4 ms·
There's also those who believe art requires skill, talent and/or craft. There are photographers who believe that Adams is art because of these factors and down
by jboy55 5y ago
There's also those who believe art requires skill, talent and/or craft. There are photographers who believe that Adams is art because of these factors and down play the 'decisive moment' photographers. There are painters who say that only highly realistic portraits are "art".
In Art School we had a big debate whether a random 4x6 photograph pulled from their parent's photo drawer was 'art'. What we came to agree was, that if someone put that photo into a gallery and framed it, it would be perceived as art. Figuring out what changed, it was the inferred semiotic sign that an artist has bestowed on the object that changed it into art.
Then the next question is, is the art any good?
- TheRealNGenius 5y agoGood points. My answer to that question is no as it reaches a certain threshold: https://w0nder.herokuapp.com/posts/9fjM1tOJO7MWX4fYw3AU2Q==/what-s-art-and-what-s-not https://w0nder.herokuapp.com/posts/9fjM1tOJO7MWX4fYw3AU2Q==/...
- jboy55 5y agoYes, I think though in your matrix where an Artist has intended a thing to be art, but its not perceived to be it, is mostly a form of communication breakdown. An artist has tried to send a signal, but it hasn't been received. A famous artist may decide to leave a can of soda on a picnic table in a park. You observe it, not knowing who placed it, and it looks like litter. Later, you see a photo that the artist took, with a statement about their artistic intent. You now will see that object in your mind as an art piece to be considered, it might not just be considered well. Certainly every artistic statement does not require appreciation from the public as a quality statement, anyone who's gone through art school knows that. However, it most likely is the case that if an Artist intends something to be art, and no-one perceives it as such, its not 'good art'.
- jboy55 5y agoIt occurred to me that in the case where someone created a thing and didn't intend to create art, but you received it as art, that is indeed art. Was the famous urinal 'art' to Duchamp, before Duchamp exhibited it as 'art'?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- TheRealNGenius 5y agoYou may have misinterpreted certain aspects of my blog post. If someone created something that they didn't intend as art, no matter what my reception is, it's not art. So before Duchamp exhibited it as art, it is certainly not art.
- jboy55 5y agoMy point is, Duchamp saw it as art, where the creator of the thing did not. So what was the matrix like for Duchamp? I argue he saw something was art, that was not created to be it.
- TheRealNGenius 5y agoAh okay apologies, thought Duchamp made it. But yeah, I'd agree with you, they saw something as art that was not created to be. So they're just wrong. It's like if someone couldn't find a toilet so they just took a dump on a display toilet at Home Depot. Someone comes along and calls it art. They're wrong. That's just fecal matter.