Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,945   Posts: 1,585,827   Online: 990
      
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 115
  1. #101

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Any French litigation about digital being Art?
    I believe there was a case, but they lost the evidence.
    'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde

  2. #102
    The Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17
    Hi,

    Interesting topic.

    I have just completed a bachelor degree in visual arts so perhaps I can provide a little perspective here.

    In the first year of my degree there were many discussions about "what is art" all of which came to the conclusion that there is no definition of art.

    It seems that you are drawing from examples of the great artists as the basis for your definition of art in todays time. The problem with this is that since modernity the idea of what art has changed rather drastically because of the Dada movement. Think urinal, think bicycle wheel on a stool, think readymades. So if that is art, then what isnt't? Anything can be art. Then we came to POST-modernism, things became even more conceptual and in my opinion often more boring to look at.

    In my degree our artworks are judged first and foremost on concept, then technical skill. I believe that it is important to have both. In my opinion the role of art is to pose a question and good art is that which challenges the way we accept the way the world is and tries to fill in the spaces that are left unattended in our societies.

    Everyone each has their own definition of art. I for one don't think a painting can be done on a computer because there is no paint involved. I also think that if a sculptor decides to use a 3D printer to create an object is totally acceptable if there is enough conceptual reason to make that object. For gods sake the artist who made the highest selling contemporary work of art ever (damien hurst) didn't make it himself nor does he make anything but a commodity. Sadly, craft and skill - which are important to me as a photographic artist - don't particularly constitute the validity of art as they once did.

    There was an important essay written by Walter Benjamin which you might like (or not like) to read called The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction which is relavent to this topic.






    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    144
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stone View Post
    For gods sake the artist who made the highest selling contemporary work of art ever (damien hurst) didn't make it himself nor does he make anything but a commodity.
    If I understand correctly, it was the platinum skull covered by more than 8000 diamonds?
    It's hard to compare a work which has high value in materials themselves, to works crafted with commodity materials.

    Also, his works have lost 30% of the value, which also says something.

    Personally, I'd say the guy is a genius whose biggest art is actually scamming people with too much money.

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,888

  5. #105
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,685
    Images
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stone View Post
    In my degree our artworks are judged first and foremost on concept, then technical skill.
    No aesthetics then?

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  6. #106
    The Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by jernejk View Post
    If I understand correctly, it was the platinum skull covered by more than 8000 diamonds?
    It's hard to compare a work which has high value in materials themselves, to works crafted with commodity materials.
    I'm not sure what you mean by this. What I was getting at was that this work is simply a commodity which lacks anything else. What do you mean by "commodity materials"


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #107
    The Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    No aesthetics then?
    Oh sure, but least of all because that part is the most subjective I suppose


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #108
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,054
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stone View Post
    Hi,
    I believe that it is important to have both. In my opinion the role of art is to pose a question and good art is that which challenges the way we accept the way the world is and tries to fill in the spaces that are left unattended in our societies.
    Tapatalk
    Unfortunately under your definition most of the works of the "great masters" would not be regarded as art.

    A large number were commissioned as propaganda/dogma of the Catholic Church and many were portraits of people with money.

    Not really much there challenging us emotionally.

    But I agree with your definition, that good artistic works should probably at least make us think or feel.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  9. #109

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bruxelles, Belgium
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    Unfortunately under your definition most of the works of the "great masters" would not be regarded as art.

    A large number were commissioned as propaganda/dogma of the Catholic Church and many were portraits of people with money.

    Not really much there challenging us emotionally.
    I strongly disagree - that's why "great" artists are considered great, because their work transcend the narrow framework of the particular circumstances, and convey/evoke timeless messages. Not convinced? Then just give more that a passing look at any great painting (Velazques' Pope Innocent X... look at insight of what lies behind that face, anything but "innocent"; or Michelangelo shameless outrageous nudity in the Sistine Chappel, the Pope personal quarters no less). Art frequently carried strong ideological message, but you cannot reduce/dismiss great art as mere propaganda sloganeering or servile portraiture (something I cannot say about well paid celebrity photographers of today).

  10. #110
    The Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    Unfortunately under your definition most of the works of the "great masters" would not be regarded as art.

    A large number were commissioned as propaganda/dogma of the Catholic Church and many were portraits of people with money.

    Not really much there challenging us emotionally.

    But I agree with your definition, that good artistic works should probably at least make us think or feel.
    Sure, well said but given that this topic is regarding "automated" means of art making which has come around since the industrial revolution, I am refering to Contemporary art not the "great masters".


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin