Who isn’t willing to say this? A palette and canvas, given human intervention, could be art. At this point they’re not.
This is exactly how I would have replied as well.
What an absolutely bizarre interpretation. What on Earth leads you to think “All photos are art,” is anything even remotely similar to saying all art is equal?
This, and not only how cool they look, but how well they give a token of the truth, yet shield and protect the viewer from the harsh reality of existence. IMO art is about deceptions and illusions which make the irrational, chaotic, strife of existence more bearable, and why ridicules Jeff Kooz balloon animals are art, as well as color pieces done by four year olds, savants, and/or elephants, etc.
IMO high minded purpose for art is what we need to get over, when science is clearly the way to uncover the truth and go forward in this direction. However the question might still come up that if truth lets us know existence can be meaningless, and that we are just random bits of floc in an indifferent universe striving away, then what is the function of art if not to provide an escape?
And if that is not politically correct, and is only considered to be a luxury for snobs and the like, then let the church get into the act, and let them gaze upon their religious spectacles.
Because the statement, “All photos are art” conveys no information. You might as well say, “All photos are pixels”.
So let’s say an art student leaves a blank canvas on the bench at an art museum by accident: art? How about if they intentionally leave it there? How about if someone else left it there unintentionally and the art student tells other visitors that it is art?
Really? No information at all? So you’re saying that these two sentences are exactly the same:
“All photos are art”
“Ahdev ljbet q tyeer”
Both of those, to you, are conveying the same amount of information?
The people in the thread you referenced who are saying “there are no limits to art” would say that each of those setups, under the right circumstances, could be art.
What the right circumstances would be in each of those cases I’d have to leave for those guys to specify. I’m just telling you what they mean by “there are no limits to art,” not claiming to know the entirety of their theory of art.
These questions aren’t that hard to answer.
No, it’s not art if it’s left by accident. But yes, if it was intentional. If it is framed as art, then that makes it art no matter who created it or their intention. If no one recognizes it as art, then no, it isn’t art.
But even if I said all of it was art, how does that impact what the OP does? Does it cheapen his photographs? Does that mean there’s no such as “good” or “bad” art?
Is he an artist because he wants to project his soul into physical matter, or is he an artist because he wants to make things that are recognizable as art?
I know no more about photos or art with either statement.
Consider this.
A man walks through a forest, and sees a fallen tree. He thinks, “This fallen tree makes me think of the inevitability of decay, and the cycle of birth, growth, death, and rebirth.”
The man goes and gets his friend, and brings him to the tree, and says, “Doesn’t that tree look awesome?”
The man takes out his iPhone, takes a quick picture of it, and emails it to his friends, with the title, “Check out this cool looking tree!”
The man goes home, gets his $5,000 camera and associated equipment, spends forty five minutes adjusting apertures and getting just the right color temperature, and takes a picture of the tree. He calls it, “The inevitability of decay, and the cycle of birth, growth, death, and rebirth,” and shows it at a gallery.
At which step do you think this experience suddenly turns into art?
The answer, of course, is at the very first step, when our fellow perceived a deeper meaning or aesthetical experience in the world around him. He becomes an artist when he attempts to share that aesthetical experience with other people.
So, if I put two pictures in front of you, and tell you, “One of these was snapped by a professional photographer with twenty years of experience who carefully considered framing, lighting, &c, and the other was snapped by your aunt Gertrude, who just happened to luck into a perfect composition. Which is which?”
If you can’t tell, how really useful is your definition of art?
I honestly don’t see how that can possibly be true.
As long as you people who reject using science to identify art also reject using it to prove pink unicorns don’t exist, I don’t really have a problem with your thinking. Otherwise you are inconsistent.
Claiming that something is art because the creator wanted it to be is just woo. There’s nothing actually different about the result. Put it to experimental test, and no one can tell the difference. It’s just an unfalsifiable claim people make because they either want to lord it over other people or just don’t want to think about the problem.
Or, of course, they accept that nonscientific stuff is not inherently invalid. But I won’t hold my breath on seeing them say that when someone brings up Creationism.
So tell me what you learned about art or photos since hearing the statement, “All photos are art.”
I’ve read your post about twenty times, BigT, and I still have no idea who “you people” is or if you disagree/agree with the OP.
Well, I learned that there’s these things called “photos,” and that, apparently, they’re a form of art.
Seriously, are you fucking with me here? Your objection to a very simple and not deeply nuanced statement is utterly bizarre. The only way I can imagine that someone could hear the phrase, “All photos are art,” and think it conveys no information is if they don’t speak any English.
And when I try to tie this tangent back to what I originally said, I’m completely mystified. Do you, in fact, not speak English? That would explain a lot about this conversation.
That’s not a complete answer. How about the case where it was left unintentionally and then the art student tells people it is art? Does him saying it is art make it art? How about if he tells one person it is art and then tells another that it is just something left behind: does it alternate between being art and not being art? How about if he changes his mind? Does it then stop being art?
What an artist says about a work has no bearing on the work’s value or meaning. If I see a work of art and think, “Man, that’s shit,” and the artist says, “No, it’s a powerful statement on man’s inhumanity to man!” I’m not under any requirement to agree with the artist. Likewise, if I see a work of art and think, “Man, that’s a powerful statement on man’s inhumanity to man!” and the artist says, “No, it’s just a piece of shit that I rattled off in an afternoon,” I am still not constrained in my reaction to the art by the artist’s own intent or opinion of his work.
Right, and as far as the OP’s dick waving comparison, there is something to that, but what can artists do about it? If one is an artist, they usually create because they must. They basically cannot stop themselves, and that is why aggressive promoters of art and artists are often two different people.
From Hell’s Gallery I compose at thee
With my last brush, I stroke at thee