There’s me, lurking in the Flickr Central group as I’m prone and there’s me spotting a thread “But is it art?”. So clearly my lurking’s gonna take a more specific turn. Heh heh.
Well, apparently the thread was prompted by this article on the BBC website, which of course I had to visit as well.
I think my favourite quote, from the comments section of the BBC page, is:
“Sorry but to me it’s just another load of artistic twaddle !!!.”
Capped only by this from the Flickr Central thread (with a quick credit to Mike Foster):
“Art is what is considered by pretentious twats trying to sell you something to be art. This is the rule of art.
A similar analogy is the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes.”
Er… yes… precisely!
Too late. We’re all convinced of your artistic leanings. You’ll have to try harder.
Well, you may all be convinced, but that’s not really my problem is it? I mean, let’s face it, if you think I have artistic leanings then… well… the word “gullible” springs to mind.
my opinion (of course, whose else would it be?)
I’ve gone back and forth and chatted with several here and there, and I’ve come to the conclusion….ART is in the eye of the beholder. If someone
To me, the shots in that blog post are awful.
Oops, the last part of my comment was deleted by accident.
If someone thinks of my photos as art and will buy them, hot damn! If not, oh well.
LOL
Heh heh. Too right. If someone wants to bung me a load of dosh cos they think my pics are “art”… well… I can’t really see me refusing.
Just so long as they understand I don’t pretend they’re art, claim they’re art, or kid myself that I’m “doing art” when I’m taking them.
urgh…I would have a hard job justifying that as art, but then take a look at http://www.annafox.co.uk/ she has just been nominated for the 2010 Deutsche Börse Photography Prize (£20,000) for documentary pictures that look like they should belong on farcebook….
This is what I am meant to be doing as recommended by a lecturer!!!!
Now you see its precisely that sort of stuff… or, more specifically, the way its lauded… that causes me to take the position I do. With which you’re totally familiar of course.
Here in the States, a former Supreme Court justice, Potter Stewart, once wrote of hard-core pornography that while it was hard to define, “I know it when I see it.”
Perhaps this definition, if we may call it such, could be used for Art as well? We cannot clearly define it, but we (as individuals) know it when we see it.
Thus leaving the question of Art to be in the eye of the beholder.
That’s about the best definition I’ve come across so far, although even that’s wanting as it seems to address the appreciation of art rather than saying anything about what art is.
I’m beginning to suspect also that a lot of the debate that still seems to surround this topic arises because different people are using the word “art” in different ways.