am i missing something?
- Started
- Last post
- 49 Responses
- vaxorcist0
There have been numerous high-art-world photographers with amazing resumes and dead bland work.... but that's okay..... I used to think they slept with the right critics, but I don't care anymore...
- oey0
I don't like most of photography, not saying it's not art, but you press a button most of the times and ok...
Girls press buttons too, far more interesting most of the times.
- ukit0
I hate everything. Therefore it's not art.
- pr20
if you asked yourself what is a photograph - capturing a moment of whatever just a tad more unique that bland day-to-day existence - then, yeah all the examples fit the profile. They are not that amazing, but they do capture something "unique".
- 74LEO0
Art in general is subjective. You may see nothing in those pictures but to someone else it may be the greatest picture they have ever seen.
- ThePublics0
all these neo-bland fauxtogs suck. period. it's fucking boring and I'm sick of it appearing on my internet.
- bjladams0
i like the one with the sea and the tree. also, the first one reminds me of the stairwell from uni- not that i had many memories there, but still nostalgic- however, if i had paid money to go to an art show, i would feel disappointed to see these
- VikingKingEleven0
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/8726216@N05/4930479199/" title="Sn-art? by dallasguy1378, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/4930479199_7d519a929f.jpg" width="500" height="334" alt="Sn-art?" /></a>
- gramme0
Marcel Duchamp realized art can be made from anything, and that anything can be considered art depending on context. This led him into a deep depression that in turn drove him to suicide.
Robert Rauchenberg realized art can be made from anything, and that great beauty can be found in the mundane. This led him to be one of the most prolific artists of the 20th and early 21st century.
As someone who sees a great deal of objective truth in the world, I think art is about as subjective as anything can possibly be. If you have an opinion about something that is being called art, good. If you can articulate your reasons for liking or disliking something, great.
Pondering whether something is art or not doesn't really seem worthwhile to me.
For the record: I can't stand the photo style that started this thread either. But I don't consider it worth bitching about. The world is full of too many horrific logos and terribly kerned headlines for me to care. :P
- ukit0
Actually Duchamp lived to be 81 and died of natural causes.
- gramme0
I might have confused him with one of his Dadaist contemporaries.
- ali0
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
- Peter0
Those photos are art if they were taken by a famous artist.
If not they're pretty shitty.
- inteliboy0
If it doesn't make me think, or feel something - then it aint art in my eyes. Normally mean not much thought has gone behind it in the first place.
Those photos don't really say much, nor have an interesting aesthetic. Even that snapshot low-fi element is missing. Just kind of boring really.
- ukit0
The way you guys make it sound, there is not good and bad art, only good art.
It would be like saying any design I don't like isn't actually design. Like this:
(the header of the most popular design site on the web, ironically)
It's bad design from my point of view, but it's not up to me to judge whether it actually is design or not. It serves that purpose the same way these photos, shitty as they might happen to be, serve the purpose of being art.
- Peter0
"The way you guys make it sound, there is not good and bad art, only good art.
It would be like saying any design I don't like isn't actually design."
-
I'd put it differently. Unlike the bad design you posted there's no effort made in those photographs. Agreed, there's readymade/found art, but the photos on the first page doesn't even qualify as that.
If we are to see beauty in everything there would be nothing considered art as everything would already be it. You have to draw the line somewhere.