The Art

[Petraio Prime]

I'm asking you, now, specifically, why we think of Egyptian art as 'art'. What makes it 'art'?

Was it considered art at the time it was made? The belief at the time was likely that it served a very practical purpose...to satisfy the gods/pharoahs, which would lead to prosperity, success in battle, stuff like that. Also, pyramids and sphinx's send a pretty clear message about how powerful the ruler is. Quite practical, really.

Alternatively, maybe it represented the self-expression of the pharoah, who did all of his bidding through the work of slaves...commissioned art, if you will. Times have changed (thankfully).

So there, either it wasn't art, or it was indeed representing self expression, albeit indirectly.

Just trying to approach this with an open mind (try it out!).

It was not 'self-expression'. Rather, it expressed the cultural, governmental, ceremonial, religious, political, and propaganda needs of those who paid for it.

But it is art now and was art then. Why?

 

[Overread]

But it is art now and was art then. Why?

erm we just gave you 3 answers
and haven't you spent the last 25odd pages telling us that it wasn't art then but now it is art then?

 

[Petraio Prime]

But it is art now and was art then. Why?

erm we just gave you 3 answers
and haven't you spent the last 25odd pages telling us that it wasn't art then but now it is art then?

No, I didn't say that. Where did you come up with that?

 

[Overread]

But it is art now and was art then. Why?

erm we just gave you 3 answers
and haven't you spent the last 25odd pages telling us that it wasn't art then but now it is art then?

No, I didn't say that. Where did you come up with that?

You've said it yourself many times - art requires self expression in order for photography to be accepted as art. Therefore since I accept that photography has the capacity to be art and artistic I have to (according to your understanding) accept that art requires self expression - and thus because Egyptian sculpture shows no self expression of the creator it cannot be art under your definitions.


Of course, myself, I don't accept that art requires self expression nor that all photography requires self expression - and thus I am capable of accepting the artistic quality of both ancient Egyptian art as well as photography.

 

[Infidel]

It was not 'self-expression'. Rather, it expressed the cultural, governmental, ceremonial, religious, political, and propaganda needs of those who paid for it.

But it is art now and was art then. Why?

The notion of self expression was surely different then than it is now. Pharaoh wanted to express himself with a sphinx, slaves made a sphinx.

Please back up your assertion that it is art now and was art then. Mere repetition is not sufficient to prove this point.

 

[Petraio Prime]

erm we just gave you 3 answers
and haven't you spent the last 25odd pages telling us that it wasn't art then but now it is art then?

No, I didn't say that. Where did you come up with that?

You've said it yourself many times - art requires self expression in order for photography to be accepted as art.

I said no such thing. Someone else may have.

 

[Petraio Prime]

It was not 'self-expression'. Rather, it expressed the cultural, governmental, ceremonial, religious, political, and propaganda needs of those who paid for it.

But it is art now and was art then. Why?

The notion of self expression was surely different then than it is now. Pharaoh wanted to express himself with a sphinx, slaves made a sphinx.

Please back up your assertion that it is art now and was art then. Mere repetition is not sufficient to prove this point.

Consider the comments of Plato and other ancient Greeks about the Greek artists. Their work was judged not on 'self-expression' but its grace and its ability to capture and express the cultural and religious notions of the god or goddess depicted.

 

[Overread]

No, I didn't say that. Where did you come up with that?

You've said it yourself many times - art requires self expression in order for photography to be accepted as art.

I said no such thing. Someone else may have.

So if art does not require self expression in order to be art and nor does it require the lacking of self expression then what exactly is your barrier to photography being art?

 

[Petraio Prime]

You've said it yourself many times - art requires self expression in order for photography to be accepted as art.

I said no such thing. Someone else may have.

So if art does not require self expression in order to be art and nor does it require the lacking of self expression then what exactly is your barrier to photography being art?

Because, as I have stated numberless times, it is the product of nature (photons focussed by a lens), not 'something tangible made by human hands', and that is necessary for something to be art.

 

[Overread]

surely painting is the nature of paint upon canvus
surely sculpting is the nature of hammer and chizzel upon stone or ice
surely sketching is the nature of graphite upon paper
etc... .etc....
surely photography is the nature of photons upon film/sensor
surely drawing is the nature of electrons and other fancy things inside the computer being arranged into a specific form

surely hammer, camera, computer, chizzel, fingers, feet, mouth, eyes, ears - does art really matter totally on the how in this manner? I (and most others in this thread) say no - we even accept that the original intent of the creator is no longer important once the work is released to the acceptance or rejection of the masses.

 

[Infidel]

Because, as I have stated numberless times, it is the product of nature (photons focussed by a lens), not 'something tangible made by human hands', and that is necessary for something to be art.

Now we're back on track. You are citing an old, outdated, obsolete convention. Furthermore, the photographer is an active agent in the process of making a photograph: all the way from determining the scene that the lens renders, to the final product, the print.

Modern convention dictates that some (not all) photography can be art. Corollary: some, not all painting can be art. The fact is, we are all appealing to authority...albeit different authorities. Your argument is no stronger than that of the dissenters.

 

[usayit]

I'm sorry PP, you are full of crap.. er.. (did I think of that out loud).. I meant.

Your comments about photography are entirely without truth or merit.





guys... he rejects even credible sources he references himself (even got him going in circles)... at that point, intelligent conversation turns into head banging on wall conversation.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Because, as I have stated numberless times, it is the product of nature (photons focussed by a lens), not 'something tangible made by human hands', and that is necessary for something to be art.

Now we're back on track. You are citing an old, outdated, obsolete convention. Furthermore, the photographer is an active agent in the process of making a photograph: all the way from determining the scene that the lens renders, to the final product, the print.

Modern convention dictates that some (not all) photography can be art. Corollary: some, not all painting can be art. The fact is, we are all appealing to authority...albeit different authorities. Your argument is no stronger than that of the dissenters.

It's not old or obsolete. I'm pointing out that if you claim that there is self-expression in photography (which I deny to begin with, but never mind that for now) and that's what makes it art, then what makes the Egyptian statues and carvings art, when they are not the product of self-expression?

Your claim is that some photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct? My claim is simple: it's art because of the manner of its production. All art must be 'hand-made' to be art:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/11/world/11mural-600.jpg

http://oxleylearning.org/germandictionary/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/sculpting.gif

http://www.sad74.k12.me.us:16080/district/file.php/1/Pictures/Pictures_-_Misc_-_Pottery_Wheel.jpg

http://www.bsu.edu/web/bsjessie/glass_history/glass_blowing.jpg

That is what makes it art.

 

[usayit]

: it's art because of the manner of its production. All art must be 'hand-made' to be art:.

I believe this is wrong


I have a red apple.... see the red apple? does it mean all apples are red?

The quote from "History of Art" stated that there's more to art than simply the question "how?"

 

[Infidel]

Because, as I have stated numberless times, it is the product of nature (photons focussed by a lens), not 'something tangible made by human hands', and that is necessary for something to be art.

Now we're back on track. You are citing an old, outdated, obsolete convention. Furthermore, the photographer is an active agent in the process of making a photograph: all the way from determining the scene that the lens renders, to the final product, the print.

Modern convention dictates that some (not all) photography can be art. Corollary: some, not all painting can be art. The fact is, we are all appealing to authority...albeit different authorities. Your argument is no stronger than that of the dissenters.

It's not old or obsolete. I'm pointing out that if you claim that there is self-expression in photography (which I deny to begin with, but never mind that for now) and that's what makes it art, then what makes the Egyptian statues and carvings art, when they are not the product of self-expression?

Your claim is that some photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct? My claim is simple: it's art because of the manner of its production. All art must be 'hand-made' to be art:

Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated any necessary condition for what makes anything art.

Further, I never agreed (nor disagreed) that the Egyptian works are art. In fact, I provided plausible conditions that may in fact disqualify them as art, taking into account the prevailing beliefs about religion and royalty at the time they were made.