PDA

View Full Version : Fine Arts Tracers!


dano
06-05-2006, 01:09 PM
We've all gone in circles about this in comics. Apparently, the fine art world has the same debates!
Is there a difference using this method for mass media repropuction as opposed to fine art where the painting IS (for all intents) the final value?

http://artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2020
"These days, photo-based painting is as common as rain and just as inevitable, as younger artists such as Nick Mauss, Lucy McKenzie, and Wilhelm Sasnal take up the practice and exploit it. Yet it often complicates the public’s understanding of art and can easily put painters who use photographic aids, including computers and projectors, on the defensive. The question is: why? Why should a painting based on a photograph be considered a less legitimate work of art than one painted from observation or one that is simply abstract? "

theflash
06-05-2006, 01:46 PM
Why should a painting based on a photograph be considered a less legitimate work of art than one painted from observation or one that is simply abstract? "

my personal opinion is that it's less legitimate because the artist isn't using talent, they're piggybacking on the talent of others. anyone can trace. not everyone can draw.

dano
06-05-2006, 01:50 PM
They're obviously doing much more to the image than just tracing it. There's the whole painting aspect with color and value

Rob Norton
06-05-2006, 02:08 PM
is it still "bad" when an artist traces over his OWN photo referrence?

Calloway
06-05-2006, 02:10 PM
ohhh technique woooo...please, to me art involves imagination and if they have the skills to copy a picture of a house, their lack of artistic imagination prevents them from actual expression by imagining a house and painting that.

j giar
06-05-2006, 02:14 PM
Must...fight..tempta-tion...to..be..pulled.... into....thread!
O.k. Just this once. It's more of a personal preference than anything. There are just so many opinions and loop holes and "what ifs" on this subject. From my own personal stand point. The beginning of the article in which the artist took the initial photo's themselves and then used that as the material..I find that acceptable. For me! Like I said, there are just to many opinions. Art is a creative process and a form of expression. And that form takes many shapes.

dano
06-05-2006, 02:17 PM
their lack of artistic imagination prevents them from actual expression by imagining a house and painting thatHeh! That pretty much eliminates 9/10s of all art prior to 1860! :laugh:

JasonM
06-05-2006, 03:17 PM
Is doing a cover of a song considered "music"? If it's a cover, does that mean talent wasn't involved? If so, theres a lot of talentless musicians out there with careers steeped in covers.

Anyother way to look at it is if it takes no talent to do, then it should be easy to put to the test. Take a sampling of what are considered some decent works by photo-artists and take some random designers (or whoever) that know photoshop and set them to work. If they have a working knowledge of the program they should be able to replicate the work with little touble. If the average photoshopper can replicate the best of the photo-artist's work, then yeah, I'd have to agree it's not art.

But as it stands, I've yet to see someone with just working knowledge of PS create museum quality work.

JasonM
06-05-2006, 03:19 PM
ohhh technique woooo...please, to me art involves imagination and if they have the skills to copy a picture of a house, their lack of artistic imagination prevents them from actual expression by imagining a house and painting that.

Wouldn't this eliminate all art based on direct observation? (good by mona lisa!)

Calloway
06-05-2006, 04:09 PM
Heh. Davinci had his own flare in all his art that distinctly made it DaVinci. None of his art is Photo realistic. Just thought I'd point that out.

Now as far as this being done before the advent of the camera...I'm pretty sure they didn't consider it art, it was done to keep a record of important people. Sue observation comes into play. Observe remember and use. Copying from a picture is not art in my humble opinion. If that were so then making rims in a cnc from a cad drawing must be art..no matter how many you make. Or copying notes from a board..that must be art...ah, making the taco at taco bell just like the picture..NOW that must be art...please. To me art involves imagination along with technique and the lack there of just shows me something I can walk out my door and see live.

JasonM
06-05-2006, 04:20 PM
I think the best way to tackle this would be a couple simple questions. First, is photography art?

Calloway
06-05-2006, 04:27 PM
Sure, if it conveys something IMO. I take photos that get an imagination going. Snaphots that are composed right and of things or situations that photos would normally not be taken. Of course taking the picture then painitng it seems a bit redundant.

JasonM
06-05-2006, 04:37 PM
You're automatically assuming that if a photo was used that a painting would only be a direct translation, nothing added to the end result. Isn't it just as likely that even with a photo, that during the process (whatever the process is taking the photo and converting it to another medium) something is altered? possibly even improoved?

And what if the artist doesn't show the photo they took, only the painting, wouldn't that make the painting just as relavant as the photo, not merely "redundant"? Even if it is shown, if a depiction of a scene is art, then wouldn't showing the scene in a variety of mediums also be art? Does an oil painting of a house become less relavant if the artist does the same scene again in watercolor?

Calloway
06-05-2006, 04:39 PM
Let me go get one of my pictures and put a dot on it in photoshop. Hell I'll just take a picture of a house, nothing special. Let me add that dot though, it'll be art! Woo hoo

j giar
06-05-2006, 04:40 PM
See! So many opinions...so many loop holes.....so many what if's......so little time.

JasonM
06-05-2006, 04:46 PM
Let me go get one of my pictures and put a dot on it in photoshop. Hell I'll just take a picture of a house, nothing special. Let me add that dot though, it'll be art! Woo hoo

Instead of answering any of my questions your practically calling into question all of what is art. I wasn't limiting my supposed changes to just a "dot", but since you brought that up what about those that feel a few splashes of paint on a board is art, are they wrong? And if that is art, if they throw a photo behind those same splashes, is it still art?

It's easy to get judgemental on what is art and truly everyone has an opinion on the issue, but really, shouldn't fellow artists be the least judgemental, not the most? If photography can be considered art then how is anything based in that act any lsee creative, especially when done by the person taking the photos? You can call it redundant, but then isn't the act of duplicating anything in life in a still frame redundant on some level? It exists in real life, the sheer act of copying it even with modification is still redundant.

JasonM
06-05-2006, 04:46 PM
See! So many opinions...so many loop holes.....so many what if's......so little time.

Shush you, I go home in 15 minutes!

Calloway
06-05-2006, 04:54 PM
Well your not changing my opinion. I get thourghly disgusted every time I see a photo realistic painting (you know, real photo realistic where you can't even tell where the brush strokes are from a distance and it actually looks like a photo). I don't care how much work they put into it, it's still not art to me and becomes actual crap to me when I find out it's a painting. Just cause I spend 2 hours taking a dump doesn't mean the end result is art. I mean it's good cause it came out but it's still crap.

JasonM
06-05-2006, 05:05 PM
Well your not changing my opinion. I get thourghly disgusted every time I see a photo realistic painting (you know, real photo realistic where you can't even tell where the brush strokes are from a distance and it actually looks like a photo). I don't care how much work they put into it, it's still not art to me and becomes actual crap to me when I find out it's a painting. Just cause I spend 2 hours taking a dump doesn't mean the end result is art. I mean it's good cause it came out but it's still crap.

Finally getting somewhere. Ok, so your real problem is when it's photo real, I get that (and incidentally, I'm not trying to change your opinion so much as have an interesting conversation to pass some time). I won't say photo real isn't art, but I will say that DOES seem redundant, though it is a testament to some peoples skills with a brush. It's still not crap based on any of your arguements though, the amount of time is irrelavant in making art since some masterpieces can take moments and not even a lifetime can save a poor drawing. And you can't say it doesn't take tallent to do it, because if that were true you could project a photo on a canvas and hand a brush to a random stranger and they could reproduce the work.

Now I think your arguement would be better placed by saying while it is art, to other artists it's easier to reproduce thus making it less challenging and that would be a very fair statement I would think. But it does still take tallent and skill to do it and thats why I would call it art.

L Jamal
06-05-2006, 05:31 PM
But it does still take tallent and skill to do it and thats why I would call it art.
It takes talent and skill to do a lot of things (like write a computer program), but I wouldn't call all of them art.

madelf
06-05-2006, 06:32 PM
Well your not changing my opinion. I get thourghly disgusted every time I see a photo realistic painting (you know, real photo realistic where you can't even tell where the brush strokes are from a distance and it actually looks like a photo). I don't care how much work they put into it, it's still not art to me and becomes actual crap to me when I find out it's a painting. Just cause I spend 2 hours taking a dump doesn't mean the end result is art. I mean it's good cause it came out but it's still crap.
What if it's not photo-realistic?
What if a photo was used during the development of the painting (or perhaps even multiple photos were collaged together to create a unique composition), but the final result bears little resemblance to the original photo and no attempt to meticulously reproduce it?

Poboy
06-05-2006, 06:34 PM
I can't decide where to start on this. I guess I'll go with the original question. In my opinion, the work either has merit or it doesn't. I only care about how it was made if the means of fabrication has something to do with the content. On a larger scale, art experts have been declaring paint dead for a long time. And it's still around. And if anyone's taken an art or art history class in college, they'dve learned that back in the Renaissance, a painting wasn't a painting unless it was painted in the proper method (which involved over 20 layers to build the image). As far as I know, no one said painting was dead after the Impressionists came along and started painting in in a different method (although they did say the art was cr*p). It's just a new method of painting.

As a further aside, most questions about the legitimacy of art are answered by people who know little or nothing about art. A physicist with a Masters in Quantum Mechanics comes up to someone and says, 'the universe is made of of strings,'; that someone says 'ok.' An artist with an MFA tries to tell someone what art is....
Fact is, few people are qualified to offer a valid assessment of art, especially since art is so marginalized in our society. However, everybody thinks they are. Personally, I think that is one of the great things about art,but it has its downside.

Photography can be art. And making a painting of a photograph can be art and not redundant. If LilGreenMan and I both made a painting of the same photograph, our paintings would not be the same. Anyway, Rene Magritte already covered this stuff with his work. The best example is "La Trahison des Images" (The Treachery of Images). It's the painting of the pipe with the caption: 'This is not a pipe.'. And I don't think it matters if he painted the pipe from a photograph, a pipe in front of him, or a pipe he imagined.

Calloway
06-05-2006, 06:39 PM
In fact, Minter created the painting from two different photographs that she shot herself and combined on a computer in Photoshop, the digital equivalent of a darkroom, before projecting the result onto her painting’s surface and tracing it. That is enough to make some people scream—despite the power of the image, the evidence of the artist’s hand, and her transformation of the source.

Read the article. Combining two in ps? If they were good enough to make a painting picture perfect then they have no exscuse for not using a projector and not using a computer program. This is an example of creating PHOTO REALISM. Photo reference is one thing, tracing and getting something exactly like it is in a photo or combination of photos collaged together, to me, is not art. It's called being lazy.

madelf
06-05-2006, 07:07 PM
Read the article. Combining two in ps? If they were good enough to make a painting picture perfect then they have no exscuse for not using a projector and not using a computer program. This is an example of creating PHOTO REALISM. Photo reference is one thing, tracing and getting something exactly like it is in a photo or combination of photos collaged together, to me, is not art. It's called being lazy.
Okay... since you're the expert, I challenge you.
I'm going to post some of my own work. I want you to tell me, if you can, which qualify as art (maybe none do, maybe they all do - You should easily be able to tell, right?). I'll let you know the deep dark secrets of my process for each one after I hear your conclusions.

http://www.madelf.net/images/femmefatale.jpg
http://www.madelf.net/images/vixen.jpg
http://www.madelf.net/images/scuzememiss.jpg
http://www.madelf.net/images/sceneofdestruction.jpg
http://www.madelf.net/sylvani_brown.jpg

L Jamal
06-05-2006, 07:21 PM
What if it's not photo-realistic?
But isn't the entire point that it is photorealistic?
With photography, it seems that photorealism is more an exercise.

madelf
06-05-2006, 07:30 PM
But isn't the entire point that it is photorealistic?
With photography, it seems that photorealism is more an exercise.
Didn't seem like it.
I got the impression there was a lot of venom over using a photo as part of an artwork at all. Perhaps I was mistaken. I know the linked article was not all about photo-realistic artists, but about a number of artists with differing styles who all use photos at some stage in their work.

L Jamal
06-05-2006, 07:50 PM
Didn't seem like it.
I got the impression there was a lot of venom over using a photo as part of an artwork at all. Perhaps I was mistaken. I know the linked article was not all about photo-realistic artists, but about a number of artists with differing styles who all use photos at some stage in their work.
I think the article is all over the place without a real point, but if you have a photo and your goal is to make and exact copy of it, that's an exercise which make you a photocopier and not an artist.

madelf
06-05-2006, 07:57 PM
I think the article is all over the place without a real point, but if you have a photo and your goal is to make and exact copy of it, that's an exercise which make you a photocopier and not an artist.
I'd agree that making an exact copy of a photo is somewhat pointless.

I'm addressing LilGreenMan's ranting, more than the article. If his only objection to photo use is relating to exact copies of the photo(s), then I've misunderstood his comments. In which case we have nothing to debate. But if his point is what I took it to be, then I think his thinking is flawed. And I'd like to take a shot at convincing him. Might be doomed to failure, but I like a challenge (so long as it stays friendly).

TAP_LEGION
06-05-2006, 08:01 PM
Nice thread Dano........... :laugh:

dano
06-05-2006, 08:52 PM
sociology fascinates me :har:

Poboy
06-05-2006, 10:25 PM
I think the article is all over the place without a real point, but if you have a photo and your goal is to make and exact copy of it, that's an exercise which make you a photocopier and not an artist.

I'd agree that making an exact copy of a photo is somewhat pointless.
I don't see how it makes you not an artist, or how it is pointless. Unless the process is part of the content, what difference does it make? Andy Warhol's Campbells Soup paintings for example - is it suddenly not art if it turns out he used a picture of a can?

And, making a copy of a photo is not pointless if you have a point.

Calloway
06-06-2006, 03:06 AM
I'd agree that making an exact copy of a photo is somewhat pointless.

I'm addressing LilGreenMan's ranting, more than the article. If his only objection to photo use is relating to exact copies of the photo(s), then I've misunderstood his comments. In which case we have nothing to debate. But if his point is what I took it to be, then I think his thinking is flawed. And I'd like to take a shot at convincing him. Might be doomed to failure, but I like a challenge (so long as it stays friendly).


hmm...not only didn';t you read the article but you haven't read my posts either.

the article mentions using projectors to copy a photo onto a canvas to paint. I never said anything abut using photos for reference.

Calloway
06-06-2006, 03:08 AM
Okay... since you're the expert, I challenge you.
I'm going to post some of my own work. I want you to tell me, if you can, which qualify as art (maybe none do, maybe they all do - You should easily be able to tell, right?). I'll let you know the deep dark secrets of my process for each one after I hear your conclusions.

http://www.madelf.net/images/femmefatale.jpg
http://www.madelf.net/images/vixen.jpg
http://www.madelf.net/images/scuzememiss.jpg
http://www.madelf.net/images/sceneofdestruction.jpg
http://www.madelf.net/sylvani_brown.jpg


I don't see the point of posting your art up. Not anything I'd buy but I wouldn't dismiss it. Little rough around the edges.

TAP_LEGION
06-06-2006, 03:55 AM
Most of the people that posted in this thread would go as far as to say that Vermeer was a hack by using the camera obscura , even thought his control and knowledge of painting and colour theory far surpasses their infantile criticism.

dano
06-06-2006, 09:24 AM
Clearly, these issues are on artists’ minds. “People suspect it’s easy to paint from a photograph,” says Matvey Levenstein, whose luminous interiors, shown last fall at Larissa Goldston in Chelsea, came from his own snapshots. “I know it’s not easy. And my photos are bad, so I have to make it up in the painting. But I don’t try to take good pictures. In fact, I rarely see any photograph as good as a painting.”

Angel
06-06-2006, 10:05 AM
Aw just buy abstacts , then you know the thing is original.

Calloway
06-06-2006, 11:17 AM
Clearly, these issues are on artists’ minds. “People suspect it’s easy to paint from a photograph,” says Matvey Levenstein, whose luminous interiors, shown last fall at Larissa Goldston in Chelsea, came from his own snapshots. “I know it’s not easy. And my photos are bad, so I have to make it up in the painting. But I don’t try to take good pictures. In fact, I rarely see any photograph as good as a painting.”


what sucks about that is they don't have examples. Artist's will rarely build themselves. As far as technique go, bah, enough practice with a brush and technique will come (retirement homes are proof of that).

dano
06-06-2006, 11:44 AM
You mean like this one at the beginning of the article?
http://artnews.com/assets/images/articles/article-2020.jpg

Calloway
06-06-2006, 11:45 AM
in reference to what's mentioned in the article. Obviously that isn't an example of the work before and after is it?

dano
06-06-2006, 11:51 AM
nope, no before/afters. Its a painting done by the artist in the text i recently posted.

Calloway
06-06-2006, 11:55 AM
which is a painting I would totally absolutly postively not buy.

http://www.grandamerica.com/images/vip-amin/06Fruit%20bowl.jpg

dano
06-06-2006, 11:59 AM
Would you normally buy paintings of fruit IF it wasn't based on a photo??

imajica studio
06-06-2006, 12:17 PM
what sucks about that is they don't have examples. Artist's will rarely build themselves. As far as technique go, bah, enough practice with a brush and technique will come (retirement homes are proof of that).
I've worked at a retirement home for two years and have seen examples.... enough practice does NOT always bring about technique!

Lord15
06-06-2006, 12:30 PM
On a side note to this thread, I just bought Ultimate Fantastic Four Volume 4 drawn by Greg Land. This is the first thing I've ever bought that he has done as I have seen all the lightboarding examples of his work online (but I looove Millar's superhero work, so I bought it).

I was blown away by how good the whole thing looked and generally how well he told the story. I wanted to hate it, but couldn't.

I came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter - the only thing that does is telling the story. I think in my mind that comics (as a whole) just became less art and more narrative (therefore the "art" question is moot).

Anyone else feel this way??

L Jamal
06-06-2006, 01:13 PM
Comics have always been more narrative than art, but that does not mean they should ignore basic copyrights. The Land arguement is more about copyright than art and copyright states that derivative work falls under the ownership of the original copyright owner. So if Land copies a SI cover, then SI (and not Marvel) should be the legal copright owner.

dano
06-06-2006, 01:28 PM
wrong thread! Reopen the other one if we're going back to that. :laugh:

Phatman
06-06-2006, 02:12 PM
As far as fine art goes, it is pretty common practice that photorealists use projectors, computers, and other mechanisms to help produce their work. In my interaction in the fine arts community it is considered unethical to use somebody else's photographs without their permission if you choose to work this way. There are a lot of incredibly skilled photorealists that don't use things like projectors, etc. I went to college with a grad student who is pulling down 10-15k per painting in this style, and he doesn't use anything but his own pictures straight to canvas. I find his work more appealing than somebody who used any tools that made the job easier because I know that the same results can be reached with talent and hard work. Not to mention there is still a piece of style in his rendering that I think is missing from many artists who use too many mechanical tools to simply copy reality. If I wanted to look at something simply for it's closeness to reality, the photograph is just fine with me. Painting over the image from a camera projected onto a canvas takes some skill, but doesn't really express anything. However, this is just my taste and not that of the art community as a whole, who seem to except just about anything as art these days.

In commercial art I see no problem with using these tools to achieve the image the customer wants as long as artists don't swipe photographs from other artists (ie, photographers) without their permission. It's easy enough to get something similar without outright copying from someone else's photos.

The problem I come to in this debate is when we apply these same criteria to the comics medium. I think of comic art as expressive and more in the fine art realm despite it's commercialism. Comics are a product, but they are also art in many cases. They aren't there to sell something (most of the time), but to tell a story or communicate an idea. I've found good comics that are almost totally photoshopped that are moving the medium forward because the artist used the tool to enhance his ability to tell a story and not as a shortcut or a crutch. I guess my problem is with those who swipe photos (you know who I'm talking about) to cut corners and pass themselves off as something they aren't-a skilled, hard working artist who is trying to produce great work and not just cut corners to hit a deadline or hide the fact that they can't draw a car or building as well as their other stuff.

TAP_LEGION
06-06-2006, 02:16 PM
:rolleyes:

Poboy
06-06-2006, 02:36 PM
As far as technique go, bah, enough practice with a brush and technique will come (retirement homes are proof of that).
That's a bit absurd. I can practice my golf swing forever and still have a crappy swing if I'm not doing it right.

One of my favorite pieces, and pretty revolutionary is Marcel Duchamp's Fountain. (It's a urinal). If he made the urinal from scratch, that would kill it.

dano
06-06-2006, 02:58 PM
There are a lot of incredibly skilled photorealists that don't use things like projectors, etc. I went to college with a grad student who is pulling down 10-15k per painting in this style, and he doesn't use anything but his own pictures straight to canvas..

Thats great for him. But other artists shouldn't be shunned for using technology to help speed their process.
In everyother field, it is considered a boon to have technology save time and effort EXCEPT art.
It makes no sense why people feel entitled to have artist slave over their painting when theres a better/faster way to do it.

TAP_LEGION
06-06-2006, 03:03 PM
Yeah.....I .....uhm.....whats the topic of this thread again?

dano
06-06-2006, 03:06 PM
Its a sociological hook to explore entitlement in relation to fans. :blink:

TAP_LEGION
06-06-2006, 03:30 PM
Ah.......okay............that makes perfect........sense.......... :blink: :p



Seriously though , this discussion/argument can go round and round and all that really matters is what gives the creator/artist satisfaction in his/her work.

Certain types of people that are wound up way to tight or simply creatively retarded will keep crying foul over using photos and end up looking like a artistic version of Phil Hartmans anal retentive chef character , others will say "eh" not my cup 'O tea and move on.

An artist first and foremost has to do something that's pleasing to themselves. If the artist has confidence of his/her abilities and knows that they can produce any type of artwork regardless of the medium and doesn't mind cutting corners just to save time and get their rent/mortgage check in quicker , then it isn't anyone's business how they pull it off or finish a project except theres. The ones that judge most likely lack any basic art skills to begin with or are talking out of pure jealousy in regards to the ones that have surpassed their own meager skills a long time ago.

madelf
06-06-2006, 03:49 PM
I don't see how it makes you not an artist, or how it is pointless. Unless the process is part of the content, what difference does it make? Andy Warhol's Campbells Soup paintings for example - is it suddenly not art if it turns out he used a picture of a can?

And, making a copy of a photo is not pointless if you have a point.
I'm not the one who said it wasn't art. And I only say it seems pointless, to me, because I don't see the point. If I can't tell it's not a photo, then it might just as well be one. Just my take on it.

madelf
06-06-2006, 03:55 PM
hmm...not only didn';t you read the article but you haven't read my posts either.

the article mentions using projectors to copy a photo onto a canvas to paint. I never said anything abut using photos for reference.
The article doesn't distinguish (that I could see) whether every instance they were talking about was one of slavish reproduction of the photo, or if the photo is just being used in the same manner as a rough sketch - something to elaborate upon during the painting process.

You seem to have made assumptions about the article that I didn't see. I did read it. As to your posts, I did read those too. And I found your viewpoint confusing. I don't know how you get from "a photo was used in the process of making the painting" to "the painting is a slavish reproduction of the photo". Maybe you're not making that assumption, but it sounded to me like you were. If you weren't, then my apologies for misunderstanding.

dano
06-06-2006, 04:01 PM
Well said, TAP

madelf
06-06-2006, 04:06 PM
I don't see the point of posting your art up. Not anything I'd buy but I wouldn't dismiss it. Little rough around the edges.
Okay, so I guess it's art then.
:)
I posted them to address your comments that if you paint over a photo, then you're not making art. At least two of those five images used manipulated photos as a portion of the initial "sketch" (and I'm betting you can't tell which ones) I collected elements from multiple photos to compile into a greater whole, it's not a reproduction of the photo - the photo elements were only used as a guide, to speed things up (faster to just drop it into the digital sketch than sketch it up seperately).

So... is that using photos to make art? Or is that taking a dump?

Angel
06-06-2006, 04:45 PM
taking a dump

JasonM
06-06-2006, 04:58 PM
eh, people can call it whatever they want, but in the end it's still hanging in a gallery, printed in mags and comics, and new techniques and technologies will continue to come out. Some will embrase them others wont. The detractors really won't affect it one bit in the end, cause the average consumer is interested in only one thing, the end result.

madelf
06-06-2006, 05:14 PM
taking a dump
Why?

How does using a few pasted together & manipulated photos, as a supplement to the initial sketch (to get the anatomy or perspective more accurate and do it quickly), suddenly invalidate the entire work?

Keep in mind here, I'm not talking about just tracing a magazine photo. One of the drawings I linked features a single character referenced and built from five different photos that were assembled to match an original sketch. That's just for one figure. In another, the only element of the entire piece that was done from a photo is bit of background (and that doesn't even match the photo, it was just used to maintain perspective).

It's a shortcut. Maybe even a crutch. Can I draw without photos? Sure. Sometimes I work with no reference at all. But if I can do it faster by pasting some bits of photos into my sketch to solidify everything without re-sketching a half dozen times to get it looking right... then why not? It's still my composition.

Calloway
06-06-2006, 05:26 PM
Would you normally buy paintings of fruit IF it wasn't based on a photo??


No dano...if it's an exact copy of a photo no..if it's been abstracted in a way or shows a unique flare then maybe.

Calloway
06-06-2006, 05:30 PM
Using photos for reference, fine

using photos just to copy them exactly is nothing but copying, tracing etc.

Having photo realistic art is not something I would want at all, no matter how skilled the painter is I'd rather take a picture and make a print for 3 bucks then pay 15k for a painting of something that looks like a photo.

Using photorealism in commercial art is not a bad thing, kinda pointless imo, what with CAMERAS and all.

Poboy
06-06-2006, 07:17 PM
If I can't tell it's not a photo, then it might just as well be one. Just my take on it.
I don't know, might it just as well be one? If an artist can paint a photo so you can't tell it's not a photo, is the artist a camera?


What does it mean about what you see if there's no difference between the painting and photo? The photo is a capture of actual light on photo-sensitive material, and painting is pigment. If you can't tell the difference, is there one?
That's just the obvious exploration photo-realists are doing. Whether you like a certain kind of art is not a judgment of its validity.

A little off the point though. A work has merit or it doesn't. The means of creation is irrelevant.

madelf
06-06-2006, 07:39 PM
I don't know, might it just as well be one? If an artist can paint a photo so you can't tell it's not a photo, is the artist a camera?


What does it mean about what you see if there's no difference between the painting and photo? The photo is a capture of actual light on photo-sensitive material, and painting is pigment. If you can't tell the difference, is there one?
That's just the obvious exploration photo-realists are doing. Whether you like a certain kind of art is not a judgment of its validity.

A little off the point though. A work has merit or it doesn't. The means of creation is irrelevant.
Right. I agree. I just don't see the point of photo-realism, personally. So, to me, it seems pointless. Complete personal preference call there.

I'm not judging its validity, just it's appeal to me.

carynord
06-06-2006, 08:25 PM
I admire the crap out of anyone that can do a realistic painting to the point that it looks like a photo. I don't care what you say, that's some serious skill and that's something I appreciate even if a photo was used to trace it out. Personally, I would rather have something a little more impressionistic on my wall but that all boils down to taste. There are some people that hate impressionistic art and want something that mimics life as closely as possible. Robert Bateman got rich for a reason.

And Bateman has helpers doing half the painting for him. How does that fit into this debate?

Art is meant to evoke reactions from it's audience. It's all about the intent of the artist and the message he's trying to convey. If he wants to crap on a wall and call it art then that's fine with me... the tricky part is getting someone to pay for it.

TAP_LEGION
06-06-2006, 08:26 PM
Everyone here that can paint/draw in a true realistic form , raise your hands.

Now of those above , lets see the hands of those that agree that drawing/painting in a realistic fashion is pointless and lacks skill ?

Anyone?


Anyone?


Bueller ?

:sure:

dano
06-06-2006, 08:40 PM
:laugh:
daaaamn, right for the jugular.

Calloway
06-06-2006, 09:16 PM
Drawing in a realistic form for practice...cool drawing in a realistic form from copying a picture or tracing on a projection...pointless...

bluelinesmoke
06-07-2006, 01:29 AM
It all boils down to giving a sh!t about a title. Is photography art? why not. Is someone who uses a photo to create a copy of a photo an artist? Sure. Is smearing my own feces on old newspaper articles art? Absolutely. Are dance, music, poetry, acting, computer progaming, juggling, gardening, modular home construction, driving a car, and retail packaging all artforms? Don't see any reason why not. To be honest I consider myself more of an illustrator than an artist, but you can call me whatever the hell you want. It doesn't change what I do, or why I do it and it shouldn't make it any more or less enjoyable to the people who view it. If someone enjoys looking at a ready made urinal then thats there thing and even though I think it's bunk, who am I to tell them what to enjoy. It's their time and money they're waisting, not mine. I know what I like and I spend my time and money on that. Whether other people call it art or not don't mean squat to me.

TAP_LEGION
06-07-2006, 02:13 AM
C'mon Blue....don't hold back....tell us how you really feel.........

:p

Angel
06-07-2006, 08:52 AM
Why?

Sorry. I just wanted to post the words "taking a dump".

Phatman
06-07-2006, 09:20 AM
Thats great for him. But other artists shouldn't be shunned for using technology to help speed their process.
In everyother field, it is considered a boon to have technology save time and effort EXCEPT art.
It makes no sense why people feel entitled to have artist slave over their painting when theres a better/faster way to do it.

I agree with you 99%. I don't think anybody should be "shunned" for the tools they use; especially somebody who is working in a commercial setting. I wasn't condemning anybody's process, just pointing out that there are a few artists out there with the technical skill to get amazingly realistic results without these aids, as well.

There are success stories using either process or set of tools. If the artist is realizing their vision, then it is all irrelevent. However, if only the end results mattered as Jason said, then prints would be worth as much as originals wouldn't they? I think the 1% I disagree with you on is when it comes to artists who use these tools to swipe the work of another artist; i.e. a photographer.

Phatman
06-07-2006, 09:22 AM
Sorry. I just wanted to post the words "taking a dump".

This is why....

JasonM
06-07-2006, 09:35 AM
...but is it art if you photograph a series of impressionist paintings? Is it art if you photograph photo-real paintings?

heh, I'm thinking someone could get a gallery showing on that premise alone! lol.

If clicking a button to create a photo is art, then doing the same and following it up with a painting is as well, it's merely an extension in a long line of process.

dano
06-07-2006, 10:02 AM
I think the 1% I disagree with you on is when it comes to artists who use these tools to swipe the work of another artist; i.e. a photographer.
I can understand that. It surely is a gray area as these debates show. My understanding has been that as long as you do something to make it your own and its an image that the artist has no reasonable way of obtaining themself, it is permissable.
There's no way I'm going to be able to take a photo of Faith Hill but if a magazine wants an illo of her I have no choice but to use someone elses photograph for reference.

dano
06-07-2006, 10:09 AM
...but is it art if you photograph a series of impressionist paintings? Is it art if you photograph photo-real paintings?

heh, I'm thinking someone could get a gallery showing on that premise alone! lol.

If clicking a button to create a photo is art, then doing the same and following it up with a painting is as well, it's merely an extension in a long line of process.
I think part of the problem is the pedestal artist put Art on, as if its some sacred god. Theres no rule that Art should be good. A 4 year old scribbling on paper is art; its bad, but it is.
One of the dirty tricks in fine art is to inject some sort of meaning or message into bad art as if it gains value from the snow-job. A lot of people have a hard time distinguishing good and bad art because of this.

Angel
06-07-2006, 11:01 AM
I want to do a series of photos of photorealistic paintings people have done from photos of photo realistic paintings of fruit. Then we can talk about "what is art"?

dano
06-07-2006, 11:05 AM
PEDESTAL! :p

Angel
06-07-2006, 11:08 AM
:laugh: You don't even want to know about my latest "fine arts" project. :har:

Lets just say it was inspired by a "tastes great/less filling" type of argument about Pollock versus Wyeth.

j giar
06-07-2006, 11:18 AM
After much debate and contemplation I've come to a decision. I'm going to do a painting from a photograph that I took...and then after I do the painting I'll take a photo of that.... and then do a painting in illustrator on my computer of that photograph... and then...... uhh ..what was I saying?

Poboy
06-07-2006, 02:17 PM
I think part of the problem is the pedestal artist put Art on, as if its some sacred god. Theres no rule that Art should be good. A 4 year old scribbling on paper is art; its bad, but it is.
You're getting into the definition of art. You may think a 4 year old scribbling is art, I may not. Although I do. But it may not be bad.

One of the dirty tricks in fine art is to inject some sort of meaning or message into bad art as if it gains value from the snow-job.
Bad art is bad art. You can't inject content into a piece of art. If someone is convinced by a snow-job that there is content in a work that isn't there, then the real art is the performance art of the snow-job. The reason it often works is because art is considered so frivolous by society that they don't waste their time learning about it.
It all boils down to giving a sh!t about a title. Is photography art? why not. Is someone who uses a photo to create a copy of a photo an artist? Sure. Is smearing my own feces on old newspaper articles art? Absolutely. Are dance, music, poetry, acting, computer progaming, juggling, gardening, modular home construction, driving a car, and retail packaging all artforms? Don't see any reason why not.
Again, this is about what art is. When people can't answer why or why isn't driving a car an artform, it's usually because they don't really have an answer to 'what is art?' And in part because of Post Modernists. But it takes some critical thinking to answer 'what is art?'. The idea of 'don't see any reason why not' strikes me as lazy.
That's why I think if someone is going to dismiss a technique as being less valid, they ought to have a pretty good answer to 'what is art'.
To be honest I consider myself more of an illustrator than an artist, but you can call me whatever the hell you want. It doesn't change what I do, or why I do it and it shouldn't make it any more or less enjoyable to the people who view it.
My guess is you consider yourself more of an illustrator than an artist mainly because of your notion of what artist means. But the label doesn't matter, you're right. If you can sell what you make, and are happy with that, more power to you.

If someone enjoys looking at a ready made urinal then thats there thing and even though I think it's bunk, who am I to tell them what to enjoy.
It's not a question of enjoying looking at anything. And a urinal signed R.Mutt placed in an art gallery can say a lot of things. It can have a devastating impact if you are paying attention.

It's their time and money they're waisting, not mine. I know what I like and I spend my time and money on that. Whether other people call it art or not don't mean squat to me.
It's not a question of the label. Art is a hell of a lot more important than just something one might or might not like to look at. When I make art, I do it because I have some content that I can only convey visually and I need to get it out of me. Hopefully, others see some content in it. I don't even care if they see the things I meant, or if they see something only relevant to them. What matters to me is - Made ya look.


There are success stories using either process or set of tools. If the artist is realizing their vision, then it is all irrelevent. However, if only the end results mattered as Jason said, then prints would be worth as much as originals wouldn't they? I think the 1% I disagree with you on is when it comes to artists who use these tools to swipe the work of another artist; i.e. a photographer.
A print is a duplication. Taking a photo negative, printing out a print, is duplicating the photo. Painting by projecting the photo onto canvas is a painting. Of a photo. It's not a photo of a photo.

Swiping the work of someone else is totally unacceptable.

JasonM
06-07-2006, 02:24 PM
A print is a duplication. Taking a photo negative, printing out a print, is duplicating the photo. Painting by projecting the photo onto canvas is a painting. Of a photo. It's not a photo of a photo.

Very, very true.

Calloway
06-07-2006, 02:30 PM
but ansel adam's photo's are art so why couldn't a painting of a photo , photographed and then painted and photographed again be more then a print?

bluelinesmoke
06-07-2006, 02:33 PM
So if swiping someone elses work is totally unacceptabe, then why is placing a ready made object like a urinal on a pedistal and claiming it to be your work acceptable. Someone designed that urinal, whether you call it art or not is irrelevant, and just because you wrote R. Mutt on it doesn't change the fact that you are using their creation. If I take a picture of your painting, frame my picture and put it in a gallery is it my art or yours?

dano
06-07-2006, 02:36 PM
Bad art is bad art. You can't inject content into a piece of art. If someone is convinced by a snow-job that there is content in a work that isn't there, then the real art is the performance art of the snow-job. The reason it often works is because art is considered so frivolous by society that they don't waste their time learning about it.
When I make art, I do it because I have some content that I can only convey visually and I need to get it out of me. Hopefully, others see some content in it. I don't even care if they see the things I meant, or if they see something only relevant to them.
:huh:

dano
06-07-2006, 02:38 PM
So if swiping someone elses work is totally unacceptabe, then why is placing a ready made object like a urinal on a pedistal and claiming it to be your work acceptable. Someone designed that urinal, whether you call it art or not is irrelevant, and just because you wrote R. Mutt on it doesn't change the fact that you are using their creation. If I take a picture of your painting, frame my picture and put it in a gallery is it my art or yours?
Modern Fine arts is FULL of swiping!

L Jamal
06-07-2006, 02:48 PM
If I take a picture of your painting, frame my picture and put it in a gallery is it my art or yours?

You own the physical piece, however the copyrights would reside with me as your photo is a derivative work. If I wanted, I could sue you for copyright infringement as all you've done is created a photoprint of my work.

dano
06-07-2006, 02:55 PM
what if a painting appears IN a photo but it is not the subject of a photo. Like if there was an observer in it crying.
Or if there was a streak of sunlight crossing it, which changes the artisitc mood and visual scheme

bluelinesmoke
06-07-2006, 02:56 PM
Yeah, exactly my point Jamal, so why is a Marcel Duchamp ready made object considered HIS artwork? The very fact that it is proves that the term "art" is subjective and meaningless. Creativity, skill, and talent are the only things that matter.

L Jamal
06-07-2006, 03:04 PM
what if a painting appears IN a photo but it is not the subject of a photo. Like if there was an observer in it crying.
Or if there was a streak of sunlight crossing it, which changes the artisitc mood and visual scheme
It's still a derivative work

dano
06-07-2006, 03:08 PM
So if i take a photo of Times Square, and sell prints of it to tourists I owe every company who has a billboard up or a promo poster in that photo a cut of the money?

Poboy
06-07-2006, 03:13 PM
So if swiping someone elses work is totally unacceptabe, then why is placing a ready made object like a urinal on a pedistal and claiming it to be your work acceptable. Someone designed that urinal, whether you call it art or not is irrelevant, and just because you wrote R. Mutt on it doesn't change the fact that you are using their creation.
He didn't steal the urinal, he bought it. He also did not imply he made the urinal. I wouldn't be swiping the design of a rake if I went to Home Despot, bought one, and put it in a gallery.


:huh:
What? It makes sense.

what if a painting appears IN a photo but it is not the subject of a photo. Like if there was an observer in it crying.
Or if there was a streak of sunlight crossing it, which changes the artisitc mood and visual scheme
That's how Image got away with blatantly ripping off characters from Marvel and DC.
If change it enough, you create a new work of art, then it's new. It's not the same anymore. Like a collage.

Yeah, exactly my point Jamal, so why is a Marcel Duchamp ready made object considered HIS artwork? The very fact that it is proves that the term "art" is subjective and meaningless. Creativity, skill, and talent are the only things that matter.
Art may be subjective, but it certainly isn't meaningless. Let me ask you this:
Why do you think Duchamp took a urinal, signed it, and put it in a gallery? (note: he did not do it to say, 'hey, look at this cool urinal I designed'.)

Calloway
06-07-2006, 03:28 PM
. <------ artwork (c) LGM

bluelinesmoke
06-07-2006, 03:39 PM
[QUOTE]He didn't steal the urinal, he bought it. He also did not imply he made the urinal. I wouldn't be swiping the design of a rake if I went to Home Despot, bought one, and put it in a gallery.

Ummm... Yes you would. You would be claiming credit for something someone else made. I never said he stole the urinal, I implied that he didn't create the urinal and therefor his "art" is strictly in the concept of displaying the urinal. In other words his art was showing of someone elses craftmanship. You may call that art, I call it swiping. Not to mention the fact that he made money off of those ready mades.

Art may be subjective, but it certainly isn't meaningless. Let me ask you this: Why do you think Duchamp took a urinal, signed it, and put it in a gallery? (note: he did not do it to say, 'hey, look at this cool urinal I designed'.)

Firstly I never said that art was meaningless, I said the "TERM" art was meaningless. it can be stretched to fit whatever is convenient. If you don't beleive me, the go to subway and ask a sandwich artist.

As far a Duchamp's intentions, from my understanding he was trying to basicly prove my point for me. By removing craftmanship, skill, and talent from the equation he proved that he can stretch the term art to cover anything that he wants. If he did it under the guise of shaking up the art community, or simply to make money by duping people into beleiving his BS isn't important I guess.

Calloway
06-07-2006, 03:44 PM
he was indeed making a point . then the warhols cAME...urgh



(c) lgm

L Jamal
06-07-2006, 05:02 PM
So if i take a photo of Times Square, and sell prints of it to tourists I owe every company who has a billboard up or a promo poster in that photo a cut of the money?
It's not about who you owe a cut of the money to, it's about who owns the legal right to reproduce the image. A photo of Times Square is not the same as a photo of a billboard. If you took a photo of a billboard and tried to sell it, there's the chance that you could be sued for copyright infringement. There's also a chance that the company could allow you to continue selling prints as it just increases awareness of their product. Copyright infringement is a civil offense that is tried is civil court and therefore it is up to the copyright owner to seek remedy.

Poboy
06-07-2006, 06:35 PM
Ummm... Yes you would. You would be claiming credit for something someone else made. I never said he stole the urinal, I implied that he didn't create the urinal and therefor his "art" is strictly in the concept of displaying the urinal. In other words his art was showing of someone elses craftmanship. You may call that art, I call it swiping. Not to mention the fact that he made money off of those ready mades.
That's ridiculous. I'm not claiming credit for the rake design. I'm not stealing the design if I leave it in my garage am I? What if someone comes by and sees it? What if he then wants to buy it?
I make sculptures out of motorcycle parts, I'm not stealing the design of a fender if I use one. Are all art pieces created out of all found objects thefts? No.
I'm tempted to post a blank page of Blue Line art board, call 'Unfinished Drawing', thereby stealing the design of Blue Line paper. :cool:

I do agree that much of the content of Duchamp's ready mades is conceptual.



Firstly I never said that art was meaningless, I said the "TERM" art was meaningless. it can be stretched to fit whatever is convenient. If you don't beleive me, the go to subway and ask a sandwich artist.
My fault, I misread. I agree that the misuse of the word art and artist is laughable. That's a language issue. Much like how eventually 'definately' will become the correct spelling of definitely, or 'withdrawl' for withdraw as more and more people using the language change the words.

As far a Duchamp's intentions, from my understanding he was trying to basicly prove my point for me. By removing craftmanship, skill, and talent from the equation he proved that he can stretch the term art to cover anything that he wants. If he did it under the guise of shaking up the art community, or simply to make money by duping people into beleiving his BS isn't important I guess.
I got more out of it than that. I think he is saying that by putting the item in a gallery, he elevates it to the equivalent of any other work of fine art . Therefore, everyday objects should be viewed as art is viewed. And that an object should be viewed an an object, divorced from any function it might have. I also think he shows how the environment of an object affects its uh,... '-ness'. The urinalness of a urinal in a gallery is different from the urinalness of a urinal in a bathroom. He challenged the definition of art too, as you read it, by suggesting that anything an artist presents is art because artist means one who makes art.

bluelinesmoke
06-08-2006, 02:17 AM
I guess my point is that if you want to say that a painting that is designed and constructed using talent, skill, and creativity is art then fine. If you want to say that a urinal that someone bought and displayed in a gallery is art then fine. But to say they are the same thing, and that they have equal merit, makes me cringe. One is an example of craftmanship and hard work, the other an example of B.S. If they're both art then so is making a sandwich.

Mr.Musgrave
06-08-2006, 02:39 AM
If they're both art then so is making a sandwich.

Now you get it.

TAP_LEGION
06-08-2006, 02:58 AM
But there's a big difference between someone that can make one bad ass meatball sub time and time again and others that can do little more than burn toast and go into "retirement".

Cat
06-08-2006, 08:27 AM
If they're both art then so is making a sandwich.

Art is WHATEVER the artist says is art. Duchamp made that abuntantly clear. And a for making a sandwich..yes it very well can be. Look at Happenings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happening) ,more events than paintings, but they are art. But there is no reason you cold not build one around making a sandwich.

JasonM
06-08-2006, 08:59 AM
But there's a big difference between someone that can make one bad ass meatball sub time and time again and others that can do little more than burn toast and go into "retirement".

Good point, cause being a chef IS art.

dano
06-08-2006, 09:34 AM
I was an AWESOME sandwich artist. This was back in the day when Subway was doing the U cut bread. Not only was i lightening fast, my arrangement was beautiful! And i got pretty good throwing those tiny knives

dano
06-08-2006, 09:54 AM
Art is WHATEVER the artist says is art. Duchamp made that abuntantly clear.

So who can be defined as an 'artist?' Can anyone be an artist? if so, that would imply anyone can make art and anything can be art, which means art doesnt exist. If it's everything and everywhere, its essentially nothing.

Poboy
06-08-2006, 10:32 AM
So who can be defined as an 'artist?' Can anyone be an artist? if so, that would imply anyone can make art and anything can be art, which means art doesnt exist. If it's everything and everywhere, its essentially nothing.
You lost me. Why would art not exist if anyone can make it? Why is it nothing if it's everything and everywhere? - that just means that everything you see, everywhere you see it should be looked at like you look at art.

Now I'm hungry for a sandwich. You b*stards.

dano
06-08-2006, 11:09 AM
If I'm a gardener on Mars and i have one tomato plant, theres value in that.
If I'm a gardener on a 5000 acre farm that employs 600 gardeners and i have one tomato plant, theres no value in that.

Similarly, if an 'artist' and 'Art' was more strictly defined it helps to measure the value of it to society. If its so wide open, then 'art' loses all value.
You don't have to be a photographer to take a snap shot, and doing so doesn't make you one.

carynord
06-08-2006, 11:34 AM
So who can be defined as an 'artist?' Can anyone be an artist? if so, that would imply anyone can make art and anything can be art, which means art doesnt exist. If it's everything and everywhere, its essentially nothing.

Luckily, most of the world has no desire to be an artist. You're only an artist if you say you are and you're only a good artist if you get the stamp of approval from the art community (at least in terms of "high art").

dano
06-08-2006, 11:36 AM
is someone who can't draw or has no eye for rendering in 2D 0r 3D an artist simply because they proclaim it?
Could i be a musician if i can't read music or play an instrument or sing?

carynord
06-08-2006, 11:43 AM
is someone who can't draw or has no eye for rendering in 2D 0r 3D an artist simply because they proclaim it?


Yup. But everyone will laugh unless some snooty art dealer backs them.


"Could i be a musician if i can't read music or play an instrument or sing?"

Haven't you heard of "Stomp?"

bluelinesmoke
06-08-2006, 11:46 AM
It's the beauty of faulty, circular logic. An artist is anyone who makes art, and art is anything that an artist makes. You see now why I prefer to avoid worrying about the label. It's completely titular. And now that I have used the word titular in a post I can die happy. :har:

JasonM
06-08-2006, 11:54 AM
This is how I look at it...

First, art is merely "human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."

If you take that, then yeah, anything can be an art (such as martial art for example). Now, to separate simply making a sandwhich to making a piece of art takes skill, talent, and a vision. Anything CAN be art, not everything IS.

dano
06-08-2006, 11:55 AM
Heh! See, thats why i prefer to put much tighter restrictions on the definitions of art and artist.

L Jamal
06-08-2006, 12:06 PM
Heh! See, thats why i prefer to put much tighter restrictions on the definitions of art and artist.
why does it make a difference?

dano
06-08-2006, 12:09 PM
for the same reason we as humans bother to classify anything.

Angel
06-08-2006, 12:09 PM
So you would take it upon yourself to decide what is an acceptable as a of self expression for everyone? Or have a committee do that for the rest of the world?

dano
06-08-2006, 12:15 PM
:laugh: yeah, and if anyone disagreed I'd send them to Camp X-ray and prosecute them under a military tribuneral. Then I would force all museums to only hang MY art.

L Jamal
06-08-2006, 12:15 PM
for the same reason we as humans bother to classify anything.
However, some things are sooooooo subjective that most will have a different opinion. I think most POP ART is bullshit, but I'd never go so far as to dismiss it as art.

Angel
06-08-2006, 12:17 PM
:slap: Yeah, Laugh it off. Closet fascist. :slap:

dano
06-08-2006, 12:22 PM
However, some things are sooooooo subjective that most will have a different opinion. I think most POP ART is bullshit, but I'd never go so far as to dismiss it as art.
Neither would I. But I don't thinks its so subjective. It's just ended up that way because of the art for arts sake movement.

Angel
06-08-2006, 12:23 PM
Uh-oh here we go again. Dano doesn't like people do art just to do art.

bluelinesmoke
06-08-2006, 12:32 PM
Exactly. You can't dismiss anything as art, which makes everything art, which makes art a worthless term. Somehow art has developed a very religiously sacred defense mechanism. Why is it not OK to question the validity of art? Why should I not develop some standards in the way I view art. Why should I be forced to say that something is valid when I know it's a croc of sh!t? Just because some pretentious snob has convinced himself that he is the vangaurd of a movement doesnt mean that I have to follow along so as not to offend his delicate artistic sensibilties. Good is good. Crap is crap. Art is a blanket term used to make everyone feel special.

dano
06-08-2006, 12:36 PM
HA! Tirade #06771829, What is Art

If i go to the park i can play a game of football, catching a football, but that does not make me a football player.
I can then go home and cook, making mac and cheese, but that does not make me a chef.
I can sing along to U2, but it doesnt make me a singer or a musician.
I can draw a smiley stick figure, creating art, but it doesn't make me an artist.

Conversly, just because someone is an artist doesn't mean that anything they do IS art.

JasonM
06-08-2006, 12:42 PM
I think the more restrictions and classifications that are placed on art, the less creative and free thinking artists will be. They'll get so caught up in what is or is not the true art that art will stop flourishing. Sadwhiches, 3d art, illustration, and brain surgery all need an eye for detail and composition. Why is it so bad for them all to be able to be taken to the extent of an art form?

Meanwhile, while all of us can slap some ham on burnt toast and call it a sandwhich, the same can be done with a crayola and some notebook paper. If it strikes a cord with people it's art, if it's ignored, it's not. If it strikes a cord with even a few, to some it is art and there for should be given that respect (so long as no laws are broken).

JasonM
06-08-2006, 12:48 PM
Just because some pretentious snob has convinced himself that he is the vangaurd of a movement doesnt mean that I have to follow along so as not to offend his delicate artistic sensibilties. Good is good. Crap is crap. Art is a blanket term used to make everyone feel special.

Actually, I think it would be more about having respect for those that do think it's art. You can think "X" artist is crap but that doesn't make you right.

Having respect for the opinions of others should lead you to say things like you not liking it, or that its not your taste. Saying it's out-and-out crap is only asking for a fight since of course you'll spur on those that disagree. Then it's less about your opinion so much as you trying to invalidate the opinions of others.

JasonM
06-08-2006, 12:49 PM
Conversly, just because someone is an artist doesn't mean that anything they do IS art.

Until they're dead, then even their signature is art!

carynord
06-08-2006, 01:34 PM
HA! Tirade #06771829, What is Art

If i go to the park i can play a game of football, catching a football, but that does not make me a football player.
I can then go home and cook, making mac and cheese, but that does not make me a chef.
I can sing along to U2, but it doesnt make me a singer or a musician.
I can draw a smiley stick figure, creating art, but it doesn't make me an artist.

.

Waitaminute... I play basketball. If someone asks, I say I'm a basketball player. I'm not a pro ball player or even a good ball player but the act of playing ball makes me a basketball player, doesn't it?

I think all it takes is to have some kind of intent or declaration. Paris Hilton says she's a singer. She ain't no singer but she's got a single out. So bingo, by definition, she's a musician, or at least a performer.
If I declare that I'm a singer and I actively go out and sing than that's what I am, right? Whether I'm good at it or not is a different matter. Usually a matter of taste.

Conversly, just because someone is an artist doesn't mean that anything they do IS art

Blueline already answered this. An artist makes art. Once you say you're an artist and you put out a piece of artwork all that's left to decide is whether or not it's good or bad; worthy or unworthy; valid or a waste of time.

dano
06-08-2006, 02:43 PM
IMO -

...but the act of playing ball makes me a basketball player, doesn't it?

Paris Hilton says she's a singer. She ain't no singer but she's got a single out. So bingo, by definition, she's a musician, or at least a performer.
This is why I don't think declaration is good enough. If you play a lot of ball and work towards improvement - a student of the game, if you will - you can call yourself a bball player. This is something that you persue, even if as a hobby. Its a significant part of who you are and what you do.
If Hilton intends to persue singing, she would be that. Perhaps a bad one, but nonetheless...there has to be some sort of desire followed by commitment in order for one to BE what they proclaim to be. Otherwise, they'd just be liars.
An artist makes art. Once you say you're an artist and you put out a piece of artwork all that's left to decide is whether or not it's good or bad; worthy or unworthy; valid or a waste of time.
But a football player plays football. That doesnt mean that everything he does is a part of the game. If he's clipping his hedges, thats not a valid form of preparing for his craft. If he's running stairs or route drills, thats obviously part of his identity as a football player.
This is why I assert not EVERYTHING or ANYTHING can be art, especially if its by an artist. If an artist takes a dump and doesnt flush, its false to say that is his art. If he takes it out and wipes a smiley face on the wall with some clouds, that CAN be art (he drew a picture). If he makes it into a little smurf sculpture, it CAN be art. He did something to raw materials to make it more than what it started as. He's making it represent something.
I don't think defining art has anything to do with good or bad.


edit: I think the loaded terms here are 'anyone' and 'everything/anything.'
Everyone means EVERYONE. a Newborn, autistics, the extremely elderly, etc.
and anything means ANYTHING. Peeing, drooling, coughing up phlegm, falling down stairs. Getting back to my 'if everything than nothing' idea.

carynord
06-08-2006, 06:16 PM
This is why I don't think declaration is good enough. If you play a lot of ball and work towards improvement - a student of the game, if you will - you can call yourself a bball player.

Usually the kind of people that take a dump and then try to pass it off as art have gone through the kind of brainwashing that you only get from Art Schools. If you've gone through art school you've presumably been working towards improvement and have probably learned a thing or two about art. Would you say it's fair to call them artists then?

This is why I assert not EVERYTHING or ANYTHING can be art, especially if its by an artist. If an artist takes a dump and doesnt flush, its false to say that is his art.

Unless he has a showing in his bathroom with wine and cheese and invites the world press. He's making that turd more than it started out as by assigning value and meaning to it.

Would you give that artist more credit if in addition to his turd, he could turn around and paint a masterpiece?

He did something to raw materials to make it more than what it started as.

But duschamps urinal was an example of just that. He took raw materials and made it more than it started as, which by your definition, makes it art. The proof? Every other urinal is simply a urinal. His is in museums and art books so it's definately more than what it started as.

If an extremely old man coughs up plhegm and then pees himself as a result, it's not art.

If he does it as a performance piece entitled "The Consequences of a Life of Smoking and the Color Green" in front of a packed auditorium, it's art.

Poboy
06-08-2006, 07:51 PM
IMO -


This is why I don't think declaration is good enough. If you play a lot of ball and work towards improvement - a student of the game, if you will - you can call yourself a bball player. This is something that you persue, even if as a hobby. Its a significant part of who you are and what you do.
If Hilton intends to persue singing, she would be that. Perhaps a bad one, but nonetheless...there has to be some sort of desire followed by commitment in order for one to BE what they proclaim to be. Otherwise, they'd just be liars.
A player is one who plays. If you play football, you are a football player. If you play flag football, you are a flag football player. You are allowed to be a half-*ssed sucky one who doesn't really care. That makes you a half-*ssed sucky football player who doesn't really care.

This is why I assert not EVERYTHING or ANYTHING can be art, especially if its by an artist. If an artist takes a dump and doesnt flush, its false to say that is his art. If he takes it out and wipes a smiley face on the wall with some clouds, that CAN be art (he drew a picture). If he makes it into a little smurf sculpture, it CAN be art. He did something to raw materials to make it more than what it started as. He's making it represent something.
I don't think defining art has anything to do with good or bad.
2 things here. One is, is everything art? and the second is, is anything an artist does art?
For the first one, I think it is. We are surrounded by things. Most people don't see the things they are surrounded by. Most people look at something through its function. If I show someone a picture of a chair for example and asked people to describe it, no one would say, "It's a shape made out of (wood) that has four downward pointing extensions attached to a platform." They'll say, "it's a chair." Have they really seen the chair, what the object is? No. If I say, "hey look, a table." Then the viewer is already looking at it through their understanding of a table. They aren't looking at it. But that doesn't change what the table is. Or does it? Is an object only what the viewer perceives it to be? Or is it what it is, whether the viewer is aware or not? Does it matter? After all, all of our perceptions are filtered through only our 5 senses to mind that is only capable of a certain amount of comprehension.

For the second one, I don't think the idea that anything an artist does is art holds water. Well, to qualify, I think it only holds water in a case like above. If I as an artist can get someone to look at this object, as the object and not 'table', then I've created art.

Again, we've gotten into the definition of art. Since we keep coming to it, here is mine: Art is the exploration and challenge of the mind's perception.

Similarly, if an 'artist' and 'Art' was more strictly defined it helps to measure the value of it to society. If its so wide open, then 'art' loses all value.
Art only loses value in that respect if you think something needs to be exclusive to have value.




However, some things are sooooooo subjective that most will have a different opinion. I think most POP ART is bullshit, but I'd never go so far as to dismiss it as art.

Don't say that, I'm a Pop Artist :cry:

Poboy
06-08-2006, 07:55 PM
You can't dismiss anything as art, which makes everything art, which makes art a worthless term.
Why does it make art a worthless term? Why doesn't it make everything worth more?

Somehow art has developed a very religiously sacred defense mechanism. Why is it not OK to question the validity of art?
It is vital to question the validity of art. And everything else. That old bumper sticker "Question Authority" has to be one of the most important writings of the 20th century. Always question. I only suggest you try to realize that most questions don't have complete answers, and when you do formulate an answer, do so honestly.

Why should I not develop some standards in the way I view art. Why should I be forced to say that something is valid when I know it's a croc of sh!t?
...when you think it's a croc of sh!t.
Good is good. Crap is crap. Art is a blanket term used to make everyone feel special.
What you think is good is what you think is good. What you think is crap is what you think is crap. You're evaluating your own conceptions when you are evaluating art. Hopefully, you think critically and analytically before coming to a conclusion.

bluelinesmoke
06-08-2006, 11:09 PM
O.K. here's my deal. I'm willing to accept that what I think is good is different than what some other person thinks is good and the opposite is also true. This is exactly why my point, from the very beggining, has been who cares about the label. If everything falls under the category of art, then there is no standards in art. Nothing can be better than anything else. Everything is special, which means nothing is special. A urinal in a museum is no more special than any other urinal, because a urinal thats not in a museum is special for not being in a museum. You end up oversaturating the worth of everything and nothing stands out. The paintings hanging in the Louve have no more worth than the latex paint on the wall behind them. A statue in the park is no more special than the pigeon crap that covers it. If that's art, then fine. The way I see things is different. I have standards. I judge things and I expect to be judged. If someone doesn't point out my weaknesses then I can never improve. Then again, if everything is of equal worth then there is no such thing as improvement.

Mr.Musgrave
06-09-2006, 12:26 AM
So it all comes down to wanting to feel special for being an artist.

bluelinesmoke
06-09-2006, 01:03 AM
More like it all comes down to not wanting to feel special for just being.

dano
06-09-2006, 09:26 AM
If you've gone through art school you've presumably been working towards improvement and have probably learned a thing or two about art. Would you say it's fair to call them artists then?
Sure. Assuming they use their skills.
Unless he has a showing in his bathroom with wine and cheese and invites the world press. He's making that turd more than it started out as by assigning value and meaning to it.
Would you give that artist more credit if in addition to his turd, he could turn around and paint a masterpiece?
1. nah, i don't personally buy that definition. Thats the Art Pedestal i mentioned earlier.
2. I would give him credit for being an artist if he can paint a masterpiece but that doesnt automatically make everything, like his turd, into Art.

But duschamps urinal was an example of just that. He took raw materials and made it more than it started as, which by your definition, makes it art. The proof? Every other urinal is simply a urinal. His is in museums and art books so it's definately more than what it started as.
The galleries and museums made it more than it was. The only thing he did was write some letters on it and B.S. people. His urinal wasn't art and i think that was his point. By making anything 'art' to the art world, he participated in the destruction OF Art by proving the Art world considers anything art which made art nothing.


If an extremely old man coughs up plhegm and then pees himself as a result, it's not art.
If he does it as a performance piece entitled "The Consequences of a Life of Smoking and the Color Green" in front of a packed auditorium, it's art. :laugh: IMO it's not. The people in the auience just bought snake oil.

dano
06-09-2006, 09:38 AM
A player is one who plays. If you play football, you are a football player. If you play flag football, you are a flag football player. You are allowed to be a half-*ssed sucky one who doesn't really care. That makes you a half-*ssed sucky football player who doesn't really care.
That gets into the combinaton of desire/declaration combined with tangible commitment. If i join a h.s. football team or a flag-football league and i practice and devote effort to it, YES I am a football player.
If I have never seriously played and head out to the park for a fun afternoon to play football, i am not a football player.

By your example, we would all be able to claim ourselves as everything. I am a singer, artist, football player, chef, carpenter, electrician, delivery man, landscaper, web designer, lacross player, garbage man, mail man, livery driver, personal assistant, entertainment director, exterminator. And probably a few hundred other things that i do on occasion.

Poboy
06-09-2006, 09:42 AM
O.K. here's my deal. I'm willing to accept that what I think is good is different than what some other person thinks is good and the opposite is also true. This is exactly why my point, from the very beggining, has been who cares about the label. If everything falls under the category of art, then there is no standards in art. Nothing can be better than anything else. Everything is special, which means nothing is special. A urinal in a museum is no more special than any other urinal, because a urinal thats not in a museum is special for not being in a museum. You end up oversaturating the worth of everything and nothing stands out. The paintings hanging in the Louve have no more worth than the latex paint on the wall behind them. A statue in the park is no more special than the pigeon crap that covers it. If that's art, then fine. The way I see things is different. I have standards. I judge things and I expect to be judged. If someone doesn't point out my weaknesses then I can never improve. Then again, if everything is of equal worth then there is no such thing as improvement.
It's not about the label. You can call it Bob for all I care. If you 'oversaturate' (I would consider it seeing the worth, not saturating) the worth of everything, then everything stands out. Because you would be taking the time to see and evaluate everything, each thing would have its importance and uniqueness. It's not that everything is of equal worth, it's that everything has its own worth.

So, what is art? My concept is above, what's yours?
As you can see from mine, a painting in the Louvre would be art and the wall behind it would not. The wall has its own wall-ness, but it's not art.


More like it all comes down to not wanting to feel special for just being.
Ask your parents if you're special for just being. Being is life. There's value in life. My dog was special, and he never strove for improvement in anything.

dano
06-09-2006, 09:47 AM
"Art is the exploration and challenge of the mind's perception."

Is taking a hallucinogen Art?

JasonM
06-09-2006, 10:10 AM
Yes, a statue has no more true value then a pile of turds. They both are composed of materials found in abundant supply on this planet. Giving labels wont make one any better then the other either, which is why everything can be an artform in the end. The only thing that assigns true value is other human beings as a collective, agreeing that something has said value. A label wont matter, some people call childrens objects "toys" others call the same object a "collectible" and would pay many times over the price it took to manufacture and sell in a retail outlet. The value was assigned not by the label, but by the deire to possess the object by others.

Anything and everything can be an artform, all it takes is skill, persistance, professionalism and a desire to excell. How do you know your there? Well, if someones willing to pay money for what you do, you're on the right track. If they're willing to pay LOTS of money for it, consider it an artform because it's in demand.

And before we return to circular logic, no, just cause a person does a painting and wants to call it a masterpiece won't make it so. If only they, their mother, and the blind guy down the street think it's a masterpiece, well, they're looking through the world with blinders! But if unbiased people desire the work, it's art.

This of course is just my opinion.

dano
06-09-2006, 10:21 AM
Anything and everything can be an artform, all it takes is skill, persistance, professionalism and a desire to excell.
I think thats really an over extension of the word. Its commonly used, but I don't think its accurate. Kinda like describing anyone who is good at what they do as an 'artist.'

I hate words. They really screw things up.

Poboy
06-09-2006, 10:33 AM
"Art is the exploration and challenge of the mind's perception."

Is taking a hallucinogen Art?
No. Maybe. I've never taken one. I think though that a hallucinogen randomly stimulates sections of the brain. It's too haphazard to be an exploration, but I guess it does challenge one's perceptions. So it's half way there.

I have some more qualifiers for my concept of art, but they're too hard to put into words.

I think thats really an over extension of the word. Its commonly used, but I don't think its accurate. Kinda like describing anyone who is good at what they do as an 'artist.'

I hate words. They really screw things up.
I agree. As a sculptor, I've seen artists build things, and in a few jobs I've had, I've seen very good craftsmen at work. If I were a master craftsman and someone told me that there is an art to what I did, I'd punch him in the face. An artist ain't no craftsman, and a master craftsman is a master of his craft.

Mr.Musgrave
06-09-2006, 10:59 AM
"Art is the exploration and challenge of the mind's perception."

Is taking a hallucinogen Art?


That would depend on the hallucinogen. ;)

bluelinesmoke
06-09-2006, 11:11 AM
So, what is art? My concept is above, what's yours?

Like I said before, art is, or has become, a blanket statement. It no longer defines anything really which is a result of the word evolving over time. In order to define things you have to be more specific. Painting, drawing, sculpture etc., and even those terms have become a bit ambiguous in todays society. What really defines your work is not the nomenclature. If you find fullfilment in what you do then you don't need anyone to tell you if it's art or not.

Is taking a hallucinogen Art?

Only if you snort the drug off of a Wacom Tablet.

Calloway
06-09-2006, 12:04 PM
I claim this thread as artwork by me.

-geo

(c) 2006...do not disfigure it.

carynord
06-09-2006, 12:16 PM
I claim this thread as artwork by me.

-geo

(c) 2006...do not disfigure it.

:laugh:

Poboy
06-09-2006, 02:22 PM
I claim this thread as artwork by me.

-geo

(c) 2006...do not disfigure it.
Meh, you just projected dano's thread and copied it. You're no artist at all! :D

Calloway
06-09-2006, 02:37 PM
Bull! This is art, you guys all said so....and now that you defaced it with your "comments" I'm suing you both!

JasonM
06-09-2006, 02:40 PM
Ok, Dano, list what is acceptable art. Box it up so that we may all know whom to ridicule as merely "master craftsman" and who are true artists. :p

Calloway
06-09-2006, 02:41 PM
Another lawsuit and more money for me just posted woohoo! Keep em coming.

Mr.Musgrave
06-09-2006, 03:05 PM
Ok, Dano, list what is acceptable art. Box it up so that we may all know whom to ridicule as merely "master craftsman" and who are true artists. :p


What's funny is that Dano considers guys like Greg Land (who trace other people's art) real artists. :rolleyes:

carynord
06-09-2006, 03:10 PM
I get rights to the photo

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7068/flare5vj.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Calloway
06-09-2006, 03:13 PM
bastard! I'll sue for copyright infringement!

carynord
06-09-2006, 03:17 PM
bastard! I'll sue for copyright infringement!

I added a lens flare. You can't touch me, buddy.

dano
06-09-2006, 03:19 PM
Ok, Dano, list what is acceptable art. Box it up so that we may all know whom to ridicule as merely "master craftsman" and who are true artists. :p
acceptable art and true artists do not go hand in hand. A child can draw a house and dog and that is art, but it does not necessarily mean they are an artist.

An artist can build a spice rack, but that does not make the spice rack art.

Greg Land and Musgrave are both artists. There is declaration and commitment. While they do create art (drawings) not everything they do (signing checks) is art.

If by profession i am an artist and by hobby i am a woodworker i can create art as drawings and be a master craftsman and create a bitchin' chair.

Calloway
06-09-2006, 03:21 PM
why isn't signing a check art? If I say it's art it must be so right?

Mr.Musgrave
06-09-2006, 03:24 PM
Greg Land and Musgrave are both artists. There is declaration and commitment. While they do create art (drawings) not everything they do (signing checks) is art.


Nuh-uh. I create drawings. Land traces photographs. If a kid making an original artwork is not an artist, Land tracing photographs is DEFINATELY not an artist.

Edit: I hate this cocky "my art is TRUE art" bullshit. Art is whatever the hell you say it is. There is no true art and you'd have to be a complete snob to think otherwise.

carynord
06-09-2006, 03:41 PM
acceptable art and true artists do not go hand in hand. A child can draw a house and dog and that is art, but it does not necessarily mean they are an artist.

The problem with this is that there's no way to qualify a "true artist".
Art is simply a creative expression. That's why music, poetry, and chess are considered artforms.

You can classify someone as a painter, or a metalsmith, or a glassblower if you wish, but those are sub-categories. They're all still considered artists even though each have a completely different set of skills.

dano
06-09-2006, 03:47 PM
I think Art is a visual creative expression.
Music is an audio creative expression.
Performance (?) is a physical as in bodily creative expression.

Instead of calling all of these "Arts" there should be a separate word, like "AMP" or "Kwijibo"

Calloway
06-09-2006, 03:50 PM
if it's expression then it's art right?

I've always considered raw music an art form. It takes creativity and imagination. Same with certain films. Even dancing. Now here's a question, why aren't crafts considered art and put into their own little niche?

dano
06-09-2006, 03:52 PM
I haven't figured out where crafts go yet. Maybe I'll think about that on the train ride home.

Mr.Musgrave
06-09-2006, 03:55 PM
Why does everything need a label is what I want to know.

carynord
06-09-2006, 03:59 PM
Instead of calling all of these "Arts" there should be a separate word, like "AMP" or "Kwijibo"

But, there ARE seperate words to define music and dance... they're called "music"... and "dance".

dano
06-09-2006, 04:00 PM
:laugh: nonono, a word that encompasses all of these creative expressions that is not 'art' since (i assert) art is a visual creative expression

JasonM
06-09-2006, 04:08 PM
Edit: I hate this cocky "my art is TRUE art" bullshit. Art is whatever the hell you say it is. There is no true art and you'd have to be a complete snob to think otherwise.

Then so is tracing photographs! :p

dano
06-09-2006, 04:10 PM
touche! :laugh:

JasonM
06-09-2006, 04:11 PM
...(i assert) art is a visual creative expression

...like making a sandwhich! (as long as you put it on display, but like an ice sculpture, it vanishes in time (roughly 15-20 minutes depending on size of sandwhich and hunger of audience).

Calloway
06-09-2006, 04:11 PM
because....

Calloway
06-09-2006, 04:12 PM
But, there ARE seperate words to define music and dance... they're called "music"... and "dance".
and we call painting painting and sculpture sculpture..so let's call copying copying.

carynord
06-09-2006, 04:25 PM
:laugh: nonono, a word that encompasses all of these creative expressions that is not 'art' since (i assert) art is a visual creative expression

But Art IS the defining word you're looking for. It always has been. Within the Arts is music, crafts, dance, painting, etc, etc. What you're looking for is an encompassing term for "visual creative expression" that is not called "art".

Calloway
06-09-2006, 04:27 PM
except the crafts people don't wanna be called arts..they wanna be called crafts..thus arts and crafts...

carynord
06-09-2006, 04:32 PM
except the crafts people don't wanna be called arts..they wanna be called crafts..thus arts and crafts...

I call them artists all the time. Right to their face.

I don't even care.

Mr.Musgrave
06-09-2006, 04:34 PM
Then so is tracing photographs! :p


No, that would be tracing art. :p

Calloway
06-09-2006, 04:48 PM
Ah the art of tracing art, one of the lost arts....

JasonM
06-09-2006, 04:58 PM
Wait... so is photography art or is it photography? And isn't photography just the act of copying the greatest artist of all time, nature? What a ripoff!

BUT, if it is copying, then doesnt that make Land original becuase its acopy of a copy but no longer looks like a copy? copy?

dano
06-09-2006, 05:01 PM
But Art IS the defining word you're looking for. It always has been. Within the Arts is music, crafts, dance, painting, etc, etc. What you're looking for is an encompassing term for "visual creative expression" that is not called "art".


check it out

kwijibo(instead of "the Arts")
... - Art
.............- painting, drawing, sculpture, photo
...- Music
............. - whatever music breaks down into, singing, percussions, strings
...- Performance
.............- Dance, acting, etc

With this we can answer the tough questions.
"is it Art?" - if its a painting drawing or sculpture it IS art. Good or bad is another story.
"Who is an artist?" Someone who paints draws or sculpts with declaration and commitment.

It removes the alleged subjectivity and gives us objective answers based on structured classification. Instead of a festival of Arts, we would have a festival of Kwijibo which includes the 3 aspects of it. Instead of calling a very good musician and 'artist' we will honor them for what they are; a musician! A chef will BE a chef. Instead of going to school and studying Liberal Arts you will study Liberal Studies.

If you're asked what you do and respond "I'm an artist" no one says 'Wow, sing me a song!" They ask you to draw them a picture. Somehow the word got kidnapped by every other kwijibo. We must TAKE THE WORD BACK!

Calloway
06-09-2006, 05:04 PM
This is getting ridiculus...

JasonM
06-09-2006, 05:09 PM
So... is kwijibo a noun or what? Is the J silent?

I know musgrave won't like your answer cause it means even blatent tracing is art!

Mr.Musgrave
06-09-2006, 05:12 PM
This is getting ridiculus...


It showed up ridiculous. Now it's retarded.

Poboy
06-09-2006, 05:15 PM
Dano, arts includes music, dance, performance art, et al. Visual arts is the term for... uh visual art. Music arts is music. and so on.

Calloway
06-09-2006, 05:18 PM
It showed up ridiculous. Now it's retarded.


I stand corrected.

MrGranger
06-09-2006, 06:10 PM
It's nothing new. Anyone who has been to art school has studied the CAMERA OBSCURA, used for aiding paintings since the 17th Century if I remember correctly. Same essential idea.

TAP_LEGION
06-10-2006, 02:30 AM
Yeah yeah yeah...this whole "what is art" thing is for the birds...
You either like something or you hate it...simple...if you start going into whether a piss pot on a pedestal is art then you're putting yourself in that arms crossed , morose, art-fag, black turtleneck sweater brigade and I'd rather chew on a bucket of rusty razorblades than join that lowly fraternity.

Like I've said , there are dozens of artists/illustrator's on this board alone that can easily lower themselves significantly skill-wise and knock out one Pollock after another , and yet the one's that think of the latter as being some lofty art-god couldn't draw an anatomically correct figure if their collective lives depended on it.

Those without talent end up art critics.

Its also like I said about Vermeer and his artwork . We all know he used it(camera obscura) , which all the whiners here say is considered being a "cheat" and yet not one of them can match this guy's painting abilities or pure skills as an artist.

Could he of drawn out the images without the "projectors" use?
Absolutely.
Was he trying to save time ?
It stands to reason , yeah.

Realize in the 17th century that pencils and paper weren't available at every ones convenience , nor were oil paints available for purchase at you local 1600's Michael's......He was probably cutting corners and saving his money.

L Jamal
06-10-2006, 09:31 AM
yeah, you guys are just jealous

Poboy
06-10-2006, 10:54 AM
Yeah yeah yeah...this whole "what is art" thing is for the birds...
You either like something or you hate it...simple...if you start going into whether a piss pot on a pedestal is art then you're putting yourself in that arms crossed , morose, art-fag, black turtleneck sweater brigade and I'd rather chew on a bucket of rusty razorblades than join that lowly fraternity.
I'm not going to stop seeing things beyond, 'like it'/'hate it'. That's no understanding at all. I think you need to focus your disdain for the haughty critics and artists who value their own opinions rather than any art.

Like I've said , there are dozens of artists/illustrator's on this board alone that can easily lower themselves significantly skill-wise and knock out one Pollock after another , and yet the one's that think of the latter as being some lofty art-god couldn't draw an anatomically correct figure if their collective lives depended on it.
You can make a drip painting, but it ain't no Pollock. Just because it doesn't look like something doesn't mean it takes no skill to do. Here's a drawing of mine, to voir dire my anatomy skills (unfortunately unfinished).
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bsanders7lb.jpg

Those without talent end up art critics.

Its also like I said about Vermeer and his artwork . We all know he used it(camera obscura) , which all the whiners here say is considered being a "cheat" and yet not one of them can match this guy's painting abilities or pure skills as an artist.

Could he of drawn out the images without the "projectors" use?
Absolutely.
Was he trying to save time ?
It stands to reason , yeah.

Realize in the 17th century that pencils and paper weren't available at every ones convenience , nor were oil paints available for purchase at you local 1600's Michael's......He was probably cutting corners and saving his money.
Yeah, techniques are techniques. Like I wrote at the beginning, no one paints now like they did in the Renaissance. One can project whatever the he!! they want to, they still gotta walk up to the canvas and paint it.

Cat
06-10-2006, 11:54 AM
Yeah, techniques are techniques. Like I wrote at the beginning, no one paints now like they did in the Renaissance. One can project whatever the he!! they want to, they still gotta walk up to the canvas and paint it.

EXACTLY!!! In the years of working on airbrush T-shirts at a theme park..there was a guy there that use a projector for the portrait stuff..TRUST me...it did not help. :yuk:

bluelinesmoke
06-10-2006, 12:14 PM
By some peoples logic you don't even need to walk up to the canvas and paint it though. So long as the intent is there, the mere projection is art. I won't argue that it isn't, because that would be pointless. I think this thread has successfully proven that.

dano
06-10-2006, 02:28 PM
Yeah yeah yeah...this whole "what is art" thing is for the birds....

See, thats the beauty of my kwijibo system. The question "what is art" or "is it art" is easily answered by something fitting or not fitting into one of the sub-catagories of Art. Then, the only subjective question is 'is it a good drawing/painting/sculpture/etc" which IS up for discussion.

Kwijibo takes the mystery and idolatry out of Art so that we'll no longer have 20 pages of "what is art." :har:

TAP_LEGION
06-10-2006, 02:49 PM
I see where youre coming from Dano , I don't disagree , but in my opinion , it should be to each his own...run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.....There's a HUGE difference between having talent like Frazetta and being full of shite (Turner prize).

Biz
06-11-2006, 09:37 PM
I had a class in college about this madness... I even said it out loud that this always goes back to "it's in the eye of the beholder" and that its pointless discussing this. Then he's like "Then why'd you take this class?".... Thats when I realized art school ain't for me LOL :whistlin:

Poboy
06-11-2006, 09:48 PM
I even said it out loud that this always goes back to "it's in the eye of the beholder"
Agree.
and that its pointless discussing this.
Disagree. At least it's no more pointless to discuss than anything else.

Calloway
06-11-2006, 10:08 PM
I had a class in college about this madness... I even said it out loud that this always goes back to "it's in the eye of the beholder" and that its pointless discussing this. Then he's like "Then why'd you take this class?".... Thats when I realized art school ain't for me LOL :whistlin:

Thus everything is art. Or has the potiential of art so let's just describe everything as art. Diabetes? No it's ART! Pain? Naw, art man, dig it? In any descriptive word there has to be parameters or else the word has no meaning ya dig? I'm sorry, I do agree art can be subjective but if you tell me something I drew was awesome when I know full well I drew it as crap then I know your opinion means jack as far as art is concerned. Beauty in the eye of the beholder holds no meaning in art (IMHO). Anybody can look at anything and say it looks good, "That garbage bag looks cool!". Or we can keep going with the intial logic and call everything art, why not? Cause it's idiotic. There are lines.

interesting:Meaning of art (http://www.answers.com/topic/art)

Mr.Musgrave
06-12-2006, 02:48 AM
That's just artistic ego. Let me ask you this: Are designers artists?

Biz
06-12-2006, 03:51 AM
Or we can keep going with the intial logic and call everything art, why not? Cause it's idiotic.

Why is it idiotic?

bluelinesmoke
06-12-2006, 04:00 AM
depends on what kind of designer. Most of the graphic designers I've known have been hands on in the creation of an artistic product, be it a logo, or a web page etc. If, however, youre speaking of someone who designs a floor plan for how office cubicles should be arranged, then I would say that would no. Actually, to be honest I think it isn't so much that all designers are artist as much as it is all artists are designers. Like saying not everything with wheels is a bicycle, but all bicycles have wheels.

carynord
06-12-2006, 04:07 AM
Alright. So a guy has a gallery showing and he's taped some green garbage bags together and glued potato chips to it. If it's not Art, what is it (and you can't say crap)? Define exactly what this guy is doing and if it isn't art and you can't say "crap" then what would you call his particular expression? This doesn't seem that hard to me. The word "Art" does not belong exclusively to guys like us. Art is a general term that covers:

1.Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
3.The study of these activities.
4.The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
5.quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
6.A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
7.A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

8.A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
9.A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

10.Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).

arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.
Printing. Illustrative material.

So says the dictionary.

Why can't you be happy saying you're a penciller or an illustrator or a painter where there are more specific guidelines and rules with which to judge your works validity? Why do you feel so entitled to the word "Art"?.

Mr.Musgrave
06-12-2006, 04:40 AM
depends on what kind of designer. Most of the graphic designers I've known have been hands on in the creation of an artistic product, be it a logo, or a web page etc. If, however, youre speaking of someone who designs a floor plan for how office cubicles should be arranged, then I would say that would no. Actually, to be honest I think it isn't so much that all designers are artist as much as it is all artists are designers. Like saying not everything with wheels is a bicycle, but all bicycles have wheels.

All artists are not designers. There are a million people out there who can draw but couldn't design something if a gun was held to their head. And to say a architect (y'know someone who designs a floor plans) isn't an artist is insane.

Reading this thread I've realized what makes one person an artist and another person not: The ego of other people.

And no, Cary, people can't be happy being illustrators or designers. They have to be artists. Why? Because "my shit is better than their shit." It's all ego. God, I hate artists.

carriertone
06-12-2006, 05:07 AM
Ok, it is my humble opinion that art is definitely subjective. I, personally, feel that art is someting that should give the veiwer/listener/etcetera an emotional response. Whether good or bad, some sort of emotional response is the key, and it will be different with everyone. To me, that is the point of art. If somebody makes something, and someone else sees it and has a response, it is art, at least to that person. It doesn't matter to me whether it was intended as such or not. Likewise, if you make something that to you is art, and it does nothing for me, I may not consider it art. That doesn't change the validity of what you've done, because there will most likely be others that feel it IS art. We would both be right. No amount of convincing will change my opinion on The Urinal piece, I just don't see it as art, and that's my right as a free thinking human being. It just didn't get ANY kind of response from me when I saw it. I looked, thought about it, and moved on. My opinion, also, shouldn't change your opinion. If you feel it IS art, then it is, at least to you. Who cares what I think about it.

Now, back to the subject at hand. While I don't agree with swiping, if someone else likes it and hangs it up in their living room, it IS art, at least to them. My opinion on the matter is, for all intents and purposes, moot. I have even liked a few obviously swiped pieces I've seen here and there, even if I didn't like the process that created them. They still got an emotional response from me, so I called them art.

Feel free to tear me apart, because that's what seems to happen when art is discussed. Trying to put strict guidelines to subjective matter always creates conflict.

- C

wisper
06-12-2006, 10:32 AM
THIS ART WILL BE CALLED "CLONE" ART...there you have herd the word...and it is mine ....Jon Morgan Chromak.
an artist know's the format of work he observes.

Poboy
06-12-2006, 10:39 AM
Thus everything is art. Or has the potiential of art so let's just describe everything as art. Diabetes? No it's ART! Pain? Naw, art man, dig it? In any descriptive word there has to be parameters or else the word has no meaning ya dig? I'm sorry, I do agree art can be subjective but if you tell me something I drew was awesome when I know full well I drew it as crap then I know your opinion means jack as far as art is concerned. Beauty in the eye of the beholder holds no meaning in art (IMHO).
I wrote early on in this thread that one good thing about art is that everyone has their own concept of what it is.
I went to a gallery talk once and the artist there was talking about some work that he sold. He said it was total crap as far as he was concerned, but someone wanted to buy it. The buyer saw something in it that made him/her want to buy the piece. Who are you (or anybody else) to tell them what they saw in it isn't there? You may think it's not there, but they saw what they saw. You can go ahead and think it's crap, but your concept is no more valid than theirs. They can think something you find value in as crap.

As for designers being artists, if the design meets the criteria I have for art, then it has to be art. The major differences between design and art I think are the intent and the goal.

Cat
06-12-2006, 10:56 AM
If desingers are not artists then when I was in school we wasted a LOT of time on greek and roman architecture, renaissance, as well as moder architecture like the Sears tower and the World trade Centers as well as ARTIST/achitect Frank Lloyd Wright.

This really is silly...we are SURROUNDED by art everyday...I think where most people have trouble is when you get mixed up in "fine art" vs. Commercial art...but again..it is ALL Art. Art is the blanket term..then you break it down into catagories..sculptor, painter, illustrator, inker, colorist, penciler, architect,graphic designer, sign painter, label/logo designer, and so on and so on...

dano
06-12-2006, 11:21 AM
Alright. So a guy has a gallery showing and he's taped some green garbage bags together and glued potato chips to it. If it's not Art, what is it (and you can't say crap)?

(Under the kwijibo system) Yes, it is art. Specificcally it's sculpture because he arranged and shaped a 3d representation. The debate to be held is if its good sculpture.

re: architects - yes, they draw their plans out and then create it in 3d which makes them drawers and sculptors. The people carrying out the actual construction are not artists though. They would be craftsmen.

re:designers - yes

Angel
06-12-2006, 11:31 AM
This thread had turned into much ado about nothing, and I suspect now that it always has been.

dano
06-12-2006, 11:56 AM
On second thought, if someone creates an object who's primary purpose is its physical function, wouldn't they be considered craftsmen? For instance, in architecture, above all else the structure MUST be what it is. only after it has achieved this can there be 'art' or beauty applied to it.
The same with 3D design. A teapot must first BE a tea pot. The designer must craft a functioning teapot. Anything else is purely superficial.
Therefore a architect and designer are craftsman. However they can BE craftsmen who create art to do their job. Art being a drawing or design spec.

I think an artist is different than a craftsman in that a craftsman works with a physical function first and beauty second. Artists place a heavier emphasis on beauty and work with an intangible function (like ideas or communication). ????

Calloway
06-12-2006, 12:05 PM
If desingers are not artists then when I was in school we wasted a LOT of time on greek and roman architecture, renaissance, as well as moder architecture like the Sears tower and the World trade Centers as well as ARTIST/achitect Frank Lloyd Wright.

This really is silly...we are SURROUNDED by art everyday...I think where most people have trouble is when you get mixed up in "fine art" vs. Commercial art...but again..it is ALL Art. Art is the blanket term..then you break it down into catagories..sculptor, painter, illustrator, inker, colorist, penciler, architect,graphic designer, sign painter, label/logo designer, and so on and so on...


There ya go, I guess my argument has been fine art and not really art in general.

carynord
06-12-2006, 12:05 PM
I think we've got a pretty good system as it is. The world is full of artists and anyone who says they're an artist is one. If someone cares enough to have them elaborate, they can say what specific kind of art they do and then we can judge them based on that. It's a perfect system.

dano
06-12-2006, 12:08 PM
is a maid a sanitary artist?

Calloway
06-12-2006, 12:10 PM
I think we've got a pretty good system as it is. The world is full of artists and anyone who says they're an artist is one. If someone cares enough to have them elaborate, they can say what specific kind of art they do and then we can judge them based on that. It's a perfect system.

If it were so perfect why does this thread and every post exsist? I tell you, an easier answer to find is the meaning of life (Don't anyone dare make a Hitchikers reference!).

Angel
06-12-2006, 12:10 PM
This has all been covered in History of Art, by Anthony F. Janson. in the 1st chapter. Wasn't that required reading?

carynord
06-12-2006, 12:21 PM
is a maid a sanitary artist?

Do you know any maids that would claim to be a sanitary artist? If you find one, I'll let her/him consider themselves an artist, sure.

carynord
06-12-2006, 12:24 PM
If it were so perfect why does this thread and every post exsist?

Because no one is listening to me :laugh:

..and I know the meaning of life too.

dano
06-12-2006, 12:31 PM
Do you know any maids that would claim to be a sanitary artist? If you find one, I'll let her/him consider themselves an artist, sure.
Should this sanitary artist then be elligible for a table in Artists Alley?
Or a sandwich artist?

L Jamal
06-12-2006, 12:37 PM
Should this sanitary artist then be elligible for a table in Artists Alley?
Or a sandwich artist?
have you ever been to a convention? They allow anyone with money in Artists Alley (other than dealers) .... unless you're implying that porn models and Hooters chicks are artists.

carynord
06-12-2006, 12:38 PM
Should this sanitary artist then be elligible for a table in Artists Alley?
Or a sandwich artist?

So you're saying you couldn't find a maid that would claim to be a sanitary artist then? I wonder why...

Why would a Comic Con want a sanitary artist in artists alley? Why would a sanitary artist show up at a comic con? I think a sandwich artist would do quite well at a comic con on the other hand. I bet he'd sell a lot of his work ...assuming it's fresh.

wisper
06-12-2006, 12:42 PM
have you ever been to a convention? They allow anyone with money in Artists Alley (other than dealers) .... unless you're implying that porn models and Hooters chicks are artists.

now money that's an art by itself....Yo!

dano
06-12-2006, 12:45 PM
Heh!
Well, thats the question i ask; its fine to say anyone can be an artist but those standards must uphold under rigor.
For example, if you were applying for a $5000 art grant and it went to a sandwich artist would you still feel the same? Could you say the guy makes more interesting sandwiches than your drawings or paintings and accept the decision?

JasonM
06-12-2006, 12:49 PM
Heh!
Well, thats the question i ask; its fine to say anyone can be an artist but those standards must uphold under rigor.
For example, if you were applying for a $5000 art grant and it went to a sandwich artist would you still feel the same? Could you say the guy makes more interesting sandwiches than your drawings or paintings and accept the decision?

I've seen people throw a hissy fit when a sculpter wins over a painter.

dano
06-12-2006, 12:52 PM
considering what passes for modern art sculpture these days, i probably would too! :laugh:

carynord
06-12-2006, 01:12 PM
Heh!
Well, thats the question i ask; its fine to say anyone can be an artist but those standards must uphold under rigor.
For example, if you were applying for a $5000 art grant and it went to a sandwich artist would you still feel the same? Could you say the guy makes more interesting sandwiches than your drawings or paintings and accept the decision?

Yeah. I'd say good for that worthless sandwich artist that he got some grant money from the government because his next paycheck is going to be coming from Subway. I am supremely confident that anything I paint or draw will have more value to the average art buyer out there than anything this dolt does because I recognize that the average person is not interested in ridiculous concept art and would rather have something they can hang on their wall and appreciate. I also believe that I will still be making a living as an artist in 50 years whereas I'm sure the "sandwich artist" will not.

Call yourself whatever you want. Produce whatever kind of garbage you want; you're the one that has to look at yourself in the mirror. If you can sucker some guy into giving you a bunch of money for your crap, then I say the guy paying out all that dough deserves to have garbage hanging on his wall because chances are he's buying it out of some superior notion that he's better than everyone else and not out of an appreciation of art. That or he's an idiot.

The rest of the world still likes pretty pictures crafted by a skilled hand.

bluelinesmoke
06-12-2006, 03:08 PM
Well said Cary, I think that was my point from the very beginning. Incidently the opposite holds true too. If for some reason someone decided that the drawings that I do arent art that wouldn't bother me at all. It wouldn't stop me from drawing. If the fact that I use a computer to color my pencil drawings was considered a cheap shortcut, and people called me a hack, I would still do it because I know the skill it took is real. I have pride in the progress I have made as an illustrator and in the effort it took to get to where I am. If that means I have an Ego, and that Musgrave hates me, then I will just have to live with that. :cry:

dano
06-12-2006, 03:24 PM
:laugh: why do you hate the "worthless" sandwich artist? If anyone can be an artist shouldn't we repect their artform? He works hard to make sure that every sandwich is created perfectly to the Subway standards.
There are plenty of people who appreciate the value of a sandwich that not only tastes good and holds up to handling, but that looks nice when you unwrap it and pick it up.
I hate a sloppy sandwich where all the crap is falling out and the pickles and olives are all bunched to one side. Its not easy to get a tight wrap of wax paper. Theres a technique involved.

carynord
06-12-2006, 03:58 PM
:laugh: why do you hate the "worthless" sandwich artist? If anyone can be an artist shouldn't we repect their artform? He works hard to make sure that every sandwich is created perfectly to the Subway standards.
There are plenty of people who appreciate the value of a sandwich that not only tastes good and holds up to handling, but that looks nice when you unwrap it and pick it up.
I hate a sloppy sandwich where all the crap is falling out and the pickles and olives are all bunched to one side. Its not easy to get a tight wrap of wax paper. Theres a technique involved.

heh heh. I honestly don't know what we're talking about anymore. Is the sandwich guy declaring he's an artist while he's making my footlong meatball sub? If so, I'll tip him a little extra and laugh because he's obviously kidding me or crazy or both. If he's trying to do some kooky art exhibit with his sandwiches in a gallery with art critics and press and all that, I'll still laugh at him, but he's not getting any money out of me.

Just because YOU say it's art, doesn't mean anyone is going to like it or buy it from you.

carynord
06-12-2006, 04:00 PM
There are plenty of people who appreciate the value of a sandwich that not only tastes good and holds up to handling, but that looks nice when you unwrap it and pick it up.

Yeah, and they pay $6 dollars for it to show their appreciation. :p

MrGranger
06-12-2006, 04:04 PM
I've often thought my bartender was an artist.

dano
06-12-2006, 04:09 PM
I was using the sandwich artist as an example to address this:
I think we've got a pretty good system as it is. The world is full of artists and anyone who says they're an artist is one. If someone cares enough to have them elaborate, they can say what specific kind of art they do and then we can judge them based on that. It's a perfect system.
If you apply the sandwich man as the artist in your definition, and his sandwiches as his art, does your definition of "anyone who says they're an artist is one" still hold up?

Poboy
06-12-2006, 04:09 PM
On second thought, if someone creates an object who's primary purpose is its physical function, wouldn't they be considered craftsmen? For instance, in architecture, above all else the structure MUST be what it is. only after it has achieved this can there be 'art' or beauty applied to it.
The Guggenheim in Bilbao is art, even though as a building it has a purpose.

The same with 3D design. A teapot must first BE a tea pot. The designer must craft a functioning teapot. Anything else is purely superficial.
Therefore a architect and designer are craftsman. However they can BE craftsmen who create art to do their job. Art being a drawing or design spec.
If you refer back to my definition of art, then the end result tea pot could be art and the design spec drawing wouldn't be.

What you are getting at is what I meant about design's differences in intent and goal. A tea pot designer's intent is to make a tea pot. His/her design may or may not follow my definition of art. His goal may be to create a tea pot, or to create the most awesomest tea pot ever.

I think an artist is different than a craftsman in that a craftsman works with a physical function first and beauty second. Artists place a heavier emphasis on beauty and work with an intangible function (like ideas or communication). ????
To me, art doesn't have to have an emphasis on beauty. It could be about ugliness. Or it could be concerning neither.
Craftsmanship is the level of skill with which an item has been built. If I were to design a table such that I wouldn't be able to build it, I could get a master craftsman to build it for me. His intent is to re-create the blueprint I gave him. He doesn't generate the idea - he builds way better than I the idea generator ever could.

Well said Cary, I think that was my point from the very beginning. Incidently the opposite holds true too. If for some reason someone decided that the drawings that I do arent art that wouldn't bother me at all. It wouldn't stop me from drawing. If the fact that I use a computer to color my pencil drawings was considered a cheap shortcut, and people called me a hack, I would still do it because I know the skill it took is real. I have pride in the progress I have made as an illustrator and in the effort it took to get to where I am. If that means I have an Ego, and that Musgrave hates me, then I will just have to live with that. :cry:

Personally, I don't think a piece of art needs to look like something to be art, nor does abstract painting require any less skill. Picasso went from painting realistically to Cubism, and I think his Cubist work is amazing.

And, sometimes the skill is not in the production of the art, it's in the meaning.

dano
06-12-2006, 04:35 PM
Ah, that's putting Art on a pedestal. Defining it as a spirit and life that is undefinable and immesurable.

I tend to see it as more of a earthly thing. A by-product of putting pencil to paper, so to speak, where the design for the tea pot is art because someone physically drew it and the pot itself is a craft item because it serves a function firstly.

Scaleyinx
06-12-2006, 04:36 PM
:laugh: why do you hate the "worthless" sandwich artist? If anyone can be an artist shouldn't we repect their artform? He works hard to make sure that every sandwich is created perfectly to the Subway standards.
There are plenty of people who appreciate the value of a sandwich that not only tastes good and holds up to handling, but that looks nice when you unwrap it and pick it up.
I hate a sloppy sandwich where all the crap is falling out and the pickles and olives are all bunched to one side. Its not easy to get a tight wrap of wax paper. Theres a technique involved.


I don't know about you, but I think this sandwich art is much better then Subway standards...

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/scaleyinx/3ceb6b05.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/scaleyinx/7b5cf7bc.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/scaleyinx/f005f7da.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/scaleyinx/f4ab8c0b.jpg

...just cuz it's there's 'crap falling out' doesn't mean it's not art! Hmph! :sure:





my son will verify this for you... he's an authority!

Cat
06-12-2006, 04:39 PM
I don't know about you, but I think this sandwich art is much better then Subway standards...


HA!! ZING!! :w00t:

carynord
06-12-2006, 04:45 PM
I was using the sandwich artist as an example to address this:

If you apply the sandwich man as the artist in your definition, and his sandwiches as his art, does your definition of "anyone who says they're an artist is one" still hold up?

If he insists it's art then fine, he's an artist I guess but who's going to take him seriously? He'll just be crazy subway guy unless he goes out of his way to get exposure for his "piece". Even then no one would probably take him seriously.

I assert that "art" is a BS term that vaguely applies to anything remotely creative. And if you look up the definition, not surprisingly, art IS a term that vaguely applies to anything that is remotely creative.

So I don't see where all the confusion is coming from.

Scaleyinx
06-12-2006, 04:45 PM
Personally, I don't think a piece of art needs to look like something to be art, nor does abstract painting require any less skill. Picasso went from painting realistically to Cubism, and I think his Cubist work is amazing.

And, sometimes the skill is not in the production of the art, it's in the meaning.


Well said. Years ago on a visit to the San Francisco Modern Art Museum, I saw a cavass painting painted in nothing but solid purple paint. It was titled 'Grape Juice'. A five year old could have done it. I asked why it was in the museum because I didn't consider it art, and I was told 'it's because nobody else thought of it'. Too bad I didn't think of doing one in solid white and giving it the title 'Milk', I'd probably be rich by now.

Scaleyinx
06-12-2006, 04:49 PM
HA!! ZING!! :w00t:


Gives it a whole new experience...doesn't it :har: :carrot:

carynord
06-12-2006, 04:49 PM
Craftsmanship is the level of skill with which an item has been built. If I were to design a table such that I wouldn't be able to build it, I could get a master craftsman to build it for me. His intent is to re-create the blueprint I gave him. He doesn't generate the idea - he builds way better than I the idea generator ever could.

So what's a comicbook artist do then? Is the writer the true artist and we merely craftsmen?! haha.

bluelinesmoke
06-12-2006, 04:50 PM
How do we know nobody else thought of it? They could have come up with the idea but dismissed it as garbage.

Scaleyinx
06-12-2006, 05:01 PM
How do we know nobody else thought of it? They could have come up with the idea but dismissed it as garbage.


I have no idea. Maybe a five year really was the one who thought of it. I suppose the day when some important curator tells you your work is art, it's art. Or when you've accommulated enough fans to call you an artist, then you're an artist. Until then, your a hack like the rest of us......oh, and Musgrave hates you :nyah:

bluelinesmoke
06-12-2006, 05:15 PM
Yeah, but I'm an aethiest which makes him hate me just a little less.





edit: I think

Poboy
06-12-2006, 05:54 PM
Well said. Years ago on a visit to the San Francisco Modern Art Museum, I saw a cavass painting painted in nothing but solid purple paint. It was titled 'Grape Juice'. A five year old could have done it. I asked why it was in the museum because I didn't consider it art, and I was told 'it's because nobody else thought of it'. Too bad I didn't think of doing one in solid white and giving it the title 'Milk', I'd probably be rich by now.
Sounds like the person working at the museum didn't know anything about art. I don't particularly like color field stuff, but I know why it's in the museum.


So what's a comicbook artist do then? Is the writer the true artist and we merely craftsmen?! haha.
Unless the writer tells you what to put in the background, angle of the camera, poses of the figures and how to draw them, then no the artist is not just a craftsman. Otherwise, you generate your own image from what you read and then draw your idea.

dano
06-12-2006, 10:03 PM
I assert that "art" is a BS term that vaguely applies to anything remotely creative. And if you look up the definition, not surprisingly, art IS a term that vaguely applies to anything that is remotely creative.

So I don't see where all the confusion is coming from.

AGREE! :banana:
I don't like the BS term and I disagree that Art should have 10-12 definitions in the dictionary. Most of the conversational confusion stems from the 10 definitions of the same 3 letters.

also, thems some DAMN GOOD sandwiches! :laugh:

sgm
06-12-2006, 10:20 PM
Art is NOT a BS term.

Art is about expression and communication, that's why it can not be defined in rigid terms (which, I gather, is what you are trying to do Dano by classifying "art" as drawings and paintings).

It is about life itself. Life changes and so does art. To confine it in any framework that stops its evolution and adaptability is insane. Art is change.

How can you want it to be otherwise?

Poboy
06-12-2006, 11:06 PM
Ah, that's putting Art on a pedestal. Defining it as a spirit and life that is undefinable and immesurable.
If you say so. I define and measure it for myself. I don't see how looking at everything the same way puts on thing on a pedestal and not everything on a pedestal.

I tend to see it as more of a earthly thing. A by-product of putting pencil to paper, so to speak, where the design for the tea pot is art because someone physically drew it and the pot itself is a craft item because it serves a function firstly.
So a sculptor can't make a functional sculpture? Or the art is in his/her sketches for the sculpture?

Art is NOT a BS term.

Art is about expression and communication, that's why it can not be defined in rigid terms (which, I gather, is what you are trying to do Dano by classifying "art" as drawings and paintings).

It is about life itself. Life changes and so does art. To confine it in any framework that stops its evolution and adaptability is insane. Art is change.

How can you want it to be otherwise?

I agree. It's not a BS term. It just doesn't have an easy, exact straight definition, like 'banana'. That's the great thing about it, no? Art = X is unimaginative, confining, and authoritarian.
Give me fluidity. Chaos breeds imagination.

carynord
06-13-2006, 12:43 AM
Art is NOT a BS term.

Art is about expression and communication, that's why it can not be defined in rigid terms (which, I gather, is what you are trying to do Dano by classifying "art" as drawings and paintings).

It is about life itself. Life changes and so does art. To confine it in any framework that stops its evolution and adaptability is insane. Art is change.

How can you want it to be otherwise?

Well it's BS in the sense that it can literally be applied to anything you want which is fine by me.

I agree with this statement completely though. Where were you about 13 pages ago? :har:

sgm
06-13-2006, 12:51 AM
Laughing at that "kwijibo" crap. I'm convinced Dano started it as a joke.

Yet, it never was funny.

dano
06-13-2006, 09:21 AM
Unfortunately for me, I thought kwijibo was a very logical and reasonable system of answering the seemingly answerless questions about Art and narrowing the definition to mean something, and would be recieved a little better than it has. Oh well. :D

bluelinesmoke
06-13-2006, 02:17 PM
perhaps it would have been better recieved if you hadn't based it off of a Simpsons reference.

dano
06-13-2006, 02:19 PM
Heh! I didn't have a replacement Word for Art, so i used that as a fill in.

TAP_LEGION
06-15-2006, 12:56 AM
Eh , let them wear their collective berets and drink unpronouncable beverages in uncomfortable turtleneck sweaters.

Myabe the term "Artist" should be changed to "creatively gifted" or something to that effect.... It'll weed out all the losers that put a red dot on a $200 stretched canvas and call it their muse.