| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2011 01:19:35 PM · #101 |
Doc beat me to it
who or what decides the fine lines of these categories?
Doesn't it come back to the individual.
The problem is ..when others try to tell me what it is.
Message edited by author 2011-02-09 13:23:00. |
|
|
|
02/09/2011 01:53:38 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by LVicari:
Doc beat me to it
who or what decides the fine lines of these categories?
Doesn't it come back to the individual.
The problem is ..when others try to tell me what it is. |
I understand that. I meant it's art by definition because of where it is, what it is doing there. One may assert that it's not 'artistic' by one's own lights, but that doesn't change what it is in the categorical sense. I personally loathe country music and wince every time I hear it; I can therefore say it's sentimental, banal crap, but I cant thereby say that it's not music. Alas. |
|
|
|
02/09/2011 04:54:43 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I meant it's art by definition because of where it is, what it is doing there. |
I think I begin to understand. Since this photog is connected, he can submit a lewd snapshit of his S.O. to an "art" competition, and all of a sudden we're talking about the "mood" of the worn, peeling paint and the "emptiness" of the omelette pan? Gah. Just shoot me now.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2011 07:13:37 PM · #104 |
| dang, Duchamp peeled this onion a hundred years ago and people still can't smell it. |
|
|
|
02/09/2011 07:22:50 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
dang, Duchamp peeled this onion a hundred years ago and people still can't smell it. |
hundred years gone by, a peeled onion ain't fresh enough no more.... fumelessness |
|
|
|
02/09/2011 09:01:33 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
dang, Duchamp peeled this onion a hundred years ago and people still can't smell it. |
Ah,  posthumous, I bow, but, perhaps, not too low. |
|
|
|
02/09/2011 09:25:56 PM · #107 |
YANKO'D!
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I seem to remember a urinal on the wall once, speaking of Duchamp :-)
R. |
|
|
|
|
02/09/2011 09:29:34 PM · #108 |
[i]Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by LVicari:
If [i]you think it is porn, then, it's porn.
If you think it is art, then, it's art.
|
Sorry Leo, I can't agree. It seems like a broad-minded statement, but it's not really. It's just sophistry, and does nothing to address the OP's question. I understand your intent, but I have seen an exhibition cancelled and the works actually confiscated by the police because a few determined people demanded that what they think must prevail for everybody. And they made enough of a stink that it did. The photograph in the OP is not porn, by definition. It is art, by definition. Imposing one's own interpretation or prejudices on it does not change that.
An individual of course has the right to call it as they personally see it (the essence of your post), but that does not change what it is or isn't in any categorical sense. Nor should it.
I should add that I personally think it's a photograph on no real consequence, and is notable only for its adolescent crudity (as art). I also thought that those works I saw confiscated by the police were indeed offensive and cringeworthy. But not as offensive as their confiscation was. |
[/i][/i]
Well, Lamprou got here, at DPC also, what he wanted to begin with: ATTENTION BY PROVOCATION
There is a very visible line between ART, porn, erotica and the sheer desire of provocation to get the 10 minutes of fame.
Quote ubique again for clarity: But not as offensive as their confiscation was. AND MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID HERE I AGREE WITH: it's a photograph on no real consequence
|
|
|
|
02/09/2011 10:07:21 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by ubique:
It is art, by definition. |
That's a bit of a fuzzy statement as I doubt there is any "official" definition for art. |
Define "official." |
|
|
|
02/09/2011 10:34:28 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by ubique:
It is art, by definition. |
That's a bit of a fuzzy statement as I doubt there is any "official" definition for art. |
Define "official." |
OFFICIAL (and oh, what a blasphemy to think of "official art" - a sacrilege!) is not to be defined here. We are in principle, if not "Le salon des Refuses", the ones who look through the foggy window.
I suppose that in our case of looking at Lamprou the best definition of WHAT IS ART would be:
Art is a product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the confused. (Al Capp)
Close also to the same topic topic and said with a pout:
Art is anything people do with distinction. (Louis Dudek)
As to the absolute general struggle of defining ART, here are some thoughts:
Art lives from constraints and dies from freedom. (Leonardo da Vinci)
Art? You just do it. (Martin Ritt)
Art is the path of the creator to his work. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Art is when a Human tells another Human what it is to be Human. (Adrian Elmer)
Art is what is unnecessary, but necessary only to that artist. (Randy Sanders)
Art is the stored honey of the human soul, gathered on wings of misery and travail. (Theodore Dreiser)
I once had the nerve to ask Picasso the question "What is art?" He answered, "Art is a lie which makes us see the truth." (James Dickey)
Art is the triumph over chaos. (John Cheever)
Last but not least:
Art is not a pastime but a priesthood. (Jean Cocteau) |
|
|
|
02/09/2011 11:26:22 PM · #111 |
It's on!
Message edited by author 2011-02-09 23:26:40.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2011 08:21:08 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
dang, Duchamp peeled this onion a hundred years ago and people still can't smell it. |
Are you suggesting that he was having a laugh at the pretentiousness of "art" critics by submitting something with little-to-no artistic value, just to watch them fall over themselves to praise it? |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 09:07:39 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by posthumous:
dang, Duchamp peeled this onion a hundred years ago and people still can't smell it. |
Are you suggesting that he was having a laugh at the pretentiousness of "art" critics by submitting something with little-to-no artistic value, just to watch them fall over themselves to praise it? |
That's totally not what happened, you know? Pretty much the opposite, actually. The howls of outrage could be heard miles from the Salon :-)
R. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 12:57:59 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
It's on!
 |
This should be good. An epic battle!
|
|
|
|
02/10/2011 01:30:02 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by posthumous:
dang, Duchamp peeled this onion a hundred years ago and people still can't smell it. |
Are you suggesting that he was having a laugh at the pretentiousness of "art" critics by submitting something with little-to-no artistic value, just to watch them fall over themselves to praise it? |
As Bear says, they did not fall over themselves to praise it, nor did Duchamp think they would. Duchamp was having a laugh at "art" itself, not merely critics. He was also expanding the idea of what art can be, adding a conceptual element, something beyond mere "skill" or "craft." Art can be an art of ideas.
The relevant point here is that yes indeed, something is art simply because it is called art. That is part of the "context"of the art, so a piece of art is allowed to play with the idea that it is being called art, just like it is allowed to play with mythology, history, popular culture, etc.
So when you ask "Since this photog is connected, he can submit a lewd snapshit of his S.O. to an "art" competition, and all of a sudden we're talking about the "mood" of the worn, peeling paint and the "emptiness" of the omelette pan?" The answer is yes, saying something is art immediately allows people to discuss it as such. In turn, those people can decide it is bad art, based on analysis and discussion and thoughtfulness. Shutting down such conversations is what will make us most vulnerable to bad art.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2011 03:50:47 PM · #116 |
|
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: 08/21/2025 01:50:07 PM EDT.
