Art? Or not....
Sep 23, 2013 10:38:07 #
I don't think art necessarily has to be preconceived, then executed. There can be an element of spontaneity in applying a variety of effects. That said, the "Art is in the eye of the beholder" line gets abused around here time and again. If you like what you've created and want to hang it on the wall, so be it, but the first clue is, if you have to ask everyone else if it's art, then the odds are it isn't.
Sep 23, 2013 10:40:26 #
I think Art, whatever medium it is rendered in, is what ever brings the person who is viewing it pleasure or stimulates thought. If the artist is unable to cause the viewer to engage in some way then it probably isn't art. A quote comes to mind while we are in the discussion: "Obscurity is the hiding place of incompetence", Robert A. Heinlein
Sep 23, 2013 10:41:16 #
Presets do not turn a snapshot into art... I think that was the original "rant". It's correct.
Sep 23, 2013 10:51:42 #
jonsommer wrote:
You've defined what 'art' isn't (to you), which can endlessly and pedantically be debated here and elsewhere, without resolution, and ultimately, does it matter? Let's hear your definition of what 'art' is.
I believe whatever the artist says is art is "art", I'll assume the viewer can decide whether or not to to agree with that assessment.
Maybe the decision should be; What is an artist?
Sep 23, 2013 10:54:06 #
winterrose wrote:
I think it's rather amusing to see people here and... (show quote)
winterrose,
Your definition of art is too restrictive. Someone post processing a photo may be using the benefit of anotherÂ’s creative means but they are causing the creative change and therefore creating art. As to whether it is good or bad art, that is a matter of personal or educated taste which will instinctively be felt by othersÂ… it pleases or inspires or depresses or is boring, juvenile etc.
Art can exist in anything that a living creature creates or modifies. A sunset may be beautiful and inspiring but in and of itself, it is not art, it simply is. However, a rendition of the sunset; photographed, painted, even sculpted as a relief; well done or not; would be art.
Personal taste, quality or method of creation does not limit or exclude the offering as being an art form.
Sep 23, 2013 11:01:18 #
winterrose wrote:
I think it's rather amusing to see people here and... (show quote)
You need to open your mind to the fact that a digital camera,software and plug-ins are the new modern day palette and brush.Don't limit your self or one's imagination.
Very high brow post.Sigh...
Sep 23, 2013 11:02:53 #
amyinsparta wrote:
I don't know why you get so upset with what others do anyhow. Is your world worse off because some choose to use an editing program? Does it make you physically ill? Does it cost you money? Do you go running for cover when you view them? What?
Let people do what they wish with their own creations. Wanting to criticize their efforts says way more about you than it does about them.
And with that in mind, I'm gonna post one of my 'art' pieces!
Let people do what they wish with their own creations. Wanting to criticize their efforts says way more about you than it does about them.
And with that in mind, I'm gonna post one of my 'art' pieces!
Outstanding picture.
Sep 23, 2013 11:03:57 #
The real question is, "Is it good art?" Also unable to be fully answered. However, if someone who has no real criteria thinks that a pic of a pooch, with a "painting" filter used in post-processing, is good art,THAT is easily determined to be uninformed, no?
Sep 23, 2013 11:21:14 #
Will S wrote:
Art is perception.. whether the artist perceives i... (show quote)
After having read all the posts in these seven pages, I would have to go with this.
I agree with the entire statement, but the crux of the matter is "Art is perception". Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
My personal take is that art is something open to interpretation - sort of like most that has been said here minus the constraints.
Sep 23, 2013 11:23:39 #
amyinsparta wrote:
I don't know why you get so upset with what others do anyhow. Is your world worse off because some choose to use an editing program? Does it make you physically ill? Does it cost you money? Do you go running for cover when you view them? What?
Let people do what they wish with their own creations. Wanting to criticize their efforts says way more about you than it does about them.
And with that in mind, I'm gonna post one of my 'art' pieces!
Let people do what they wish with their own creations. Wanting to criticize their efforts says way more about you than it does about them.
And with that in mind, I'm gonna post one of my 'art' pieces!
Awesome work.
Sep 23, 2013 11:28:46 #
Are many really saying that there should be no constraints? That if I think it's art, it is?
Sep 23, 2013 11:31:49 #
artBob wrote:
Are many really saying that there should be no constraints? That if I think it's art, it is?
There are definitive statements regarding art; perhaps this implies (that there should be) a qualitative statement.
Sep 23, 2013 11:50:55 #
I read all the definitions of "art" that have been posted here & I cannot agree or disagree with any of them. It seem as though "art" is to an individual, what he or she perceives it to be. You take a canvas & paint it white, draw a line across the center, end to end, (any color) & you title it Infinity. Is it "art"?? To some it is a white piece of canvas with a line running across it. To some it will be a wondrous work of "art". Some one said, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". To a photographer the camera lens is his minds eye & every frame is in itself a work of "art", weather he or she manipulates or enhances the image it is his or hers creation as seen though the eye of the camera to do with as they will. "Art", who among us is really qualified to say???
Sep 23, 2013 12:04:12 #
I can't help but chime in here. Maybe an example might help illustrate my point:
I've been into magic (the art of illusion) for over 40 years now. And many of the younger generation of magicians complain that when they can't figure out a trick that it must be camera tricks to create their illusions (very very few do this). But the point is...who cares HOW it is done. If it fools and entertains then it deserves the right to be called magic.
So, no matter HOW the art of photography is done, if the image is beautiful then it deserves the right to be called art.
This is just my opinion.
I've been into magic (the art of illusion) for over 40 years now. And many of the younger generation of magicians complain that when they can't figure out a trick that it must be camera tricks to create their illusions (very very few do this). But the point is...who cares HOW it is done. If it fools and entertains then it deserves the right to be called magic.
So, no matter HOW the art of photography is done, if the image is beautiful then it deserves the right to be called art.
This is just my opinion.
Sep 23, 2013 12:12:57 #
ameriroc wrote:
I read all the definitions of "art" that... (show quote)
Just to expand on the theme a little, how about the Australian bower bird's art? It has all of the elements of creativity required, and it looks better than many installations in contemporary galleries.
Bower Bird's Creation (from Google)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.