Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: If this doesn't boil your blood, have your partner check to see if you're dead.  (Read 17417 times)

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art

Or, is art really as much or more in the eye of its creator?

Nature does not become Art because it is depicted by an artist, but rather the artist's interpretation may become a work of Art.


Peter

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com

As he often is, Peter's right on the money. Art can be created with brushes, chisels, spray paint, words, cameras, and dozens of other things. The fact that the meaning of "art" is so fuzzy leads to truckloads of BS being written about "art," including the BS in this thread.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

mezzoduomo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349

Nature does not become Art because it is depicted by an artist, but rather the artist's interpretation may become a work of Art.


Peter

Not sure how nature got pulled in here. Please note: I used 'creator', not Creator. Let's substitute 'artist', as in....
"Art is in the eye of the creator artist."

Should anyone save the artist get to define or categorize something as art?

Logged

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art



(Should anyone save the artist get to define or categorize something as art?)

Nature, because Mr Lik's work is a landscape.

Of course. There are many people, that don't make art, that categorize art every day all of the day and always will.

Peter
« Last Edit: December 13, 2014, 04:12:42 pm by petermfiore »
Logged

mezzoduomo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349



(Should anyone save the artist get to define or categorize something as art?)


Of course. There are many people, that don't make art, that categorize art every day all of the day and always will.

Peter

That's twice you've missed my point. Oh well...
Another time, perhaps.
Logged

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art

That's twice you've missed my point. Oh well...
Another time, perhaps.

Now I know, I'm on solid ground....

Peter
« Last Edit: December 13, 2014, 04:20:39 pm by petermfiore »
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882

May I suggest that art is part of one's imagination? What you imagine it to be .... it is? Far to much silly threads on here and other forums, as well as books, about how to define it. No doubt there will be another thread started in the near future with the definitive answer. :(

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com

May I suggest that art is part of one's imagination? What you imagine it to be .... it is? Far to much silly threads on here and other forums, as well as books, about how to define it. No doubt there will be another thread started in the near future with the definitive answer. :(

And then the poster will be scolded for being "late to the party".
Logged

mezzoduomo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349

Now I know, I'm on solid ground....

Peter

Maybe an example will help. When Brancusi made Bird in Space, it was art, because he said it was art. He wasn't the only person who considered it art, but even if he was, his was the definition that mattered. Customs inspectors called it 'a manufactured metal object', and later categorized it under 'kitchen utensils and hospital supplies'. But he put it into the world in good faith as art, and therefore....it is and always was and will always be...art.
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com

Maybe an example will help. When Brancusi made Bird in Space, it was art, because he said it was art. He wasn't the only person who considered it art, but even if he was, his was the definition that mattered. Customs inspectors called it 'a manufactured metal object', and later categorized it under 'kitchen utensils and hospital supplies'. But he put it into the world in good faith as art, and therefore....it is and always was and will always be...art.

Therefore, proceeding from your example, that which I (or Lik) put into the world and call art is, and always will be, art (not that I disagree with you).
Logged

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art

Maybe an example will help. When Brancusi made Bird in Space, it was art, because he said it was art. He wasn't the only person who considered it art, but even if he was, his was the definition that mattered. Customs inspectors called it 'a manufactured metal object', and later categorized it under 'kitchen utensils and hospital supplies'. But he put it into the world in good faith as art, and therefore....it is and always was and will always be...art.


It was his concept and creation therefore it's art....The artist's successful interpretation.

Peter
« Last Edit: December 14, 2014, 09:00:21 am by petermfiore »
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com

Gosh! Maybe I should stop calling my photographs 'kitchen utensils and hospital supplies' and start calling them Art instead.   ;)
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123

Since humankind seems unable to arrive at a universally acceptable answer to "What is art?", perhaps there really isn't any such thing.

Humankind seems unable to arrive at a universally acceptable answer to "What is football?", and yet I am watching a game of football.
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882

It was his concept and creation therefore it's art....The artist's successful interpretation.

Peter

Do we have to believe someone when he/she creates something that they believe is art? If someone creates an image of a dog s**t and calls it art am I compelled to agree?

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art

Of course not. Although it might be interesting to try to understand what their point of view.

Exactly!! The point of view is what I find interesting.

Peter
« Last Edit: December 14, 2014, 12:19:11 pm by petermfiore »
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com

Do we have to believe someone when he/she creates something that they believe is art? If someone creates an image of a dog s**t and calls it art am I compelled to agree?
I think many of us who create art don't really care whether you or anyone else agrees.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website

I think the feeling is mutual.

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123

Exactly!! The point of view is what I find interesting.

Not exactly: "it might be interesting to try to understand their point of view" :-)


One of the Huxley's opined that they prefer to understand a person's opinion before they disagree,  and that seems sensible to me.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up