The Art

[Infidel]

To those of us who don't know how to paint, the work of a DaVinci or a Rembrandt appears 'magical', but it's all just technique.

If it's "just technique", then it's not art?

 

[Petraio Prime]

To those of us who don't know how to paint, the work of a DaVinci or a Rembrandt appears 'magical', but it's all just technique.

If it's "just technique", then it's not art?

Many things we think of as 'magic' or 'art' are simply technique applied by consummately skilled individuals. We laugh at the primitive who thinks a rifle or Polaroid camera is a demon, but we don't recognize that calling photographs 'works of art' is exactly the same thing.

We have the word 'artistic' that comes from the root 'artist'. But what are we supposed to do with 'photographer'? I don't think a word such as 'photographeristic' ever had a chance.

It's not the consummate application of technique that makes something 'art'. 'Art' is something made by hand.

 

[usayit]

We laugh at the primitive who thinks a rifle or Polaroid camera is a demon, but we don't recognize that calling photographs 'works of art' is exactly the same thing.
[/B][/I]

First part is the result of not enough knowledge to appreciate what is in front of them.

The second part is your repeated statement that is still an opinion.

If a primitive looks at the Mona Lisa and claims its a demon incarnate, it doesn't mean that the Mona Lisa is not a "work of art".


Sorry attempt at a straw man argument.

 

[Petraio Prime]

We laugh at the primitive who thinks a rifle or Polaroid camera is a demon, but we don't recognize that calling photographs 'works of art' is exactly the same thing.
[/B][/I]

First part is the result of not enough knowledge to appreciate what is in front of them.

The second part is your repeated statement that is still an opinion.

If a primitive looks at the Mona Lisa and claims its a demon incarnate, it doesn't mean that the Mona Lisa is not a "work of art".


Sorry attempt at a straw man argument.

I don't think you understood the analogy. To me, photographers calling themselves 'artists' and their photographs 'works of art' is exactly the same kind of mistake as the one made by the primitive who thinks a Polaroid camera is a magic box and a rifle is a demon. Both need to be enlightened. The primitive is still in the pre-scientific state of culture: to him, everything is magic and demons. The photographer needs to undergo a similar stage of enlightenment, to understand that claims to being an 'artist' are similarly 'pre-scientific' in a way.

 

[usayit]

I don't think you understood the analogy. To me, photographers calling themselves 'artists' and their photographs 'works of art' is exactly the same kind of mistake as the primitive who thinks a Polaroid camera or a rifle is a demon.

Analogies are based on "tit for tat"

Photographers call themselves "artists" therefore their work is called "works of art"

Primitives call themselves "???" there for their work is called "???". Trying to figure out the "???" in your analogy. So you think that Primitives think they are a camera or rifle therefore their action is that of a demon???

How again is this an analogy?

Oh so photographers are not enlightened? How screwed up argument is that?

 

[Petraio Prime]

I don't think you understood the analogy. To me, photographers calling themselves 'artists' and their photographs 'works of art' is exactly the same kind of mistake as the primitive who thinks a Polaroid camera or a rifle is a demon.

Analogies are based on "tit for tat"

Photographers call themselves "artists" therefore their work is called "works of art"

Primitives call themselves "???" there for their work is called "???". Trying to figure out the "???" in your analogy. So you think that Primitives think they are a camera or rifle therefore their action is that of a demon???

How again is this an analogy?

It is an analogy. Photographers think their actions are other than what they are, that they are producing 'art' when the truth is that they are consummate craftsmen. They think that once a photograph achieves a certain level of quality or beauty, it enters the realm, the divine realm, of 'art'.

It's just a rifle (not a demon)
It's just a Polaroid camera (not a magic box that steals souls)
It's just a pushed Tri-X in a photograph (not a work of art)
The 'beautiful' flower is merely the result of natural selection
The Mona Lisa is merely very skilled technique (it is a work of art, yes, because it was made by hand)
The pro quarterback's pass is intended to drop sharply into the receiver's hands (not a work of art)

 

[usayit]

It is an analogy.

Not a tit for tat analogy... thus invalid.

Photographers think their actions are other than what they are, that they are producing 'art' when the truth is that they are consummate craftsmen. They think that once a photograph achieves a certain level of quality or beauty, it enters the realm, the divine realm, of 'art'.

It's just a rifle
It's just a Polaroid camera
It's just a photograph

A truly gifted painter can sketch a stick man on toilet paper and call it art. Its not.

Next...


oh btw... You define art as something created from raw material into something greater aesthetic value... yet previously you simply stated that "layout" is also art.


Next...

 

[Petraio Prime]

It is an analogy.

Not a tit for tat analogy... thus invalid.

Photographers think their actions are other than what they are, that they are producing 'art' when the truth is that they are consummate craftsmen. They think that once a photograph achieves a certain level of quality or beauty, it enters the realm, the divine realm, of 'art'.

It's just a rifle
It's just a Polaroid camera
It's just a photograph

A truly gifted painter can sketch a stick man on toilet paper and call it art. Its not.

Next...


oh btw... You define art as something created from raw material into something greater aesthetic value... yet previously you simply stated that "layout" is also art.


Next...

Huh? None of this makes any sense. I said that in page layout, anything other than text (copy) is called 'art'. It's simply layout jargon.

 

[usayit]

Huh? None of this makes any sense. I said that in layout, anything other than text (copy) is called 'art'.

Page layout is the part of graphic design that deals in the arrangement and style treatment of elements (content) on a page.

With print media, elements usually consist of type (text), images (pictures), and occasionally place-holder graphics for elements that are not printed with ink such as die/laser cutting, foil stamping or blind embossing.



ignoring the fact that you analogy and logic sucks.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Huh? None of this makes any sense. I said that in layout, anything other than text (copy) is called 'art'.

Page layout is the part of graphic design that deals in the arrangement and style treatment of elements (content) on a page.

With print media, elements usually consist of type (text), images (pictures), and occasionally place-holder graphics for elements that are not printed with ink such as die/laser cutting, foil stamping or blind embossing.

ignoring the fact that you analogy and logic sucks.

In layout, anything other than copy is called 'art'. A page may contain either or both.

 

[usayit]

In layout, anything other than copy is called 'art. A page may contain either or both.

So the arrangement of elements within a page is "art"?

 

[Petraio Prime]

In layout, anything other than copy is called 'art. A page may contain either or both.

So the arrangement of elements within a page is "art"?

Not what I am talking about. A page laid out contains copy and non-copy parts. The copy parts are editable. The non-copy parts are not editable and are called 'art'. They could be photographs or drawings or anything but words.

 

[usayit]

So photographs within page layout is "art"?

 

[usayit]

Oh btw.. I see you editing your response after I responded:

"Last edited by Petraio Prime; Today at 04:52 PM."

And no.. jargon and page layout were not mentioned in the definition.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Oh btw.. I see you editing your response after I responded:

"Last edited by Petraio Prime; Today at 04:52 PM."

And no.. jargon and page layout were not mentioned in the definition.

Don't be in such a hurry. I often have to fill in subtler points and flesh out my posts.