Would you consider this to be art?
- Thread starter kita
- Start date
Duh. I did say IMO, didn't I?
Just about anyone can be an artist now, just as anyone can be a photographer. Technology helps those with no talent to have talent. While natural abilities just become a thing of the past.
Duh. I did say IMO, didn't I?
Just about anyone can be an artist now, just as anyone can be a photographer. Technology helps those with no talent to have talent. While natural abilities just become a thing of the past.
I meant more that talent itself was subjective. Talent is a bit of a farce anyway imo. If you put enough proficient practice into something you will eventually become good at it, natural talent or no. I don't see how expediting the process makes it an any less valid process. that being said I don't think the pictures are particularly "good" in my own biased interpretation, but then again there are quite a few "classics" that I don't find particularly "good" as well.
These pictures appear to be composed the way they are for a reason, therefore I would say yes, it is art. Just because it might not be art that many people like or some intricately carved sculpture or other piece of "obvious" art, doesn't discount it.
A photo taken of a stapler leaning against a wall could also be considered art.
Art is one of those very subjective things, and there are different kinds of art which exist for different purposes. Some are practical, some are emotional, others are whimsical. It matters not. IMO, all that matters is that there was some kind of vision behind the creation of it. Art is a type of communication, a language of sorts if you will. Just because you don't understand the language, it doesn't make it NOT classifiable as art.
A photo taken of a stapler leaning against a wall could also be considered art.
Art is one of those very subjective things, and there are different kinds of art which exist for different purposes. Some are practical, some are emotional, others are whimsical. It matters not. IMO, all that matters is that there was some kind of vision behind the creation of it. Art is a type of communication, a language of sorts if you will. Just because you don't understand the language, it doesn't make it NOT classifiable as art.
I agree, but practice takes years. It doesn't come overnight. Learned art is just as wonderful as natural art. It's the overnight photoshop programs that have me scratching my head (or a snapshot of someone lying face down in water with balloons, while a pink something is standing there.)
An artist never knows his/her audience and luckily there are many works out there to love or hate. I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to present day artists, but my spectrum is broad. Carpentry I see as an art (furniture, musical instruments, etc.) I see assembling a motorcycle as an art. Art is a skill.
I no longer see photography as art. I see photography as photography. There is little skill involved in it anymore.
In critiquing the first photo ... the man walking at the top of the screen needs to be a little left of the light pole (they are too close together.) I'm very sensitive to spatial concept in art ... and things like that bug me. My bet is no one noticed this at all, and will go back to see what I'm talking about.
I've added some info to the original post. These are photos of urban art installations that look like dead bodies, people sitting of the edge of a rooftop, etc. I don't know what the story is with the woman in pink.
It's absolutely untrue technology absolves skill, just try digitally painting something using a tablet, it involves drawing and painting using your hands, not just clicking on filters to create an effect, any sort of tool requires skill, be it a tangible brush you can hold with your hand, or a brush you control by moving the mouse or a digital pen. I'm ignorant about photography for the most part, but I'm sure taking good detailed photos requires more in terms of technical knowledge and practice than pressing a button.
As well, I think people in the photo are sculptures, it's not just a snapshot.
Yes its artistic, its certainly creative and makes you think. I dont like it ir dislike it. Its interesting, vulgar and unpleasant.
It would be interesting to collect some data on how passerbyers react and what they do when they see it. Or if they even see it in the first place.
This kind of art could have a bad precedence in desensitising people to the bodies lying around if it became more popular and common.
It would be interesting to collect some data on how passerbyers react and what they do when they see it. Or if they even see it in the first place.
This kind of art could have a bad precedence in desensitising people to the bodies lying around if it became more popular and common.
That's like wondering if this is art:
(Jackson Pollock's Galaxy)
I've explored the MOMA quite a few times in my life and have been to plenty of art galleries in the city. I've have seen the worst of the worst and best of the best. Some of the worst pieces I've seen are: a simple BLUE canvas with a SPECK of yellow (I wish I knew the name of it)... it was one of the most ridiculous paintings I've ever seen and it was in the minimalist section in the MOMA. Another was this plain black canvas that would glisten a semi-transparent crosshatch pattern if you looked at it from a certain angle.
Personally, I wouldn't consider that art and I don't think Jackson Pollock's works are "amazing" but I guess it goes to say that even in simplicity, there is a sort of complexity. So with that being said... it's probably art... and it's the kind of stuff that would definitely catch my eye if I saw it on the street. Heck, I would probably find the nearest police officer too and alert him.... so if the artist's objective is to gain my attention, then he excelled at it.
(Jackson Pollock's Galaxy)
I've explored the MOMA quite a few times in my life and have been to plenty of art galleries in the city. I've have seen the worst of the worst and best of the best. Some of the worst pieces I've seen are: a simple BLUE canvas with a SPECK of yellow (I wish I knew the name of it)... it was one of the most ridiculous paintings I've ever seen and it was in the minimalist section in the MOMA. Another was this plain black canvas that would glisten a semi-transparent crosshatch pattern if you looked at it from a certain angle.
Personally, I wouldn't consider that art and I don't think Jackson Pollock's works are "amazing" but I guess it goes to say that even in simplicity, there is a sort of complexity. So with that being said... it's probably art... and it's the kind of stuff that would definitely catch my eye if I saw it on the street. Heck, I would probably find the nearest police officer too and alert him.... so if the artist's objective is to gain my attention, then he excelled at it.
It's art all right, but not a particularly high quality and it has a touch of irresponsibility to it. You don't want people to question whether a person is in need or whether they're looking at some idiot's art project. The one with the balloons is Ok because no one would mistake that for a person in distress. But the others . . .
