| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2009 03:08:43 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by yanko:
Ah yes. Yet another example of how pointless it is to have a serious discussion about anything around here. I'm done. |
if it was my bit of randomness that soured you Richard, I apologize, just being myself.. |
Actually that big pizza served a purpose that these discussions are pointless. You can only have discussions like this with people who are open and don't take things so personal. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 03:29:02 PM · #202 |
//dilbert.com/blog/entry/rules_of_art/
Rules of Art
A lot of what passes as art is really an understanding of rules. Here I am using "art" loosely to mean anything from fashion to design to painting a picture. The more rules you know, the better you are as an artist.
Let me give you an example from design. Say you want to design a magazine cover about a hot new type of consumer gadget. One idea for the cover involves a picture of the gadget and nothing more. The other idea involves a picture of a person who happens to be using the gadget. Which one do you pick?
Answer: The person using the gadget.
One of the rules of magazine covers is that you want to include humans whenever possible. Humans are wired to be more interested in other humans than anything else.
My wife and I are in the process of building a home and choosing all the details that will be in it. One of the choices involves doors. If you start the process by imagining all the possible doors in the universe, the task is overwhelming. But eventually you can figure out the rules, and that narrows your decisions. For example, you want most of your doors to look the same, or at least be in the same general vein. That's a rule. And the closer any two doors are, the more similar you want them to be. That's a rule. And once you have made a decision on the general style of the home, the door choices narrow by about 90%.
In the course of my Dilbert career I've posed for literally hundreds of photo shoots. I like to observe the photographers and figure out their rules. I know they always want the lamp removed from my desk. I know they want my computer "cheated" in a way that is unnatural for the user but looks good in pictures. I know the window behind my desk is going to be a lighting problem. And I know which six-or-so positions they are going to ask me to pose in.
This all makes me wonder how far computers will advance in creating art and design. My guess is "farther than you think." The limit will be our human ability to realize when we are using rules versus something squishy like judgment or having a "good eye" for something. Once the rules are understood and programmed into computers, they should exceed our skills at everything from architecture to fashion design.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 03:41:40 PM · #203 |
| Well, I'm sure art, like everything else, is also subject to Sturgeon's Law (or Revelation): Ninety percent of everything is crud. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 03:50:36 PM · #204 |
It is interesting that people constantly bitch and moan about comments and low scores, 1's 2's 3's, on a weekly basis (ad nauseum) but when folks share ideas about how they think...view (vote?)...shoot, to shed some general light, the conversation gets criticized or squelched.
God forbid you use Ribbon winning images as examples to make a point...
People scream for honesty but when they hear heartfelt, honest opinions they get upset. Perhaps there's your answer to why people don't comment on low scores. If people can't handle a general conversation why would anyone dare share an opinion when it's more personal? If you read some of the thoughts in this thread you'll find half the reasons for low scores. It's in there...
eta: It should be understood that some people are here to have fun and others take this as a very serious hobby and a good number of folks are trying to make a bit of money or go pro. If you're here to have fun and don't wish to swim in the deeper shark infested waters....don't but respect the dynamic.
Message edited by author 2009-03-19 16:14:06. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 03:52:33 PM · #205 |
Ok, this might have already been quoted, but I'm too lazy to read through the entire thread.
Definition from wikipedia: Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions.
I wouldn't call this art, but someone would:
black velvet dogs playing poker
another person might arrange a piece of dust and it appeals to them. Thus, by definition--everything is art. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 07:44:51 PM · #206 |
I think a better term is:
A Classic
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 08:03:20 PM · #207 |
screw everybody who says that yanko's not allowed to define Art. If we don't define our terms we won't be talking about the same thing. The cliche is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Art is not in the eye of the beholder... and even more importantly, the definition of art is not in the eye of the beholder. It is open for discussion. If you don't like yanko's (partial) definition, offer your own. or at least discuss why it might be wrong. if you don't like discussing the assumptions you prefer to leave unexamined, then shut up already.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 08:17:37 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
screw everybody who says that yanko's not allowed to define Art. If we don't define our terms we won't be talking about the same thing. The cliche is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Art is not in the eye of the beholder... and even more importantly, the definition of art is not in the eye of the beholder. It is open for discussion. If you don't like yanko's (partial) definition, offer your own. or at least discuss why it might be wrong. if you don't like discussing the assumptions you prefer to leave unexamined, then shut up already. |
Very true...everyone needs to realize that art is an impossible thing to truly "define" by its very nature. About yanko's definition (which btw is completely valid...i would never argue otherwise): I personally believe that it neglects the most important part of art...the viewer. When I look at a photo or a painting or even read a book, my interpretation of the work is the most important interpretation. It is how the art speaks to me. If it doesn't then it is harder for me to call the piece art...no matter the artist's intent. So, in my opinion, that definition is lacking and (with all due respect to yanko) dismissive. Again...my opinion. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 08:18:12 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
screw everybody who says that yanko's not allowed to define Art. If we don't define our terms we won't be talking about the same thing. The cliche is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Art is not in the eye of the beholder... and even more importantly, the definition of art is not in the eye of the beholder. It is open for discussion. If you don't like yanko's (partial) definition, offer your own. or at least discuss why it might be wrong. if you don't like discussing the assumptions you prefer to leave unexamined, then shut up already. |
Things are getting touchy here. People can define art all they want, and I find their definitions very interesting. I have read 7 out of 9 of the pages here with interest--it explains a lot about different styles in photographs and in voting. My point is that it's ridiculous for people to get upset when someone's definition of art is different than their own. Not that the discussion is worthless. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:03:54 PM · #210 |
"Discussion" can be extraordinarily useful.
The risk, in general, is confusing Debate with Discussion.
Discussion can result in explanation, understanding with no need for agreement or change of beliefs in order to be considered worthwhile and valuable. Learning to see something from other points of view is valuable in and of itself.
Debate is heels-dug-in defending, arguing, and attempting to convince others to change their view, right vs wrong, win vs. lose. Participants listen primarily for weaknesses in the other's position upon which to pounce.
Discussion takes place on a tightrope, in the wind, and everyone has to work together to keep from falling off into arguments and debate. Someone starts jumping up and down, it's over....
On issues involving deeply felt or held beliefs, perceptions, emotions, debate seldom convinces one or the other to change position. A good discussion can elicit understanding, sometimes an evolutionary change/growth in position, and, very rarely, a revolutionary one.
Kudos to the brave souls who attempt it in forums such as this, in the absence of eye contact, the ability to hear the tone of voice, hear a friendly chuckle or a soft "ah..."
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:04:17 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by posthumous:
screw everybody who says... |
Things are getting touchy here... |
They (things) usually do when we run onto people who have staked their lives on 'em. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:15:24 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
screw everybody who says that yanko's not allowed to define Art. |
Don't look now but I think you may have just made yanko cry...
Not the way you'd hoped but a tear's a tear.
As the great e301 once said to me during our Mid-Town (Hell's Kitchen), Dive Bar tour, regarding Street Photography, "you have to define it for yourself". I vigorously agreed and ralphed on his shoes.
I'm still not sure if I've been forgiven but we did have excellent Indian Cuisine, right after.
Message edited by author 2009-03-19 21:17:55. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:23:40 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
"you have to define it for yourself". I vigorously agreed and ralphed on his shoes.
|
This goes right up there with Mark Twain's "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly. I said 'I don't know.'"
I agree with you, from at least two arms lengths away, sir :-) |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:24:38 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
People scream for honesty but when they hear heartfelt, honest opinions they get upset. Perhaps there's your answer to why people don't comment on low scores. If people can't handle a general conversation why would anyone dare share an opinion when it's more personal? If you read some of the thoughts in this thread you'll find half the reasons for low scores. It's in there...
|
Too true.
Your dog's too yellow.
What do you mean it's too yellow.
It's too yellow.
Not it's not, I adjusted for it.
It's still too yellow.
Not it's not, but how could I take a better photo of it?
Don't make it so yellow.
It's not.
I thought you wanted constructive criticism?
I do.
Then it's too yellow.
It's not.
But is it art?
LOL |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:28:08 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by rob_smith:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
People scream for honesty but when they hear heartfelt, honest opinions they get upset. Perhaps there's your answer to why people don't comment on low scores. If people can't handle a general conversation why would anyone dare share an opinion when it's more personal? If you read some of the thoughts in this thread you'll find half the reasons for low scores. It's in there...
|
Too true.
Your dog's too yellow.
What do you mean it's too yellow.
It's too yellow.
Not it's not, I adjusted for it.
It's still too yellow.
Not it's not, but how could I take a better photo of it?
Don't make it so yellow.
It's not.
I thought you wanted constructive criticism?
I do.
Then it's too yellow.
It's not.
But is it art?
LOL |
hahahahah |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:38:30 PM · #216 |
this is how I define "Art"
 |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:42:12 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
screw everybody who says that yanko's not allowed to define Art. If we don't define our terms we won't be talking about the same thing. The cliche is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Art is not in the eye of the beholder... and even more importantly, the definition of art is not in the eye of the beholder. It is open for discussion. If you don't like yanko's (partial) definition, offer your own. or at least discuss why it might be wrong. if you don't like discussing the assumptions you prefer to leave unexamined, then shut up already. |
Oy vey. |
|
|
|
03/20/2009 04:04:18 AM · #218 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
What Bear applauded DrAchoo for saying. Only three of the thirteen images I voted a 10 actually finished in the top 10, and none ribboned. The rest were 8-9 votes, and I think many succeeded on a higher average rather than actually being considered the "best" by the most people. Don't get me wrong– I think the winners fully deserve the placement (the blue was a borderline 9/10 for me), but our individual preferences aren't likely to match up with a group average. |
Yeah, likewise... all of the 3 ribbons were scores of 9 from me. The pic I thought was a definite blue finished 4th, but for the 17 pictures I gave a 10 to, I expected the 3 ribbons to be found in that set. I guess I wasn't far off the mark on the 9's and 10's but when some of my 8's were like in 400th position (I gave out 90ish 8's) I was a little surprised. |
|
|
|
03/20/2009 04:29:46 AM · #219 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, I'm sure art, like everything else, is also subject to Sturgeon's Law (or Revelation): Ninety percent of everything is crud. |
If Sturgeon's Revelation is indeed correct, then there is a 0.9 probability that it is not. |
|
|
|
03/20/2009 08:25:40 AM · #220 |
never mind
Message edited by author 2009-03-20 08:26:03. |
|
|
|
03/20/2009 09:29:34 AM · #221 |
I need to post from bars more often. either that or just start every post with "screw everybody..."
Message edited by author 2009-03-20 09:30:17. |
|
|
|
03/20/2009 11:17:01 AM · #222 |
IMO:
I realize that I am a little late in starting in this conversation, although I find that reading through most of this, all of you have valid points. Ya, so what if we think that art should be defined a certain way. So what. We should all respect eachothers opinion and try to find where they are coming from. I agree with many people who have commented on this forum, and i hardly disagree with any.
Art should be defined be you as a person, what you have gone through, IMO, can affect that definition.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2009 11:58:06 AM · #223 |
My definition/opinion of Art?
He's a really nice guy, who tends to roll around the floor a lot, usually laughing. He also has mad skillz in photoshop! |
|
|
|
03/20/2009 12:00:41 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
My definition/opinion of Art?
He's a really nice guy, who tends to roll around the floor a lot, usually laughing. He also has mad skillz in photoshop! |
I thought Art was the one that always looked a little dopey standing next to Paul Simon?
R.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2009 12:15:59 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I need to post from bars more often. either that or just start every post with "screw everybody..." |
Now I just think that you think I sound sexy when I say Oy Vey. |
|
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: 07/31/2025 04:24:02 AM EDT.
