But is it art?

[Bearface]

Re: But is it art?

I don't see any conversation as challenge, debate or antagonism.
My writings reflect my thoughts after reading from time to time about specific definitions of what is art and how art is or can be expressed.

Well conversations can most certainly become debates, feature challenges and transgress into antagonism, hence the reason for my clarification. Conversations also feature the concept of listening (in addition to speaking...), so the jury might still be out on that one

George, art comes from creativity and by virtue of this fact, it absolutely cannot be pigeonholed in the way you're attempting to do it. That someone - in their infinite wisdom - has decided to try and apply definitions to something which is as ambiguous and elusive as the meaning of life itself, does not mean that if you copy and paste those "criteria" into a forum post, your point will be made; it won't and it hasn't. Firstly these are not specifically your points, and secondly I get the distinct feeling that you'd defend them blindly rather than concede an inch. That is of course your perogative.

I do not see any artistic merit in the photo according to the 8 criteria I provided before. I base my opinion on well known facts and criteria and not on personal thinking of what it might be artistic or not.

The photo easily met about 80% of the criteria you yourself put forward as definitive. The fact that you personally don't agree is one thing (and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing), but my feeling is that you wouldn't concede this even if you knew you were wrong. I'm up against your pride in that context and no amount of reasoning on my part will change that

Yes, there are thousands of unaltered original photos that constitute art, but they have by origin embedded artistic elements/criteria.

This totally contradicts your previous claim, so I'll assume you've reconsidered this one. Nearly every photo has by origin artistic elements / criteria, and it is up to you to demonstrate otherwise.

It is you Tim that you need to convince me that this photo has imaginative skill in arrangement/execution. To me it looks like a plain snap of a scene, without any special angle or positioning or any other.

George, I have not made any dogmatic or contentious statements about art and it's definitions; you have. It is therefore your responsibility to substantiate and give measured reasonings for your claims, and not vice-versa. I'm saying that you cannot put art into a box and label it, and I'm asking you to use your own words to justify the previously-posted statements.

In response to your other comments, I can only reiterate that art is subjective and not a measurable, objective thing like a set of financial accounts or anything which has clearly-set, tangible criteria. This is a widely-held view (and one most certainly held by the highest authorities on such things) and requires no proof. Dictionaries and enclyclopedias offer definitions on "life" do they not? Does this mean we have the answers to the very meaning of life, George..? Art is no different...

There is a lot of confusion of what it is art and what it is not. Personally I prefer to go by books and definitions and not to conclude my own.

Of course there is confusion; art is not a quantifiable thing!

When I don't understand something which can be learnt, I use books and other resources to learn and educate myself. Art cannot be learnt, it can only be experienced........ and if the extent of your experience is a series of definitions by which you measure people's works in a cold, objective manner, then you are welcome to continue in that direction.

Just don't complain that I didn't try to change your mind

Great debate - thanks. Please don't be offended, but I think I've said all I possibly can on the matter - the last word is yours to savour

[Archangel]

Re: But is it art?

Hi Tim,
In response to your last post, here are some of my comments:

""George, art comes from creativity and by virtue of this fact, it absolutely cannot be pigeonholed in the way you're attempting to do it. That someone - in their infinite wisdom - has decided to try and apply definitions to something which is as ambiguous and elusive as the meaning of life itself, does not mean that if you copy and paste those "criteria" into a forum post, your point will be made; it won't and it hasn't. Firstly these are not specifically your points, and secondly I get the distinct feeling that you'd defend them blindly rather than concede an inch. That is of course your perogative.""

Art is not so easy term and is not so free and abstract either. There are specific criteria that classify what is art. There are specific conditions need to be met in order for a work to be considered as art.
These criteria establish "Art" as a science and distinguish sciences between each other.
There are certain borderlines that distinguish art from hobby or other type of work.
If they didn't exist all of us would be or called ourselves artists.
Especially with the term "Art" someone must be very carefull of what he thinks or interprets to be Art.
Can a photo of a child being abused or molested be art? Can a photo of pornographic material can be considered art? What makes someone say that a photo is pure pornography and not art?
There are established baselines that confine what "Art" is and distinguish it from other types of work or sciences

Tim, I'm not pigeonhole anything, but they are specific quides/rules that state what is art and what is not.
While art a free minded and spiritual it falls under specific quidelines of what are its limits, where it becomes art and where it stops being art.
One more thing. I didn't copy paste any criteria. Please don't insist on that.


""The photo easily met about 80% of the criteria you yourself put forward as definitive. The fact that you personally don't agree is one thing (and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing), but my feeling is that you wouldn't concede this even if you knew you were wrong. I'm up against your pride in that context and no amount of reasoning on my part will change that""

The photo meets 80% of the criteria according to your opinion Tim, not according to my opinion and based on the criteria I provided.


""This totally contradicts your previous claim, so I'll assume you've reconsidered this one. Nearly every photo has by origin artistic elements / criteria, and it is up to you to demonstrate otherwise.""

I didn't make an assumption nowhere in any of my posts that an unaltered original photo cannot constitute art. I said: A photograph in its original form (unaltered, untreated and unprocessed) remains just a photograph, even if it is a photograph of a painting. In order for an original photo to be considered artistic it needs to show imaginative skill in arrangement or execution and fulfill all or a partial number of criteria.
So I haven't reconsidered anything, maybe you misunderstood me or conclude different yourself.
Not nearly all photos have by origin artistic elements as you imply. In the contrary, very few do.


""George, I have not made any dogmatic or contentious statements about art and it's definitions; you have. It is therefore your responsibility to substantiate and give measured reasonings for your claims, and not vice-versa. I'm saying that you cannot put art into a box and label it, and I'm asking you to use your own words to justify the previously-posted statements.
In response to your other comments, I can only reiterate that art is subjective and not a measurable, objective thing like a set of financial accounts or anything which has clearly-set, tangible criteria. This is a widely-held view (and one most certainly held by the highest authorities on such things) and requires no proof. Dictionaries and enclyclopedias offer definitions on "life" do they not? Does this mean we have the answers to the very meaning of life, George..? Art is no different...""

Tim, I gave my reasonings and criteria on which I base my decision why this photo cannot constitute art or considered artistic, while you didn't provide any criteria or reasoning why you dispute that and claim that this photograph is 80% artistic criteria filled.
Art is a free minded, spiritual and creativity process. While art cannot be restricted in terms of imagination and creativity, it needs to comply with certain rules and ethics of what is considered art and what not. Art as a science is also protected by law. Law protects certain defined things and not abstracts or personal human assumptions of what they think art might be. Yes, dictionaries and encyclopedias offer definitions on life. They were not written though by one person. They were written, revised and updated to reflect reality by scientists, philosophers, humanists, e.t.c through centuries.
I think that you have confused what is Art in general and what is Artistic Photography.
They are two different things and not similar at all.
While photography captures reality, art is imitating or manipulating reality and artistic photography is not to be confused with art.
Artistic photography adds flavor of art to a realistic photo, while art is recreation/reproduction of reality/imagination and does not necessary reflects reality and when it does it produces a work, close (or not) to the original scene or theme but not an identical of the original one.


""Of course there is confusion; art is not a quantifiable thing!
When I don't understand something which can be learnt, I use books and other resources to learn and educate myself. Art cannot be learnt, it can only be experienced........ and if the extent of your experience is a series of definitions by which you measure people's works in a cold, objective manner, then you are welcome to continue in that direction.
Just don't complain that I didn't try to change your mind.""

Yes, there is a confusion just because people try to interpret things on their own without reading and following basic guidelines of what is art, where art starts and where it stops.
Art or artistic talent is not aquired only by experience as you imply. It is also taught and there are Universitities since ancient times taking the responsibility of teaching fines arts and they exist until today.
I measure people's work by basic established criteria listed, accepted and adopted by authorities, of what is art/artistic and what is not and not from the top of my head. The "Copyright Violation Laws" is a good example/indication that art is measurable and not an abstract term and that it complies/conforms to specific rules and does not rely on each individual's thought or interpretation of what the meaning of the word art might be.

I don't complain for not trying to change my mind. In the contrary...I would if you had.
I'm not offended either. I never was, anyway.

Tim,

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
Now that I'm gonna be away for the Christmas holidays, I will have time to think of a nice theme for the next debate.


Regards

George

[DTD]

[Bearface]

Re: But is it art?

Priceless...

[Stephen]

Re: But is it art?

Ehyup David, you have been keeping a low profile and you haven't to laugh either, this is serious stuff

[Pol]

Re: But is it art?


Awwww ........... I was running a sweep on whether you'd pickle the head or the tail.

Oh well - My Gert would've lost anyway so he owes me a fiver, innit.


Pol

[Ian]

Re: But is it art?

Ehyup David, you have been keeping a low profile and you haven't to laugh either, this is serious stuff

David has been very busy and is doing a little project for DPNow that will be revealed in the new year

He's also managed to get a picture into his local rag - the number of times he's been published this year is mighty impressive

Ian

[Blank Page]

Re: But is it art?

I imagine it's status as an icon is because of its context.
As I understand it when it was exhibited in 1917, it was a shocking concept. And Duchamp meant it to be ironic rather than iconic. I think he was to some extent taking the p***. He was questioning what art is.

If we look at say the impressionists today, because we have 100+ years of art history we see their pictures in a different way than when they were first painted.

(Pardon the late reply, but 'twas the season.)

I agree about context. Take the impressionists' paintings and Duchamp's urinal out of context, as we see them today, and what have you got? Paintings that still excite us on some emotional level, as they were designed to do, and a urinal. Duchamp's "work" depends totally on the context in which he presented it.

In [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29[/ame], there is a quote (which dadaist Hans Richter says he wrote in a letter to Duchamp in 1961) that disparages those who see the urinal as art: "You threw a bottle rack and urinal in their faces as a challenge and now they admire them for their aesthetic beauty." Duchamp supposedly wrote in the margin of the letter, "That's fine."

From the same page: "This was not to create an aesthetic experience but to make a conceptual statement."