The Art

[smokinphoto]

Problem is, art is subjective.

If everyone herds into a mindset that, for example, all landscape photographs must employ certain rules (thirds, horizontal etc...) then they can all feel good by huddling close to one another all coming to the same conclusions. Such as that yes, indeed, this person's photograph is not good because it is not completely level, or there is an even amount of sky and earth showing.

Problem is, art is subjective. He said it. You have to have a taste for good art as well as good photography shots that captures all the minor details from the painting in their shots.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Problem is, art is subjective.

If everyone herds into a mindset that, for example, all landscape photographs must employ certain rules (thirds, horizontal etc...) then they can all feel good by huddling close to one another all coming to the same conclusions. Such as that yes, indeed, this person's photograph is not good because it is not completely level, or there is an even amount of sky and earth showing.

Problem is, art is subjective. He said it. You have to have a taste for good art as well as good photography shots that captures all the minor details from the painting in their shots.

Depends on what you mean. Evaluating art could be subjective, yes, but that's not what we are talking about.

 

[usayit]

Oh.. so "art" doesn't really have true meaning unless used within the context of PP...

 

[Overread]

I wonder how in all this art talk the Tate Modern fits in?
A few dirty coffee mugs (they got washed and cleaned away!) Trashcans; cat litter trays; bluetack on wall; empty room - are these art or do they live with photography ?

 

[pgriz]

Sounds like the discussion I heard about whether art should be capital A or small a. :chatty::violin:

 

[table1349]

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.

Very creative and VERY ARTISTIC!! :thumbup: :mrgreen:

 

[table1349]

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

Please quite using logic and accepted definitions in this discussion. I just shoots the hell out of a hobby like philosophy. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

 

[usayit]

Sounds like the discussion I heard about whether art should be capital A or small a. :chatty::violin:

At this point, you might as well start a new thread.... I'm sure PP will be quick to respond.

 

[table1349]

Why? Do you want to expand the concept of riveter so that anyone can be a riveter? Do you think I am narrow-minded if I insist that riveters drive rivets into beams, masons lay bricks, and carpenters saw wood and nail pieces of wood together? Why do you think that photography needs to be called art? What purpose does it serve?

What purpose is served by trying to define art? I'm not concerned if photography is looked up to or down upon by anyone I'm anti-definition. I see defining art as pointless as defining any subjective abstract. Love, beauty or evil, abstract entities are beyond definition and I don't see the point in attempting to define them. Perhaps to elevate the philosopher's self esteem so they can feel they have superior knowledge and understanding that others don't, I don't know. In the end such attempts are nothing more than opinions based on generalizations.

What purpose is there in defining any term? It makes communication clearer and fosters mutual comprehensibility. Witness 'bokeh' lately. It has come to mean merely 'selective focus' whereas it really means the character of out-of-focus areas and is a property of a lens.

If anything can be 'art', what's so special about 'art' then?

'Fine art' is not something abstract at all. In the narrow sense, it's something made by hand and intended to be looked at. Ever hear of 'decorative art'?

Do you know the difference between glass as art and glass as functional?

http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/~sma/images/chihuly.jpg

This is made by hand, and intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

http://www.glassblower.info/images/chihuly-seaforms.jpg

Both parts have to be present to be 'art'.

This is not art:

http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-glass-bottle.jpg

Why?

It's made by machine and intended only for functional use. But even if it were hand-made it would not qualify as art.

For something to be 'art', it must satisfy the following conditions.

It must be:

1) Made by hand, and
2) Intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

We are talking of course about the plastic arts, not the performing arts.

A photograph fails to satisfy the first condition (it's made by a lens), the hand-made wine bottle fails to satisfy the second condition (it's not intended to be contemplated as something beautiful).

Now do you understand?

I understand. I understand that you feel the need to force your beliefs on others as truths. With no shred of provable/repeatable evidence. Something commonly referred to as an opinion.

There are only two truths in our this world that we live in at this present time. Pure Math and Death.

All other things are just opinions. And as we all know Opinions are like @$$HOLES, every one has one and...... well you know the rest.

Guess I will go now and endeavor to persevere at my chosen artistic venue.

 

[mishele]

ART!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Overread]

^^ mishele has a very good point there!

 

[mishele]

lol Just trying to add what I can.............you guys are just crazy...lol
Art is in the eye of the beholder so it's ok if PP doesn't believe my image is art. I do and that's what counts. Reasoning or trying to change someones opinion on art is just silly. The feeling art brings from you comes from inside and can't be reasoned w/.....=)

Do I sound like some one that just smoked a lot of pot?!! lol

 

[Petraio Prime]

ART!!!!!!!!!!

Nope. Photograph, made by a machine.

All caps bold and red doesn't mean anything either.

 

[Petraio Prime]

What purpose is served by trying to define art? I'm not concerned if photography is looked up to or down upon by anyone I'm anti-definition. I see defining art as pointless as defining any subjective abstract. Love, beauty or evil, abstract entities are beyond definition and I don't see the point in attempting to define them. Perhaps to elevate the philosopher's self esteem so they can feel they have superior knowledge and understanding that others don't, I don't know. In the end such attempts are nothing more than opinions based on generalizations.

What purpose is there in defining any term? It makes communication clearer and fosters mutual comprehensibility. Witness 'bokeh' lately. It has come to mean merely 'selective focus' whereas it really means the character of out-of-focus areas and is a property of a lens.

If anything can be 'art', what's so special about 'art' then?

'Fine art' is not something abstract at all. In the narrow sense, it's something made by hand and intended to be looked at. Ever hear of 'decorative art'?

Do you know the difference between glass as art and glass as functional?

http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/~sma/images/chihuly.jpg

This is made by hand, and intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

http://www.glassblower.info/images/chihuly-seaforms.jpg

Both parts have to be present to be 'art'.

This is not art:

http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-glass-bottle.jpg

Why?

It's made by machine and intended only for functional use. But even if it were hand-made it would not qualify as art.

For something to be 'art', it must satisfy the following conditions.

It must be:

1) Made by hand, and
2) Intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

We are talking of course about the plastic arts, not the performing arts.

A photograph fails to satisfy the first condition (it's made by a lens), the hand-made wine bottle fails to satisfy the second condition (it's not intended to be contemplated as something beautiful).

Now do you understand?

I understand. I understand that you feel the need to force your beliefs on others as truths. With no shred of provable/repeatable evidence. Something commonly referred to as an opinion.

There are only two truths in our this world that we live in at this present time. Pure Math and Death.

All other things are just opinions. And as we all know Opinions are like @$$HOLES, every one has one and...... well you know the rest.

Guess I will go now and endeavor to persevere at my chosen artistic venue.

I'm not trying to force beliefs onto anyone. I'm trying to clarify the meanings of some terms that have been abused.

 

[AdrianC]

Lol, this thread is still going. Haven't you guys ever heard of internet trolls?