Art - must it derive from a person's vision?

[Compaq]

http://9-eyes.com/

Check out that link, street shots made by the Google car. I think many of the images are good. Story being told, even composition isn't bad (I'm not sure if they have been edited in some way!).

Anyway, is this art? Or simply happenstance recorded? I'm not sure if there is a final definition on the term art, but since it's such a subjective field, why not open for personal definitions in this thread? Should a creation of art have origins in the mind of a person, or is completely accidental shots, that have no influence by humans at all, art as well?

One can argue that many street shots are just "being on the right place at the right time" and that "taking the picture at the right time is completely accidental", but can't one argue that a person's experience helped in the creation, even if the photographer isn't aware of it?

I'm not writing any of my own opinions here, just trying to get an objective intro to what could become an interesting discussion... let's not make it into a disgustion, shall we?

 

[Joey_Ricard]

Neat stuff, I guess considering how many miles have been recorded, they had to come across something of interest. Art? not to me.

LOL at the dog trying to get through the gate,...

 

[Bossy]

By definition, its not art.
Art:

1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
2. Works produced by such skill and imagination.

Google Car, while interesting clips, doesn't have an imagination. Now the person who pulled those specific images, I mean why not. He/She could have an artistic eye for such.

 

[o hey tyler]

Some of these are kinda neat. A lot of them are dull. I like the concept, but no it's not art TO ME.

With that being said, art is subjective... So it may be art to someone else.

 

[Overread]

Street photography in itself has never totally been just about art, but about a capturing of a moment in a nations life. Showing social and physical changes to places. Just consider that many famous or important street/ambient photos of the past are, fairly average with artistic regard, but hold great interest because they show things that are no longer present today - from fashions through to appearances etc....

So whilst it might all end up lumped under the umbrella that is "art" there might be widely varying reasons for its worth.

 

[Trever1t]

can a computer create art based on Logarithms? Actually this has been debated by science-fiction writers for 100 years, maybe more. There's an elephant that paint's...pretty damn good too. Is it an artist? Savants who can play piano as good or better than the old masters...are they artists? I have to answer no, while pleasingly art-like materials can be produced it is without depth or meaning to it's creator....and for me, that defines the term.

 

[tirediron]

The images in and of themselves I don't see as art; the selection and compilation? Perhaps, but IMO, the process and the result are rather more editorial than artistic.

 

[Overread]

The question then is - does art stand on its own to be judged or is its worth judged based on its creator.

The latter I would argue is oft the case, whilst the former should possibly be the rule. Consider that sometimes there is "great art" by a "great master" which is actually pretty darn rubbish. Might be a failed experiment, a doodle on a hanky in a restaurant - but because of the association to the "name" its classed as highgrade (and sold as such).

 

[tirediron]

Have to agree with Over.

 

[skieur]

Some of those images had the potential to be artistic, but sloppy technique and poor composition put them into the very poor snapshot category.

skieur

 

[jowensphoto]

I find it funny that the face of the rabbit costume is blurred out.

 

[Compaq]

I don't feel the taking of the pictures can be called art, because there was no intent behind their taking. The camera snaps and snaps, but has no idea what it's snapping. Those cars have been around the world, taking incredible amounts of shots, surely some must have captured something worth looking at.

I think street photography can be called art. Much of the same applies to street shots, though less than perfect technical execution are more easily forgiven. People are motivated to take street shots for different reasons. For example, some of the ones I've come across are: wanting to document urban life, lookout for interesting characters, capturing the small moments that people take for granted and miss, documenting the human's interaction in public areas...
Not calling street photography art is, imho, weird.

And, sure, I appreciate the captures in some of the shots. Some are funny, some are emotional and some make me wonder. However, I hesitate to call it art.

 

[Trever1t]

The question then is - does art stand on its own to be judged or is its worth judged based on its creator.

The latter I would argue is oft the case, whilst the former should possibly be the rule. Consider that sometimes there is "great art" by a "great master" which is actually pretty darn rubbish. Might be a failed experiment, a doodle on a hanky in a restaurant - but because of the association to the "name" its classed as highgrade (and sold as such).

I do agree the term art is applied to a creation based on a name at times lacking other attributes but it is often the failure of experimentation that produces unexpected sucess. To Art is human.

 

[Overread]

The question then is - does art stand on its own to be judged or is its worth judged based on its creator.

The latter I would argue is oft the case, whilst the former should possibly be the rule. Consider that sometimes there is "great art" by a "great master" which is actually pretty darn rubbish. Might be a failed experiment, a doodle on a hanky in a restaurant - but because of the association to the "name" its classed as highgrade (and sold as such).

I do agree the term art is applied to a creation based on a name at times lacking other attributes but it is often the failure of experimentation that produces unexpected sucess. To Art is human.

If art is human why is the butterflies wings so pretty?

 

[Compaq]

If there is one thing I've learned through my two years as a chemistry student, it is that life.is.incredibly.complicated.


The nature is complicated, and not only from a chemical viewpoint. Physics, often quantum mechanics, are the underlying principles, more often and not, and that is at least just as complicated - and way more abstract.

The butterfly's wings are beautiful because of the same principles as any other photograph is beautiful - humans find colours, shapes and symmetry pleasing on the eye.