DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> digital photography and digital art?
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 90 of 90, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/07/2007 04:03:39 PM · #76
Originally posted by Tez:
because art is the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements. Photographers arrange elements within the picture to create their vision. Artists (painters, sculptures, architects, great chefs) arrange elements within their medium to create their vision, or their interpetation.


Do you consider a snapshot art? What if someone takes no consideration of compositon or puts no thought into the photograph, do you still consider that art?
 12/07/2007 04:10:37 PM · #77
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Tez:
because art is the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements. Photographers arrange elements within the picture to create their vision. Artists (painters, sculptures, architects, great chefs) arrange elements within their medium to create their vision, or their interpetation.


Do you consider a snapshot art? What if someone takes no consideration of compositon or puts no thought into the photograph, do you still consider that art?


would you consider someone throwing paint at a canvas art?
 12/07/2007 04:30:00 PM · #78
Originally posted by JayA:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Tez:
because art is the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements. Photographers arrange elements within the picture to create their vision. Artists (painters, sculptures, architects, great chefs) arrange elements within their medium to create their vision, or their interpetation.


Do you consider a snapshot art? What if someone takes no consideration of compositon or puts no thought into the photograph, do you still consider that art?


would you consider someone throwing paint at a canvas art?


If you are referring to Jackson Pollock or some other abstract expressionist, yes. There is a method to the madness that they created. I do belive that a snapshot can be art, but not all snapshots. It all depends on the intent of the person taking the picture whether or not a photo is art, imo.
 12/07/2007 04:32:53 PM · #79
Art, like Beauty is in the eye of the beholder THE END
12/07/2007 04:44:40 PM · #80
Originally posted by JayA:
Art, like Beauty is in the eye of the beholder THE END


I'll disagree, I believe art is in the eye of the creator, whether or not others see what the creator intended is irrelevant. NOT THE END
 12/07/2007 04:51:39 PM · #81
yawn
 12/07/2007 04:55:11 PM · #82
Originally posted by JayA:
yawn

agreed, I'm getting sleepy with this as well:)
 12/07/2007 06:16:57 PM · #83
I'm thinking that it may be possible to take pictures with a camera, even a very expensive one, and at the same time have no awareness of or interest in art. I can understand the idea that letting art intrude into the process of photography will corrupt it. The classic photographer is not supposed to become part of the story, but to take the picture without getting involved emotionally or physically or mentally with anything but the camera. Classic documentary photography--make a faithful record only.

At the same time, I'm an artist. The idea of not being emotionally or physically or mentally involved with the processes of photography is very strange. I get involved with the story all the time. I have no interest in creating a faithful record, even supposing such a thing was possible.

The thing that astonishes me is that non-artist photographers seem to want to denigrate, invalidate, & otherwise banish, shun, shame & bully artist photographers into changing their ways. Why? Why would anyone think it was desirable, much less possible, for an artist to give up art?
 12/07/2007 06:51:24 PM · #84
I have not really followed this thread a whole lot but I found it extremely interesting comparing it to this thread from a few years ago. From the main gist of the thread, the definition of 'Digital Art' seemed to have changed quite dramatically from what it is seemingly being defined as now. Just read the first page of it, it is quite interesting!
J
 12/07/2007 09:52:32 PM · #85
Originally posted by Tez:
because art is the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements. Photographers arrange elements within the picture to create their vision. Artists (painters, sculptures, architects, great chefs) arrange elements within their medium to create their vision, or their interpetation.


This seems too general of a definition of what art is. Any deliberate act in this case is art. Along with painting and sculptures and all other forms of art you must include all acts that are "the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements". If I decide to fire a gun through a window is that art? If I fire that gun through that window to murder a person on the other side is that art? It is a conscious arrangement of movements. Is the lawyer who defines me in court, who very carefully crafts a defense an artist when he goes through the movements in the courtroom and outside of it.

Conscious production of sounds or colors is just as vague. Is the fact I can speak proof enough I am an artist? The fact that it is conscious production of sound is undeniable. If I paint my apartment a new color, are those freshly painted walls an artwork?
12/07/2007 10:14:39 PM · #86
Originally posted by JayA:
Art, like Beauty is in the eye of the beholder THE END


I don't think this analogy makes sense. It makes more sense to say "the value of a work of art is in the eye of the beholder(or artist if you prefer)". If art is in the eye of the beholder one can assert that absolutely anything is art.
 12/07/2007 10:35:00 PM · #87
Originally posted by MarioAngel:
Originally posted by JayA:
Art, like Beauty is in the eye of the beholder THE END


I don't think this analogy makes sense. It makes more sense to say "the value of a work of art is in the eye of the beholder(or artist if you prefer)". If art is in the eye of the beholder one can assert that absolutely anything is art.


If art were in the eye of the beholder, I'd only pray she'll make a fist and knock all the travesties out of this thread.
12/07/2007 10:41:41 PM · #88
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by MarioAngel:
Originally posted by JayA:
Art, like Beauty is in the eye of the beholder THE END


I don't think this analogy makes sense. It makes more sense to say "the value of a work of art is in the eye of the beholder(or artist if you prefer)". If art is in the eye of the beholder one can assert that absolutely anything is art.


If art were in the eye of the beholder, I'd only pray she'll make a fist and knock all the travesties out of this thread.


?
 12/07/2007 10:42:35 PM · #89
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by MarioAngel:
Originally posted by JayA:
Art, like Beauty is in the eye of the beholder THE END


I don't think this analogy makes sense. It makes more sense to say "the value of a work of art is in the eye of the beholder(or artist if you prefer)". If art is in the eye of the beholder one can assert that absolutely anything is art.


If art were in the eye of the beholder, I'd only pray she'll make a fist and knock all the travesties out of this thread.


ROFL - the first two times I read that, I thought it said transvestites.

Sorry. Please continue this productive intercourse.
 12/07/2007 10:45:09 PM · #90
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
... the first two times I read that, I thought it said transvestites...


travesty - ORIGIN mid 17th cent. (as an adjective in the sense [dressed to appear ridiculous] ): from French travesti ‘disguised,’ past participle of travestir, from Italian travestire, from trans- ‘across’ + vestire ‘clothe.’
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/18/2025 07:41:17 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/18/2025 07:41:17 PM EDT.