Re; Art, but bad art. Brings to mind a scene in a TV show I saw where a guy picked up a painting which consisted of 3, 6" wide straight lines of different colours horrizontaly. After looking, he hung it back on the wall, wherein the gallery owner swooped in & hung it the other way up while mouthing "Philistine!" Just made me laugh, thinking what different interpretations of "art" there is.
In the hands of an artist, the craft of photography can be used to create art. But, I wonder whether such artists are hijacking the term "photography" instead of calling it "photographic art" or something similar.
Although astronomy is a way of documenting things that exist in the known universe (either using optical telescopes or ones that record other frequencies or wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum) astronomy is a science and a craft that can be (and is) used to create art by the same artists, but astronomy cannot be called an art.
--
omg, what a churlish response.
You just said art is property
Art (or at least the medium it is produced upon) is tangible, tangible items can be owned. Are you refuting this?
I absolutely did not sir! I stated that art has commercial value. I did not indicate that its commercial value was its only value. Read carefully and do not misrepresent me please.
Context has an impact upon all of human experience. Do you deny this? A rapid visualization work can/should be taken in different context than a painting that took months to produce. Are a dying man's written words to taken in with the same detachment as his grocery list?
Very few things belong in a safety deposit box, at least if your intent is to maximize their total value. BTW, a gallery is not always the best place for art.
That was a joke, I posted it because I searched out the Tate's website to find their definition of art, but the other site came up higher in the google rank!
When I get to London, time permitting, I'll likely have a look, but really the British Museum is higher on my list. I doubt that what I gain from the experience would be any greater than that of The Louvre, the Met, Getty, the excellent Museo de Arte de Puerto Rico or others that I have visited.
So now, you admit that there is such a thing as commercial art, and that it has a purpose. Well now, there's some progress. It seems we have come to some sort of agreement. You may want to read your original premise once again.
Hi Paul,
I think it makes a very nice bird on stick photograph.
Oh, but I think yes, Ansel Adam's photographic prints are definately art.
After all the hint I left you, you still can't figure out which piece I am hinting ?
an even funnier experiment, (hope you are having as much fun as me)
No, it is not an advert, it was not commissioned by Campbells's, nor have I ever heard of anyone with credibility stating that the purpose of the artworks were to sell soup.looper1234 wrote:
After all the hint I left you, you still can't figure out which piece I am hinting ?
Tate ? modern art ? commercialism ?
none of this ring any bells ?
fine, I give you the solution to this puzzle than.
you want a sample so bad ?
is this an ad for soup ? or art ?
I was not aware that the Warhol exhibit had any significant impact on Campbell's Sales. Can you site source?
The show debuted in Los Angeles, I believe, but know, I don't think the Modern had any intent of advertising Campbell's Soup when they decided to display/acquire the collection.
I think you may have written, when you meant to say ad, otherwise I am not sure I understand this statement. My understanding is that Worhol intended the prints as art from the outset, thereby making it art, at least in my view.
There are no differences as far as the Art is concerned. In terms of intent and context, there would vast differences. Also, the Campbell's Soup Cans project is an entity and should be considered as such. I personally believe that the visceral impact would have not been nearly the same, had he produced only one.
All ad's are Art.
You would have to take the definition in its full context from this post.SirLataxe wrote:
Mr Wave,
Although your often say sensible or even reasonable things, this is not one of them:
"Art is whatever an artist says is Art".
I can allege that I have an IQ of 200 or that no woman can resist me. Alas neither is anywhere near true and even the most gullible of folk will be unlikely to believe me, for good reason.
Perhaps, then, these self-proclaimed artists obtain the status only if daft lads do believe them? Ah ha! Now I understand.
SirLataxe, inclined to cackle with mirth at solipsists (even those pretending to themselves that they're artists) as at any posturing charlatan.
PS I like definitions that those discussing things can agree on so as to, you know, have a sensible discussion (as opposed to each just blaring his own particular horn at random moments and in a random key). Do you have a definition of art to offer us - or are there as many definitions as there are artists (self-proclaimed or otherwise) in the world?
SirLataxe, also a genius. (It says so on this certificate I have just written).
Photgraphy is not art just paintings or drawings are not art. Many paintings and drawings are art but not because they are paintings or drawings. many are commercial art for advertisments or what ever. But Photographs can be art and photographers can be artists just as painters can creat art and be artist.jtan163 wrote:
Is photography art?
Yes.
Legally and culturally.
In many countries, you can talk to the relevant government department and get an arts grant for photography. Ergo legally photography is art.
You can go to an art gallery and see a show that is enitrely based on photography - culturally photography is art.
Are my photographs art?
If I painted (pictures not houses) but did it badly, I'd still be called an artist.
My pictures aren't great art (or even great technically), but they are art.
Simply because photography is consideed an art.
You don't ahve to be good to be called an artist - you have to practise an art.
You only have to be good to be called a "good artist".
Ergo practioners of photography are artists.
Even photographers who practise photography for entirely scientific purposes, e.g. to document and experiment, or crime scene are artists. Take any two of them, and give the the same scene and the same gear, you'll get different images. Same input, different outputs - that's art.
Perhaps not good art (not for me to judge - beauty -eye - beholder - etc), but art all the same.
Your early photos were art.
If photography is art you can't call Ansel Adams an artist and not call yourself an artist if you also practise photography.
You become an artist by practising an art. But like many, perhaps all arts there are a lot of artists whose works are boring, stereotyped, poorly executed, un-original, even plagurised. They may not be good, but they are still artists.
None of the mediums used to create art are themselves art.
I suspect yours might be art - perhaps not as well executed, but art all the same.
