| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/06/2007 05:48:17 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by _eug:
...would it be less ugly if we dressed them up? Would this be more artistic?...
|
Would this (above) be more artistic if veiled? |
Are you comparing that picture to the subject here because of the one eye? |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 06:52:18 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by _eug:
...would it be less ugly if we dressed them up? Would this be more artistic?...
|
Would this (above) be more artistic if veiled? |
Are you comparing that picture to the subject here because of the one eye? |
Well it's a simple response. I think it's easy to find a number of examples (i.e. as part of the human physique) for what may be considered ugly in this beautiful image.
Thinking of art as a measure of aesthetics alone is too exclusive to be useful. |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 07:26:46 PM · #78 |
I don't think I want to see your recent google search history
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 08:44:50 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I don't think I want to see your recent google search history |
Other than a quick search for "Say it with Penis" it's quite boring.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2007 12:54:54 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by _eug:
...would it be less ugly if we dressed them up? Would this be more artistic?...
|
Would this (above) be more artistic if veiled? |
Are you comparing that picture to the subject here because of the one eye? |
Well it's a simple response. I think it's easy to find a number of examples (i.e. as part of the human physique) for what may be considered ugly in this beautiful image.
Thinking of art as a measure of aesthetics alone is too exclusive to be useful. |
Actually, aesthetics alone is quite useful. We apply makeup to our faces, dress a certain way and act a certain way just to get a desired result from others. We live in a society that values aesthetics so why wouldn't it be enough when it comes to art or what we label as such?
Now Manny's photo is beautiful because it's ugly. It's ugly because it shows the truth and doesn't run away from it. Manny also went the extra mile in making the photo nearly flawless in it's execution, which is an asethetic the casual viewer eats up wholeheartedly. In this instance it was ok for the causal viewer to like this photo because it's technically beautiful and there's no stigma attached to any perceived ugliness the model may or may not have. We all grow old and end up looking like that when we do so it's accepted to look like that. Now had Manny's model been much younger, and not pretty then it probably would be a different story. We expect to see beauty in that instance not ugliness. So unless there's an historical significance attached to that image or the model happens to look like a loved family member or friend, it will fall on death eyes so to speak regardless of how beautiful it actually is.
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2007-10-07 01:22:36.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2007 01:10:08 AM · #81 |
Ok. I'm sorry I clicked. In this case I have to side with Jojo. THAT is ugly. |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 10:14:20 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Ok. I'm sorry I clicked. In this case I have to side with Jojo. THAT is ugly. |
FINALLY!! HEHE |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 10:50:43 AM · #83 |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 12:18:05 PM · #84 |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 12:46:58 PM · #85 |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 02:09:49 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by _eug:
...would it be less ugly if we dressed them up? Would this be more artistic?...
|
Would this (above) be more artistic if veiled? |
Are you comparing that picture to the subject here because of the one eye? |
Well it's a simple response. I think it's easy to find a number of examples (i.e. as part of the human physique) for what may be considered ugly in this beautiful image.
Thinking of art as a measure of aesthetics alone is too exclusive to be useful. |
Actually, aesthetics alone is quite useful. We apply makeup to our faces, dress a certain way and act a certain way just to get a desired result from others. We live in a society that values aesthetics so why wouldn't it be enough when it comes to art or what we label as such?
Now Manny's photo is beautiful because it's ugly. It's ugly because it shows the truth and doesn't run away from it. Manny also went the extra mile in making the photo nearly flawless in it's execution, which is an asethetic the casual viewer eats up wholeheartedly. In this instance it was ok for the causal viewer to like this photo because it's technically beautiful and there's no stigma attached to any perceived ugliness the model may or may not have. We all grow old and end up looking like that when we do so it's accepted to look like that. Now had Manny's model been much younger, and not pretty then it probably would be a different story. We expect to see beauty in that instance not ugliness. So unless there's an historical significance attached to that image or the model happens to look like a loved family member or friend, it will fall on death eyes so to speak regardless of how beautiful it actually is.
Edited for clarity. |
Caution.
While I agree that my unfortunate example serves your agrument well enough, I need to draw your attention to art history from the contemporay vantage (later than the Baroque). After many battles with the idea of aesthetics as the sole measure (born out of the concept of man (and artist) as the master of nature), we have gone on (or returned to) the idea of a subordination (even irrelevance) of aesthetics to a larger whole (borne out of the understanding that man himself is an object of nature). This is a more humble position which reveals content as form and form as a byproduct of content, as opposed to an attribute self-consciously created by the artist as master of his universe.
From here, the idea of aesthetics as the sole measure of art is no longer tenable.
Message edited by author 2007-10-07 15:35:10. |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 02:45:42 PM · #87 |
^^^^^ wud he say? I thought we was talkin bout peckers bein ugly?
;)
|
|
|
|
10/07/2007 02:49:20 PM · #88 |
I think he says that we've realised we're a part OF nature, not apart FROM nature, and nature isn't always "pretty"...
or maybe he's just saying that peckers ain't ugly! :D
Message edited by author 2007-10-07 14:50:00. |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 03:43:35 PM · #89 |
Or maybe natural peckers are ugly?
|
|
|
|
10/07/2007 04:25:20 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Or maybe natural peckers are ugly? |
...and fake ones are pretty? |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 04:25:32 PM · #91 |
| But it doesn't have to be pretty to be art. |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 05:20:51 PM · #92 |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 06:09:31 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Or maybe natural peckers are ugly? |
...and fake ones are pretty? |
How did this conversation become focused on the penis? Oh! Right! :op
The penis, due to it's 'out there' nature, has been depicted in art a lot more than the vulva. In the bathroom of my office, there's a BW photo of Michelangelo's David. He's one hunky hunk of a man. But his weeny is teeny. I'm just assuming, the artist chose to underemphasize his privates as not to distract from the entire piece of art. That said, my opinion is if private bits are taken out of context, they often lose their appeal. But in context they can be quite beautiful. And lastly, I agree with BeeCee that art is not art just by virtue of being pretty. |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 06:17:55 PM · #94 |
Perhaps Michelangelo had a teeny weeny and wanted to present that as normal :--)
|
|
|
|
10/07/2007 06:22:59 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Perhaps Michelangelo had a teeny weeny and wanted to present that as normal :--) |
So many comebacks... so little time. ;o) |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 06:51:39 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Perhaps Michelangelo had a teeny weeny and wanted to present that as normal :--) |
Ouch!! That was a 'low blow' there Leroy! ;)
ROFLMAO |
|
|
|
10/07/2007 06:57:12 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Perhaps Michelangelo had a teeny weeny and wanted to present that as normal :--) |
I hear that there are "show-ers" and "growers." I think they were both growers. |
|
|
|
10/08/2007 02:50:54 PM · #98 |
Someone on Model Mayhem suggested I do a series of these. I always felt this shot was very artistic not porn at all. Don't think it would be allowed in my DPC portfolio. Too Bad. I feel its one of my most interesting images.
WARNING Adult Image...What Lies Beneath |
|
|
|
10/08/2007 03:55:57 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Redjulep:
In the bathroom of my office, there's a BW photo of Michelangelo's David. He's one hunky hunk of a man. But his weeny is teeny. I'm just assuming, the artist chose to underemphasize his privates as not to distract from the entire piece of art. |
Perhaps David was doing steroids. |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 10:50:30 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Fine Art = a classification of a style of pictures indicating skill and mastery of technique. Attention to detail |
I call bull shit on that statement. Many commercial photographers have more skill and mastery of the craft than most "fine art" photographers.
If I'm not mistaken Leonard Nimmoy is being displayed as a fine art photographer and he sucks (as a photographer). |
I think your mistake is in believing that I am agreeing with everyone who labels themselves or is labeled by others as a Fine Art photographer. Individuals are individuals. I was merely trying to define a bit more clearly a few terms that might make it easier to sort out the responses to your question. That's why I said that it is a style of picture rather than a group of photographers.
"Commercial photographers having skill and mastery of the craft" may be an accurate statement when applied to certain technical aspects of imaging. But the "fine" artist has a measure of control over the nature of their art in terms of how it may be perceived by their audience. By means of example, if they want it to be interpretative, it is deeply interpretative. If they want it to be realistic, it is fastidiously realistic. Commercial photographers are simply not called upon to address these issues because this is not part of the scope of their profession or their goal.
Commercial photographers are commercial photographers and artists are artists.
I don't believe I made any statements regarding where Leonard Nimoy fits into all of that. I've seen his pics and I've seen yours. I'd say that perhaps you might be being a bit shortsighted to say outright that his pics suck. Particularly if you wish to display your comments in a thread with the example you linked to in your initial post opening this discussion on 'fine art'.
Message edited by author 2007-10-10 09:49:58. |
|
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: 03/13/2025 07:28:33 AM EDT.
