what is art
Posted 11/03/2010 - 15:49
Link
Anvh wrote:
The Sydney Opera House is certainly a piece of art but it's also an opera house, or isn't it art?
And what about the photos I show in this topic, those are also made to bring over a message so aren't they art either?
The Sydney Opera House eh? And to think you accused me of going off topic! Sometimes it seems like you just want to argue endlessly because you enjoy it.thoughton wrote:
If the only criteria is that it be aesthetically pleasing then no I don't think it's art. As stated above (several times now!) my opinion is that, in addition to it having no purpose other than being aesthetically pleasing, there must also be skill involved.
And I can't agree, what about architecture?If the only criteria is that it be aesthetically pleasing then no I don't think it's art. As stated above (several times now!) my opinion is that, in addition to it having no purpose other than being aesthetically pleasing, there must also be skill involved.
The Sydney Opera House is certainly a piece of art but it's also an opera house, or isn't it art?
And what about the photos I show in this topic, those are also made to bring over a message so aren't they art either?
The dead animal photos you showed earlier are art. Crappy art, but art nonetheless. They are photos that have no purpose other than to be looked at. The skill is in the juxtaposition and composition. Why are you talking about delivering messages?
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Posted 11/03/2010 - 15:56
Link
Anvh wrote:
The Sydney Opera House is certainly a piece of art but it's also an opera house, or isn't it art?
And what about the photos I show in this topic, those are also made to bring over a message so aren't they art either?
I'm sure all art is made with a second thought besides that it must look pretty.
I would argue that for something to be art, the primary function of it needs to be art.thoughton wrote:
If the only criteria is that it be aesthetically pleasing then no I don't think it's art. As stated above (several times now!) my opinion is that, in addition to it having no purpose other than being aesthetically pleasing, there must also be skill involved.
And I can't agree, what about architecture?If the only criteria is that it be aesthetically pleasing then no I don't think it's art. As stated above (several times now!) my opinion is that, in addition to it having no purpose other than being aesthetically pleasing, there must also be skill involved.
The Sydney Opera House is certainly a piece of art but it's also an opera house, or isn't it art?
And what about the photos I show in this topic, those are also made to bring over a message so aren't they art either?
I'm sure all art is made with a second thought besides that it must look pretty.
In the case of the Sydney Opera House, it is first and foremost an opera house (and theatre, pop concert venue, etc.). It may have an artistic design (as many buildings, cars, consumer products do), but it wasn't built to just be admired, it was built to be used.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 11/03/2010 - 16:18
Link
thoughton wrote:
The Sydney Opera House eh? And to think you accused me of going off topic! Sometimes it seems like you just want to argue endlessly because you enjoy it.
The dead animal photos you showed earlier are art. Crappy art, but art nonetheless. They are photos that have no purpose other than to be looked at. The skill is in the juxtaposition and composition. Why are you talking about delivering messages?
I accused you of going off topic?The Sydney Opera House eh? And to think you accused me of going off topic! Sometimes it seems like you just want to argue endlessly because you enjoy it.
The dead animal photos you showed earlier are art. Crappy art, but art nonetheless. They are photos that have no purpose other than to be looked at. The skill is in the juxtaposition and composition. Why are you talking about delivering messages?
And yes I enjoy a conversation.
She made those photos with this idea:
Quote:
In the course of daily life these native animals are killed by cars, domestic pets or power lines and are easily found scattered beside the roads throughout our urban environments. This new perspective made me question our existing relationship to wild animals.
So she was questioning the our existing relationship to wild animals so she made those photos with the goal of asking those questions.In the course of daily life these native animals are killed by cars, domestic pets or power lines and are easily found scattered beside the roads throughout our urban environments. This new perspective made me question our existing relationship to wild animals.
Thoramay said this before so read that interview.
thoramay wrote:
They disturb me. The use of the animals somehow intrude on the picture but at least I can see that the photographer is making a personal statement, inviting you into his picture, challenging you to understand what it is he is intending, almost, in one sense, attempting to shock those who treat animals as though they have personalities, human attributes.
So there is more going on then just being artistic and the photos are made with a purpose besides being that, in your book these photos aren't art if I understnad you correctly?They disturb me. The use of the animals somehow intrude on the picture but at least I can see that the photographer is making a personal statement, inviting you into his picture, challenging you to understand what it is he is intending, almost, in one sense, attempting to shock those who treat animals as though they have personalities, human attributes.
I agree with what Robbie said.
robbie_d wrote:
I would argue that for something to be art, the primary function of it needs to be art.
In the case of the Sydney Opera House, it is first and foremost an opera house (and theatre, pop concert venue, etc.). It may have an artistic design (as many buildings, cars, consumer products do), but it wasn't built to just be admired, it was built to be used.
But the question leaves where do we draw the line, how much of the total must be artistic value before it becomes art?I would argue that for something to be art, the primary function of it needs to be art.
In the case of the Sydney Opera House, it is first and foremost an opera house (and theatre, pop concert venue, etc.). It may have an artistic design (as many buildings, cars, consumer products do), but it wasn't built to just be admired, it was built to be used.
Because I believe that art can be more than just being pleasant to look at.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 11/03/2010 - 16:21
Link
whelmed wrote:
Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.
The definition and evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the early 20th century. Richard Wollheim distinguishes three approaches: the Realist, whereby aesthetic quality is an absolute value independent of any human view; the Objectivist, whereby it is also an absolute value, but is dependent on general human experience; and the Relativist position, whereby it is not an absolute value, but depends on, and varies with, the human experience of different humans. An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced.
Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.
The definition and evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the early 20th century. Richard Wollheim distinguishes three approaches: the Realist, whereby aesthetic quality is an absolute value independent of any human view; the Objectivist, whereby it is also an absolute value, but is dependent on general human experience; and the Relativist position, whereby it is not an absolute value, but depends on, and varies with, the human experience of different humans. An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced.
Quote:
Question: Is architecture art?
Richard Meier: Architecture is art. Every work is a work of art. Architecture is the greatest of the arts, and it encompasses thinking that other arts don’t even deal with. Like relationship of the work to the individual human being – the person who uses it; the person who experiences it; the person who sees it; and how that person perceives that space. You know there’s an old adage that a sculptor can make a square wheel, and an architect has to make a round one. You have a certain responsibility not just to your client, not just to the people using the building, but to the public at large with what you do.
Question: When does a building become art?
Richard Meier: Well I don’t say all buildings are architecture, first of all. So there’s lots of buildings that have nothing to do with architecture. They have to do with economics. They have to do with an enclosure, but I wouldn’t consider them works of architecture. To be a work of architecture is creating a work of art.
Question: Is architecture art?
Richard Meier: Architecture is art. Every work is a work of art. Architecture is the greatest of the arts, and it encompasses thinking that other arts don’t even deal with. Like relationship of the work to the individual human being – the person who uses it; the person who experiences it; the person who sees it; and how that person perceives that space. You know there’s an old adage that a sculptor can make a square wheel, and an architect has to make a round one. You have a certain responsibility not just to your client, not just to the people using the building, but to the public at large with what you do.
Question: When does a building become art?
Richard Meier: Well I don’t say all buildings are architecture, first of all. So there’s lots of buildings that have nothing to do with architecture. They have to do with economics. They have to do with an enclosure, but I wouldn’t consider them works of architecture. To be a work of architecture is creating a work of art.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 11/03/2010 - 16:25
Link
Anvh wrote:
And yes I enjoy a conversation.
She made those photos with this idea:
Thoramay said this before so read that interview.
I agree with what Robbie said.
Because I believe that art can be more than just being pleasant to look at.
I agree that aesthetically pleasing isn't always necessary, perhaps expanding the phrase to emotionally stimulating, as some art may not be particularly attractive but might be, for instance, thought-provoking.thoughton wrote:
The Sydney Opera House eh? And to think you accused me of going off topic! Sometimes it seems like you just want to argue endlessly because you enjoy it.
The dead animal photos you showed earlier are art. Crappy art, but art nonetheless. They are photos that have no purpose other than to be looked at. The skill is in the juxtaposition and composition. Why are you talking about delivering messages?
I accused you of going off topic?The Sydney Opera House eh? And to think you accused me of going off topic! Sometimes it seems like you just want to argue endlessly because you enjoy it.
The dead animal photos you showed earlier are art. Crappy art, but art nonetheless. They are photos that have no purpose other than to be looked at. The skill is in the juxtaposition and composition. Why are you talking about delivering messages?
And yes I enjoy a conversation.
She made those photos with this idea:
Quote:
In the course of daily life these native animals are killed by cars, domestic pets or power lines and are easily found scattered beside the roads throughout our urban environments. This new perspective made me question our existing relationship to wild animals.
So she was questioning the our existing relationship to wild animals so she made those photos with the goal of asking those questions.In the course of daily life these native animals are killed by cars, domestic pets or power lines and are easily found scattered beside the roads throughout our urban environments. This new perspective made me question our existing relationship to wild animals.
Thoramay said this before so read that interview.
thoramay wrote:
They disturb me. The use of the animals somehow intrude on the picture but at least I can see that the photographer is making a personal statement, inviting you into his picture, challenging you to understand what it is he is intending, almost, in one sense, attempting to shock those who treat animals as though they have personalities, human attributes.
So there is more going on then just being artistic and the photos are made with a purpose besides being that, in your book these photos aren't art if I understnad you correctly?They disturb me. The use of the animals somehow intrude on the picture but at least I can see that the photographer is making a personal statement, inviting you into his picture, challenging you to understand what it is he is intending, almost, in one sense, attempting to shock those who treat animals as though they have personalities, human attributes.
I agree with what Robbie said.
robbie_d wrote:
I would argue that for something to be art, the primary function of it needs to be art.
In the case of the Sydney Opera House, it is first and foremost an opera house (and theatre, pop concert venue, etc.). It may have an artistic design (as many buildings, cars, consumer products do), but it wasn't built to just be admired, it was built to be used.
But the question leaves where do we draw the line, how much of the total must be artistic value before it becomes art?I would argue that for something to be art, the primary function of it needs to be art.
In the case of the Sydney Opera House, it is first and foremost an opera house (and theatre, pop concert venue, etc.). It may have an artistic design (as many buildings, cars, consumer products do), but it wasn't built to just be admired, it was built to be used.
Because I believe that art can be more than just being pleasant to look at.
I think where we draw the line is around functionality as I discussed.
If the primary function of something is to be art, then it is art. A Mont Blanc Pen, an Aeron chair, the Sydney Opera House, an iPod all have a greater function than just being admired, and hence are not art.
Admittedly you could use a great painting to prop a door open or a great sculpture as a paperweight, but that wouldn't be the intended primary function.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 11/03/2010 - 16:34
Link
It's not about skill. Court artists are quite skilful. But they do not produce 'art'. It's about meaning and the fact the artist has set out to provoke a reaction in us which is out of the realm of everyday life, or show us something beautiful or profound.
[sorry i'm about two pages behind in this thread!]
[sorry i'm about two pages behind in this thread!]
Posted 11/03/2010 - 16:43
Link
Pentaxophile wrote:
It's not about skill. Court artists are quite skilful. But they do not produce 'art'. It's about meaning and the fact the artist has set out to provoke a reaction in us which is out of the realm of everyday life, or show us something beautiful or profound.
[sorry i'm about two pages behind in this thread!]
I can see where you're coming from, but this definition allows for upside down urinals and unmade beds to be classified as art. I simply refuse to accept that
It's not about skill. Court artists are quite skilful. But they do not produce 'art'. It's about meaning and the fact the artist has set out to provoke a reaction in us which is out of the realm of everyday life, or show us something beautiful or profound.
[sorry i'm about two pages behind in this thread!]
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Posted 11/03/2010 - 16:44
Link
Anvh wrote:
Richard Meier is an architect!!!!!! Ask a gallery owner, or a museum curator, and see if they think architecture is art.
Quote:
Question: Is architecture art?
Richard Meier: Architecture is art. Every work is a work of art. Architecture is the greatest of the arts, and it encompasses thinking that other arts don’t even deal with.
Question: Is architecture art?
Richard Meier: Architecture is art. Every work is a work of art. Architecture is the greatest of the arts, and it encompasses thinking that other arts don’t even deal with.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Posted 11/03/2010 - 16:46
Link
Pentaxophile wrote:
It's not about skill. Court artists are quite skilful. But they do not produce 'art'. It's about meaning and the fact the artist has set out to provoke a reaction in us which is out of the realm of everyday life, or show us something beautiful or profound.
[sorry i'm about two pages behind in this thread!]
I can't agree that it's not about skill. It's certainly not all about skill (as we have discussed), but if it takes no skill, then it could be done by anyone, and where is the merit in that?It's not about skill. Court artists are quite skilful. But they do not produce 'art'. It's about meaning and the fact the artist has set out to provoke a reaction in us which is out of the realm of everyday life, or show us something beautiful or profound.
[sorry i'm about two pages behind in this thread!]
Court artists have skill, but is what they are doing "emotionally stimulating"? I would argue not, meaning in my eyes it isn't art.
With regards meaning, I agree that there is meaning behind a lot of art, but I don't think it is a pre-requisite of all art. Constable's landscapes have been mentioned, I couldn;t argue that they're not art, but I'm not sure there is a lot of deep meaning in them either.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 11/03/2010 - 16:47
Link
I don't know Robbie it's a tough nut... in a way design as a form of art that's functional and under design falls fashion and architecture.
Basicly designers are artist that make functional art work in my eyes, but since it is functional it can't be called art, yeah we have a paradox, or I at least.
So basicly what you two are saying is if the Sydney Opera House would not be used as an opera, it's art or am I wrong?
Basicly designers are artist that make functional art work in my eyes, but since it is functional it can't be called art, yeah we have a paradox, or I at least.
So basicly what you two are saying is if the Sydney Opera House would not be used as an opera, it's art or am I wrong?
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 11/03/2010 - 16:48
Link
thoughton wrote:
There is a certain degree of bias there!Anvh wrote:
Richard Meier is an architect!!!!!! Ask an art gallery owner, or a museum curator, and see if they think architecture is art.Quote:
Question: Is architecture art?
Richard Meier: Architecture is art. Every work is a work of art. Architecture is the greatest of the arts, and it encompasses thinking that other arts don’t even deal with.
Question: Is architecture art?
Richard Meier: Architecture is art. Every work is a work of art. Architecture is the greatest of the arts, and it encompasses thinking that other arts don’t even deal with.
I'm an accountant, and some accountants I know would claim some particularly clever tax schemes they work on are "art". I'm not having it.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 11/03/2010 - 16:51
Link
Anvh wrote:
I don't know Robbie it's a tough nut... in a way design as a form of art that's functional and under design falls fashion and architecture.
Basicly designers are artist that make functional art work in my eyes, but since it is functional it can't be called art, yeah we have a paradox, or I at least.
So basicly what you two are saying is if the Sydney Opera House would not be used as an opera, it's art or am I wrong?
No, what I'm saying is if it had never been designed with the intention of being a functional building it could be defined as art. I don't know Robbie it's a tough nut... in a way design as a form of art that's functional and under design falls fashion and architecture.
Basicly designers are artist that make functional art work in my eyes, but since it is functional it can't be called art, yeah we have a paradox, or I at least.
So basicly what you two are saying is if the Sydney Opera House would not be used as an opera, it's art or am I wrong?
Simply stopping using it now would make it an empty building they used to use as an opera house (and theatre, and pop concert venue, etc.)..
If the design brief was to make a piece of architecture that could be justified without the need for it to be functional, then it would be art (in my opinion).
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 11/03/2010 - 16:58
Link
So if Jørn Utzon had made the Sydney Opera House not to be functional then it would be art?
In my eyes that's a strange line to draw for something that is or is not.
But everyone has there view on art and that makes it so interesting
Somehow I can agree with this.
Now when something is consumed as art is another question
In my eyes that's a strange line to draw for something that is or is not.
But everyone has there view on art and that makes it so interesting
Somehow I can agree with this.
Quote:
art is whatever is made in an artistic process and consumed as art.
This explains why some things not intended as art end up as art and vice versa.art is whatever is made in an artistic process and consumed as art.
Now when something is consumed as art is another question
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 11/03/2010 - 17:08
Link
Anvh wrote:
And yes I enjoy a conversation.
She made those photos with this idea:
Thoramay said this before so read that interview.
I agree with what Robbie said.
Because I believe that art can be more than just being pleasant to look at.
I'm supposed to be working! But finally stole some time to read your post. The key point is this:thoughton wrote:
The Sydney Opera House eh? And to think you accused me of going off topic! Sometimes it seems like you just want to argue endlessly because you enjoy it.
The dead animal photos you showed earlier are art. Crappy art, but art nonetheless. They are photos that have no purpose other than to be looked at. The skill is in the juxtaposition and composition. Why are you talking about delivering messages?
I accused you of going off topic?The Sydney Opera House eh? And to think you accused me of going off topic! Sometimes it seems like you just want to argue endlessly because you enjoy it.
The dead animal photos you showed earlier are art. Crappy art, but art nonetheless. They are photos that have no purpose other than to be looked at. The skill is in the juxtaposition and composition. Why are you talking about delivering messages?
And yes I enjoy a conversation.
She made those photos with this idea:
Quote:
In the course of daily life these native animals are killed by cars, domestic pets or power lines and are easily found scattered beside the roads throughout our urban environments. This new perspective made me question our existing relationship to wild animals.
So she was questioning the our existing relationship to wild animals so she made those photos with the goal of asking those questions.In the course of daily life these native animals are killed by cars, domestic pets or power lines and are easily found scattered beside the roads throughout our urban environments. This new perspective made me question our existing relationship to wild animals.
Thoramay said this before so read that interview.
thoramay wrote:
They disturb me. The use of the animals somehow intrude on the picture but at least I can see that the photographer is making a personal statement, inviting you into his picture, challenging you to understand what it is he is intending, almost, in one sense, attempting to shock those who treat animals as though they have personalities, human attributes.
So there is more going on then just being artistic and the photos are made with a purpose besides being that, in your book these photos aren't art if I understnad you correctly?They disturb me. The use of the animals somehow intrude on the picture but at least I can see that the photographer is making a personal statement, inviting you into his picture, challenging you to understand what it is he is intending, almost, in one sense, attempting to shock those who treat animals as though they have personalities, human attributes.
I agree with what Robbie said.
robbie_d wrote:
I would argue that for something to be art, the primary function of it needs to be art.
In the case of the Sydney Opera House, it is first and foremost an opera house (and theatre, pop concert venue, etc.). It may have an artistic design (as many buildings, cars, consumer products do), but it wasn't built to just be admired, it was built to be used.
But the question leaves where do we draw the line, how much of the total must be artistic value before it becomes art?I would argue that for something to be art, the primary function of it needs to be art.
In the case of the Sydney Opera House, it is first and foremost an opera house (and theatre, pop concert venue, etc.). It may have an artistic design (as many buildings, cars, consumer products do), but it wasn't built to just be admired, it was built to be used.
Because I believe that art can be more than just being pleasant to look at.
Anvh wrote:
So there is more going on then just being artistic and the photos are made with a purpose besides being that, in your book these photos aren't art if I understnad you correctly?
Unfortunately you do not understand me correctly. I stated, in my first post in this thread:So there is more going on then just being artistic and the photos are made with a purpose besides being that, in your book these photos aren't art if I understnad you correctly?
thoughton wrote:
it can be called art if it exists for no reason other than to provide viewing pleasure/interest, AND requires some skill to create it
Art that tells a story, or makes you think, all falls under the 'interest' category.
it can be called art if it exists for no reason other than to provide viewing pleasure/interest, AND requires some skill to create it
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
10412 posts
18 years
Dordrecht,
the Netherlands
If the only criteria is that it be aesthetically pleasing then no I don't think it's art. As stated above (several times now!) my opinion is that, in addition to it having no purpose other than being aesthetically pleasing, there must also be skill involved.
The Sydney Opera House is certainly a piece of art but it's also an opera house, or isn't it art?
And what about the photos I show in this topic, those are also made to bring over a message so aren't they art either?
I'm sure all art is made with a second thought besides that it must look pretty.
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ