| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/09/2007 08:04:47 PM · #26 |
Is painting art?
If you're painting a portrait, a landscape, an abstract work, sure. If you're throwing a fresh coat of off-white on your bedroom wall, not so much.
Likewise, photography is not automatically art or not art. It depends on what you are doing with the medium, not the medium itself.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:18:38 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Is painting art?
If you're painting a portrait, a landscape, an abstract work, sure. If you're throwing a fresh coat of off-white on your bedroom wall, not so much. |
I'll have you know I paint bedroom walls very artistically. :)
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:19:43 PM · #28 |
| some people think Hitler was right... point being, some people are crazy! haha we all know its art! lol |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:24:21 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by rich:
So if I understand correctly, someone creates something without themselves thinking it is art, but you or another third party does perceive it as art. I suppose in that case equal rules apply - who is to tell you that you can't consider it art, even if it is not your creation?
|
So in this case it depends on detection? Only one person is required for something to be art?
Well, that solves the problem that has plagued DPC since it's inception. Are the images on this server art????? I consider *ALL* the images on the server to be art. Now they are!
*maybe with the exception of the images of Art Rotflmao. I ran him through your Nor gate truth table and he canceled out when exposed to art!
*JK Art. I love you images. (where's that bucket of water I keep handy?)
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:27:26 PM · #30 |
A photo of a bloody crime or accident scene is evidence, not art.
When I go on vacation to some wonderful place, I bring back photos to share that place with others and to aid my pathetic memory - again, not art.
If I see something beautiful and I create a picture of it (perhaps even fully intending to frame it and hang it on the wall), THEN I'd call it art.
It is all in the intent and the vision. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:34:21 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by rich:
Seriously. All I am trying to defend here is some kind of notion allowing individuals to decide for themselves what is and is not art. |
This is an extremely arrogant statement.
Why is it you want to force people to label things.
Me, personally, I think everything is art. In one way or another, because everything is used to communicate some type or form of an idea or feeling.
Bad art? I Choose to like it.
Good art? I Choose to like it.
People have the choice to like or dislike anything. But, taking away choice to label something is ridiculous in my opinion.
I will say again... Intent has nothing to do with anything.
Take for instance... someone an 'artist' frustrated with artists block. They fling paint around, throw it into a fan that sprays onto their canvas. Their dealer comes by and sees the canvas. The artist hangs their head in shame and is about to explain the lack of work when the Dealer beings to RAVE about the new masterpieces.
There was no intent, just blind frustration and spilled paint. However, through no ones 'intent' something was just found.
It is all subjective, and there is no way for a label to be placed on it all. well, you personally, or a group of people who think like you can label something... but it won't be excepted by everyone.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:34:24 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
A photo of a bloody crime or accident scene is evidence, not art.
When I go on vacation to some wonderful place, I bring back photos to share that place with others and to aid my pathetic memory - again, not art.
If I see something beautiful and I create a picture of it (perhaps even fully intending to frame it and hang it on the wall), THEN I'd call it art.
It is all in the intent and the vision. |
It was said in another thread that you can't know intent or the intangibles.
So how can we know it is art? |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:36:49 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
A photo of a bloody crime or accident scene is evidence, not art.
When I go on vacation to some wonderful place, I bring back photos to share that place with others and to aid my pathetic memory - again, not art.
If I see something beautiful and I create a picture of it (perhaps even fully intending to frame it and hang it on the wall), THEN I'd call it art.
It is all in the intent and the vision. |
What if I 're-created' a bloody crime scene (which I have been known to do) and It is something I would hang on my walls in a frame because I think it's Beautiful... than its ART! according to your standards. Because I framed it and Hung it on the wall.
Still, it has nothing to do with intent, but all within personal preference.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:38:22 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Beetle:
A photo of a bloody crime or accident scene is evidence, not art.
When I go on vacation to some wonderful place, I bring back photos to share that place with others and to aid my pathetic memory - again, not art.
If I see something beautiful and I create a picture of it (perhaps even fully intending to frame it and hang it on the wall), THEN I'd call it art.
It is all in the intent and the vision. |
It was said in another thread that you can't know intent or the intangibles.
So how can we know it is art? |
Maybe it's like paint splatters. If we assume it was done on purpose then it must be art! :D |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:43:08 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
It was said in another thread that you can't know intent or the intangibles.
So how can we know it is art? |
Some disciplines like physics and maths are very strict and objective. We expect to have to obey its rules, that's how things are.
Art isn't like that, it is very objective, it HAS to be. There is no need to know the exact intent. Just see it and feel it YOUR way.
Quite often we KNOW the intent was to create art (like when some lucky such-and-such gets paid thousands of dollars for some truly weird sculpture for the local park), but that doesn't mean everybody sees it as such, let alone enjoys it.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:46:06 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
What if I 're-created' a bloody crime scene (which I have been known to do) and It is something I would hang on my walls in a frame because I think it's Beautiful... than its ART! according to your standards. Because I framed it and Hung it on the wall.
Still, it has nothing to do with intent, but all within personal preference. |
Fair enough - if you're a sick puppy that likes that sort of thing, then you just "created art" ;-)
Your intent, your preference, your choice.
Thankfully - unlike scientific rules - I DO have a choice in this case :-) |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:49:38 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
if you're a sick puppy that likes that sort of thing |
This is totally uncalled for.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:51:56 PM · #38 |
I'm going on vacation for 10 days, starting tomorrow - if you all could have this figured out by the time I get back that'd be great.
Thanks! |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:54:48 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by rich:
Seriously. All I am trying to defend here is some kind of notion allowing individuals to decide for themselves what is and is not art. |
This is an extremely arrogant statement.
Why is it you want to force people to label things.
Me, personally, I think everything is art. In one way or another, because everything is used to communicate some type or form of an idea or feeling.
Bad art? I Choose to like it.
Good art? I Choose to like it.
People have the choice to like or dislike anything. But, taking away choice to label something is ridiculous in my opinion.
I will say again... Intent has nothing to do with anything.
Take for instance... someone an 'artist' frustrated with artists block. They fling paint around, throw it into a fan that sprays onto their canvas. Their dealer comes by and sees the canvas. The artist hangs their head in shame and is about to explain the lack of work when the Dealer beings to RAVE about the new masterpieces.
There was no intent, just blind frustration and spilled paint. However, through no ones 'intent' something was just found.
It is all subjective, and there is no way for a label to be placed on it all. well, you personally, or a group of people who think like you can label something... but it won't be excepted by everyone. |
You're either a troll or dense. One of the two. I am having trouble deciding which.
Just in case you are dense - giving you the benefit of the doubt - I am not asking you or anyone else to universally agree that something is or is not art. The fact that you think everything is art is terrific - to you. I am betting that is not a universally held view.
Which, again, is my point. What I am saying is that these disagreements don't really matter. It is up to the individual to decide what is and is not art. Isn't that obvious? Discussion is terrific - it leads to all sorts of insight and views on the world that maybe would not have happened outside of the group dynamic.
My point was that if one person thinks that what they are creating is art, then they really should not worry themselves if someone else does not agree. Do you really challenge that? |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 09:03:48 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by rich:
You're either a troll or dense. One of the two. I am having trouble deciding which.
My point was that if one person thinks that what they are creating is art, then they really should not worry themselves if someone else does not agree. Do you really challenge that? |
I am a Dense Troll, ask around.
If I can not understand what was trying to be told to me through their creation,... wait, if the majority can not understand what was trying to be conveyed through the creation, then yes, the creator should worry. They need to worry that they are not getting their message across and they need to try again.
art is a form of communication. Granted one can talk to themselves, however, the reasoning for communication is to tell someone else what is on another's mind. Ideas, thoughts, emotions... the intangible's; art makes them tangible.
Did, or did not the message come across?
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 09:09:45 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by rich:
You're either a troll or dense. One of the two. I am having trouble deciding which.
My point was that if one person thinks that what they are creating is art, then they really should not worry themselves if someone else does not agree. Do you really challenge that? |
I am a Dense Troll, ask around.
If I can not understand what was trying to be told to me through their creation,... wait, if the majority can not understand what was trying to be conveyed through the creation, then yes, the creator should worry. They need to worry that they are not getting their message across and they need to try again.
art is a form of communication. Granted one can talk to themselves, however, the reasoning for communication is to tell someone else what is on another's mind. Ideas, thoughts, emotions... the intangible's; art makes them tangible.
Did, or did not the message come across? |
We're simply on different wavelengths, and that's fine. You seem to think that it is necessary that the artist's message be carried across to some 1^n people, and I do not. I think art is more about the artist, and you appear to think it is about the audience. Agree to disagree and all that. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 09:11:24 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by rich:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by rich:
You're either a troll or dense. One of the two. I am having trouble deciding which.
My point was that if one person thinks that what they are creating is art, then they really should not worry themselves if someone else does not agree. Do you really challenge that? |
I am a Dense Troll, ask around.
If I can not understand what was trying to be told to me through their creation,... wait, if the majority can not understand what was trying to be conveyed through the creation, then yes, the creator should worry. They need to worry that they are not getting their message across and they need to try again.
art is a form of communication. Granted one can talk to themselves, however, the reasoning for communication is to tell someone else what is on another's mind. Ideas, thoughts, emotions... the intangible's; art makes them tangible.
Did, or did not the message come across? |
We're simply on different wavelengths, and that's fine. You seem to think that it is necessary that the artist's message be carried across to some 1^n people, and I do not. I think art is more about the artist, and you appear to think it is about the audience. Agree to disagree and all that. |
I can do for myself all day long and there is no satisfaction.
But, if what I do is shared and enjoyed by others, then the world is my satisfaction.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 09:17:32 PM · #43 |
If it's on the wall and there is no one there to view it, does it make it art?
Art for art's sake...
The need to create VS the sharing of expression |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 09:24:31 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by rich:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by rich:
You're either a troll or dense. One of the two. I am having trouble deciding which.
My point was that if one person thinks that what they are creating is art, then they really should not worry themselves if someone else does not agree. Do you really challenge that? |
I am a Dense Troll, ask around.
If I can not understand what was trying to be told to me through their creation,... wait, if the majority can not understand what was trying to be conveyed through the creation, then yes, the creator should worry. They need to worry that they are not getting their message across and they need to try again.
art is a form of communication. Granted one can talk to themselves, however, the reasoning for communication is to tell someone else what is on another's mind. Ideas, thoughts, emotions... the intangible's; art makes them tangible.
Did, or did not the message come across? |
We're simply on different wavelengths, and that's fine. You seem to think that it is necessary that the artist's message be carried across to some 1^n people, and I do not. I think art is more about the artist, and you appear to think it is about the audience. Agree to disagree and all that. |
I can do for myself all day long and there is no satisfaction.
But, if what I do is shared and enjoyed by others, then the world is my satisfaction. |
I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion of whether photography is or is not art - that is merely a discussion of what brings you personal satisfaction.
So if photography does not bring satisfaction to others, it is not art? I mean what exactly are you even trying to say at this point?
My view is that artists should not let their vision be sullied by other people telling them that what they have created is not art. I think that is the view that shows maximum acceptance; the view that says "I don't necessarily get your creation, but I respect that you had a passion in producing it. So you go, girl/boy."
Of course I don't like every photo I see - I downright dislike some of them. And I may personally not appreciate them as art, but I at least recognize that the author might. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 09:24:45 PM · #45 |
Piet Hein, the Danish Philosopher/Mathematician, said "There is one art, / No more, no less: / to do all things / with artlessness."
R.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 09:33:32 PM · #46 |
/
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 21:44:16. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 09:53:10 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by rich:
I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion of whether photography is or is not art - that is merely a discussion of what brings you personal satisfaction.
So if photography does not bring satisfaction to others, it is not art? I mean what exactly are you even trying to say at this point?
My view is that artists should not let their vision be sullied by other people telling them that what they have created is not art. I think that is the view that shows maximum acceptance; the view that says "I don't necessarily get your creation, but I respect that you had a passion in producing it. So you go, girl/boy."
Of course I don't like every photo I see - I downright dislike some of them. And I may personally not appreciate them as art, but I at least recognize that the author might. |
If, I could give you my exact meaning with words I would be a writer, but as it is. I am not a writer I am a Photographer.
My chosen form of communication is Photography, my Art is Photography... it is simple really.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 09:55:08 PM · #48 |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 10:02:15 PM · #49 |
"art" is a term used to describe "the method" or "passion" of doing something. if you like tuning cars, then you can call it "the art of car tuning", or if you like to cut bonsai trees like gramps, then you can also call it "the art of bonsai trimming"...
but, if you are referring to "art" as in paintings, drawings, then no, photography is a different type of expression. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 10:18:02 PM · #50 |
My definition of "ART"
Anything willingly goes through your mind or your eyes and comes out as a touchable-seeable object is an art.
Before you paint, you visualize it in your mind. Before you push the shutter you adjust your object in the viewfinder to make it the best you can so output would reflect your visual satisfaction.
Also, not just taking the picture but post process also is an art, without a question.
Photography is an art it doesn't matter if you work for CSI... still need some style to do photography... to learn and achieve that style is to learn that art.
For me, case close... for CSI case never closes :P |
|
