Hi Asher,
'So, perhaps, my concept of artistic merit, 'prettyness', is what you mean as art.'
As in most things, it depends where you are coming from, how set in our ways, that we are.
My version of art is more a) 'human creative skill or its application' whereas yours appears to be b) 'work exhibiting this'. The 'arts' are 'associated with creative skill, as opposed to scientific, technical or vocational skills'. These are just dictionary definitions, 'book learning', but a few examples describing more or less how I view this stuff. It seems every word needs defining, a cigar is not a cigar, unless it's Freud's, when it is what, exactly?
Anyway, I was saying that if you are looking at the final image, and describing it as art, then I would have to be considering the final image in a different way then I normally do, trying to see if it has any 'artistic merit', or 'prettyness' (pretty- attractive in a delicate way, without being truly beautiful or handsome). I was thus trying to revise what I see when viewing, trying to redefine my interpretation of what I refer to as 'art' with how you may view it. I can't do that, so I have to translate your use of 'art' into something that makes more sense to me. Does that make sense to you? For example, dierk's B&W of the policeman's bum, you note the pose, the significance in that, I'm looking for the manufacturer's name on the gas mask.
I think that for me, the original mandolin photo from Charles, it is the subject material that has the artistic merit. The photo itself is not art, for reasons Charles has said, and which I understood by just looking at the photo. I am not sure how one could get a photo 'worthy of my definition of artistic merit' from such a subject, without involving gimmicks of some sort. However, Charles is trying. His years at art school may help, but I suspect it may hinder. I think I gave my thoughts in a previous post, summarised in the paragraph beginning ' Exactly the same photo could have been taken by many photographers,....'
Maybe you need to set fire to the mandolin, use its own flames to illuminate the photo, is your art worth that, (you'd only get a few minutes to get it right)? Or, burn some sticks, photoshop it in. Or draw/paint flames, in or out of a graphics package...., maybe do what the great painters did, get someone else to do the boring bits...
Best wishes,
Ray
'So, perhaps, my concept of artistic merit, 'prettyness', is what you mean as art.'
As in most things, it depends where you are coming from, how set in our ways, that we are.
My version of art is more a) 'human creative skill or its application' whereas yours appears to be b) 'work exhibiting this'. The 'arts' are 'associated with creative skill, as opposed to scientific, technical or vocational skills'. These are just dictionary definitions, 'book learning', but a few examples describing more or less how I view this stuff. It seems every word needs defining, a cigar is not a cigar, unless it's Freud's, when it is what, exactly?
Anyway, I was saying that if you are looking at the final image, and describing it as art, then I would have to be considering the final image in a different way then I normally do, trying to see if it has any 'artistic merit', or 'prettyness' (pretty- attractive in a delicate way, without being truly beautiful or handsome). I was thus trying to revise what I see when viewing, trying to redefine my interpretation of what I refer to as 'art' with how you may view it. I can't do that, so I have to translate your use of 'art' into something that makes more sense to me. Does that make sense to you? For example, dierk's B&W of the policeman's bum, you note the pose, the significance in that, I'm looking for the manufacturer's name on the gas mask.
I think that for me, the original mandolin photo from Charles, it is the subject material that has the artistic merit. The photo itself is not art, for reasons Charles has said, and which I understood by just looking at the photo. I am not sure how one could get a photo 'worthy of my definition of artistic merit' from such a subject, without involving gimmicks of some sort. However, Charles is trying. His years at art school may help, but I suspect it may hinder. I think I gave my thoughts in a previous post, summarised in the paragraph beginning ' Exactly the same photo could have been taken by many photographers,....'
Maybe you need to set fire to the mandolin, use its own flames to illuminate the photo, is your art worth that, (you'd only get a few minutes to get it right)? Or, burn some sticks, photoshop it in. Or draw/paint flames, in or out of a graphics package...., maybe do what the great painters did, get someone else to do the boring bits...
Best wishes,
Ray