3 ms·

If we decided that art could only be produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned', the

If we decided that art could only be produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned', the world would be a far less interesting place.

PakG1 15y ago
Curious if you can point out any examples of well-appreciated art that was not produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned'? I can't at the moment. Just curious what you might have in mind. If we're talking about amateur stuff that gets thrown out at random, that's cool. But I'm not sure that putting well-appreciated art and random amateur art in the same category is a constructive argument. Like even all the really good Youtube artists who are hitting it big these days go bling bling on equipment and put a ton of effort into their work, and they're getting paid via Youtube ads to boot.
- ciex 15y ago
  First thing to pop into my mind is xkcd. Certainly Munroe didn't need professional equipment of any kind when he started the site, still I'd argue that it is a work of art. By making a distinction between 'professionals' and 'amateurs' you stipulate that nobody can cross this border by chance, it would always require a directed effort; and that's nothing I'd call constructive.
  - Retric 15y ago
    Go back to the start of XKCD and it mostly sucks (IMO). And he currently makes his living from XKCD so he is clearly a professional today. Where each of those lines crossed is difficult to say, but at best I think it demonstrates the transition.
    - PakG1 15y ago
      Agreed. As well, the art in XKCD is not in the drawings, it's in the wit. Bet you guys the wit takes a lot of effort and doesn't just come bubbling out of his head. Look at what professional comedians say about how they make their jokes. Bet the process is pretty much the same.
- devinj 15y ago
  "Fountain", by Marcel Duchamp. You might argue that Duchamp was an experienced professional at art in general (being 30 and the producer of less-famous works), but it's a urinal that he purchased in a store and signed. It's also one of the most influential art pieces of the 20th century. It, and his "found art" movement in general, are the cornerstones of the redefinition of art and mark the invention of conceptual art. Art no longer has to do with who made it, or how, or how much effort was put in. It's about intent. If you buy a pencil and say it's art, it's art (if perhaps not very good art).
  - ZeroGravitas 15y ago
    Apparently Duchamp actually went to great lengths to create or to modify the items he "found", and then denied changing them at all, in what is perhaps yet another level of irony. Or so I've read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp#Doubts_over_readymades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp#Do...
edu 15y ago
That's not what s/he is saying. He says the pictures are neither art (defined as “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power” by the New Oxford American dictionary) nor the work of a professional photographer (such a photo-journalist) that will use expensive equipment and maybe plan the photo (such as a fashion photographer).
Wickk 15y ago
Missing the point. These people simply took their phone, snapped a picture and put it on the internet. And then after the fact, are reacting this way. They're not shooting for a project, to build their portfolio, etc. They simply took a picture of something they saw.

PakG1 15y ago

Curious if you can point out any examples of well-appreciated art that was not produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned'? I can't at the moment. Just curious what you might have in mind. If we're talking about amateur stuff that gets thrown out at random, that's cool. But I'm not sure that putting well-appreciated art and random amateur art in the same category is a constructive argument. Like even all the really good Youtube artists who are hitting it big these days go bling bling on equipment and put a ton of effort into their work, and they're getting paid via Youtube ads to boot.

ciex 15y ago
First thing to pop into my mind is xkcd. Certainly Munroe didn't need professional equipment of any kind when he started the site, still I'd argue that it is a work of art. By making a distinction between 'professionals' and 'amateurs' you stipulate that nobody can cross this border by chance, it would always require a directed effort; and that's nothing I'd call constructive.
- Retric 15y ago
  Go back to the start of XKCD and it mostly sucks (IMO). And he currently makes his living from XKCD so he is clearly a professional today. Where each of those lines crossed is difficult to say, but at best I think it demonstrates the transition.
  - PakG1 15y ago
    Agreed. As well, the art in XKCD is not in the drawings, it's in the wit. Bet you guys the wit takes a lot of effort and doesn't just come bubbling out of his head. Look at what professional comedians say about how they make their jokes. Bet the process is pretty much the same.
devinj 15y ago
"Fountain", by Marcel Duchamp. You might argue that Duchamp was an experienced professional at art in general (being 30 and the producer of less-famous works), but it's a urinal that he purchased in a store and signed. It's also one of the most influential art pieces of the 20th century. It, and his "found art" movement in general, are the cornerstones of the redefinition of art and mark the invention of conceptual art. Art no longer has to do with who made it, or how, or how much effort was put in. It's about intent. If you buy a pencil and say it's art, it's art (if perhaps not very good art).
- ZeroGravitas 15y ago
  Apparently Duchamp actually went to great lengths to create or to modify the items he "found", and then denied changing them at all, in what is perhaps yet another level of irony. Or so I've read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp#Doubts_over_readymades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp#Do...

edu 15y ago

That's not what s/he is saying. He says the pictures are neither art (defined as “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power” by the New Oxford American dictionary) nor the work of a professional photographer (such a photo-journalist) that will use expensive equipment and maybe plan the photo (such as a fashion photographer).

Wickk 15y ago

Missing the point. These people simply took their phone, snapped a picture and put it on the internet. And then after the fact, are reacting this way. They're not shooting for a project, to build their portfolio, etc. They simply took a picture of something they saw.