DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Define Art
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 44 of 44, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/26/2006 11:33:10 PM · #26
Originally posted by idnic:
From the Department Of Redundancy Department


Your statement above leads me to believe that you are trying to undermine my position in the department mentioned above. Please do not try to undermine my position in the department mentioned above.
 05/26/2006 11:40:40 PM · #27
Totally uncool talking about me while I am away. I'm going to pick up some beer and kerosene and I will be back....
 05/26/2006 11:51:57 PM · #28
In my statement above I was not talking about you in my statement above. Please don't think I was talking about you...

Edited for clarity to add: in my statement above...

Edited the above statement for clarity.

Message edited by author 2006-05-26 23:54:10.
 05/26/2006 11:54:16 PM · #29
I am willing to accept anyone's interpretation of what constitutes art, or even good art for that matter. Each person is deserved their own opinion. For me, I just experience a certain wow when I experience a very artistic or aesthetic moment. That's my real judge of quality. And the beautiful thing is just how instant it can occur.
 05/26/2006 11:54:40 PM · #30
Originally posted by Artyste:
That's like trying to define "perfection"




05/27/2006 02:47:55 AM · #31
Originally posted by TooCool:
In my statement above I was not talking about you in my statement above. Please don't think I was talking about you...

Edited for clarity to add: in my statement above...

Edited the above statement for clarity.

I am unclear as to what you are saying. Please clarify. Or not.
----------------------

I thought the subject was "Defy Art" and mistook it to be some sort of mob rebellion against me. I now see that I was wrong. My apologies for the fire damage.
 05/27/2006 02:51:14 AM · #32
Originally posted by RMyers1314:
Originally posted by Artyste:
That's like trying to define "perfection"






Well, you have army geek defined well, now work on perfection ;D
 05/27/2006 02:52:24 AM · #33
art in itself is a very subjective matter. what is art to some might not be to others.

05/27/2006 03:47:43 AM · #34
Originally posted by Rikki:
art in itself is a very subjective matter. what is art to some might not be to others.


come'on rikki, you can think of something crazier than that!
 05/29/2006 10:45:38 PM · #35
art is tangible manifestation of something intangible

art is...heart. Hmm.

art is all around us.

05/29/2006 10:52:19 PM · #36
The $2 million dollar stripe at the National Gallery in Ottawa

.... or better yet, the dress made from a side of beef (?)
 05/29/2006 11:03:43 PM · #37
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
or better yet, the dress made from a side of beef (?)


Rare or well done?

Think what the underware is made of! "You look so good I could eat you!"
 05/29/2006 11:45:03 PM · #38
ART gave me a blue shirt and there was havoc all over the site ever since :p
 05/30/2006 12:00:35 AM · #39
Measure and Art

I feel fairly certain that there is a reasonably reliable way to tell a 'good' image (in the sense of 'sound' and 'worthy') from a 'poor' one, which would have nothing to do with its popular appeal and everything to do with a universal quality inherent in it. When, on very rare occasion, the two coincide, we would have what I'd call a 'great' image. Yet, much 'great' work remains unrecognized.

It is not the quality of such work which is lacking, it is only that the range of human experience itself varies significantly between individuals. Love, grief, joy, sorrow; envy, jealousy even, the drama and tragedies we all share effect us more or less profoundly, sooner or later or, sadly, not at all.

We can, however, ask questions to help us determine the quality of a work. These are some questions I ask which, I believe, can take us beyond a mere subjective appeal:

⢠does the image exhilarate?
⢠does it stimulate awareness?
⢠does it accommodate or promote disscociation?
⢠does it encourage resentment against evil?
⢠does it convey a charge (as in energy)?
⢠does it have range? Can we define that range?
⢠is it an imitation, an invention or neither?
⢠if it appears to be an imitation, is the imitation well concealed or frankly acknowledged?
⢠is the mood, emotion, circumstance of the photo credible and convincing?
⢠does the work inspire transport, restlessness, action, thought?
⢠if someone looked at the same image once every ten years, would it still hold true?

If the answers do not come unequivocally but indicative of the possibilities of scale, I believe, we have something we can safely call measure.

Different people have different causations, and I don't think it matters, if one has come to art (the excitement, the near-religious experience of it) via one way or another, but I do believe that those who have the most to gain or loose by it will always be driven to discriminate between that which they recognize as either good and solid or as soft and rotten. They will stake their life on the first and put their fist through the other.

This, IMO, is how art is managed when it is capably managed. It is how it gets places where it can be seen and felt, where it can be of use to the people who rarely know what is good for them, if my shrink and history is any indication.

Art is measured, not defined.
Sincerity is not an academic exercise.

Message edited by author 2006-05-30 00:10:19.
 05/30/2006 12:20:45 AM · #40
By definition of "definition" itself, is to limit something so that it is not something-else. Definition is drawing boundary around something so that it is distinguishable (and separate) from rest of the reality. Its more like creating "isolated system" from the whole. Definition makes thingsâ scientific". By very definition of "definition", defining Art is to limit art. And to limit the art is to kill it.

Btw, do we need definition of Art to enjoy Art? Would rose smell different if it is given new definition?

All-right, you guessed it right. I'm still struggling with last night hangover...hic ;) lol

06/05/2006 05:48:45 AM · #41
No more definations.... was mine that good??!! :D

06/05/2006 07:31:39 AM · #42
Art is in the eye of the beholder.
 06/05/2006 09:55:43 AM · #43
Baudelaire, a literary icon of his times, railed against the admitting photographs into the French Salon (An Art Gallery ~1860). Photography, he said, was âthe mortal enemy of artâ.
 06/05/2006 11:22:06 AM · #44
Originally posted by ralphnev:
Baudelaire, a literary icon of his times, railed against the admitting photographs into the French Salon (An Art Gallery ~1860). Photography, he said, was âthe mortal enemy of artâ.


And he (Baudelaire) took his drugs seriously...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 09:28:00 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 09:28:00 AM EDT.