I am not dazzled by process.

ksmattfish · Jan 31, 2004

My issue is not one of digital vs. traditional or manipulated vs. accurate reality. I'm just saying that I do believe that hard work and extra effort is usually quite noticable in the end product whatever your medium.

motcon · Jan 31, 2004

ksmattfish said:
My issue is not one of digital vs. traditional or manipulated vs. accurate reality. I'm just saying that I do believe that hard work and extra effort is usually quite noticable in the end product whatever your medium.

i agree. and i will also add the word 'appreciated'.

terri · Jan 31, 2004

:lmao:

oriecat · Jan 31, 2004

Matt!!! I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard!!!!!!!!!!! I'm crying here...

doxx · Jan 31, 2004

i agree. and i will also add the word 'appreciated'.

I feel the urge need to 2nd that

TwistMyArm · Jan 31, 2004

mrsid99 said:
A little Photoshop and this could get really weird!

I think it's safe to say that it did get really weird there for a minute or two. :lol:

Anyway, Matt, Will, I think you guys are both dead on. I think the effort put in definitely shows with the prints put out.

simnine · Jan 31, 2004

ksmattfish said:
My issue is not one of digital vs. traditional or manipulated vs. accurate reality. I'm just saying that I do believe that hard work and extra effort is usually quite noticable in the end product whatever your medium.

this is kinda what I am talking about, but you cannot substitute effort for ability.

Dew · Jan 31, 2004

so simnine, im curious as to what started this whole thing ... what set u off? :lol:

simnine · Jan 31, 2004

boredom and my hatred of abstract art.

I personally don't consider abstract art to be art. But then, art is what someone makes of it. If someone finds something aesthetically pleasing, they can call it art. I consider art to be something that can convey an idea or meaning without having to be descibed by the artist and I am not one to dig for it. It must also be pleasing to at least one of the senses.

I forgot where I was going with this... so I'll just leave it at that.

Kent Frost · Jan 31, 2004

Here's the thing with abstract art. It's a way for the mind to reach a place that no one has ever seen before, it's called novelty. This is why we are an idea-excreting force in nature...it's this need to create and experience the force of novelty. Without that force, many of the things that you rely on on a daily basis would never have come into existance. Everything you use.....the pens you write with, the paper you write ON, the camera you use, the casing of the damn film you put in it....it's all an artistic, yet useable and in some cases convenient creation from the human mind.

Abstract is a way to see something that has never been seen before and could probably never be seen again.

Dew · Feb 1, 2004

simnine said:
boredom and my hatred of abstract art.

I personally don't consider abstract art to be art. But then, art is what someone makes of it. If someone finds something aesthetically pleasing, they can call it art. I consider art to be something that can convey an idea or meaning without having to be descibed by the artist and I am not one to dig for it. It must also be pleasing to at least one of the senses.

I forgot where I was going with this... so I'll just leave it at that.

i think "art" in almost every way has a place in society .. im not exactly a fan of Picasso .. but i appreciate his work ... im more of a fan of "graphitti art" .. which most people dont consider art .. but its urban art .. a place where i recognize the most .. i think u should channel some of that hatred and put it in your form of art ... photography

Josh · Feb 1, 2004

I have allways thought that, in order for something to be art it needs to inspire an emotional responce in the viewer.

simnine · Feb 1, 2004

Josh said:
I have allways thought that, in order for something to be art it needs to inspire an emotional responce in the viewer.

so the guy who cuts you off in traffic is an artist?

Josh · Feb 1, 2004

Yup =) and so is my finger j/k

I didn't say "If it inspires an emotional responce, then it is art"

I said "in order for something to be art it needs to inspire an emotional responce in the viewer"

That is one aspect of art not a defintion of art.

jack · Feb 1, 2004

great thread and everyone is offering interesting viewpoints :wink:

.

http://www.nd.edu/~archives/fff.htm

"finis : end....."

i used to feel i understood the meaning of the words Fine Art.
i thought i meant "finely painted", or "finely constructed".

i've since learnt that "fine art" comes from (one) of the meanings
for the latin word finis - fine art means art which is "an end in itself",
rather than a graphical-representation which promotes a commercial
product. Warhol's 'tins of soup' doesnt contravene this b/c Warhol wasnt
selling Campbell's products he was celebrating post-war american
iconography - a generic cultural item that anyone, from a Wall Street
broker to a cab-driver in Utah would have in their cupboard.

The abstract art which laid some of the foundation for Pop (Rothko,
Newman, Klein etc), became popular as a reaction to the traumas of the
first-half of the 20th century. people wanted to escape and forget what
they had been forced to witness - and art which was about "nothing at all"
was a natural development of this.

i know this meanders away from some intitial posts here but i'd say:

1. art is art, and everything else is everything else.
2. there's almost no 'fine art' that i dont like - i like LOMO, i like field-
camera, i like digital, & abstract, impressionist, realism, kids art, street art,
non-objective, non-representational blah blah
3.many of the best art-ideas happen by chance. something like Brian Eno's
"Accidental Strategy". - oops i played an unreheased chord or i overlay
these two random tape-loops - but hang-on, doesnt that sound cool 8)

just as Matt says if 'correct' technique is so rigidly defined that there
is never deviation - then we stagnate and there is no creative revolution.

Renoir, Sisley, Seurat were "completely amateurish",
"laughable" they "couldnt paint", their paintings "looked half-finished".
today their innovation is renowned and there work perceived
as mastercraft. we might marvel at their ability to synthisise images
from directly painted pure color. their contemporaries of the 'Salon'
viewed this hasty, superficial work with ridicule and incredulity.