Salon - - Is it really "art"? - Page 2

Swampy · #16 03-11-2007, 05:21 PM

That's very encouraging, Peter! It also looked like a great piece of photo-art. Thank you for the pictures. :-)

Photo678 · #17 03-12-2007, 12:24 AM

Well it really depends....if you are taking someone elses work and enhancing it, or painting over it, etc etc....then i have to say no...that isn't really art...it's improving on what's been done.

But digital as a medium of art is expanding...mostly the bigger cities for now, and has been for the last few years....and it really, really does depend...are you using a combo of filters to achieve your final result?...it's really a computer doing the work.....which greatly differs in my opinion from that of photography....now of course there are those that say any joe schmo can take a brilliant picture, but i disagree. I was showing my own work (black and white photography) once, and someone approached me and said, "i can do that"....i took their number, called them in a few days...asked them to meet me....handed them a camera and some film and said "go ahead, create what you saw"...not in a cocky way, this was all very candid and the guy wanted to know more about photography....he took the camera, went and shot some stuff, for which i matched his shots..came back, and i developed the film, and printed a few large shots of from each roll of film....when he saw my shots, compared to his...he asked how, and i began to explain about light, composition, exposure, etc etc...he realized that not just anyone can take a decent shot.

now, back to the computer/digital talk....i think the line becomes drawn when you think of the canvas....is the work that is generated from the computer, better than it would have been had it been created "by hand"?...or are you dealing with something that could not be created "by hand". I think that is what it comes down to...if the computer itself, or your filters, or your brushes are doing most of the work, in an automated way...then we are not really dealing with art.

I mean, art is not just a pretty picture, or painting....it needs to convey something..it needs to hold emotion of sorts to it...it rarely is about the technique and more about the finished product.....if its a crappy picture going in, its a crappy picture coming out.

I personally do not do any "digital art"....sure, i retouch fashion shots, etc etc...but i don't consider that art...art is imperfect, and my job is to perfect the imperfect...

Then again, look at the works of rothko and pollack...both abstract expressionists, but simplistic in it's idea......is pollocks work any less art because it is random?....i don't think so, it has more to do with his vision.

So in a nut shell, i think i am siding with the digital is not art camp for now...until i see digital work that really utilizes, deconstructs, and really makes a name for itself other than "oh, this was done in photoshop". Because i don't think the medium should get in the way of the piece itself, and with most digital work I see...the "digitalness" of it, far outweighs any technique, or idea held within.

Kraellin · #18 03-12-2007, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Funny, but one of the board members told me that computer art doesn't have "brush strokes" or texture such as caused by watercolor being absorbed into paper, and she also mentioned chalk dust

this always cracks me up ... in a sad sort of way. it would seem that the great mystery, 'ART' is lacking a distinct definition. and following that definition would need to be an extensive re-education of said definition to a LOT of people.

'art' is not the medium/media. it has nothing to do with brushes, lenses, wood types, clay types, thread types, and a plethora of other means of achieving art, except for one thing, that those things might or might not actually be used to reach that level of technical quality called 'art'.

it always cracks me up when watching figure skating competitions that these are judged by two criteria, technical merit and 'artistic merit/interpretation/style' or some such wording. these are basically the same thing. when you see 'art', no matter what the means of communicating it, there IS a certain 'technical quality'. and that IS art. it's there. you'll never see a sloppy dance routine that you would call art. there's no technical merit, no technical quality to it. art is about aesthetics and a high technical quality. it conveys the communication in a manner that evokes a response simply because of the technical rendering itself. it doesnt have to be that all elusive 'perfection'. it just has to communicate whatever is the theme or point of the rendering and do so in a manner that doesnt detract from and does enhance that communication through technical skill and merit.

have you ever watched a fine chef prepare a meal and commented 'that guy is a real artist'? i certainly have. there is a quality to his work and a technical skill that as you watch him work sort of floors you. he just sort of flows through the whole process, flawlessly. i've seen this in lots of different areas. a good magician is an artist. he goes through his routine with flawless precision and the audience is awed. i've seen work by a guy with a chainsaw on a tree slab. this guy is an artist. he turns on this loud, clumsy, rough old chainsaw and starts hacking away at the slab and after a bit you start to see something emerge and pretty soon there is something there that you go, wow! how the hell did he do that? he's an artist.

and carrying this even further or to other areas of life, there are artists that would never even think to call themselves artists. i've known housewives that go about their daily routine with a precision that an engineer would drool over. i've seen office workers, especially some managers, that can run an office better than a swiss clock can keep time. this is artistry. it's a precision and skill that gets the job done with no only with an efficiency but a real flair. and that flair, that level of skill, communicates all by itself. and THAT is art!

so, when some hooty snooty know-it-all comes at you with 'this isnt art', just look down your nose and know that they havent got a clue.

DannyRaphael · #19 03-12-2007, 05:26 AM

A whole forum dedicated to this topic from the photograph perspective:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...p?showforum=19

------

Interesting reading...

Swampy · #20 03-12-2007, 09:24 AM

I marvel at the artistic talent of someone like Bert Monroy

He starts with a blank (computer) canvas and creates such marvelous art. His attention to detail, perspective, light and shadows is just amazing. His electronic paintings are so detailed and accurate they look like photographs.

DannyRaphael · #21 03-12-2007, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swampy

I marvel at the artistic talent of someone like Bert Monroy

He starts with a blank (computer) canvas and creates such marvelous art. His attention to detail, perspective, light and shadows is just amazing. His electronic paintings are so detailed and accurate they look like photographs.

Bert's work is definitely spectacular. I'm amazed at what he's able to produce.

-----------------------

So you think you know art, huh? Take this quiz to find out:

http://www.modestypanel.com/artorcrap/#

Steve Conway · #22 03-12-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swampy

I marvel at the artistic talent of someone like Bert Monroy

He starts with a blank (computer) canvas and creates such marvelous art. His attention to detail, perspective, light and shadows is just amazing. His electronic paintings are so detailed and accurate they look like photographs.

Because the work looks like a photograph there are those who say, "that's not art" I can take a snapshot with a camera and get the same thing!?????

I always go back to the "eye of the beholder" way of looking at art. If I don't like it that's no sign that it's not art. I heard someone say one time that the little brass plate under the painting is how a great many people judge art. If it says Monet, or Van Gogh, or Matisse, then it has to be great art. Change the plate on a Seurat, for instance, and some would say that all those dots detract from the painting.

Steve C.

palms1 · #23 03-12-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DannyRaphael

Bert's work is definitely spectacular. I'm amazed at what he's able to produce.

-----------------------

So you think you know art, huh? Take this quiz to find out:

http://www.modestypanel.com/artorcrap/#

Tried the quiz 10 out of 16 so not bad coming from someone who dosent know much about "proper" art, and majority of what i do know i learnt from being here !!!!!

Palms

and p.s. none of them would get cupboard room in my house

Steve Conway · #24 03-12-2007, 01:29 PM

This might be slightly O.T, but I just came back from a 3 day trip to some nice places to shoot photos. First I went to an Egyptian art exhibit on tour from the British museum. I was stopped dead in my tracks at the door because I had a camera. "No photos allowed." I have taken many a photo in the British Museum itself, but can't take any of their pieces at this museum. In the past I have taken photos of a Lautrec poster exhibit at the very same museum. I will normally ask before I shoot, and usually will be allowed to shoot if no flash is used. I didn't even get a chance to ask in this case.

I have also shot pictures in The museum of Modern Art in NY, the Museum of Natural History in NY, the Louvre in Paris, The Lautrec museum in Albi, France, the National Museum of Art in DC, The Ringling Museum of Art in Sarasota, FL, and many others.

A while later I was shooting in a shopping mall in the same city and a security guard informed me that I was to stop what I was doing and that there was no photography allowed in the mall. I am not going to bore you with the names of the malls I have taken photos in, in the past. But a short time later a celebrity was in this same mall signing autographs and there were people shooting pics everywhere. And B.T.W. there were no signs regarding cameras anywhere. In another mall that I visited later in the day, there was a sign on the entrance doors, "no cameras allowed." So guess we photographers will become like endangered animals, pushed out of all our shooting areas till none are left.

Could be part of the new heightened security everywhere, but at least they could put up a sign.

Steve C.

Mike · #25 03-12-2007, 01:43 PM

Steve

I have not had that experience as of yet, but have heard many story's just like yours. Most of the time the reference is back to 9-11 and all of the laws passed to "protect" us since then. Sometimes these folks will try to take your camera away from you. It seems to be a growing problem.

Swampy · #26 03-12-2007, 02:13 PM

Oy!! I know some museums do allow cameras, others don't, but shopping malls? What do they do about all the cell phones with camers? :-)

oceanstarr · #27 03-12-2007, 02:47 PM

I think it will be some time before "arts and crafts" type places will take digital work. I have shown lenticular holographs in an art gallery myself - that's basically digital art with a plastic lens on it that adds an effect of depth. There were no brush strokes lol. I do many types of art myself - some digital - some not. I think anyone who has embroidered a piece of clothing AND composed a piece of real digital art (the kind that takes hours and hours lol) will admit that the pain, suffering, frustration, and time consumption are comparable. I think there's a sense that one could easily "back up" and take back a mistake on the computer... As though being able to take back a mistake makes the work less artistic or difficult.

Steve Conway · #28 03-12-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swampy

Oy!! I know some museums do allow cameras, others don't, but shopping malls? What do they do about all the cell phones with camers? :-)

That's exactly what I was asking myself.

I think they are going to have a bit of a time policing all the cell phone cameras. Maybe that will be the next thing they prohibit.

Steve C.

Steve Conway · #29 03-12-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

Steve

I have not had that experience as of yet, but have heard many story's just like yours. Most of the time the reference is back to 9-11 and all of the laws passed to "protect" us since then. Sometimes these folks will try to take your camera away from you. It seems to be a growing problem.

Indeed it does. I felt like a Peeping Tom and all I was doing was taking a few pics in the mall for personal use. I know full well the laws restricting use of photos without written permission etc. and the consequences thereof. And that was not my purpose. Also it's not an easy job hiding a Nikon D-50 with a 200mm lens, so it was in plain view.

Steve C.