|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2006 10:19:25 PM · #76 |
I don't think you can really define art because it's insanely opinionated. And if life has taught me anything at all it's that you can never enforce an opinion on someone, nor can you make everyone have the same opinion. But so I may make my point in this thread, I'll define it and say that art is a way to express whatever emotions are running through your head that mean something important to you so that you want to basically remove from your mind and implant it into someone else’s, so that for a moment they can see, feel, and experience what you do.
Painting is art, writing is art, fashion is art. Religion, love, and conversation are all art. And photography is definably art. Photography is seeing something that screams at you to lock it in your memory forever. The emotion catches you so deeply that you want to share it with some one on the chance that they can feel it to. If that's not art, then art is nothing but a word to debate over.
For those who spoke of photography being art because of the knowledge you must have, the skills you must master, and the eye that makes it all happen- no offense, but I say that’s bogus. Mastery of skill and talent is just a way to dress up what art really is so that people will notice it, like it, and take the time to look at it. But I think the art is all about the emotion. I've read some of the most poorly written sentences you could find, but the thoughts behind it nearly killed me with magnificence. I've seen a photograph that would be snubbed by society for it's technically failing aspects, but the eye of the photographer is so brilliant you feel like you can reach into their soul and read every thought going through their mind. There are people I've met that are socially inept and stutter at every chance they're given to speak, but say something so simple it's changed my life forever. To me, that’s art and there’s no greater thing.
And there is my monstrously opinionated, unnecessarily long, and hopefully unrepeated definition of art. And photography is something I see flowing perfectly in my theoretical definition.
And for those who looked at my lengthy comment, said "to hell with that," and scrolled to the bottom to maybe catch a glimpse of what I was droning on about…
Yes, I think photography is art. :-)
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 10:22:36 PM · #77 |
here's a question for you people out there.
if they invented cameras before canvas and paint,
would there still be paintings?
Message edited by author 2006-02-01 22:33:43. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 10:26:29 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
Let's say there's some large piece of industrial machinery, designed to be nothing but functional. The machinery runs through its useful life and is then discarded. Now some internet start-up gets ahold of this big piece of machinery and places it outside its corporate office and calls it "art." |
In the lobby of 665 Third Street, San Francisco:
 |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 10:33:09 PM · #79 |
Crayon, I think there would be. Photography's been around a long time now, and painting has not disappeared as an art form yet. Artists expess themselves through mediums.
I've shared this before, but one of the best compliments I've ever gotten about my work was when a person told me that when she sees my pictures she doesn't just see what I was looking at in that moment in time, but she also could see how I felt about it. If photography wasn't an art, that wouldn't happen.
Also, I read somewhere about a photographer who was somewhere with Ansel Adams. Anyway, Adams was taking a picture, and the second photographer couldn't figure out what he was looking at. So, he went and set up his camera right next to Adams' camera and shot the same shot. But, when the pictures came out, Adams' picture was amazing. The second photographer's was crap. It was because he didn't see what Ansel Adams did.
We could all get together, and shoot the same subject. I submit than all of the pictures would still be different because our perspectives are different. Again, if photography wasn't art, that wouldn't happen. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 10:36:16 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
Crayon, I think there would be. Photography's been around a long time now, and painting has not disappeared as an art form yet. Artists expess themselves through mediums. |
my point exactly.
Paintings first existed as a recording medium. look at the cavemen paintings, etc. Photography existed the same way. They will each take their course and be used as a medium for expression.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 11:03:59 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
That it has EVERYTHING to do with taking what you have inside and with a specific purpose, reaching out to another. |
Originally posted by mycelium:
Here's one thought experiment-
Let's say there's some large piece of industrial machinery, designed to be nothing but functional. The machinery runs through its useful life and is then discarded. Now some internet start-up gets ahold of this big piece of machinery and places it outside its corporate office and calls it "art."
So does it become art because the corporate guys call it art, because they intended it to be art, even though it wasn't their creation? Was it art from the beginning, and the industrial guys just didn't know it? Or is it not art at all?
|
"designed" = taking what you have inside and with a specific purpose
"functional" = ultimately "for another"
Well according to what I think...I would say that the machine was art from the beginning (though the creators may not have seen it as art). It could be also used by others for a different purpose and be still be art.
Lots of things in my view are art.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 11:07:41 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by EyelinerchiK:
Originally posted by briantammy:
That it has EVERYTHING to do with taking what you have inside and with a specific purpose, reaching out to another. |
Originally posted by mycelium:
Here's one thought experiment-
Let's say there's some large piece of industrial machinery, designed to be nothing but functional. The machinery runs through its useful life and is then discarded. Now some internet start-up gets ahold of this big piece of machinery and places it outside its corporate office and calls it "art."
So does it become art because the corporate guys call it art, because they intended it to be art, even though it wasn't their creation? Was it art from the beginning, and the industrial guys just didn't know it? Or is it not art at all?
|
"designed" = taking what you have inside and with a specific purpose
"functional" = ultimately "for another"
Well according to what I think...I would say that the machine was art from the beginning (though the creators may not have seen it as art). It could be also used by others for a different purpose and be still be art.
Lots of things in my view are art. |
OOPS!. this post is actually mine. My daughter Eyelinerchik was logged in and I didn't notice it (we use the same computer). |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:25:51 AM · #83 |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 04:12:44 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 04:12:44 AM EDT.
|
