Accidentally made a work of art?

[Diego Pigozzo]

Your analogy completely and utterly fails to describe what you think it does.

It may fails for you: others may find it quite on the spot.

[spidermike]

It may fails for you: others may find it quite on the spot.

Art being justified by pseudo-science. Unfortunately all too prevalent.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Art being justified by pseudo-science. Unfortunately all too prevalent.

Once again: if this thread or the expressed ideas are worthless or senseless to you doesn't means they are worthless or senseless to everybody.
Nobody is a golden standard.

[spidermike]

Once again: if this thread or the expressed ideas are worthless or senseless to you doesn't means they are worthless or senseless to everybody.
Nobody is a golden standard.

Surely the only 'golden standard' is logic. Only then can it be 'sense' as opposed to 'senseless'. 
I have no problem with you (or anyone) holding a definition of art, but when a scientific concept is introduced to support their position and that concept fails at the most basic level of enquiry, challenging it will enable 'everybody' to make their own minds up as to its validity. Is this pedantic? Probably. Is it necessary? IMO, yes. Otherwise positions become inarguable, supported by irrelevancies and non-sequiturs.

I will leave it at that. Have a good day.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Surely the only 'golden standard' is logic. Only then can it be 'sense' as opposed to 'senseless'. 
I have no problem with you (or anyone) holding a definition of art, but when a scientific concept is introduced to support their position and that concept fails at the most basic level of enquiry, challenging it will enable 'everybody' to make their own minds up as to its validity. Is this pedantic? Probably. Is it necessary? IMO, yes. Otherwise positions become inarguable, supported by irrelevancies and non-sequiturs.

I will leave it at that. Have a good day.

Once again: if it fails for you that doesn't means it fails for everybody.
If logic is your golden standard, good for you.

[spidermike]

If logic is your golden standard, good for you.

[sits dumbfounded at the implications of that one!]

[Diego Pigozzo]

[sits dumbfounded at the implications of that one!]

My dumbfounded books says that the theory of special relativity was originally proposed in 1905.
The same dumbfounded books says that Newton's law of universal gravitation was published in 1687.

So, if you're right, Newton's law of universal gravitation was useless until 1905.
Good look supporting that claim.

[spidermike]

My dumbfounded books says that the theory of special relativity was originally proposed in 1905.
The same dumbfounded books says that Newton's law of universal gravitation was published in 1687.

So, if you're right, Newton's law of universal gravitation was useless until 1905.
Good look supporting that claim.

How on earth do you reach that conclusion: it's one of those non-sequiturs I was talking about.
Unfortunately it seems you are right...logic does escape you.

[Diego Pigozzo]

How on earth do you reach that conclusion: it's one of those non-sequiturs I was talking about.
Unfortunately it seems you are right...logic does escape you.

I think we agree to disagree.
Have a nice day.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

"The overlapping bodies recall the bonded brothers in Jacques-Louis David's neoclassical painting...

Now, Isaac, we seem to be entering Virgin-Mary-toast territory

If that toast is art, than photographers can create art accidentally too. Come to think of it, based on the price of that toast, the toaster must be much better artist than I am.

[Isaac]

"Laughter as Diversionary Tactic: We fall into this fallacy when, unable to come up with a reasoned response to an argument, we try to dodge it by pretending that it is not worth taking seriously."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Virgin-Mary-toast was a rather serious example, Isaac. A chuckle after an argument is presented is not the same as a laughter instead of an argument.

[amolitor]

Is Isaac actually simultaneously demanding evidence in one thread, and refusing to provide it in another, talking to the same guy in both threads?

That is a new level of boldness.

[Isaac]

Virgin-Mary-toast was a rather serious example, Isaac.

Is your serious argument that the photograph does not plainly and intentionally show a group of figures, or that the painting does not plainly and intentionally show a group of figures?

Is your argument that the photograph does not transform "the event into a solemn act that bound the wills of different individuals in a single, creative gesture" or that the painting does not?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Is your serious argument that the photograph does not plainly and intentionally show a group of figures, or that the painting does not plainly and intentionally show a group of figures?

No. Both your statements above are correct, i..e, both the photograph and the painting show a group or figures, obviously. My argument is that the accidental similarity between the two, something arrived to in the post-conceptual analysis only, does not make a documentary photograph art anymore than an accidentally burned toast does. Or does it?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Is your argument that the photograph does not transform "the event into a solemn act that bound the wills of different individuals in a single, creative gesture" or that the painting does not?

This edited part came after I wrote my reply above, so I'll address this one separately.

I do not think that the photograph transformed the event, it merely documented it. The painting, however, had a better chance of being the transformative force.

[Isaac]

I do not think that the photograph transformed the event, it merely documented it.

The event was the replacement of a small flag by a large flag. The photograph transformed that into a symbol of struggle, solidarity and victory.

[spidermike]

The photograph transformed that into a symbol of struggle, solidarity and victory.

People's minds do that, not the picture.
Someone on the other side of a political fence could take that same picture as being a symbol of American hegemony.

[Isaac]

People's minds do that, not the picture.

People's minds do everything that results in their understanding of a photograph!

Someone on the other side of a political fence could take that same picture as being a symbol of American hegemony.

And that too would be a transformation of an event - the replacement of a small flag by a large flag - into, as you say, a symbol.