|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/24/2010 06:31:41 PM · #26 |
A still life (plural still lifes[1]) is a work of art depicting mostly inanimate subject matter, typically commonplace objects which may be either natural (food, flowers, plants, rocks, or shells) or man-made (drinking glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, and so on) in an artificial setting.
And if a building isn't manmade and DisneyWorld is not artificial, then I don't know what is
Message edited by author 2010-08-24 18:32:33. |
|
|
|
08/24/2010 06:38:16 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
A still life (plural still lifes[1]) is a work of art depicting mostly inanimate subject matter, typically commonplace objects which may be either natural (food, flowers, plants, rocks, or shells) or man-made (drinking glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, and so on) in an artificial setting.
And if a building isn't manmade and DisneyWorld is not artificial, then I don't know what is |
I believe the artificial setting is set up by the artist. That building is in it's natural environment. As unnatural as that may be.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2010 06:49:43 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Abra:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
A still life (plural still lifes[1]) is a work of art depicting mostly inanimate subject matter, typically commonplace objects which may be either natural (food, flowers, plants, rocks, or shells) or man-made (drinking glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, and so on) in an artificial setting.
And if a building isn't manmade and DisneyWorld is not artificial, then I don't know what is |
I believe the artificial setting is set up by the artist. That building is in it's natural environment. As unnatural as that may be. |
Ok, I agree to disagree with all, but DisneyWorld is and is not a natural environment. It was designed by artists to look natural, and even though the trees and plants and all are real, it did not grow in this way naturally, nor did the buildings. They were arranged and built by man, which Disney calls artists, therefore, a still life in a artificial setting set up by artists. But as I said, I will agree to disagree, because I can see it from both sides. Maybe a little bit of a shoehorn, but definitly nowhere as bad as some shoehorns I have seen. |
|
|
|
08/24/2010 06:59:58 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Originally posted by Abra:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
A still life (plural still lifes[1]) is a work of art depicting mostly inanimate subject matter, typically commonplace objects which may be either natural (food, flowers, plants, rocks, or shells) or man-made (drinking glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, and so on) in an artificial setting.
And if a building isn't manmade and DisneyWorld is not artificial, then I don't know what is |
I believe the artificial setting is set up by the artist. That building is in it's natural environment. As unnatural as that may be. |
Ok, I agree to disagree with all, but DisneyWorld is and is not a natural environment. It was designed by artists to look natural, and even though the trees and plants and all are real, it did not grow in this way naturally, nor did the buildings. They were arranged and built by man, which Disney calls artists, therefore, a still life in a artificial setting set up by artists. But as I said, I will agree to disagree, because I can see it from both sides. Maybe a little bit of a shoehorn, but definitly nowhere as bad as some shoehorns I have seen. |
As someone famous once said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
no matter how you spin it, a building will never be a still life. Look at the examples in your own description, anything in that list resemble a building? Trees, even if planted by humans are not inanimate objects. In fact, the word "still" in Still Life translates into most other languages as "dead". In French it's Nature Morte, in Italian it's Natura Morta, in Spanish it's Naturaleza Muerta.
So even in the most generous interpretation of allowing a building in a still life, a live tree would not be allowed. |
|
|
|
08/24/2010 07:17:55 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Originally posted by Abra:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
A still life (plural still lifes[1]) is a work of art depicting mostly inanimate subject matter, typically commonplace objects which may be either natural (food, flowers, plants, rocks, or shells) or man-made (drinking glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, and so on) in an artificial setting.
And if a building isn't manmade and DisneyWorld is not artificial, then I don't know what is |
I believe the artificial setting is set up by the artist. That building is in it's natural environment. As unnatural as that may be. |
Ok, I agree to disagree with all, but DisneyWorld is and is not a natural environment. It was designed by artists to look natural, and even though the trees and plants and all are real, it did not grow in this way naturally, nor did the buildings. They were arranged and built by man, which Disney calls artists, therefore, a still life in a artificial setting set up by artists. But as I said, I will agree to disagree, because I can see it from both sides. Maybe a little bit of a shoehorn, but definitly nowhere as bad as some shoehorns I have seen. |
As someone famous once said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
no matter how you spin it, a building will never be a still life. Look at the examples in your own description, anything in that list resemble a building? Trees, even if planted by humans are not inanimate objects. In fact, the word "still" in Still Life translates into most other languages as "dead". In French it's Nature Morte, in Italian it's Natura Morta, in Spanish it's Naturaleza Muerta.
So even in the most generous interpretation of allowing a building in a still life, a live tree would not be allowed. |
The definition came from wikipedia, not myself, so I did not spin it, I googled it. Also, if a coin, vase, glass, jewelry, etc. are considered still life, then a building, which is INANIMATE AND MAN MADE, is, in my book considered still life, and if not, then I don't know what is. As far as the tree being still life, as I said, I got the definition from wikipedia, I did not make it up myself. As for the definition of still life... from Merriam Webster dictionary online:
still lifenoun
plural still lifes
Definition of STILL LIFE
1: a picture consisting predominantly of inanimate objects
2: the category of graphic arts concerned with inanimate subject matter
So no matter what, a building is INANIMATE, unless you can prove to me otherwise. It does not breathe, move, live, and is MAN MADE. Now if you want to argue with the Webster dictionary definition, I would suggest you call them. I believe my picture, in which the building is the subject, is considered inanimate, unless you can show me that Space Mountain actually lives and breathes, I cannot see how you would disagree.
Here is a link to a photo website wih pages of still life photos. This is a phot from there. Is this not a building? It seems to be considered still life elsewhere. Is DPChallenge the only photo website that does not consider a building still life??? Please enlighten me.
This is a still life stock photo
A still life photo with TREES in it
Message edited by author 2010-08-24 19:47:19. |
|
|
|
08/24/2010 08:07:16 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Originally posted by Abra:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
A still life (plural still lifes[1]) is a work of art depicting mostly inanimate subject matter, typically commonplace objects which may be either natural (food, flowers, plants, rocks, or shells) or man-made (drinking glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, and so on) in an artificial setting.
And if a building isn't manmade and DisneyWorld is not artificial, then I don't know what is |
I believe the artificial setting is set up by the artist. That building is in it's natural environment. As unnatural as that may be. |
Ok, I agree to disagree with all, but DisneyWorld is and is not a natural environment. It was designed by artists to look natural, and even though the trees and plants and all are real, it did not grow in this way naturally, nor did the buildings. They were arranged and built by man, which Disney calls artists, therefore, a still life in a artificial setting set up by artists. But as I said, I will agree to disagree, because I can see it from both sides. Maybe a little bit of a shoehorn, but definitly nowhere as bad as some shoehorns I have seen. |
As someone famous once said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
no matter how you spin it, a building will never be a still life. Look at the examples in your own description, anything in that list resemble a building? Trees, even if planted by humans are not inanimate objects. In fact, the word "still" in Still Life translates into most other languages as "dead". In French it's Nature Morte, in Italian it's Natura Morta, in Spanish it's Naturaleza Muerta.
So even in the most generous interpretation of allowing a building in a still life, a live tree would not be allowed. |
The definition came from wikipedia, not myself, so I did not spin it, I googled it. Also, if a coin, vase, glass, jewelry, etc. are considered still life, then a building, which is INANIMATE AND MAN MADE, is, in my book considered still life, and if not, then I don't know what is. As far as the tree being still life, as I said, I got the definition from wikipedia, I did not make it up myself. As for the definition of still life... from Merriam Webster dictionary online:
still lifenoun
plural still lifes
Definition of STILL LIFE
1: a picture consisting predominantly of inanimate objects
2: the category of graphic arts concerned with inanimate subject matter
So no matter what, a building is INANIMATE, unless you can prove to me otherwise. It does not breathe, move, live, and is MAN MADE. Now if you want to argue with the Webster dictionary definition, I would suggest you call them. I believe my picture, in which the building is the subject, is considered inanimate, unless you can show me that Space Mountain actually lives and breathes, I cannot see how you would disagree.
Here is a link to a photo website wih pages of still life photos. This is a phot from there. Is this not a building? It seems to be considered still life elsewhere. Is DPChallenge the only photo website that does not consider a building still life??? Please enlighten me.
This is a still life stock photo
A still life photo with TREES in it |
Ok, this is getting old. Both of those are grossly miscategorized. They either do not get it, or they used inappropriate categories to increase hits to the image.
Even in your own quoted definition and by your use of all caps, a still life consists of inanimate objects. A living tree, still planted in the ground, is not an inanimate object.
//www.trueknowledge.com/q/is_a_tree_an_inanimate_object
//www.reference.com/motif/Health/inanimate-objects
//www.chacha.com/question/is-a-tree-considered-an-inanimate-object
|
|
|
|
08/24/2010 08:10:44 PM · #32 |
This is a wedding photo.
 |
|
|
|
08/24/2010 08:11:38 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Originally posted by Abra:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
A still life (plural still lifes[1]) is a work of art depicting mostly inanimate subject matter, typically commonplace objects which may be either natural (food, flowers, plants, rocks, or shells) or man-made (drinking glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, and so on) in an artificial setting.
And if a building isn't manmade and DisneyWorld is not artificial, then I don't know what is |
I believe the artificial setting is set up by the artist. That building is in it's natural environment. As unnatural as that may be. |
Ok, I agree to disagree with all, but DisneyWorld is and is not a natural environment. It was designed by artists to look natural, and even though the trees and plants and all are real, it did not grow in this way naturally, nor did the buildings. They were arranged and built by man, which Disney calls artists, therefore, a still life in a artificial setting set up by artists. But as I said, I will agree to disagree, because I can see it from both sides. Maybe a little bit of a shoehorn, but definitly nowhere as bad as some shoehorns I have seen. |
As someone famous once said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
no matter how you spin it, a building will never be a still life. Look at the examples in your own description, anything in that list resemble a building? Trees, even if planted by humans are not inanimate objects. In fact, the word "still" in Still Life translates into most other languages as "dead". In French it's Nature Morte, in Italian it's Natura Morta, in Spanish it's Naturaleza Muerta.
So even in the most generous interpretation of allowing a building in a still life, a live tree would not be allowed. |
The definition came from wikipedia, not myself, so I did not spin it, I googled it. Also, if a coin, vase, glass, jewelry, etc. are considered still life, then a building, which is INANIMATE AND MAN MADE, is, in my book considered still life, and if not, then I don't know what is. As far as the tree being still life, as I said, I got the definition from wikipedia, I did not make it up myself. As for the definition of still life... from Merriam Webster dictionary online:
still lifenoun
plural still lifes
Definition of STILL LIFE
1: a picture consisting predominantly of inanimate objects
2: the category of graphic arts concerned with inanimate subject matter
So no matter what, a building is INANIMATE, unless you can prove to me otherwise. It does not breathe, move, live, and is MAN MADE. Now if you want to argue with the Webster dictionary definition, I would suggest you call them. I believe my picture, in which the building is the subject, is considered inanimate, unless you can show me that Space Mountain actually lives and breathes, I cannot see how you would disagree.
Here is a link to a photo website wih pages of still life photos. This is a phot from there. Is this not a building? It seems to be considered still life elsewhere. Is DPChallenge the only photo website that does not consider a building still life??? Please enlighten me.
This is a still life stock photo
A still life photo with TREES in it |
Ok, this is getting old. Both of those are grossly miscategorized. They either do not get it, or they used inappropriate categories to increase hits to the image.
Even in your own quoted definition and by your use of all caps, a still life consists of inanimate objects. A living tree, still planted in the ground, is not an inanimate object.
//www.trueknowledge.com/q/is_a_tree_an_inanimate_object
//www.reference.com/motif/Health/inanimate-objects
//www.chacha.com/question/is-a-tree-considered-an-inanimate-object |
What's with the tree? My photo was of a building, not a tree. And it's getting old because I have facts backing me up. |
|
|
|
08/24/2010 08:33:52 PM · #34 |
If that building is a still life, this is a really good photo of a sandwich.
 |
|
|
|
08/24/2010 08:44:44 PM · #35 |
Regarding 1x - try using Firefox when browsing the site. It does not play well with other browswers.
Regarding definitions, childish insults, bickering, and pictures of sandwiches (which is really quite funny), it is no wonder that many of the people I stayed here for have faded into the sunset. Sad. Beginning of the end, at least for some of the old guard, I fear. |
|
|
|
08/24/2010 08:47:17 PM · #36 |
| Bottom line is this: You can't apply mathematical reasoning to art. Art is subjective, and definitions are fuzzy at best. Words and phrases like the ones in your definition ("mostly," "typically," "may be") aren't conducive to the type of reasoning you're trying to apply. You can argue till you're blue in the face (as you have been) that something does or doesn't fit the definition. But ultimately it's the critics and curators and art consumers (and, I suppose, DPC voters) that will decide how effectively a work of art adheres to whatever notion of still life happens to be in vogue at the moment. |
|
|
|
08/24/2010 08:51:05 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Bottom line is this: You can't apply mathematical reasoning to art. Art is subjective, and definitions are fuzzy at best. Words and phrases like the ones in your definition ("mostly," "typically," "may be") aren't conducive to the type of reasoning you're trying to apply. You can argue till you're blue in the face (as you have been) that something does or doesn't fit the definition. But ultimately it's the critics and curators and art consumers (and, I suppose, DPC voters) that will decide how effectively a work of art adheres to whatever notion of still life happens to be in vogue at the moment. |
As I said, we will disagree. But no matter what website, still life is still life. And according to the most popular dictionary in the US, a building is still life. If you cannot see that, I am sorry for your ignorance. But this was really fun. And I do like the Chinese sandwich in the picture above. |
|
|
|
08/24/2010 09:09:15 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
A still life (plural still lifes[1]) is a work of art depicting mostly inanimate subject matter, typically commonplace objects which may be either natural (food, flowers, plants, rocks, or shells) or man-made (drinking glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, and so on) in an artificial setting.
And if a building isn't manmade and DisneyWorld is not artificial, then I don't know what is |
Wow, you a lawyer by trade? You've stretched that loop hole out so far you could pilot a 747 through it.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2010 09:28:54 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
As I said, we will disagree. But no matter what website, still life is still life. And according to the most popular dictionary in the US, a building is still life. If you cannot see that, I am sorry for your ignorance. |
A diverging opinion does not constitute ignorance...Failure to consider alternative options might very well be.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-08-24 21:29:16. |
|
|
|
08/24/2010 09:37:13 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
As I said, we will disagree. But no matter what website, still life is still life. And according to the most popular dictionary in the US, a building is still life. If you cannot see that, I am sorry for your ignorance. But this was really fun. And I do like the Chinese sandwich in the picture above. |
Glad I could amuse you with my ignorance. Good night. |
|
|
|
08/24/2010 09:52:50 PM · #41 |
To "abstract" a thing is to reduce it to its essentials. The fork is reasonably abstract, it's not utterly DNMC. The splash-droplet *does* have an "alien" hiding in it, so it makes a passing nod at the topic. The "47 Steps" image isn't in the category we're talking about; due to the nature of the challenge it was entered in, we had no way of KNOWING it didn't meet the challenge until after the votes were tallied. None of these are anywhere near as utterly DNMC as entering a shot of a building from a hotel balcony in a "Still Life" challenge.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2010 10:17:38 PM · #42 |
Let's not forget that the "still life equals inanimate object" equation is grossly overinclusive. By that definition, any architectural shot would be a still life, as would any landscape that had a building as its focal point. So would a majority of abstracts. In fact, all of photography would more or less collapse into three categories: wildlife, portraits, and still lifes.
It's simply an unworkable definition.
Further, Merriam-Webster is not a dictionary that linguists take very seriously. This is a dictionary that, for one example, considers "frenemy" a legitimate word. For any kind of rigorous definition, you'd have to look elsewhere--try the OED or American Heritage.
Finally, to appeal to Merriam-Webster on the basis of its ostensible popularity is to make an argument ad populum, which is one of the most basic legal fallacies.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2010 11:07:29 PM · #43 |
Congrats  rugman1969 ! Not only is your photo a winner, but your thread is doing pretty good too LOL.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2010 11:22:57 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by bvy:
This is a wedding photo.
|
dammit bvy that is a wedding CAKE, not a wedding photo.
hey! are we still alive? |
|
|
|
08/25/2010 06:16:44 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by bvy:
This is a wedding photo.
|
dammit bvy that is a wedding CAKE, not a wedding photo.
|
Blimey, you're right! My ignorance knows no bounds. |
|
|
|
08/25/2010 09:20:40 AM · #46 |
Interesting thread. Enjoyed it...
Regards
Dave Nitsche
(Bone sucking judge on 1X) |
|
|
|
08/25/2010 09:28:28 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Davenit:
Interesting thread. Enjoyed it...
Regards
Dave Nitsche
(Bone sucking judge on 1X) |
lol ;-) |
|
|
|
08/25/2010 09:40:06 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Finally published! This photo got a 4.7 in still life challenge, rejected by 1x, and now Photo of the Week on allears.net. Go figure. Finally, some people appreciate a good photo.
Photo of the Week!!! |
Congratulations. It is an awesome photo that tells a story that was just too busy for a still life. Just my opinion. Don't think it deserved a 4.7. Love the expression on the boys face. that is one big sundae. Thanks for sharing. |
|
|
|
08/25/2010 09:53:51 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by BeckyT:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Finally published! This photo got a 4.7 in still life challenge, rejected by 1x, and now Photo of the Week on allears.net. Go figure. Finally, some people appreciate a good photo.
Photo of the Week!!! |
Congratulations. It is an awesome photo that tells a story that was just too busy for a still life. Just my opinion. Don't think it deserved a 4.7. Love the expression on the boys face. that is one big sundae. Thanks for sharing. |
Except that isn't the photo which rugman is referring to!
August 17th photo is the one that he had published. |
|
|
|
08/25/2010 01:36:45 PM · #50 |
The "arrangement" part has to do with the photographer or artist deliberately arranging things within the scene... or at the very least, finding a scene that looks "deliberately arranged" (in an artistic manner, to be reproduced photographically or in some other form) Also, a more narrow definition of "objects" is required - you know, one that doesn't include gigantic things like buildings. Now do you get what still life is?
We define "types of art" and "movements in art" backwards - we see them, then we try to describe them to make a definition. In the case of "still life," the definition is pretty hard to formulate using basic English, and thus the dictionary's definition is a bit broader than the one artists ans art lovers have in their heads but can't put down on paper. Perhaps a better strategy would be to burn the dictionary, look at classic examples of still life (maybe borrow a book from the library), and try to "join the movement" for a bit. Those types of resources (i.e. written or assembled by art historians or critics) are a lot better than a bunch of DPC users or a dictionary... or even an encyclopedia.
In this case, DPC users agree with that "art critic" perspective and disagree with the dictionary definition... In the case of minimalism, DPC users disagree with both. But I've already left that fruitless debate. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 04:15:48 PM  |
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: 08/04/2025 04:15:48 PM EDT.
|
