Quote:
Originally posted by AGRO1
You call that "artwork" ?? Taking a good photo and using Photoshop?? Some may like it, personally I find them very un-original... Yes, art is very subjective, and countless schools have each proposed their own ways to define quality, yet they all seem to agree in at least one point: once you have accepted their aesthetic choices, the value of your work is determined by its capacity to transcend the limits of its chosen medium in order to strike some universal chord. The only universal chord here is using Photoshop and other digital programs to tweak a certain medium - not much originality there.
"Pure" art is aesthetic rather than utilitarian. Purely aesthetic objects can be said to have, at the very least, entertainment value, which can be considered useful. There is nothing PURE about what Alan does. Is it entertaining, yes, for some. Is it art, I think not.
|
At least I get credit for good photographs.
Freudian slip?
Talk about unoriginal. Here is a quote (not even your own) from the thread that got you banned on Rennlist back in 2004. Just another cut an paste?
And... Don't selectively copy from a definition of art. Why don't you show the whole definition, eh? Such as these paragraphs from the definition that you plagiarized without proper credit.
'Art' the processes of man. It is in essence the foremost expression of human creativity. As difficult to define as it is to evaluate, given that each individual artist chooses the rules and parameters that guide ones work, it can still be said that art is the process and the product of choosing a medium to express one's self, a set of rules for the use of that medium, and a set of values that determine what deserves to be expressed through that medium, in order to convey either a belief, an idea, a sensation, or a feeling in the most effective way possible for that medium.
Opinions differ as to what can and cannot be defined as art; for example, can somebody make art if the creation was not intended to be art? Is art always a form of individual expression? Will a work of art only be art once it is finished?
The definition of art is elusive. It is difficult (or perhaps impossible) to come up with a single definition that will include all forms of art and please everybody.
Thus, the word art connotes a sense of ability, of the mastery of a medium, of the efficient use of a language so as to convey meaning, immediacy or depth. Making this judgment requires a basis for criticism: a way to determine whether the sensory input meets the criteria to be considered art, whether it is perceived to be ugly or beautiful. Perception is always colored by experience, so a reaction to art as "ugly" or "beautiful" is necessarily subjective. Countless schools have each proposed their own ways to define quality, yet they all seem to agree in at least one point: once you have accepted their aesthetic choices, the value of your work is determined by its capacity to transcend the limits of its chosen medium in order to strike some universal chord.
Consider photography: are photographs of un-posed, "real life" to be considered art? The common answer is overwhelmingly yes, even though many of these photographs simply seek to mechanically reproduce what people can see with their own eyes. This is also one of the goals of found art: to recontextualize the art of everyday objects.
For the WHOLE text on the definition of art, here is the link:
http://geocities.com/arv_i_nd/art.html