|
Forums >
General Industry >
Do you think the term "Art" is used to loosely?
Art is indeed subjective but do you think many nude and glamour photos are taged as art too loosely? Oct 23 06 11:05 pm Link Oh crap, not another one of these. For some reason these topic cause me to go temporarily insane and I cannot be held responsible for my actions. RB Ps. I'm ok now, I will just say that this thread belongs NOT in the critique forum, and quietly go back to what I was doing. Oct 23 06 11:23 pm Link No I think that too many people use "art" as a way to justify the crap they produce. Oct 23 06 11:25 pm Link I've had my work called art.. Proof that the word no longer has any meaning.. Oct 23 06 11:27 pm Link W.G. Rowland wrote: Well you really have something with the one armed woman, that's pretty good. Oct 23 06 11:29 pm Link yep Oct 23 06 11:30 pm Link there are two words I like when being discussed by MM: - Photoshop - Art now this is about art...here is what I think about it:  a graphic battle image I made long time ago...  Oct 23 06 11:37 pm Link Koray wrote: Original...unique...and entertaining...your stuff. Oct 23 06 11:41 pm Link anything can be art as long as your BS is good. At the Moca, the Museum of Contemporary Art, in LA, and african artist took elephant dung and stuck it onto canvases and then painted it poorly, he was a featured artist. There was also female artist featured at the MOCA who covered her vagina in paint, and then made impressions on the canvas, to see her show you had to walk through a big fabric vagina. Art, is anything. P Oct 23 06 11:42 pm Link Yes. -D Oct 23 06 11:45 pm Link carlo Di Paolo wrote: On the contrary: I don't think they're recognized as art enough. Don't you get tired of helping the art world enforce the perception that photographers aren't "real" artists? I think nude/glamour/fetish photographers put as much [if not more] energy, creativity and commitment into what we do than pretty much anyone. Just doing what we do takes more guts than most of what I see in fine art academia. Oct 23 06 11:49 pm Link Moved to General Mayhem. Amazingly, there's actually a thread that is on-topic... Oct 23 06 11:51 pm Link Melvin Moten Jr wrote: Basically. I know some phenomenal "art photographers" that couldn't capture sexy or sensuality to save their lives. But put them on a figure study and they murder. Shooting ANY type of photography WELL is a skill set. But some people are so uncomfortable with nudity and especially sex that they assume any photography that incorporates those elements couldn't be creative or artistic. Oct 23 06 11:54 pm Link carlo Di Paolo wrote: I always look to see who is doing the tagging. Oct 24 06 12:11 am Link KM von Seidl wrote: Nice quality content on your port. Bottom row, far left pic is super. Oct 24 06 06:02 am Link No one should call their own work art unless someone else who has some idea of what they are talking about calls it that first. Photography is a craft with which you can capture images or create art, in much the same way as a writer can produce pulp fiction or a great novel. The audience determines if its the former or the latter. Oct 24 06 06:19 am Link age old question what is art? you call it what you will. I don't think that nude bondage etc makes it art although this style of work has produced art. Naming it something doesn't make it art nor does shocking or offending someone make it art. Perhaps if what you create causes one to think then maybe it is art? Oct 24 06 06:48 am Link Yes. Oct 24 06 07:40 am Link parkus photography wrote: You gotta admit, those vagina paintings are a gas and the clean up is more fun than playing with yourself. Oct 24 06 07:52 am Link One mans garbage... Oct 24 06 07:58 am Link Fu..ed Art is often called FART !! EL Oct 24 06 07:58 am Link Absolutely. Oct 24 06 08:19 am Link Art is determined by the intent of the one creating the image. You can gauge the quality but the intent is set. Oct 24 06 08:24 am Link |
