior for
    > government, surely the cops should take an active interest of individuals
    > that take photos of oil storage facilities that have little, if any,
    > aesthetic value.


    Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
    violation of my constitutional rights. Police are *extremely*
    poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
    the only reason to take photos.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 24, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Dyer-Bennet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:02:00 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    >Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
    >violation of my constitutional rights. Police are *extremely*
    >poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
    >the only reason to take photos.


    The issue, though, is "Does the officer have probable cause?".

    "Probable cause" is the standard by which an officer has grounds to
    detain you, arrest you, or search you. You don't set the standard.

    The Fourth Amendment is where you find "probable cause".

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
    papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
    not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
    supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
    place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    You may be doing something perfectly legal and permissible, but the
    officer doesn't know that. If you are lurking around a scene and
    waiting for the sun to cast a shadow to make the timing right to take
    a photograph, how is the policeman supposed to know what your
    intentions are?

    If there happens to be a store nearby that has been robbed frequently
    that you might be casing, and you are not even aware of that store's
    presence or recent history, how is the policeman supposed to know
    what's in your mind?

    The Fourth Amendment does not automatically place you above suspicion
    no matter how innocent your intentions are.

    Why, by the way, are policemen extremely poor judges of artistic
    merit? Savageduck seems to be embodied with some artistic
    sensibilities. You think a person's occupation determines his sense
    of artistic merit?

    Who has more artistic sensibility...bus drivers, policemen, CPAs, bank
    clerks? Can you rank them by occupation?








    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 24, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Dyer-Bennet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:01:52 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-08-24 13:02:00 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:
    >
    >> On Aug 24, 10:08 am, "Jeff Strickland" <> wrote:

    ><<< Le Snip >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Until there is an actual instance of somebody's Constitutional rights being
    >>> abridged, the cops should be looking at this sort of stuff. They wonder
    >>> about the intrinsic value of photos of bridge pilings enough to ask
    >>> questions of those who would take such a picture, and we (as a society)
    >>> don't mind. We, as a society, tolerate Grandma being groped at the airport.
    >>> I'm not a big fan of Granny Gropers, but if this is allowable behavior for
    >>> government, surely the cops should take an active interest of individuals
    >>> that take photos of oil storage facilities that have little, if any,
    >>> aesthetic value.

    >>
    >> Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
    >> violation of my constitutional rights. Police are *extremely*
    >> poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
    >> the only reason to take photos.

    >
    >"Hassling" is your perception of any interruption of your activity. If
    >you were out there taking photographs you would have already been
    >stopped. Probable cause is very interpretive and subjective. If I as an
    >officer saw you with your camera, behaving in what I believed was a
    >suspicious manner, probable cause would have been established in my
    >mind. You might disagree, but it would be my duty to at the very least
    >to inquire as to what you were doing.
    >
    >I take exception to your remark regarding police and Law enforcement
    >being "*extremely* poor judges of artistic merit". That is a biased and
    >prejudiced point of view, and might lead you confrontation rather than
    >an amicable agreement.


    I wonder what David's reaction would be if he submitted a photo to a
    competition and the judges were experienced amateur photographers, but
    their day jobs were policeman, doctor, and lawyer, and the policeman
    gave his photograph the highest rating.

    Would he think the rating came from someone that is an extremely poor
    judge of artistic merit and reject the high score?




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 25, 2011
    #3
  4. David Dyer-Bennet

    Mike Guest

    On 24/08/2011 4:56 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:02:00 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
    >> violation of my constitutional rights. Police are *extremely*
    >> poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
    >> the only reason to take photos.

    >
    > The issue, though, is "Does the officer have probable cause?".
    >
    > "Probable cause" is the standard by which an officer has grounds to
    > detain you, arrest you, or search you. You don't set the standard.
    >
    > The Fourth Amendment is where you find "probable cause".
    >
    > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
    > papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
    > not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
    > supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
    > place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
    >

    Seems like photographers in that jurisdiction should get T-shirts with
    the Fourth Amendment printed on it, then wonder around taking photos of
    dog crap...

    Mike
     
    Mike, Aug 25, 2011
    #4
  5. David Dyer-Bennet

    Irwell Guest

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:09:43 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

    > On 2011-08-24 16:35:01 -0700, Mike <> said:
    >
    >> On 24/08/2011 4:56 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:02:00 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
    >>>> violation of my constitutional rights. Police are *extremely*
    >>>> poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
    >>>> the only reason to take photos.
    >>>
    >>> The issue, though, is "Does the officer have probable cause?".
    >>>
    >>> "Probable cause" is the standard by which an officer has grounds to
    >>> detain you, arrest you, or search you. You don't set the standard.
    >>>
    >>> The Fourth Amendment is where you find "probable cause".
    >>>
    >>> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
    >>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
    >>> not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
    >>> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
    >>> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
    >>>

    >> Seems like photographers in that jurisdiction should get T-shirts with
    >> the Fourth Amendment printed on it, then wonder around taking photos of
    >> dog crap...
    >>
    >> Mike

    >
    > Well you could always get a T-shirt.
    > < http://www.cafepress.com/ photographer_not_terrorist_black_tshirt,36969676 >


    I started my serious photography at the age of 15 in WW2 England.
    A policeman advised me to go to the local station and ask them
    to give me a letter with permission to carry a camera and take
    photos. Only had to show it one time.
     
    Irwell, Aug 25, 2011
    #5
  6. On Aug 24, 3:56 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:02:00 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
    > >violation of my constitutional rights.  Police are *extremely*
    > >poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
    > >the only reason to take photos.

    >
    > The issue, though, is "Does the officer have probable cause?".
    >
    > "Probable cause" is the standard by which an officer has grounds to
    > detain you, arrest you, or search you.  You don't set the standard.  
    >
    > The Fourth Amendment is where you find "probable cause".
    >
    > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
    > papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
    > not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
    > supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
    > place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
    >
    > You may be doing something perfectly legal and permissible, but the
    > officer doesn't know that.  If you are lurking around a scene and
    > waiting for the sun to cast a shadow to make the timing right to take
    > a photograph, how is the policeman supposed to know what your
    > intentions are?


    By the camera set up on the tripod pointing at the scene?

    In any case, the policeman doesn't, clearly, have a warrant
    at that point.

    > If there happens to be a store nearby that has been robbed frequently
    > that you might be casing, and you are not even aware of that store's
    > presence or recent history, how is the policeman supposed to know
    > what's in your mind?


    How does he expect to find out by hassling me? If I were in fact
    lurking to rob the store, I'd have a cover story handy.

    > The Fourth Amendment does not automatically place you above suspicion
    > no matter how innocent your intentions are.
    >
    > Why, by the way, are policemen extremely poor judges of artistic
    > merit?  Savageduck seems to be embodied with some artistic
    > sensibilities.  You think a person's occupation determines his sense
    > of artistic merit?


    First of all, artistic merit at the level a gallery manager or
    museum curator has to deal with it is an extremely arcane,
    large, and specialized body of knowledge. It's a full-time
    job. Policemen aren't spending their full time keeping up
    with the art world, so they won't have that level of knowledge.
    (I'm a software engineer and amateur photographer, I don't
    have that level of knowledge either. A policeman might
    well know as much about it as I do, it could be associated
    with a secondary activity for both of us. I wasn't denigrating
    policemen, I was arguing that it's a specialized field.)

    Second of all, artistic vision is very individual, and it's much
    more likely that somebody is an artist with tastes outside
    the norm than that he's a terrorist doing scouting.

    > Who has more artistic sensibility...bus drivers, policemen, CPAs, bank
    > clerks?  Can you rank them by occupation?


    Okay, you're clearly feeling defensive of the artistic
    sensibilities of policemen. I was not criticizing
    policemen; I hope I cleared that up above.

    To answer you question directly, in that list, I see
    no basis to presume any particular level of artistic
    sensibility or knowledge in people of those
    professions. There are a few professions that
    actually require some artistic sensibilities --
    gallery manager, art museum curator, illustrator,
    artist, art director, and others. Most professions
    have no requirements, and generally I see no reason
    to expect artistic interest and knowledge to
    correlate with profession for people where it
    isn't a professional requirement.


    >
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 25, 2011
    #6
  7. On Aug 24, 5:01 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2011-08-24 13:02:00 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Aug 24, 10:08 am, "Jeff Strickland" <> wrote:

    > <<< Le Snip >>>
    >
    > >> Until there is an actual instance of somebody's Constitutional rights being
    > >> abridged, the cops should be looking at this sort of stuff. They wonder
    > >> about the intrinsic value of photos of bridge pilings enough to ask
    > >> questions of those who would take such a picture, and we (as a society)
    > >> don't mind. We, as a society, tolerate Grandma being groped at the airport.
    > >> I'm not a big fan of Granny Gropers, but if this is allowable behaviorfor
    > >> government, surely the cops should take an active interest of individuals
    > >> that take photos of oil storage facilities that have little, if any,
    > >> aesthetic value.

    >
    > > Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
    > > violation of my constitutional rights.  Police are *extremely*
    > > poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
    > > the only reason to take photos.

    >
    > "Hassling" is your perception of any interruption of your activity. If
    > you were out there taking photographs you would have already been
    > stopped. Probable cause is very interpretive and subjective. If I as an
    > officer saw you with your camera, behaving in what I believed was a
    > suspicious manner, probable cause would have been established in my
    > mind. You might disagree, but it would be my duty to at the very least
    > to inquire as to what you were doing.


    And in an actual event, you and I (or one of your officers and I)
    might very well manage to bring it through without excitement.

    Do they say "Hey you, you can't photograph that!" in a case
    where that's clearly not true? Or do they say some variant of
    "Excuse me, sir, may I ask what you're doing here?" I'll say
    "I'm waiting for the light angle to be lower to take some photos
    of that bridge there." And I'll identify myself if asked. I get
    protective of right to photograph, and annoyed at officer
    ignorance, but would prefer to avoid becoming a test case
    without really egregious provocation.

    (The first one would get a polite request that they cite the
    law that forbids it, so I can go research that. And ID
    information so I can get back to them if I think they're
    wrong. That could, possibly, end up going okay also, and if
    it doesn't the officer is being an asshole.)

    > I take exception to your remark regarding police and Law

    enforcement  
    > being "*extremely* poor judges of artistic merit". That is a biased and
    > prejudiced point of view, and might lead you confrontation rather than
    > an amicable agreement.


    Well, it's certainly not a job requirement for them. Some
    individuals may of course have first-rate knowledge / abilities
    in those areas (I'm a software engineer, a job which also
    has no requirements on artistic abilities). Any random
    policeman has some random chance as knowing as much
    as I do, just like any random software engineer does.

    However, I'll apologize for writing something that sounds
    like I think no policeman could possibly have that knowledge.
    I don't mean that; I mean only that their required skill set
    and training doesn't include the cutting edge of artistic
    sensibilities, so they shouldn't be put in situations that require
    that to make right decisions.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 25, 2011
    #7
  8. On Aug 24, 6:20 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:01:52 -0700, Savageduck
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >On 2011-08-24 13:02:00 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:

    >
    > >> On Aug 24, 10:08 am, "Jeff Strickland" <> wrote:

    > ><<< Le Snip >>>

    >
    > >>> Until there is an actual instance of somebody's Constitutional rightsbeing
    > >>> abridged, the cops should be looking at this sort of stuff. They wonder
    > >>> about the intrinsic value of photos of bridge pilings enough to ask
    > >>> questions of those who would take such a picture, and we (as a society)
    > >>> don't mind. We, as a society, tolerate Grandma being groped at the airport.
    > >>> I'm not a big fan of Granny Gropers, but if this is allowable behavior for
    > >>> government, surely the cops should take an active interest of individuals
    > >>> that take photos of oil storage facilities that have little, if any,
    > >>> aesthetic value.

    >
    > >> Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
    > >> violation of my constitutional rights.  Police are *extremely*
    > >> poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
    > >> the only reason to take photos.

    >
    > >"Hassling" is your perception of any interruption of your activity. If
    > >you were out there taking photographs you would have already been
    > >stopped. Probable cause is very interpretive and subjective. If I as an
    > >officer saw you with your camera, behaving in what I believed was a
    > >suspicious manner, probable cause would have been established in my
    > >mind. You might disagree, but it would be my duty to at the very least
    > >to inquire as to what you were doing.

    >
    > >I take exception to your remark regarding police and Law enforcement  
    > >being "*extremely* poor judges of artistic merit". That is a biased and
    > >prejudiced point of view, and might lead you confrontation rather than
    > >an amicable agreement.

    >
    > I wonder what David's reaction would be if he submitted a photo to a
    > competition and the judges were experienced amateur photographers, but
    > their day jobs were policeman, doctor, and lawyer, and the policeman
    > gave his photograph the highest rating.
    >
    > Would he think the rating came from someone that is an extremely poor
    > judge of artistic merit and reject the high score?


    David would think that it's as likely for there to be
    a policeman with those knowledge / skills as it is
    for there to be a software engineer with them (I'm
    a software engineer); small, but non-zero.

    Obviously, the best test of a person's intelligence
    is how much they agree with me :).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 25, 2011
    #8
  9. David Dyer-Bennet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:43:51 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    >On Aug 24, 3:56 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:02:00 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >> >Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
    >> >violation of my constitutional rights.  Police are *extremely*
    >> >poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
    >> >the only reason to take photos.

    >>
    >> The issue, though, is "Does the officer have probable cause?".
    >>
    >> "Probable cause" is the standard by which an officer has grounds to
    >> detain you, arrest you, or search you.  You don't set the standard.  
    >>
    >> The Fourth Amendment is where you find "probable cause".
    >>
    >> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
    >> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
    >> not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
    >> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
    >> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
    >>
    >> You may be doing something perfectly legal and permissible, but the
    >> officer doesn't know that.  If you are lurking around a scene and
    >> waiting for the sun to cast a shadow to make the timing right to take
    >> a photograph, how is the policeman supposed to know what your
    >> intentions are?

    >
    >By the camera set up on the tripod pointing at the scene?


    That's one way to defend an argument: make up facts that don't exist
    in the premise. How about if the guy is wearing a tee shirt that says
    "Al-Aqib School of Terrorism"?

    >In any case, the policeman doesn't, clearly, have a warrant
    >at that point.


    A warrant is not required for an officer to question you. A warrant,
    in this context, is an instrument authorizing arrest, search, or
    seizure.

    You think a policeman needs a warrant to question a person?

    >> If there happens to be a store nearby that has been robbed frequently
    >> that you might be casing, and you are not even aware of that store's
    >> presence or recent history, how is the policeman supposed to know
    >> what's in your mind?

    >
    >How does he expect to find out by hassling me? If I were in fact
    >lurking to rob the store, I'd have a cover story handy.


    Asking you about what you are doing is not "hassling" you.

    >> The Fourth Amendment does not automatically place you above suspicion
    >> no matter how innocent your intentions are.
    >>
    >> Why, by the way, are policemen extremely poor judges of artistic
    >> merit?  Savageduck seems to be embodied with some artistic
    >> sensibilities.  You think a person's occupation determines his sense
    >> of artistic merit?

    >
    >First of all, artistic merit at the level a gallery manager or
    >museum curator has to deal with it is an extremely arcane,
    >large, and specialized body of knowledge. It's a full-time
    >job. Policemen aren't spending their full time keeping up
    >with the art world, so they won't have that level of knowledge.
    >(I'm a software engineer and amateur photographer, I don't
    >have that level of knowledge either. A policeman might
    >well know as much about it as I do, it could be associated
    >with a secondary activity for both of us. I wasn't denigrating
    >policemen, I was arguing that it's a specialized field.)


    Nowhere does is say that the photograph is to be judged for artistic
    merit. The police will not be issued Blue Ribbons to hand out.

    Aesthetic value is not synonymous with artistic merit. Aesthetic
    value means only that the value is more than the physical properties.
    A child's handprint in clay has aesthetic value but no artistic merit.

    The judgement can be based solely on perceived intent of the
    photographer. That intent is partially based on the image and
    partially based on the person's attitude and reaction when questioned.

    You may not give policemen credit for their artistic perception, but
    they are experienced and qualified to judge the personal reactions of
    people they question.

    And, yes, you did denigrate policemen.

    >Second of all, artistic vision is very individual, and it's much
    >more likely that somebody is an artist with tastes outside
    >the norm than that he's a terrorist doing scouting.
    >
    >> Who has more artistic sensibility...bus drivers, policemen, CPAs, bank
    >> clerks?  Can you rank them by occupation?

    >
    >Okay, you're clearly feeling defensive of the artistic
    >sensibilities of policemen. I was not criticizing
    >policemen; I hope I cleared that up above.


    No, you didn't, and I'm not defensive about the artistic sensibilities
    of policemen. I am defensive about judging the artistic sensibilities
    of *anyone* based on their occupation.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 25, 2011
    #9
  10. David Dyer-Bennet

    ASCII Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    >
    >However, I'll apologize for writing something that sounds
    >like I think no policeman could possibly have that knowledge.
    >I don't mean that; I mean only that their required skill set
    >and training doesn't include the cutting edge of artistic
    >sensibilities, so they shouldn't be put in situations that require
    >that to make right decisions.


    Rather than go around with the esthetic abilities of the cop,
    just tell them that you are taking pics of barnacles or some
    other bullshit. They get lied to so regularly that a semi-plausible
    excuse will probably work for you.
     
    ASCII, Aug 25, 2011
    #10
  11. David Dyer-Bennet

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/25/2011 10:43 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    >
    > To answer you question directly, in that list, I see
    > no basis to presume any particular level of artistic
    > sensibility or knowledge in people of those
    > professions. There are a few professions that
    > actually require some artistic sensibilities --
    > gallery manager, art museum curator, illustrator,
    > artist, art director, and others. Most professions
    > have no requirements, and generally I see no reason
    > to expect artistic interest and knowledge to
    > correlate with profession for people where it
    > isn't a professional requirement.


    Most dentists I know have more artistic ability than the average bear.



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 25, 2011
    #11
  12. David Dyer-Bennet

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/25/2011 10:53 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    >
    > And in an actual event, you and I (or one of your officers and I)
    > might very well manage to bring it through without excitement.
    >
    > Do they say "Hey you, you can't photograph that!" in a case
    > where that's clearly not true? Or do they say some variant of
    > "Excuse me, sir, may I ask what you're doing here?" I'll say
    > "I'm waiting for the light angle to be lower to take some photos
    > of that bridge there." And I'll identify myself if asked. I get
    > protective of right to photograph, and annoyed at officer
    > ignorance, but would prefer to avoid becoming a test case
    > without really egregious provocation.
    >
    > (The first one would get a polite request that they cite the
    > law that forbids it, so I can go research that. And ID
    > information so I can get back to them if I think they're
    > wrong. That could, possibly, end up going okay also, and if
    > it doesn't the officer is being an asshole.)
    >
    > > I take exception to your remark regarding police and Law

    > enforcement
    >> being "*extremely* poor judges of artistic merit". That is a biased and
    >> prejudiced point of view, and might lead you confrontation rather than
    >> an amicable agreement.

    >
    > Well, it's certainly not a job requirement for them. Some
    > individuals may of course have first-rate knowledge / abilities
    > in those areas (I'm a software engineer, a job which also
    > has no requirements on artistic abilities). Any random
    > policeman has some random chance as knowing as much
    > as I do, just like any random software engineer does.
    >
    > However, I'll apologize for writing something that sounds
    > like I think no policeman could possibly have that knowledge.
    > I don't mean that; I mean only that their required skill set
    > and training doesn't include the cutting edge of artistic
    > sensibilities, so they shouldn't be put in situations that require
    > that to make right decisions.


    I don't mean to insult you, but the very characteristics that make you a
    good software engineer may militate against your being a good artist.
    Yes I well know there are are exceptions. But I understand it to be a
    left brain, right brain thing.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 26, 2011
    #12
  13. On Aug 25, 10:17 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:43:51 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Aug 24, 3:56 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:02:00 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet

    >
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >> >Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
    > >> >violation of my constitutional rights.  Police are *extremely*
    > >> >poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
    > >> >the only reason to take photos.

    >
    > >> The issue, though, is "Does the officer have probable cause?".

    >
    > >> "Probable cause" is the standard by which an officer has grounds to
    > >> detain you, arrest you, or search you.  You don't set the standard.  

    >
    > >> The Fourth Amendment is where you find "probable cause".

    >
    > >> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
    > >> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
    > >> not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
    > >> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
    > >> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    >
    > >> You may be doing something perfectly legal and permissible, but the
    > >> officer doesn't know that.  If you are lurking around a scene and
    > >> waiting for the sun to cast a shadow to make the timing right to take
    > >> a photograph, how is the policeman supposed to know what your
    > >> intentions are?

    >
    > >By the camera set up on the tripod pointing at the scene?

    >
    > That's one way to defend an argument:  make up facts that don't exist
    > in the premise.  How about if the guy is wearing a tee shirt that says
    > "Al-Aqib School of Terrorism"?


    How about it?

    > >In any case, the policeman doesn't, clearly, have a warrant
    > >at that point.

    >
    > A warrant is not required for an officer to question you.  A warrant,
    > in this context, is an instrument authorizing arrest, search, or
    > seizure.  
    >
    > You think a policeman needs a warrant to question a person?  


    You're the one who brought in the fourth amendment.
    The actions the policeman is taking clearly don't
    meet the requirements set forth there (no warrant). If
    you don't think a warrant is needed, why did you bring
    up the fourth amendment?

    > >> If there happens to be a store nearby that has been robbed frequently
    > >> that you might be casing, and you are not even aware of that store's
    > >> presence or recent history, how is the policeman supposed to know
    > >> what's in your mind?

    >
    > >How does he expect to find out by hassling me?  If I were in fact
    > >lurking to rob the store, I'd have a cover story handy.

    >
    > Asking you about what you are doing is not "hassling" you.


    Matter of opinion, and you're dodging the question.

    How does asking what I'm doing help him?
    If I were in fact up to no good, I'd have a cover
    story ready.

    > >> The Fourth Amendment does not automatically place you above suspicion
    > >> no matter how innocent your intentions are.

    >
    > >> Why, by the way, are policemen extremely poor judges of artistic
    > >> merit?  Savageduck seems to be embodied with some artistic
    > >> sensibilities.  You think a person's occupation determines his sense
    > >> of artistic merit?

    >
    > >First of all, artistic merit at the level a gallery manager or
    > >museum curator has to deal with it is an extremely arcane,
    > >large, and specialized body of knowledge.  It's a full-time
    > >job.  Policemen aren't spending their full time keeping up
    > >with the art world, so they won't have that level of knowledge.
    > >(I'm a software engineer and amateur photographer, I don't
    > >have that level of knowledge either.  A policeman might
    > >well know as much about it as I do, it could be associated
    > >with a secondary activity for both of us.  I wasn't denigrating
    > >policemen, I was arguing that it's a specialized field.)

    >
    > Nowhere does is say that the photograph is to be judged for artistic
    > merit.  The police will not be issued Blue Ribbons to hand out.


    The original claim involved photos being of no artistic
    merit as part of what made taking them suspicious.
    That's not a judgment the police generally are
    equipped to make, so they shouldn't be put in the
    position of having to.

    > Aesthetic value is not synonymous with artistic merit.  Aesthetic
    > value means only that the value is more than the physical properties.
    > A child's handprint in clay has aesthetic value but no artistic merit.
    >
    > The judgement can be based solely on perceived intent of the
    > photographer.  That intent is partially based on the image and
    > partially based on the person's attitude and reaction when questioned.
    >
    > You may not give policemen credit for their artistic perception, but
    > they are experienced and qualified to judge the personal reactions of
    > people they question.


    They think they are, but the statistics strongly suggest
    otherwise.

    > And, yes, you did denigrate policemen.


    I made a statement about the class of
    policeman that also applies to the class
    of doctors and the class of software
    engineers (which I belong to). It seems
    to me that you're being hyper-sensitive on
    behalf of policemen.

    > >Second of all, artistic vision is very individual, and it's much
    > >more likely that somebody is an artist with tastes outside
    > >the norm than that he's a terrorist doing scouting.

    >
    > >> Who has more artistic sensibility...bus drivers, policemen, CPAs, bank
    > >> clerks?  Can you rank them by occupation?

    >
    > >Okay, you're clearly feeling defensive of the artistic
    > >sensibilities of policemen.  I was not criticizing
    > >policemen; I hope I cleared that up above.

    >
    > No, you didn't, and I'm not defensive about the artistic sensibilities
    > of policemen.  I am defensive about judging the artistic sensibilities
    > of *anyone* based on their occupation.


    Same thing. You're dodging the point again.

    If saying clearly and plainly what I meant doesn't
    clear it up, then don't worry about it, it's probably
    not important.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 26, 2011
    #13
  14. On Aug 25, 11:13 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    > On 2011-08-25 07:53:20 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Aug 24, 5:01 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >> On 2011-08-24 13:02:00 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> s

    > > aid:

    >
    > >>> On Aug 24, 10:08 am, "Jeff Strickland" <> wrote:
    > >> <<< Le Snip >>>

    >
    > >>>> Until there is an actual instance of somebody's Constitutional rights

    > > being
    > >>>> abridged, the cops should be looking at this sort of stuff. They wonde

    > > r
    > >>>> about the intrinsic value of photos of bridge pilings enough to ask
    > >>>> questions of those who would take such a picture, and we (as a society

    > > )
    > >>>> don't mind. We, as a society, tolerate Grandma being groped at the air

    > > port.
    > >>>> I'm not a big fan of Granny Gropers, but if this is allowable behavior

    > >  for
    > >>>> government, surely the cops should take an active interest of individu

    > > als
    > >>>> that take photos of oil storage facilities that have little, if any,
    > >>>> aesthetic value.

    >
    > >>> Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
    > >>> violation of my constitutional rights.  Police are *extremely*
    > >>> poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
    > >>> the only reason to take photos.

    >
    > >> "Hassling" is your perception of any interruption of your activity. If
    > >> you were out there taking photographs you would have already been
    > >> stopped. Probable cause is very interpretive and subjective. If I as an
    > >> officer saw you with your camera, behaving in what I believed was a
    > >> suspicious manner, probable cause would have been established in my
    > >> mind. You might disagree, but it would be my duty to at the very least
    > >> to inquire as to what you were doing.

    >
    > > And in an actual event, you and I (or one of  your officers and I)
    > > might very well manage to bring it through without excitement.

    >
    > > Do they say "Hey you, you can't photograph that!" in a case
    > > where that's clearly not true?  Or do they say some variant of
    > > "Excuse me, sir, may I ask what you're doing here?"  I'll say
    > > "I'm waiting for the light angle to be lower to take some photos
    > > of that bridge there."   And I'll identify myself if asked.  I get
    > > protective of right to photograph, and annoyed at officer
    > > ignorance, but would prefer to avoid becoming a test case
    > > without really egregious provocation.

    >
    > My expectation would be a civil exchange of information from both
    > parties to the latter scenario. I would only expect the former where
    > restrictions are posted.
    >
    >
    >
    > > (The first one would get a polite request that they cite the
    > > law that forbids it, so I can go research that.  And ID
    > > information so I can get back to them if I think they're
    > > wrong.  That could, possibly, end up going okay also, and if
    > > it doesn't the officer is being an asshole.)

    >
    > I would suggest that you should adjust your plan of action according to
    > the circumstances, which should include your first impressions of the
    > officer and the tone of the interaction between the two of you. If you
    > present your polite request for a citation of law or local code related
    > to the officer, you had better have an idea of how that officer might
    > react to the request. Some might view the request as a challenge to
    > their authority, and so begins the downward spiral. Compliance, and a
    > follow up call to the department Public Information Officer (PIO), or
    > Community Resources Officer (CRO) is a more prudent course of action.
    >
    > Bruised egos can exist on both sides of the badge.


    Yeah.

    I use the same "try to stay in control of the situation"
    tactics. Police tend to get brutal about it, and tend to
    have highly inflated views of their own authority.

    > >  > I take exception to your remark regarding police and Law
    > > enforcement  
    > >> being "*extremely* poor judges of artistic merit". That is a biased and
    > >> prejudiced point of view, and might lead you confrontation rather than
    > >> an amicable agreement.

    >
    > > Well, it's certainly not a job requirement for them.  Some
    > > individuals may of course have first-rate knowledge / abilities
    > > in those areas (I'm a software engineer, a job which also
    > > has no requirements on artistic abilities).  Any random
    > > policeman has some random chance as knowing as much
    > > as I do, just like any random software engineer does.

    >
    > Stereotyping is never a good thing. There are amateurs in many fields
    > unrelated to their profession with a subject knowledge that can be
    > quite comprehensive. Taste and opinion are something else.
    > I know photographers, cops and artists with terrible taste.


    And amateurs nearly always have far inferior
    expertise than professionals, which was my point
    there. I, or a police officer, can't possibly find the
    time in their life to keep up with art at the level
    that a gallery manager or art museum curator
    has to.

    It's "about" police officers only because the original
    post that started this thread was suggesting that
    the low artistic merit of the photos was part of the
    reason for considering them suspicious. That's not
    a judgment police officers are qualified to make in
    general, so the laws shouldn't be written so they
    have to do so.

    > > However, I'll apologize for writing something that sounds
    > > like I think no policeman could possibly have that knowledge.
    > > I don't mean that; I mean only that their required skill set
    > > and training doesn't include the cutting edge of artistic
    > > sensibilities, so they shouldn't be put in situations that require
    > > that to make right decisions.

    >
    > Fair enough.


    Good, thanks.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 26, 2011
    #14
  15. On Aug 25, 2:29 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 8/25/2011 10:43 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > To answer you question directly, in that list, I see
    > > no basis to presume any particular level of artistic
    > > sensibility or knowledge in people of those
    > > professions.  There are a few professions that
    > > actually require some artistic sensibilities --
    > > gallery manager, art museum curator, illustrator,
    > > artist, art director, and others.  Most professions
    > > have no requirements, and generally I see no reason
    > > to expect artistic interest and knowledge to
    > > correlate with profession for people where it
    > > isn't a professional requirement.

    >
    > Most dentists I know have more artistic ability than the average bear.


    That seems believable.

    I remember one case of a dentist buying
    some art I liked at SF convention art shows, so
    at least that dentist didn't have tastes drastically
    different from mine :) .
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 26, 2011
    #15
  16. On Aug 25, 7:02 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 8/25/2011 10:53 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > And in an actual event, you and I (or one of  your officers and I)
    > > might very well manage to bring it through without excitement.

    >
    > > Do they say "Hey you, you can't photograph that!" in a case
    > > where that's clearly not true?  Or do they say some variant of
    > > "Excuse me, sir, may I ask what you're doing here?"  I'll say
    > > "I'm waiting for the light angle to be lower to take some photos
    > > of that bridge there."   And I'll identify myself if asked.  I get
    > > protective of right to photograph, and annoyed at officer
    > > ignorance, but would prefer to avoid becoming a test case
    > > without really egregious provocation.

    >
    > > (The first one would get a polite request that they cite the
    > > law that forbids it, so I can go research that.  And ID
    > > information so I can get back to them if I think they're
    > > wrong.  That could, possibly, end up going okay also, and if
    > > it doesn't the officer is being an asshole.)

    >
    > >   >  I take exception to your remark regarding police and Law
    > > enforcement
    > >> being "*extremely* poor judges of artistic merit". That is a biased and
    > >> prejudiced point of view, and might lead you confrontation rather than
    > >> an amicable agreement.

    >
    > > Well, it's certainly not a job requirement for them.  Some
    > > individuals may of course have first-rate knowledge / abilities
    > > in those areas (I'm a software engineer, a job which also
    > > has no requirements on artistic abilities).  Any random
    > > policeman has some random chance as knowing as much
    > > as I do, just like any random software engineer does.

    >
    > > However, I'll apologize for writing something that sounds
    > > like I think no policeman could possibly have that knowledge.
    > > I don't mean that; I mean only that their required skill set
    > > and training doesn't include the cutting edge of artistic
    > > sensibilities, so they shouldn't be put in situations that require
    > > that to make right decisions.

    >
    > I don't mean to insult you, but the very characteristics that make you a
    > good software engineer may militate against your being a good artist.
    > Yes I well know there are are exceptions. But I understand it to be a
    > left brain, right brain thing.


    Certainly possible. I'm more interested in documentary
    photography than making serious fine art, and I'm not
    that invested in any beliefs about my exquisite artistic
    skills.

    And it's certainly possible that people who seem
    to be in a position of disadvantage can somehow
    manage to excel. We don't always know how, but
    it does happen.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 26, 2011
    #16
  17. David Dyer-Bennet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:28:19 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    >On Aug 25, 10:17 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:43:51 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >> >On Aug 24, 3:56 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:02:00 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet

    >>
    >> >> <> wrote:
    >> >> >Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
    >> >> >violation of my constitutional rights.  Police are *extremely*
    >> >> >poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
    >> >> >the only reason to take photos.

    >>
    >> >> The issue, though, is "Does the officer have probable cause?".

    >>
    >> >> "Probable cause" is the standard by which an officer has grounds to
    >> >> detain you, arrest you, or search you.  You don't set the standard.  

    >>
    >> >> The Fourth Amendment is where you find "probable cause".

    >>
    >> >> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
    >> >> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
    >> >> not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
    >> >> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
    >> >> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    >>
    >> >> You may be doing something perfectly legal and permissible, but the
    >> >> officer doesn't know that.  If you are lurking around a scene and
    >> >> waiting for the sun to cast a shadow to make the timing right to take
    >> >> a photograph, how is the policeman supposed to know what your
    >> >> intentions are?

    >>
    >> >By the camera set up on the tripod pointing at the scene?

    >>
    >> That's one way to defend an argument:  make up facts that don't exist
    >> in the premise.  How about if the guy is wearing a tee shirt that says
    >> "Al-Aqib School of Terrorism"?

    >
    >How about it?
    >
    >> >In any case, the policeman doesn't, clearly, have a warrant
    >> >at that point.

    >>
    >> A warrant is not required for an officer to question you.  A warrant,
    >> in this context, is an instrument authorizing arrest, search, or
    >> seizure.  
    >>
    >> You think a policeman needs a warrant to question a person?  

    >
    >You're the one who brought in the fourth amendment.
    >The actions the policeman is taking clearly don't
    >meet the requirements set forth there (no warrant). If
    >you don't think a warrant is needed, why did you bring
    >up the fourth amendment?


    I brought it up because you brought up "probable cause". It's right
    up there above in this post.

    I don't *think* there's no need for a warrant to question you, I
    *know* there's no need for a warrant. The warrant follows the
    questioning if there's cause; it isn't required for the questioning.

    Asking you what you are doing is not arresting you or searching you or
    anything else prohibited unless the officer has a warrant.

    >> >> If there happens to be a store nearby that has been robbed frequently
    >> >> that you might be casing, and you are not even aware of that store's
    >> >> presence or recent history, how is the policeman supposed to know
    >> >> what's in your mind?

    >>
    >> >How does he expect to find out by hassling me?  If I were in fact
    >> >lurking to rob the store, I'd have a cover story handy.

    >>
    >> Asking you about what you are doing is not "hassling" you.

    >
    >Matter of opinion, and you're dodging the question.


    No, I'm not. Asking you what you are doing is not hassling you by any
    definition of the word. He's as much interested in your behavior and
    reactions as he is in what you say. It's how your "cover story" is
    presented that he's watching for.

    >How does asking what I'm doing help him?
    >If I were in fact up to no good, I'd have a cover
    >story ready.
    >
    >The original claim involved photos being of no artistic
    >merit as part of what made taking them suspicious.
    >That's not a judgment the police generally are
    >equipped to make, so they shouldn't be put in the
    >position of having to.


    No it didn't. Don't make things up. It said "with no apparent
    esthetic [sic] value". Artistic merit and aesthetic value are two
    different things.

    We have a poster here who frequently links to his photographs of
    religious icons and scenes. His photos, in my opinion, have no
    artistic merit. They do have aesthetic value if only to him.

    Even the police spokesman recognizes the difference between the two.
    A software engineer should be able to. Read the next paragraph.

    >> Aesthetic value is not synonymous with artistic merit.  Aesthetic
    >> value means only that the value is more than the physical properties.
    >> A child's handprint in clay has aesthetic value but no artistic merit.
    >>
    >> The judgement can be based solely on perceived intent of the
    >> photographer.  That intent is partially based on the image and
    >> partially based on the person's attitude and reaction when questioned.
    >>
    >> You may not give policemen credit for their artistic perception, but
    >> they are experienced and qualified to judge the personal reactions of
    >> people they question.

    >
    >They think they are, but the statistics strongly suggest
    >otherwise.


    What statistics?

    >> And, yes, you did denigrate policemen.

    >
    >I made a statement about the class of
    >policeman that also applies to the class
    >of doctors and the class of software
    >engineers (which I belong to). It seems
    >to me that you're being hyper-sensitive on
    >behalf of policemen.


    What "class" of policemen? You're digging a deeper hole, here, about
    the subjective abilities of someone in a particular occupation.
    >
    >> >Second of all, artistic vision is very individual, and it's much
    >> >more likely that somebody is an artist with tastes outside
    >> >the norm than that he's a terrorist doing scouting.

    >>
    >> >> Who has more artistic sensibility...bus drivers, policemen, CPAs, bank
    >> >> clerks?  Can you rank them by occupation?

    >>
    >> >Okay, you're clearly feeling defensive of the artistic
    >> >sensibilities of policemen.  I was not criticizing
    >> >policemen; I hope I cleared that up above.

    >>
    >> No, you didn't, and I'm not defensive about the artistic sensibilities
    >> of policemen.  I am defensive about judging the artistic sensibilities
    >> of *anyone* based on their occupation.

    >
    >Same thing. You're dodging the point again.


    What if I were to say that software engineers are basically incapable
    of appreciating fine art, music, or literature? Is that a fair
    statement about the members of the occupation? It's certainly true
    about some, but is it a fair blanket statement? That's what you are
    doing.

    Your "point" seems to be that you feel you are above being questioned
    in any way because you feel that you would not be doing anything
    wrong. You don't seem to recognize that a policeman's point might be
    that he doesn't know what is on your mind and that his job is to
    determine that if he feels it necessary to do so.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 26, 2011
    #17
  18. David Dyer-Bennet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:34:17 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    >On Aug 25, 2:29 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    >> On 8/25/2011 10:43 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > To answer you question directly, in that list, I see
    >> > no basis to presume any particular level of artistic
    >> > sensibility or knowledge in people of those
    >> > professions.  There are a few professions that
    >> > actually require some artistic sensibilities --
    >> > gallery manager, art museum curator, illustrator,
    >> > artist, art director, and others.  Most professions
    >> > have no requirements, and generally I see no reason
    >> > to expect artistic interest and knowledge to
    >> > correlate with profession for people where it
    >> > isn't a professional requirement.

    >>
    >> Most dentists I know have more artistic ability than the average bear.

    >
    >That seems believable.
    >
    >I remember one case of a dentist buying
    >some art I liked at SF convention art shows, so
    >at least that dentist didn't have tastes drastically
    >different from mine :) .


    Yeah, and some dentists buy Thomas Kinkade pieces.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 26, 2011
    #18
  19. David Dyer-Bennet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:33:19 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:


    >It's "about" police officers only because the original
    >post that started this thread was suggesting that
    >the low artistic merit of the photos was part of the
    >reason for considering them suspicious.


    It did not. "Artistic merit" was never mentioned.

    Not only did the article not mention "artistic merit", it said
    "If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a
    refinery, it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with
    the individual."

    That says that the image doesn't even have to be seen by the officer,
    let alone judged for merit. What prompts the officer to make contact
    is seeing the person apparently taking photographs of something like a
    refinery.

    The contact is walking over and asking questions. The contact can be
    ended before the officer even views the images. If the photographer
    explains that he's trying to capture the scene as the sun sets behind
    the complex structures for his entry in the Shoot-In, the officer may
    walk away (laughing?) without ever looking at the image. Contact has
    been made.

    If the photographer is shooting film, the image is not seen at all.

    It's the same thing as an officer pulling over a driver who is driving
    erratically. The contact is stopping the driver and asking questions.
    The contact can be ended at that point if it's obvious to the officer
    that the erratic driving was a result of a bee or wasp in the car.

    You can argue that it is inappropriate for an officer to determine
    that taking a photograph is a suspicious act that requires contact,
    and I'll probably agree with you in most cases.

    However, you've made this an issue of occupation determining a
    person's artistic sensibilities.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 26, 2011
    #19
  20. David Dyer-Bennet

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/26/2011 2:51 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:34:17 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Aug 25, 2:29 pm, PeterN<> wrote:
    >>> On 8/25/2011 10:43 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> To answer you question directly, in that list, I see
    >>>> no basis to presume any particular level of artistic
    >>>> sensibility or knowledge in people of those
    >>>> professions. There are a few professions that
    >>>> actually require some artistic sensibilities --
    >>>> gallery manager, art museum curator, illustrator,
    >>>> artist, art director, and others. Most professions
    >>>> have no requirements, and generally I see no reason
    >>>> to expect artistic interest and knowledge to
    >>>> correlate with profession for people where it
    >>>> isn't a professional requirement.
    >>>
    >>> Most dentists I know have more artistic ability than the average bear.

    >>
    >> That seems believable.
    >>
    >> I remember one case of a dentist buying
    >> some art I liked at SF convention art shows, so
    >> at least that dentist didn't have tastes drastically
    >> different from mine :) .

    >
    > Yeah, and some dentists buy Thomas Kinkade pieces.
    >

    Sorry Tony.
    there is a parallel between the skills needed to do certain types of
    dentistry and artistic ability, including but not limited to sculpture.
    think about it. Is there not a certain amount of sculpturing involved in
    filling your tooth, although on a different scale?

    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 26, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. beachpirate2

    some misc beach photos

    beachpirate2, Aug 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    346
    beachpirate2
    Aug 27, 2003
  2. beachpirate2

    Misc mountain photos and beach sunrise photos

    beachpirate2, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    625
    Paul Heslop
    Nov 12, 2003
  3. Doc Martian
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    604
    - Bobb -
    Jun 10, 2006
  4. JohnCM
    Replies:
    440
    Views:
    5,072
  5. Au79

    Windows defense handcuffs good guys

    Au79, Aug 15, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    453
Loading...

Share This Page