Maxwell Digital Art wrote:
A bullwhip in a guys butt I think they said wasnt

Thanks for ruining what was supposed to be a serious discussion

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Thanks for ruining what was supposed to be a serious discussion

The amazing thing isn't that someone ruined the 'serious discussion' it is that it only took 1 posting to do it.

Mark Reese Photography wrote:

The amazing thing isn't that someone ruined the 'serious discussion' it is that it only took 1 posting to do it.

You put bullwhip and butthole in the same sentence and I don't care if it's about the Holocaust...the discussion is dead. lol

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
You put bullwhip and butthole in the same sentence and I don't care if it's about the Holocaust...the discussion is dead. lol

Actually he's referring to the Robert Mapplethorpe Self portrait which DID show in MoMA so I think it was consider Art by some in the know. And actually illustrates the point that art is like porn. You know it when you see it but you can't make an ironclad written definition of it. And 5 people in a group trying to write one will have 6 different opinions of what is and isn't..porn or art.
To me art is doing something because you feel you have to do it or you are less. NOT because anyone else likes it and definitely NOT for the money. Art is a personal experience that when shared may or may not mean anything. I see things in my images no one else could possibly know. Doe that make them less/ Nope..Casue you'll see things I maybe didn't notice and that will make it a good experience for you. We each have a field of experience that colors everything perception we have. Again, one person's art is another's porn..or maybe matches that couch in the living room so perfectly in its use of color.
Mike

Maxwell Digital Art wrote:
I have photos like this one
[img]="http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1334361"]Kat #19[/img]

People tell me it looks like a senior photo or just a snap shot.  But I have known this model for 3 years, shes posed for me a dozen times.  I captured something in that shot I never did with her before, her deep in thought, worried about her wedding (its tomorrow).  When I look at that photo I feel everything compassion for everything she's worried about and hope for her future. 

Maybe I only feel that because I know the model.  And maybe to the world it will always just be a snap shot.  But to me, its Art.  So

Or you are just to personally involved to see how ordinary the image actually is. That's why I never select the final imges for my shows or publications. I am to personally involved and choose an image, like you and this image, that to me is spectatular for the very reasons you like yours. And no one else could ever guess them..probably wouldn't even care. So it's a scrap. A souviner. Not art. Or maybe personal art not ready for public consumption. If the viewer is required to understand YOUR field of expierence and disreguard theirs then you are asking way to much of them. I do this all the time.
Mike

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
Pretty simple question...only 3 words even...but what an impossible one to answer! I recently stated in a thread that "art is supposed to evoke emotion," and I received a response stating that I was treading on a slippery slope by trying to define what art is. Granted...this person was completely right in saying that I shouldn't try to define art for other people, because I can really only define it for myself...BUT...is my statement a fair one to make? I feel it just may be.

I'm genuinely curious...so my question to you is this...can you think of anything that to you warrants a title as powerful as "art" that doesn't make you feel anything? (post pictures if you have examples...I love seeing new photos)

Mike Walker wrote:
to me art is doing something becasue you feel you have to do it or you are less. NOT becasue anyone else likes it adn definately NOT for the money. Art is a personal expierence that wehn shared may or may not mean anything. I see things in my images no one else could possibly know. Doe that make them less/ Nope..casue you'll see things I maybe didn't notice and that will make it a good expierence for you. We each have a field of expierence that colors everthing perception we have. Again, one person's art is another's porn..or maybe matches that couch in the living room so perfectly in it's use of color.
Mike
Mike

you type wisely Mr. Walker

Mike Walker wrote:
My "today" definition of art is Kaitlin Lara nude in the desert with me behind the camera. And people WILL feel something when they see the images. But art is also about experiencing something. Not just feelings but intellectual stimulation. Also a bit of loose storytelling. Maybe empathy or a chance to live vicariously too.
Mike

Thanks for actually answering the question...and nude in the desert? Sounds exciting...as long as I don't get sand in my vag...I'm game.

Maxwell Digital Art wrote:
Now I know a model is gonna want an escort if I ask her, "So you wanna go for a drive in the desert?"

Actually hardely ever do they bring one. Like 1 in 20 times. the escorts usually come along when we shoot locally. go figure? Another Conundrum...like defining art
Mike

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Art is also a diminutive of Arthur.

-Don

Lol...I love that you closed such a lovely statement with such a horrible joke...lol...oh goodness...I really have a problem. I laugh way too much about stuff like that.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Thanks for actually answering the question...and nude in the desert? Sounds exciting...as long as I don't get sand in my vag...I'm game.

i garentee you will get flies....

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

Thanks for actually answering the question...and nude in the desert? Sounds exciting...as long as I don't get sand in my vag...I'm game.

Ready when you are! And I always carry lots of water both for drinking AND for 'cleaning up" when necessary. LOL!
Mike

Anjel Britt wrote:
Also personally i think SKILL (with the chosen medium) is a major part of it

Yep.  Craft is necessary to art.  Picasso was a trained and skilled classic painter before he invented (disputed, of course) Cubism. 

-Don

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
*sigh*...how is it possible that I've only had one reply so far that actually answered my question? How did my thread go so wrong?

I guess you don't find single word poetry artistic or descriptive, oh well, guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.

C

Ransom J wrote:
IMO Those that consciously TRY to define art will never create it.  Art happens.  Kinda like shit.

I think that's wrong.  Those that set out deliberately to be artists know what they're about and are the ones most likely to succeed.  Art isn't something you luck into, it's something you deliberately do or make, and one can't make something he doesn't understand.

-Don

P.S.  That's like getting lucky when repairing a car or building a house.  Might happen if you don't know squat, but not likely.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:

I think that's wrong.  Those that set out deliberately to be artists know what they're about and are the ones most likely to succeed.  Art isn't something you luck into, it's something you deliberately do or make, and one can't make something he doesn't understand.

-Don

I didn't say art is something you luck into, I said it happens.  Art isn't accidental, but it isn't contrived either.  People that TRY to make art rather than TRY  to convey their emotions, ideas, or feelings onto a canvas (be it photographic in nature or not) will fail every time IMO.  Great works of art weren't made with the idea of making "art" they were made with the idea of getting across the soul of the artist, and art happened.

Ransom J wrote:
Great works of art weren't made with the idea of making "art" they were made with the idea of getting across the soul of the artist, and art happened.

"Mademoiselles d' Avignon" was pretty damned deliberate and it changed the face of the 20th Century.  So were the buildings of Frank Lloyd-Wright or the photography of Man Ray.  They were deliberate actions by studied artists to push boundaries and make art.

You can dump all the soul you want into something, but without craft and an understanding of what art is - at least one school of art - you're not gonna make anything memorable.  Unless maybe you're Grandma Moses.

Respectfully,
-Don

Studio 210 wrote:
... I am sure their definitions vary. Take Jackson Pollock's works for example. Some will call it some of the greatest art ever and other's will say it is crap. Who is right?

I don't have the answer on Pollack.  I do know it his famous splatter paintings were a deliberate effort to sell more work by making a (very obscure) statement about the nature of art.  He too was a classically trained painter, and not just some schmuck. 

Frankly, I don't much like either the paintings or his calculated method, which may be either pushing the boundaries or a scam.    But...the huge consensus is that either those paintings are art, or the way he decided to make them is.  In something like this, taking on the huge consensus of art buyers, art critics and art galleries and museums is like opinion suicide. 

Those who say they don't know about art, but know it when they see it are most likely those that adore fluffy kitten calendars.  It's both lazy and disingenuous.

Thanks, BTW.

-Don

P.S.  OK, that was fun.  Thanks folks.  Gotta get my beauty sleep, but feel free to continue without my sarcastic comebacks.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:

"Mademoiselles d' Avignon" was pretty damned deliberate and it changed the face of the 20th Century.  So were the buildings of Frank Lloyd-Wright or the photography of Man Ray.  They were deliberate actions by studied artists to push boundaries and make art.

You can dump all the soul you want into something, but without craft and an understanding of what art is - at least one school of art - you're not gonna make anything memorable.  Unless maybe you're Grandma Moses.

Respectfully,
-Don

And on the flipside you can have all the craft in the world and have studied all day long in a "school of art" but if there was no soul poured into the piece then  what you have is a pretty picture.  No more no less.


But opinions are like assholes.  And that's mine.