In roger scruton article, he states " ‘… it is important to separate painting and photography as much as possible, so as to discuss not actual painting and actual photography but an ideal form of each, an ideal which represents the essential differences betwen them ... "

i am confused as to why he decribes it as an "ideal" photography ?

what is an ideal photograph ? is there an ideal photograph?

what neccessary and sufficient condition can he give to this claim ?

and if there is an intention in the photograph ... is it a weak intention ?

magprob

Well, near as I can figure is that it is pretty much the same situation as one BIG quagmire I found myself in why...ugh...oh...some time back in which the completely mistifying perposal of such magnitudanal presumptiveness just completely beset my humble little quarter stake of pebble strewn incoragabilty as to ponder the vulifying presumtiveness as to if or not if why mud was not chocolate mousse and without jerking a knee it was plain to me that the because of it is just because it aint! This post may or may not follow a completely straight line along with the true nature of the selected theme however it does contain encrypted and secret information as to how to take over the entire world with just a pocket knife, a piece of red yarn and three marbles so drop your remote controls and follow me. No! You cannot bring your Gameboy for it will only give us away. There, I hope that helps with your truely matter of life and death problem.