But is it art ?

Chimere said:

Chimere wrote:

My TV at times looses its signal and develops interesting patterns on the screen. Some of it looks much better than the contemporary art we have in our local gallery. Comments ?

Click to expand...

If you're presenting it as art, it's art. Nothing more to it. Is it any good? Is it worthy of further consideration? Is it aesthetically appealing? Is it conceptually coherent? Can you get it shown in a gallery? Those are the more relevant questions.

IME, when people say, "That's not art!" they mean, "I don't like it", "I don't understand it", or "it's not very good." But the "is it art?" question is irrelevant. It's been shown that anything - absolutely anything - can be a work of art.

Is this art? It's down to intentionality (a thing which can't be proved) and acceptance (a thing which is based on someone's taste or judgment). If someone presents a thing as art and someone else accepts it, there you go!

So, if you're presenting it as art, I'll accept it with the caveat that it's not very strong. You might want to enhance your explanation of the work. And you might want to develop a series in order to better explore and articulate your ideas. Or not.

artlmntl said:

artlmntl wrote:

artlmntl said:

Nordstjernen wrote:

Why should we listen to people without professional knowledge when discussing art?

Click to expand...

Why should we listen to people without professional knowledge when discussing photography?

Click to expand...

Do so if you don't want to improve your photography. Many are pleased with thumbs up for mediocre work! :-D

If you want to learn, listening to people with knowledge and experience isn't bad -- except when discussing art, of cause ...

artlmntl said:

artlmntl wrote:

artlmntl said:

Chimere wrote:

My TV at times looses its signal and develops interesting patterns on the screen. Some of it looks much better than the contemporary art we have in our local gallery. Comments ?

Click to expand...

If you're presenting it as art, it's art. Nothing more to it.

Click to expand...

Would be nice if explaining the term 'art' was this easy.

Nordstjernen said:

Nordstjernen wrote:

Nordstjernen said:

artlmntl wrote:

Nordstjernen said:

Nordstjernen wrote:

Why should we listen to people without professional knowledge when discussing art?

Click to expand...

Why should we listen to people without professional knowledge when discussing photography?

Click to expand...

Do so if you don't want to improve your photography. Many are pleased with thumbs up for mediocre work! :-D

If you want to learn, listening to people with knowledge and experience isn't bad -- except when discussing art, of cause ...

Click to expand...

The question is rhetorical. Let's tell the truth: The vast bulk of art and photography *are* mediocre. That includes the stuff in the galleries, magazines, and other outlets. Knowledge and experience comes from many sources. Professional only means making money at it, and making money does not necessarily indicate quality. As you say, plenty of thumbs up for mediocrity.

Nordstjernen said:

Nordstjernen wrote:

Nordstjernen said:

artlmntl wrote:

Nordstjernen said:

Chimere wrote:

My TV at times looses its signal and develops interesting patterns on the screen. Some of it looks much better than the contemporary art we have in our local gallery. Comments ?

Click to expand...

If you're presenting it as art, it's art. Nothing more to it.

Click to expand...

Would be nice if explaining the term 'art' was this easy.

Click to expand...

Danto, art as philosophy, the victory of conceptual art, etc. It *is* that easy. People all want to argue if it's art. It's a sucker play. Is it good? Why is it good? Do you understand it? Do you like it? Ask the more important questions.The answers are more meaningful.

artlmntl said:

artlmntl wrote:

artlmntl said:

Nordstjernen wrote:

artlmntl said:

artlmntl wrote:

artlmntl said:

Nordstjernen wrote:

Why should we listen to people without professional knowledge when discussing art?

Click to expand...

Why should we listen to people without professional knowledge when discussing photography?

Click to expand...

Do so if you don't want to improve your photography. Many are pleased with thumbs up for mediocre work! :-D

If you want to learn, listening to people with knowledge and experience isn't bad -- except when discussing art, of cause ...

Click to expand...

The question is rhetorical. Let's tell the truth: The vast bulk of art and photography *are* mediocre. That includes the stuff in the galleries, magazines, and other outlets. Knowledge and experience comes from many sources. Professional only means making money at it, and making money does not necessarily indicate quality. As you say, plenty of thumbs up for mediocrity.

Click to expand...

When people are professionally trained we should expect a certain level of quality, at least better than from most untrained people doing the same stuff - no matter photographers or artists.

To describe 'quality' you need to define this term, as 'quality' can imply the highest standards or as good as needed/expected for a spesific task and everything in between. Also, 'quality' should never be mixed up with 'like' and 'dislike'.

I don't share your view that most professionals are doing mediocre work, or that they just care about making money.

Nordstjernen said:

Nordstjernen wrote:

Nordstjernen said:

The question is rhetorical. Let's tell the truth: The vast bulk of art and photography *are* mediocre. That includes the stuff in the galleries, magazines, and other outlets. Knowledge and experience comes from many sources. Professional only means making money at it, and making money does not necessarily indicate quality. As you say, plenty of thumbs up for mediocrity.

Click to expand...

When people are professionally trained we should expect a certain level of quality, at least better than from most untrained people doing the same stuff - no matter photographers or artists.

Click to expand...

You're reading too much in. Professional training does not guarantee quality. A trained professional hair stylist can still give you a lousy haircut. Most is only 51%.

Nordstjernen said:

To describe 'quality' you need to define this term, as 'quality' can imply the highest standards or as good as needed/expected for a spesific task and everything in between. Also, 'quality' should never be mixed up with 'like' and 'dislike'.

Click to expand...

As you indicate, the definition of quality varies based on the situation. Like and dislike trumps quality. When a client likes the work, the quality matters not. We would hope as trained professionals, that the client likes the work we did because of the quality, but the clients are usually *not* trained in art or photography. So, they don't know if it's good or not. They only know whether they like it. And the basis for their judgment is not necessarily based on the formal or aesthetic quality of the work.

Nordstjernen said:

I don't share your view that most professionals are doing mediocre work, or that they just care about making money.

Click to expand...

I think you object to the term. Art and photography are practice activities. Brilliance strikes once in a while. The rest of the time, it's mere competence and destroy the stinkers before anyone sees them.

In context, professional means "you're making money at it," not "money is all you care about." Plenty of amateurs do good work, but they're *not* professional because they're *not* getting paid for it.

--

Hunter