:Whatever_ ..

:p

Damn, did I miss some *unintelligent* critique :D

I would say that true art has no tangible value except for the emotions or feelings it stirs inside of you...

A serious question please so it would be nice to keep it on topic.

The same question, of course, applies to all visual medium.

Whether or not one appreciates an image (sticking to photgraphy for forum relevance) is a very subjective matter, whether that image is technically, compositionally, or emotionally good bad or indifferent.

Whether the photograph portrays, for example, a crying child, a glorious landscape, or indeed a piece of broken concrete is immaterial.

This got me thinking - when does an image or a collection of images become "art" rather than just "a great picture"?

At the moment I'm thinking its "art" when it has received critical or fasionable acclaim and therefore becomes desirable to the extent that it has a value greater than the sum of its parts.

Open to your thoughts and opinions :)

Scott
I think you haven't got a clue what constitutes art if you think something becomes art only when it receives critical or fashionable acclaim.

Something becomes art when it's declared as such. Whether it has any actual artistic merit or commercial exploitability is another matter.

Try doing some reading then come back to us my paduan learner.

ROFLMAO

Ok, Obi wan...

Enlighten me - on what basis can it be "declared" art?

And I'm sorry, but when some halfwit says, here's a painting, I'm an artist, that doesn't count.

If you read my post more carefully this time, you'll realise that commercial exploitability was not one of the critertia mentioned, unless, of course, your train of thought is so narrow as to be devoid of any other definition of "value"

Neither did I mention artitic merit, although I will forgive you this time for confusing "critical acclaim" with "artistic merit".

Ironically Al, (I'm going to call you Al, because its nice and short) your posts have been pushing for creative and individualist thinking, and yet you suggest I simply "read someone elses views" as a means of enhancing what you think should be my understanding.

LOL I hope you are articulate enough to understand that......A couple of points raised by your comments

I'm afraid that when "some halfwit says here's a painting I'm an artist" it does count. Who are we to judge?

Secondly being able to articulate thoughts or concepts has nothing to do with the ability to comprehend them. The 2 states are not mutually dependent or even necessarily linked. You really must try harder. Have you ever considered going back into education?

Go and sit in the corner with your pointy hat on- again.:)

I think a picture becomes art when it makes you look at something in a different way to which you are accustomed. Don't know if that's airy fairy, but it's the best i can come up with in relation to what makes me take an interest in a picture. :)

Seeing as it is so hard to define art anyway, I think it's unanswerable.

Whatever pops your cork really.

Geezer

http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/images/hirst.gif

No because you haven't read what I put previously judging by your reply. Any of us could keep going back to our posts, editing them to change the meaning and alter the nature of the argument.


Your comments were dealt with in the line "I think you haven't got a clue what constitutes art if you think something becomes art only when it receives critical or fashionable acclaim"

The comments I made which followed it: "Something becomes art when it's declared as such. Whether it has any actual artistic merit or commercial exploitability is another matter". Were made to further the debate rather than being a reply to any points you may have made. Instead, being a self obsessed sort of bloke, you imagined they were a response to something you'd said.

Glad to have been of service re: your vocabulary.:norty:

The masterclass is now in session.

I'll say this again, "IF SOMEONE DECLARES SOMETHING IS ART THEN IT IS".

Or put another way, if to them it represents art then art it is. You on the other hand might think it's a load of old carp. Doesn't mean it's not art though.

But, NAC-Al, why is (for example) Tracy Emin's unmade bed "art"? In what sense is that not just an everyday item for most of us? Are you saying that our entire environment is art?

NO- it doesn't. :)


In any case I don't need to demonstrate anything. I just like to share and have a good time.

What about my question? :cry:

Put it another way - is there any merit in The Turner Prize?

Sorry tel, please call me artistFKAN or FKAN, I might realise the question is directed at me then.

Of course there is merit in the turner prize, they get a pile of cash when they win. Therein lies one form of merit at least.

Referring back to emin if she was to say take a sh1t, posted pictures of the result here and told us it was art then it would be.

What about my question? :cry:

Put it another way - is there any merit in The Turner Prize?
Nope. Just a load of twits full of their own self importance creating junk and selling it for loads of money to other twits who are rich / stupid enough to buy it :D

IMO of course ;)

Art means different things to different people, and as such is pretty subjective. For me, I guess you could describe any piece of work designed for the enjoyment of others as art. This differs from pictures / snapshots which are usually taken as historical record (momentos / memories etc) rather than for artistic reasons...

So what qualifies someone to be an 'art critic' ?

An opinion.

So if *i* say everything in the world is art, then instinsically it IS??? :confused:


There HAS to be more on which to base a definition, surely? You must be able to quantify, not just qualify it, no??

Why?

I'm an art critic (must remember that for the pub) :D



Feels good ;)

So if *i* say everything in the world is art, then instinsically it IS??? :confused:


There HAS to be more on which to base a definition, surely? You must be able to quantify, not just qualify it, no??
No we aren't talking about beans or another commodity. I'd argue that if *YOU* think it's art then to *YOU* it is. What it means to the rest of us is largely irrelevant.

Ah, i see, so we're talking personal definitions, sorry. I thought you were implying that if somebody states that something is art, it is to everybody, not just to themselves. Different ballgame.

So what makes a picture "art" to you? Are you not able to define the distinguishing criteria?

If I produce it then it's art, simply because I'm an artist.

However going back to "personal definitions" someone can state that something they produced is art. It doesn't mean you have to accept it as such but it's no less valid because you choose not to see it as such.

Actually I'd argue that the real arbiter of whether something is 'art' is if it succeeds in doing what the originator intended. Whether that be being displayed in a gallery, earning millions of pounds, garnering critical acclaim and popularity with the public or winding up some tools on an internet forum.
:)

LOL, you just can't resist the digs, can you?! :D Never could, never will. :thumb:

But what defines you as an "artist"?

I'd say you're a photographer, plain and simple. If your photographs evoke a reaction in people that is different to that which they'd experience from viewing the subject in the normal course of events, *then* i'd define it as art. You don't automatically produce art just because YOU think you're an artist. It might be art to YOU, but then, if that's all that matters, there'd be no point publishing them on here, would there? :)

LOL, you just can't resist the digs, can you?! :D Never could, never will. :thumb:

But what defines you as an "artist"?

I'd say you're a photographer, plain and simple. If your photographs evoke a reaction in people that is different to that which they'd experience from viewing the subject in the normal course of events, *then* i'd define it as art.
I'd say some pictures of concrete benches that have led to all this discussion, here and in other threads qualify as art almost exactly as you've outlined.

Therefore I'm not only an artist in my own mind but yours as well.

No, as i said, i didn't look at them and think "I've never seen a concrete bench look like that before". If i had, i'd consider it art. As it is, i think they're competent pictures.

So no, in my mind you're a photographer, not an artist. Not that my opinion's important, obviously, but don't assume a discussion, per se, gives your assertion about yourself credence. It doesn't, sorry. :)

I'd read what you and others had put differently. My own paradigm perhaps rather than a 'true' representation of reality. In any case I'm fully aware of my talent as an artist and whilst respecting your opinion have the strength of conviction to carry on this project to it's logical conclusion.

I wouldn't be being true to my art otherwise.

Absolutely. Bring it on. :thumb:

:Whatever_ ..

Hi Diablo,

I recently bought this, it's pretty dry and academic, but art books always are (studied art and photography moons ago), must admit I haven't read much, only skimmed. But I'll probably take it on holiday.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/041530704X/qid=1111607698/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_11_1/202-6848183-5472640


Good start for analysing photography!

Cheers,

Nick