Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[yamo]

http://www.newyorksydney.com/art-single.html

 

[Cheeetar]

Yes. Regardless of how crap it is, it is art.

[Awayfarer]

Looks like somebody's vacation photos to me.

[Yanlin]

Looks like somebody's vacation photos to me.

[Sergius]

If it's photography, it's the quality of the photos what counts, techniques etc. more than what is being photographed.
Well, both are important, but from a technical standpoint it is.

[inaluct]

No, I don't care. That is not fucking art. There might be a few good pictures in there, but there is no fucking way that someone's vacation pictures are art.

[Ampersand]

As Andy Warhol demonstrated, if it's in a museum, then it is art. Art is defined by the pretentiousness of it's environment.

[Creamcorn]

Most of these photos are more less art.

One such good example of one being art is the picture fourth row, third selection. It was a very nice wide angle of this lake or whatever it may be called, which shows a relaxing view of the surroundings, with someone laying in the grass to help articulate the mood of the photo more. I'd go more into detail of this but I'm not going to defend anyones points of view for these works.

[Derakon]

If it's photography, it's the quality of the photos what counts, techniques etc. more than what is being photographed.
Well, both are important, but from a technical standpoint it is.

I would go with exactly the opposite. You can take fantastic photographs with a cell phone camera and terrible photographs with a perfectly-set-up $10000 DSLR. It's the subject that makes the photo interesting, not how it was taken.

Put a different way, as a technical exercise you could make a perfectly accurate photorealistic painting of a desk. It would be impressive on its technical merits, but it wouldn't necessarily be artistic.

[Strife26]

Didn't we discuss this before?

I'll bring up the 'Dada' movement.

Signed Urinal = Art!

[Warlord255]

As a dude going to art school, these need more polish.

The still from the fifth one - with the feet in the mud - could be a good piece of photo art. Except when you click on it it's some random video sequence of bullshit, etc.

Marcus Rothko painted canvasses solid black and called it a religious experience. He got acclaim and recognition as an artist, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to dig up his corpse and grind his bones into a fine powder.

[Drakale]

There is no universal definition of art. What is art for someone might not be for another. Thats why you should never judge a piece according to its monetary value but according on how you perceive it.

To me, those pictures are crap. And my nefew crayola pictures are awesome.

[Vactor]

I would go with exactly the opposite. You can take fantastic photographs with a cell phone camera and terrible photographs with a perfectly-set-up $10000 DSLR. It's the subject that makes the photo interesting, not how it was taken.

You may be able to take a terrible photograph with an awesome camera, you cannot however take a fantastic one with a cell phone camera, you cannot control a cell phone camera at all, ie aperture, film speed, exposure length.  Expensive cameras don't make good pictures, but they do make good pictures possible.

[Raz]

No, this is not fucking art. I hate the pretentiousness of modern 'art'.

[Creamcorn]

No, this is not fucking art. I hate the pretentiousness of modern 'art'.

Are all photos modern art to you? A quick opinion of that: even before the technology to develope the type of clear photos of what we have now a days. Would be to most people that the time of the photo's creation would not be "a long time ago." I'm not so sure about all of your opinions though, yes to me photos are not old enough to be considred non modern art.

Isn't every painting a representation of something that exist within the mind of creator, even if in an image or just a random mess of ideas? Think of lego blocks for this and how two or three pieces for children can be snapped together and can become a rocket ship. Than one thousand pieces for someone who was either really bored or just has too much time on thier hands work. One is simple the other is complex, one is crude the other is more impressive; but in the firm structure of their creators they're both rocket ships. Though maybe the kid's can be a submarine with just a flip of the perspective! Can one be more imaginative or just be easily manipulated? Yeah, go ahead answer that question before you call someone's work pretentious again.

(Though I certainly do think that they should have taken more pictures and that they can with out a doubt do *much* better. I'd say more but I just don't feel like it.)