What conceivable importance to the history of AR does the "Konica Pocket Handbook" have? It sounds like we're addig any book by an AR student that acknowledges AR. WE should restirct this timeline to events which were important to AR. - Willmcw 20:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I saw the book, a few years back, and as I recall it related various issues of photographic technique to the Siegel Theory of Opposites. Photography is not my field--music is--so I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't immediately quote the relevant passages. But I remember the relation being made between the philosophic ideas of Eli Siegel, and "down-to-earth" practical matters a working photographer would face.
- I'm sure there'll be photographers out there who could add to this, and quote directly from the book. But since the issue of the relevance of this book came up, I thought I ought to comment on it. I hope the comments are useful. [egmusic, Nov. 6, 2005]
- I don't doubt that the book exists, or that it contains an essay on AR as it applies to photography. My question is: "what makes this book important to AR?" - Willmcw 01:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought I wrote up my edits when I did them in January, but I just noticed they're not here. Anyway, I removed several things from the article that aren't really related to Aesthetic Realism. The AR people want to trumpet every accolade ever received by one of their members, but that's just not really related to AR itself. I was rather conservative in my pruning -- lots more should be removed, but given my status as this group's most visible critic I felt some restraint was in order. I'll leave further editing to other editors. Likewise, if independent editors feel that I've gone too far, they're welcome to reinstate the bits I deleted. - MichaelBluejay ( talk) 06:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why was material deleted from the article? [1] Will Beback talk 06:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This article has been almost totally unsourced since 2007. While I am personally fond of referring to simple chronologies to supplement complicated histories, timelines are not typical on Wikipedia, and this is not a complicated history. I suggest that we should move any materials which can be sourced to the AR article or Siegel bio and delete the rest. We don't need to decide this now, but we should start adding sources to anything we want to keep. Will Beback talk 08:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
What conceivable importance to the history of AR does the "Konica Pocket Handbook" have? It sounds like we're addig any book by an AR student that acknowledges AR. WE should restirct this timeline to events which were important to AR. - Willmcw 20:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I saw the book, a few years back, and as I recall it related various issues of photographic technique to the Siegel Theory of Opposites. Photography is not my field--music is--so I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't immediately quote the relevant passages. But I remember the relation being made between the philosophic ideas of Eli Siegel, and "down-to-earth" practical matters a working photographer would face.
- I'm sure there'll be photographers out there who could add to this, and quote directly from the book. But since the issue of the relevance of this book came up, I thought I ought to comment on it. I hope the comments are useful. [egmusic, Nov. 6, 2005]
- I don't doubt that the book exists, or that it contains an essay on AR as it applies to photography. My question is: "what makes this book important to AR?" - Willmcw 01:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought I wrote up my edits when I did them in January, but I just noticed they're not here. Anyway, I removed several things from the article that aren't really related to Aesthetic Realism. The AR people want to trumpet every accolade ever received by one of their members, but that's just not really related to AR itself. I was rather conservative in my pruning -- lots more should be removed, but given my status as this group's most visible critic I felt some restraint was in order. I'll leave further editing to other editors. Likewise, if independent editors feel that I've gone too far, they're welcome to reinstate the bits I deleted. - MichaelBluejay ( talk) 06:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why was material deleted from the article? [1] Will Beback talk 06:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This article has been almost totally unsourced since 2007. While I am personally fond of referring to simple chronologies to supplement complicated histories, timelines are not typical on Wikipedia, and this is not a complicated history. I suggest that we should move any materials which can be sourced to the AR article or Siegel bio and delete the rest. We don't need to decide this now, but we should start adding sources to anything we want to keep. Will Beback talk 08:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)