What's new

Do you consider this...art? NSFW Link.

she must be a really chitty photographer to stoop to these levels. I am just going to throw this out there, but most of the porn industry can come up with better chit than this and they don't claim to be artists.

Stoop to what levels?

There are thousands of photographers who do fine art nude photography. How is this any different?
what is fine about it?

The term "fine art" refers to an art form practised mainly for its aesthetic value and its beauty ("art for art's sake") rather than its functional value. Fine art is rooted in drawing and design-based works such as painting and sculpture. It is often contrasted with "applied art" and "crafts" which are both traditionally seen as utilitarian activities.
 
Sure, a type of performance art. What she does hasn't any utilitarian purpose ... is it good art or bad art ... that is subjective.
 
I agree with a couple of points:
-Don't really care if others consider this art or not
-This has been done before. It's not original.
-No real discernible message other than "OMG, look at me, I'm nekkid!"

The message (which was clear only because she declared this to be the message) of the contrast between private and public is a very interesting one, but I think there are other ways to do this that would be more aesthetically interesting and more thought-provoking.

Honestly, I think this would be a more interesting project if she were not fit and attractive - it would be more controversial and provoke a lot more discussion. It might make for more interesting pictures as well as we see the range of reactions from people on the street as she's taking her pictures.
 
But here's the real question...who cares?
I mean, why are we obsessed with deciding whether or not something is "art"? or someone is an "artist"?
can we enjoy looking at something that isn't art? Or does something being aesthetically pleasing automatically make it art?

That's it right there ^^^. Where does it get us to define and categorize art/not-art?
 
Whether it reads as "art" or not completely changes the social connotations of owning her book, of looking at her pictures. That's why it matters.
 
Then I suppose it matters to some people, although I can't imagine why.
 
She has some pretty good photos, and some less good ones (the taxi one is very nice indeed, for instance) but she doesn't seem to have any concept at all. The "naked people in ordinary situations" is a vein that's been mined out pretty thoroughly by more thoughtful people than her.

But these are "Selfies".
 
Changes the connotations for whom?
 
The term "fine art" refers to an art form practised mainly for its aesthetic value and its beauty ("art for art's sake") rather than its functional value.

Look who's stuck in the mid-20th century.
 
Then I suppose it matters to some people, although I can't imagine why.
it is the o.p's question in the title. And i imagine she is trying to sell this book off as art so she begs the question herself. To each their own, i just don't see art here. Doesn't mean it isn't. I just don't personally see it.
 
Is it art? It is if she says it is, because she's created it. Whether anyone else likes it, or agrees with her is really irrelevant. That said, I don't find these even vaguely interesting. IMO, while the concept is a potentially good one, the failing point of the series is that they all appear to have had virtually no effort put into them, and the whole concept relies on the fact that she's an attractive, fit, young lady. I suspect if I were to produce exactly the same series of images with my fat, saggy old ass in them, there would considerably fewer hits on that page.
 
I think a more interesting question is if it is photography. To me this seems more like performance.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top Bottom