The Art

[Derrel]

Here is a work of architecture:

http://www.broroy.com/notre dame cathedral.jpg

Here is yet another work of architecture, designed by a professional, certified architect. The plans also meet Federal regulations for safety and engineering soundness.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4557901260_24a36ccef7.jpg

 

[table1349]

What makes a work of art a work of art?

Have you ever seen statue of David?

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3309811-A_copy_of_David_in_Piazza_della_Signora-Florence.jpg

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/7f/e8/ba/copy-of-the-david-florence.jpg

It's a great work of art, right?

No it isn't! That is a copy! It was placed there in 1910 to allow the original to be kept in a museum.

Michelangelo's David Correctly Oriented

This is the original:

http://www.tortillabay.com/images/Europe/Michelangelos_David.jpg

Why isn't the copy a work of art?

Suppose we take David and make a cast of it and make thousands of Davids from the mold. Are they works of art?

No?

Why not?

Because they were not made by hand. The original was made by hand.

A work of art is made by hand. Photographs are made by machines, not by hand.

That's why the distinction exists between art and photography.

An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:

Art Imitating Art

"...we simply prefer the original as "real" while the copy cannot be designated by this category. In this regard, a copy of an art piece can never be art in the true sense of the word."

It's impossible for a photograph, by its nature, to be a work of art, no matter how beautiful or moving it is.

Why? Because it's not made by hand.

So then you must believe that the only true art is finger painting since brushes are not by hand they are a tool in the hand of a human. Hammer and chisel are not by hand as they too are again a tool in a humans hands. In fact, paint on a fingertip then becomes a tool to make an visible impression on a medium, be it canvas, wood or a cave wall. A camera too is a tool in a humans hands. Apparently you philosophically forgot to break your definition of "art" down to it's base form. For that is all this is your definition.

Art is an undefinable abstract belief held on an individual basis.

Math and Science are the only two truly definable things in this world. Math for it's pure order and science for it's ability to be repeated. Theoretical science is based on foundations of proven science.


Philosophy serves but two purposes in this world. One provides a few selected individuals a teaching position for a required useless entry level liberal arts college class that most freshmen must suffer through and has no real use for their chosen major.

Secondly it provides reading material for all the other "Philosophers" who make their living working at McDonalds something to read between shifts. They are the ones that majored in Philosophy

Philosophy is merely a hobby. You can't build a Philosophy factory.

 

[table1349]

I just wanted to comment on your signature............'kin awesome. Oh, and I kinda like the B.S. flagpole too.

 

[Petraio Prime]

What makes a work of art a work of art?

Have you ever seen statue of David?

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3309811-A_copy_of_David_in_Piazza_della_Signora-Florence.jpg

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/7f/e8/ba/copy-of-the-david-florence.jpg

It's a great work of art, right?

No it isn't! That is a copy! It was placed there in 1910 to allow the original to be kept in a museum.

Michelangelo's David Correctly Oriented

This is the original:

http://www.tortillabay.com/images/Europe/Michelangelos_David.jpg

Why isn't the copy a work of art?

Suppose we take David and make a cast of it and make thousands of Davids from the mold. Are they works of art?

No?

Why not?

Because they were not made by hand. The original was made by hand.

A work of art is made by hand. Photographs are made by machines, not by hand.

That's why the distinction exists between art and photography.

An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:

Art Imitating Art

"...we simply prefer the original as "real" while the copy cannot be designated by this category. In this regard, a copy of an art piece can never be art in the true sense of the word."

It's impossible for a photograph, by its nature, to be a work of art, no matter how beautiful or moving it is.

Why? Because it's not made by hand.

So then you must believe that the only true art is finger painting since brushes are not by hand they are a tool in the hand of a human. Hammer and chisel are not by hand as they too are again a tool in a humans hands. In fact, paint on a fingertip then becomes a tool to make an visible impression on a medium, be it canvas, wood or a cave wall. A camera too is a tool in a humans hands. Apparently you philosophically forgot to break your definition of "art" down to it's base form. For that is all this is your definition.

Art is an undefinable abstract belief held on an individual basis.

Math and Science are the only two truly definable things in this world. Math for it's pure order and science for it's ability to be repeated. Theoretical science is based on foundations of proven science.


Philosophy serves but two purposes in this world. One provides a few selected individuals a teaching position for a required useless entry level liberal arts college class that most freshmen must suffer through and has no real use for their chosen major.

Secondly it provides reading material for all the other "Philosophers" who make their living working at McDonalds something to read between shifts. They are the ones that majored in Philosophy

Philosophy is merely a hobby. You can't build a Philosophy factory.

"Made by hand" does not exclude the use of tools. And just so you don't try it, a camera is not a tool but a machine.

 

[table1349]

What makes a work of art a work of art?

Have you ever seen statue of David?

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3309811-A_copy_of_David_in_Piazza_della_Signora-Florence.jpg

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/7f/e8/ba/copy-of-the-david-florence.jpg

It's a great work of art, right?

No it isn't! That is a copy! It was placed there in 1910 to allow the original to be kept in a museum.

Michelangelo's David Correctly Oriented

This is the original:

http://www.tortillabay.com/images/Europe/Michelangelos_David.jpg

Why isn't the copy a work of art?

Suppose we take David and make a cast of it and make thousands of Davids from the mold. Are they works of art?

No?

Why not?

Because they were not made by hand. The original was made by hand.

A work of art is made by hand. Photographs are made by machines, not by hand.

That's why the distinction exists between art and photography.

An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:

Art Imitating Art

"...we simply prefer the original as "real" while the copy cannot be designated by this category. In this regard, a copy of an art piece can never be art in the true sense of the word."

It's impossible for a photograph, by its nature, to be a work of art, no matter how beautiful or moving it is.

Why? Because it's not made by hand.

So then you must believe that the only true art is finger painting since brushes are not by hand they are a tool in the hand of a human. Hammer and chisel are not by hand as they too are again a tool in a humans hands. In fact, paint on a fingertip then becomes a tool to make an visible impression on a medium, be it canvas, wood or a cave wall. A camera too is a tool in a humans hands. Apparently you philosophically forgot to break your definition of "art" down to it's base form. For that is all this is your definition.

Art is an undefinable abstract belief held on an individual basis.

Math and Science are the only two truly definable things in this world. Math for it's pure order and science for it's ability to be repeated. Theoretical science is based on foundations of proven science.


Philosophy serves but two purposes in this world. One provides a few selected individuals a teaching position for a required useless entry level liberal arts college class that most freshmen must suffer through and has no real use for their chosen major.

Secondly it provides reading material for all the other "Philosophers" who make their living working at McDonalds something to read between shifts. They are the ones that majored in Philosophy

Philosophy is merely a hobby. You can't build a Philosophy factory.

"Made by hand" does not exclude the use of tools. And just so you don't try it, a camera is not a tool but a machine.

Really? So a light tight box with a lens and lens cap and a manual load wet plate slot is a machine? Photo is taken when lens cap removed by human and replaced to stop the exposure? What machine is there in this process. A similar process that was used in the beginning days of photography by the likes of Louis Daguerre with a hand operated sliding plate between the lens and the wet plate? Once again your philosophy is ....... wait for it..........

 

[Derrel]

So,so,so many words have been traded. I thought I'd step back to mankind's earlier ages, and communicate my message about art using drawings, not words. I hope you like my effort. It is,as it clearly states, NOT ART, since it was made with a Macintosh, not by hand.

 

[Petraio Prime]

So then you must believe that the only true art is finger painting since brushes are not by hand they are a tool in the hand of a human. Hammer and chisel are not by hand as they too are again a tool in a humans hands. In fact, paint on a fingertip then becomes a tool to make an visible impression on a medium, be it canvas, wood or a cave wall. A camera too is a tool in a humans hands. Apparently you philosophically forgot to break your definition of "art" down to it's base form. For that is all this is your definition.

Art is an undefinable abstract belief held on an individual basis.

Math and Science are the only two truly definable things in this world. Math for it's pure order and science for it's ability to be repeated. Theoretical science is based on foundations of proven science.


Philosophy serves but two purposes in this world. One provides a few selected individuals a teaching position for a required useless entry level liberal arts college class that most freshmen must suffer through and has no real use for their chosen major.

Secondly it provides reading material for all the other "Philosophers" who make their living working at McDonalds something to read between shifts. They are the ones that majored in Philosophy

Philosophy is merely a hobby. You can't build a Philosophy factory.

"Made by hand" does not exclude the use of tools. And just so you don't try it, a camera is not a tool but a machine.

Really? So a light tight box with a lens and lens cap and a manual load wet plate slot is a machine? Photo is taken when lens cap removed by human and replaced to stop the exposure? What machine is there in this process. A similar process that was used in the beginning days of photography by the likes of Louis Daguerre with a hand operated sliding plate between the lens and the wet plate? Once again your philosophy is ....... wait for it..........

Yes, even a primitive camera is a machine. The lens forms an image.

 

[table1349]

"Made by hand" does not exclude the use of tools. And just so you don't try it, a camera is not a tool but a machine.

Really? So a light tight box with a lens and lens cap and a manual load wet plate slot is a machine? Photo is taken when lens cap removed by human and replaced to stop the exposure? What machine is there in this process. A similar process that was used in the beginning days of photography by the likes of Louis Daguerre with a hand operated sliding plate between the lens and the wet plate? Once again your philosophy is ....... wait for it..........

Yes, even a primitive camera is a machine. The lens forms an image.

Then to you there must be no art, for the lens in the eye of man forms the image that is sent to his brain. Man therefore by your description is a machine and as you have already stated, a machine can not make art. Thus there is no art.

Your philosophy just earned a

It is possible to be a master in false philosophy, easier, in fact, than to be a master in the truth, because a false philosophy can be made as simple and consistent as one pleases.
George Santayana

 

[Petraio Prime]

Really? So a light tight box with a lens and lens cap and a manual load wet plate slot is a machine? Photo is taken when lens cap removed by human and replaced to stop the exposure? What machine is there in this process. A similar process that was used in the beginning days of photography by the likes of Louis Daguerre with a hand operated sliding plate between the lens and the wet plate? Once again your philosophy is ....... wait for it..........

Yes, even a primitive camera is a machine. The lens forms an image.

Then to you there must be no art, for the lens in the eye of man forms the image that is sent to his brain. Man therefore by your description is a machine and as you have already stated, a machine can not make art. Thus there is no art.

Your philosophy just earned a

It is possible to be a master in false philosophy, easier, in fact, than to be a master in the truth, because a false philosophy can be made as simple and consistent as one pleases.
George Santayana

But the eye does not by itself make art, and blind men can make art.

You don't get it at all.

Why do you 'photographers' have such an inferiority complex, that you feel inferior to artists (which means painters and sculptors), and must co-opt the label 'artist'? If photographs are not works of art, so what?

You seem to believe that if a photograph is extraordinarily beautiful it becomes a work of art. If a horse is extraordinarily beautiful, does it become an elk?

 

[fwellers]

You don't get it at all.

Why do you 'photographers' have such an inferiority complex, that you feel inferior to artists (which means painters and sculptors), and must co-opt the label 'artist'? If photographs are not works of art, so what?

You seem to believe that if a photograph is extraordinarily beautiful it becomes a work of art. If a horse is extraordinarily beautiful, does it become an elk?

The work of art would be in how that horse was captured in the photograph. The lighting that was taken advantage of or used, the way the backround was chosen or taken advantage of and treated etc..
there are a whole slew of choices that can take a simple horse ( how simple is a horse though, I consider it a work of God's art ) standing in a field and turn it into an image that strikes emotion in people. A freekin slew of choices, angles, treatments. Waiting for just the right time of day or even season, which angle, high low dead on .... which lens what aperture, how close. what pose for the horse do we wait for ? Maybe the photographer ( artist ) waits for the horse to have one nostril flared and his right eye closed and his left leg lifted. I don't know. You get the point.

How is the horse framed in order to create the desired effect ? How much negative space to use.
All of these things just touch on the amount of choices to be made. And that is just at capture time. I didn't even go to the post processing options.
And I am a beginner and probably don't even know half the choices available to someone more adept at photography. Oh and then there are filters to be used, stacked for various numerous purposes.

You get the point ? Tons of stuff. And the difference between what a great photographic artist can do to that horse and what a snapshotter can do can be vast !!

To through another kink in it, maybe only 10% of the people who view that image get anything out of it ? Maybe you or I think it just plain sucks.

Who cares ? It is still art to the maker of that photograph, and is certainly worthy of being called art as much as somebody who paints a horse on a canvas.

 

[Petraio Prime]

You don't get it at all.

Why do you 'photographers' have such an inferiority complex, that you feel inferior to artists (which means painters and sculptors), and must co-opt the label 'artist'? If photographs are not works of art, so what?

You seem to believe that if a photograph is extraordinarily beautiful it becomes a work of art. If a horse is extraordinarily beautiful, does it become an elk?

The work of art would be in how that horse was captured in the photograph. The lighting that was taken advantage of or used, the way the backround was chosen or taken advantage of and treated etc..
there are a whole slew of choices that can take a simple horse ( how simple is a horse though, I consider it a work of God's art ) standing in a field and turn it into an image that strikes emotion in people. A freekin slew of choices, angles, treatments. Waiting for just the right time of day or even season, which angle, high low dead on .... which lens what aperture, how close. what pose for the horse do we wait for ? Maybe the photographer ( artist ) waits for the horse to have one nostril flared and his right eye closed and his left leg lifted. I don't know. You get the point.

How is the horse framed in order to create the desired effect ? How much negative space to use.
All of these things just touch on the amount of choices to be made. And that is just at capture time. I didn't even go to the post processing options.
And I am a beginner and probably don't even know half the choices available to someone more adept at photography. Oh and then there are filters to be used, stacked for various numerous purposes.

You get the point ? Tons of stuff. And the difference between what a great photographic artist can do to that horse and what a snapshotter can do can be vast !!

To through another kink in it, maybe only 10% of the people who view that image get anything out of it ? Maybe you or I think it just plain sucks.

Who cares ? It is still art to the maker of that photograph, and is certainly worthy of being called art as much as somebody who paints a horse on a canvas.

What photograph? I said: "If a horse is extraordinarily beautiful, does it become an elk"? I am not talking about photographing a horse. I am talking about a beautiful horse.

Photographers seem to think that they are inferior to artists unless they can also call their work 'art'. They think that some photographs "rise to the level of art" if they are extraordinarily beautiful. This is false. A photograph, no matter how beautiful, cannot be a work of art because of what the word 'art' mans.

An extraordinarily beautiful horse is an extraordinarily beautiful horse, not an elk. It is not inferior to the elk, just a different animal.

An extraordinarily beautiful photograph is an extraordinarily beautiful photograph, not a work of art. But that does not in any way make it 'inferior' to works of art.

What anyone thinks of his own work is of no consequence to this issue. It is a matter of the meaning of words.

 

[fwellers]

What photograph? I said: "If a horse is extraordinarily beautiful, does it become an elk"?

You also said "You seem to believe that if a photograph is extraordinarily beautiful it becomes a work of art."

Photographers seem to think that they are inferior to artists unless they can also call their work 'art'. They think that some photographs "rise to the level of art" if they are extraordinarily beautiful.

You are drawing conclusions to what motivates other people. What gives you the ability to do that ? Because I disagree with you on whether a photograph can be art, you conclude that I feel inferior to other artists. Wow !

An extraordinarily beautiful photograph is an extraordinarily beautiful photograph, not a work of art.

I disagree, and I think I showed some valid reasons why photography can be a disciplined art. Obviously most of those interested in photography also agree.

You know what ? there is a forum on photo.net called philosophy of photography forum. They have some of the most convoluted and heady discussions in that forum that I've ever read. I think you should check it out and see if you can hold your own over there.
I've read some of a thread over there about this same subject 'what is art'. I read it until I was sick of listening to it. It's about 10 times deeper than this thread, or at least ten times as stuffy. You'd love it. I doubt you can hold your own with those guys though. they are pretty darn filosifical.

 

[usayit]

World English Dictionary
art 1 (ɑːt)

— n
1. a. the creation of works of beauty or other special significance
b. ( as modifier ): an art movement
2. the exercise of human skill (as distinguished from nature )
3. imaginative skill as applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the imagination
4. a. the products of man's creative activities; works of art collectively, esp of the visual arts, sometimes also music, drama, dance, and literature
b. arts See also fine art ( as modifier ): an art gallery
5. excellence or aesthetic merit of conception or execution as exemplified by such works
6. any branch of the visual arts, esp painting
7. ( modifier ) intended to be artistic or decorative: art needlework
8. a. any field using the techniques of art to display artistic qualities: advertising art
b. ( as modifier ): an art film
9. journalism photographs or other illustrations in a newspaper, etc
10. method, facility, or knack: the art of threading a needle ; the art of writing letters
11. the system of rules or principles governing a particular human activity: the art of government
12. artfulness; cunning
13. get something down to a fine art to become highly proficient at something through practice

----

see #9

 

[bentcountershaft]

What does beauty have to do with art? Not a damn thing.

 

[Flash Harry]

My god is this still ongoing. Its a pointless thread and has been discussed thoroughly on every fora on this planet with a similar outcome, nothing concluded/argument, now where's all this "art" you "artists" are posting, go on, show me some, I can't wait. H