From: David Ruether on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c2d37af$0$5508$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message news:i0irh6$6pu$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> I'm still trying to figure out what these theories and observations of yours
>> are, and why you have attempted to present them... So far, I see no point
>> to them except a partial one: *sometimes* in photography and music (and in other fields), one's background (culturally and in
>> upbringing) *may* noticeably influence one's artistic output - but this is far from universally true.

> All I was doing was responding to your comment about music becoming more international, by stating that this is also true about
> photography and other art forms.

Actually, that was not one of my comments, as I recall - and what you
point out has become almost an obvious "trueism" (and it does seem
somewhat counter to your premise about the origins of the different
styles in the instances you cite...;-).

> There is no ":may" in my observation. I believe we are all influenced by our culture and upbringing, at least initially. My
> examples merely illustrated the work of three fine photographers who were clearly so influenced.

There are, are-not, or may-be strong, or partial, influences on styles, making
any overall "theory" about their cultural and background origins often not very
useful, I think. You also appear to have supported this multi-sided view in your
posts (at the same time that you appear to argue one side or another...;-).

> I see no reason anyone would tae offense at that.
> --
> Peter

I did not take offense at anything, but I did comment on the lack of clarity
and consistency in whatever point(s) you were trying to make (which
also included "supportive" irrelevancies...;-). It was difficult to figure out
whether or not you had any relevant point to make, or if so, what it was.
Sorry - and I do not mean to offend.
--DR