> I think there's a difference between "photography will change art--we need to be ready" and "photography will change art, therefore stop photography."
That wasn't the critique. The statements then were that photographs weren't actually art at all. They were the results of specialists with skills but not 'art'. Yet the photograph as a product was displacing real art in the marketplace.
We're not jurors or NTSB investigators - this is just a public messageboard on a tech-focused platform. It's totally fine to speculate and wonder here ... and to be corrected respectfully.
Was anything I said disrespectful? It is not intended to be, but it may read as somewhat stern; that's more because speculating without having the fundamentals down is not what I expect from HN. The knowledge in question isn't arcane or a secret.
It's one of those situations where any one risk not occurring probably would have ended up with no excursion but all risks present at the same time made this outcome.
There have been big changes over the decades on that but the counterfactual is also that you could imagine lots of crashes from confusion in the cockpit during critical times if two pilots are working towards cross-objectives or are more occupied communicating to eachother than just doing what one person said needs to happen.
That's been proposed before btw and game theorists can justify that as being more stable in some ways. However it reduces the power of the incumbents (so why let it happen?) and the odds of having an irrational actor with nukes goes up.
both. And it's important to remember that. Luck being a main force (which is really true for almost any outcome good or bad). The other forces being talent and labor.
That wasn't the critique. The statements then were that photographs weren't actually art at all. They were the results of specialists with skills but not 'art'. Yet the photograph as a product was displacing real art in the marketplace.
reply