Art sucks. It does. Worse than pit bull feces spread over a decaying human corpse atop a pyre of burning hair. Not the
thing, mind you--the word. It needs to die. The word's been keel-hauled so many times it's basically just a bloated bag of flesh now.
Under the retarded notion that everyone's opinion is equal
everything is art. It's not about hard work and endless practice to better yourself--it's just about expressing your feelings. Even those feelings you don't know how to express.
Your stick figures are art.
Your starch-ridden spaghetti is art.
The sauce stain left over is art.
Every black and white photo you take is art.
So is anything you apply the sepia filter to.
Or make a photoshop frame effect.
It's all art. Pointless art. Retarded art. Crappy art. It's art because you say it is.
Bullshit.
It's not art. It's bullshit.
Just because you took the photo in black and white doesn't make it art.
Just because you framed it doesn't make it art.
It's a picture of a girl's face for fuck's sake. There's nothing interesting or insightful about it. You shouldn't get warm fucking feelings from taking a fucking picture of someone's face. It. Is. Not. Art.
God fucking dammit. This is
also not art. From the wanker's website:
This is a study in self, a self portrait in blue, black and white.
OK. Seriously.
self-portrait? Really? For fuck's sake.
And no, Mr. Stupid-serious-expression-trying-to-look-cool: de-saturating everything
but your eyes doesn't fucking make it art. Or interesting. Or good.
Even good things aren't necessarily art. It's a retarded modern notion that only art has beauty. Because of this, we label everything beautiful as art.
Science is not art. It's science. Yell at the next person who calls a science experiment artistic.
It's not bloody art.
Computer programmers are not artists no matter how much they insist they are. C++ code is generally not art. (And when it
is art, it's typically not good code)
Not even all drawings or paintings are art. Unless you're going to suggest that
every fire exit sign is art. Or
every bathroom sign.
Medium does not define art.
Beauty does not define art.
This isn't a pointless argument about semantics. It's an argument of intent. Art is art when it's made with intent and successfully conveys that intent. Intent and success are, of course, subjective. Still, at least it rules out the spaghetti stains on your plate.
Painting your wall gray ain't art. Graffiti-tagging it with your gang's name ain't art. Graffiti-tagging it with a picture of a police officer beating your brother
is. See the difference?
You devalue
all art when you take a black and white photo of your desk and call it art.
For those who
do create actual art: Get the fuck over yourselves. Especially so-called abstract artists. Look, I don't care if certain famous men in the past drew crap and called it cubism. That doesn't mean you can. It doesn't mean you can puke on a towel and call it great. Not unless you had a
really good intent and reason. It might be art, but it certainly isn't good. If your audience doesn't "get" your art
it's not their fault. It's yours.
Below are two abstract paintings by some no-name painter being sold on a no-name site. Care to wager how much he's charging for them?
$4,500 for the first one and
$16,000 for the second. Yeah. That's worth it.
Get the fuck over yourself you motherfucking douche. Very little art should be valued that high, especially when it has so little reproductive value. It's pleasing to the eyes, yes. It's art, yes.
But it ain't worth 16 grand. Christ.
You know what the definition of art I was taught in art college was? "Any man made object in which some makes a perceptual shift on" which really means any object that people see as aesthetic and not functional, when people stop seeing it as a pencil... oh my god look it is fucking art.
No, not many good artists agree, but thanks to a lot of people that is how it is now. Put it on a wall or a podeum and rope it off and no matter what you put there becomes art.
Going pack to your post... I think intent is only part of it.. I mean art should be Intent > Concept > Skill I admit a good idea realised can be art... but without a good concept of how to realise it and the skill to make it look right, it is just bad art. If you are doing art for utility purpse, making an exit sign, a pencil, C++ code, science, a chair... I have news for you, you are a designer not an artist >.>
1) Art is rarely accidental. Almost always intent must exist behind it.
2) Art must successfully convey this intent, otherwise it cannot be considered a success.
I would agree that the definition you mentioned sounds a bit fishy ;) I tend to distrust anything with the word "shift" in it. Gah.
People just love thinking they're being profound. It's like all the "paradigm shifts" of the past decade. I heard that word misused so often I can't even stand hearing it used correctly now.
I could agree that art is about intent, and intention realized. However, i also believe that art can only be labeled so in the eye of the beholder. Things without intent can be artful, sometimes, but art really is about perception. Some would argue talent, but talent is also perception, what looks good to ones eyes could easily not look good to anothers.
But according to a more 'official' source, art is many things including: 4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects.
I disagree that skill is necessary to define art, a great skill can be art, and help create art, but it does not define it. Art is more about creative imagination, whether drawn, sculpted, spoken, written, played, or demonstrated.
I do agree with both DranoK's points above, art is rarely accidental, and should convey some sort of feeling, notion, or meaning that the artist had in its conception. With exceptions.
I think art can be denied by the eye of the beholder, but I'm not so sure it can be ascribed the characteristic of art. In obvious cases, sure. But you can't just take a picture of a pencil and call it art.
I would also disagree with the idea that things not intended to be art can be "artful". While it may meet the dictionary definition, I think labeling things thusly devalues true art. I think a different word would be better, such as awe-inspiring, beautiful, or magnificent.
A sunset over a lake with a darkened city-scape in the background is a beautiful sight indeed. But it's not art. A security camera's capture of said view might also be interesting or have a quality of beauty--but it's still not art. A photographer who takes a picture with the intent of capturing the beauty and framing it correctly is art.
I think it's important to make this distinction.
http://gamepolitics.com/2007/07/28/r...s-are-not-art/
I think a video game could be art. Sure. But I sure as fuck wouldn't want to play it.
Ebert's whole point it seems (he didn't actually say it it was implied so maybe I am mistaken) is that games do not tell a story leading to an inevitable conclusion such as a book does..
However, I would suggest that most games are linear stories with no multiple-choice, they are the same story for anyone who plays the game.
So, they are just a medium for telling a story.
Does this make them art? No.
So they are NOT art? No. They certainly CAN BE imho.
I would most likly agree though that most "sandbox"-style games or open-ended games are not really art, and not trying to be either.
I think that the Ars Technica writer Ben Kuchera makes a very good point:
Do games match this criteria? Do movies? Do books?
It's a vague gray area and pretty damn subjective. I don't personally classify Undying as art (although there was art in it)--but it's so deep in that gray area that it's really not worth debating.
In any case it's not puke on a plate. Or a black and white photo of a table. Or a retarded picture of a soup label.
Light Graffiti Photography:
Please note: THAT IS PICASSO.
However ignoring ones that like, and taking photos of beautiful scenes.. I do consider that to be art as well (within boundaries). To argue it isn't because "it's a photograph, the scene is art not the photograph" is to argue that "a painter's painting is not beautiful, the idea is." or "The canvas is not art, the paint on it is.". That's just crazy.
These I would consider artistic:
Even something like this:
But yeah, i think photographs can be artful, but i wouldnt call someone who took a photograph an artist, therefore i wouldnt call a photograph artwork.
Post processing of photographs could be considered artwork though by my definition. Art to me is generally defined as something drawn/composed/sculpted. An impressionistic capture of reality even, but not a machine photograph.
Also.. so.. you'd call them artful.. but not artwork?
A scribble thats not intended to be anything, is most likely just a scribble and nothing else. Just as graffiti without the intent to inspire or envoke thought or feeling is just a (sometimes) colorful defacement of a wall or surface for the sake of being disruptive. Generally speaking.
Art is defined by public perception. If the majority of people think something is art, then it gets classified in public as art. Whats art to me may not be to you, or your friends. I can accept that.
On that idea though, i will admit that perhaps my senses are not so 'refined' as to be able to see art in that picasso picture. Looks like a scribble to me, and ive made better ones, with more content for that matter. If i really really tried and used my imagination, i could possibly find a shape in it, but theres not a lot of point if its not obvious enough to be noticed.
Without knowing its intent, it will stay just a scribble to me. But im sure someone will go out of their way to notice 'its a picasso' and then find the need to worship it or study it or whatever they do in order to try and give it some sort of meaning. Then it can be part of his collection, priceless, and hang in a museum where all the sheep will flock to it because it was something he did. *shrug*
You shouldnt have to work that hard to understand 'art' thats the beauty of it, it can have many different meanings, and different sides, but atleast one of them should be obvious to the casual observer, id think anyway. Maybe art is supposed to be difficult.
Meh, im tired. Rambling on further will only help befuddle the thought, wonder if it will make any sense if i read it later.. thats a distressing thought.
But..
You do realize that the first two images (including the Picasso one) is not actually altering a photograph.. But rather, taking a long exposure while waving a light stick around?
A photograph can by art in terms of the composition you chose to capture or they way you set it up.
It almost sounds like the debate about what is art comes down to 'creation' vs 'discovery'. Photography almost always falls into discovery because you are finding something that preexisted and taking a picture. However I believe a compromise on the two areas/terms can be struck if you actually compose preexisting elements to something aesthetically pleasing. Now why I tend to agree with Ratha in many cases, and I do feel that 99% of photographs are just memory aids, I believe it IS possible for art to include photos given the proper intent and creativity.
For example:
When moments and time elapses many times over and over to the point where it is near impossible to keep track of everything that has happened and won't happen again; choosing when to take a single snapshot to preserve or waiting around for everything to be just right knowing that the odds of that exact frame in time happening again is so outstandingly stupidly low that using preexisting elements or composing some of your own can and should qualify for the label of 'art'. The rules of art apply just the same, and while technique is often deemed a non-issue in photography; the informed would disagree. Just as important as: pen size, brush jitter and resolution; you have many elements to photography that are just as pivotal.
At least we all agree that you can't just take a black and white photo of your fucking table and call it art ;)
Look at the darker peak in the middle, it appears to be further away from the camera than the one thats behind the street light, but its hard to tell. Even so, that street light should be no less than 10 feet tall. And the jump looks like it was made almost 50% further away than the distance from the camera to the light, and it reaches over the top.
Its possible theres some sort of way to mask a person or any dark object in in a long exposure, maybe if they are darker than the previously exposed frame, those would be the first photographs of such things that ive ever seen if thats the case.
You see them with cars and stars all the time, but theres major blurring of all moving objects, or any object which has moved since the initial exposure, and not jus the bright lights. In the ones ive seen anyway.
EDIT: Where do cameras which can take multiple pictures a second fall in? Take em now, sort it out later, and then have art? :P
continue.