# What is art and do we even need it?



## Overread (Jan 29, 2017)

So I got to  thinking earlier - what the heck is art anyway. 

If I think of art at school its sketching, drawing, painting, pottery, photography - its creativity. But its not boxes or tables; nor is it cards or bicycles because those things are Design and Technology - they are designs not artworks. 

Some say that art isn't those things, but its a creative work that evokes emotion and an emotional response in the viewer. And if we take that line as a description of what art its the field suddenly explodes open; especially if we consider how much of a reaction and what nature of reaction counts as a "reaction". Now we can add drama and music; dance and poetry as artworks for they can most certainly evoke emotion in the viewer.

However with such open definitions we start to get confused. Is art linked to skill and technical achievement? Well ask anyone paying for it or anyone viewing anyone charging for it an they will likely argue tooth and nail that professional stuff must have quality and technical competence of "a certain level" to count. 

And yet we have the Tate Modern, where dirty coffee mugs and empty rooms are prized forms of artwork. Items where the amount of creative input is what most would consider trivially childish and which often require a good essay or three to back up the "inner meanings".


So now wait an empty room is art? 


To me art is, in today's world, a term which is almost worthless. I think once art was a thing, it had rules and a definition. It was something that as concrete and which had rules to follow for what did and didn't count. Certain things were in and others were out; and whilst those rule and boundaries did change over time, they didn't go away until relatively recently. 
So now we live in an age where almost anything can be an art; where its combined with so many things and spread over so many mediums that we can't pin it down. We even understand how art is derived from the natural world around us; how many of the core compositional theories are based upon patterns viewed in the natural world.




So to me art is meaningless. It means nothing save an aspiration to a title of yester-year. A sketchy hazy link toward the great art masters of the past. In todays world art means nothing; but it means something to be a photographer. It means something to be a painter, a carpenter, a designer; a musician. These are things where we can have measure; where we can think within boxes just a little to have a title of worth; to have skill and talent. 


So art - its very definition today is meaningless - and even if you don't agree with that I can bet that your understanding of art will differ to thsoe next to you. That its defining features will change from person to person - a word that has such varied meaning as to be near to impossible to bring it all together.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 29, 2017)

Overread said:


> So I got to  thinking earlier - what the heck is art anyway.
> 
> If I think of art at school its sketching, drawing, painting, pottery, photography - its creativity. But its not boxes or tables; nor is it cards or bicycles because those things are Design and Technology - they are designs not artworks.
> 
> ...



So your pictures are meaningless?  Photography is art. 

Why all the going on about it, or what is it or what it is not? 

Art is many things you have missed in your rant. Art is human expression, applied skill, imagination, and many, many, many, other things. It is at this core that makes us humans and separates us from other mammals. Art is everywhere and in virtually everything. Your computer, your cell phone, the cloths you wear, the car you drive, etc. 

Art is more than an opinion.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 29, 2017)

Art is the guy at the butcher shop that I get all my meat from.   He's a really nice guy and quite an artist when it comes to butchering up an animal or getting me the exact high quality cuts I want.


----------



## Designer (Jan 29, 2017)

We need art. 

Good art, though, not pretentious BS "art" that is hollow and meaningless, but meaningful art. 

We need art to nourish the soul, and we don't need charlatans playing us for suckers.

When you see BS, call it out.  Loudly.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 29, 2017)

Designer said:


> We need art.
> 
> Good art, though, not pretentious BS "art" that is hollow and meaningless, but meaningful art.
> 
> ...


Oh next lets discuss religion and the new president.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 29, 2017)

Design, in many cases, is art: tables, bowls, even some fountain are a form of sculpture.  Playing cards: the backs, and even the pips can easily be art, such as these.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 29, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Oh next lets discuss religion and the new president.


Look in the supporting members' forum.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 29, 2017)

And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his (Adam) mighty heart. Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, "It's pretty, but is it art?"
--Rudyard Kipling

There are moments when art atains almost to the dignity of manual labor.
--Oscar Wilde

I feel such love and reverence for Art that it saddens me to see it prostituted by persons who have neither the power to make others feel as they feel, nor the ability to make others think as they think; they hide their impotency under the cloak of "Art for Art's sake."
--Ricardo Flores Magon

Without music life would be a mistake.
--Friedrich Nietzsche

Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.
--G. K. Chesterton

If it were not for the intellectual snobs who pay, the arts would perish with their starving practitioners -- let us thank heaven for hypocrisy.
--Aldous Huxley

It does not matter how badly you paint, as long as you don't paint badly like other people.
--George Moore

All the arts in America are a gigantic racket run by unscrupulous men for unhealthy women.
--Sir Thomas Beecham

I believe in Michelangelo, Velasquez, and Rembrandt; in the might of design, the mystery of colour, the redemption of all things by Beauty everlasting; and the message of Art that has made these hands blessed. Amen. Amen.
--George Bernard Shaw

Joe


----------



## table1349 (Jan 29, 2017)

Well until there is a universally accepted definition of "art" then any following discussions are pretty much the photographers "coffee klatch."

In the modern lexicon, any definition of "Art" is nothing more than "alternative facts."


----------



## Designer (Jan 30, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Well until there is a universally accepted definition of "art" then any following discussions are pretty much the photographers "coffee klatch."
> 
> In the modern lexicon, any definition of "Art" is nothing more than "alternative facts."


People should become better educated.  Then, when they see pretentious BS, they should call it out, thus helping to educate others.

I blame uneducated art committees for the current flood of crap being bought, often using public funds.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 30, 2017)

Designer said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Well until there is a universally accepted definition of "art" then any following discussions are pretty much the photographers "coffee klatch."
> ...


Okay, calling you out on your BS then.  EVERY BIT of this is pure unmitigated OPINION based on education of other varied opinions that are all pretentious BS.   The concept that any one person or a committee of people knows what Art is or is not is pure pseudo educated pretentious BS.   

You can like something or not but to definitively call something Art or claim that it is not, or even judge that is either good or bad  is the height of pretension while wallowing in the depths of ignorance.  

Me, I am quite happy with the public funded macaroni picture my 5 year old granddaughter brought me from Kindergarten.  If I had a cubist Picasso hanging on my walls I would gladly take it down hang my granddaughter pasta.  

As Pablo said it himself: * "Art is a lie that makes us realize truth."*


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 30, 2017)

Art is the pudding of the soul, and not everybody likes tapioca.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go polish my bongos.  Peace out...


----------



## table1349 (Jan 30, 2017)

_"My favorite pudding is good old English apple pie."_
 Jeremy Bulloch


----------



## table1349 (Jan 30, 2017)

Appropos


----------



## Designer (Jan 30, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Okay, calling you out on your BS then.


Are you missing the point on purpose?


----------



## table1349 (Jan 30, 2017)

Designer said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, calling you out on your BS then.
> ...


Are you continuing to argue an illusion?


----------



## dunfly (Jan 31, 2017)

To quote Judge Potter Stewart in his ruling on pornography (which I would also apply to art):-

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced...but I know it when I see it ..."


----------



## sashbar (Jan 31, 2017)

I think art does not need a definition. You know it when you see it.

PS Just saw the previous post


----------



## Fred von den Berg (Jan 31, 2017)

For me, a well written story, a good performance at the theatre, an evokative song, a painting that captures the imagination, a poem that dances through the mind, a speech with reverberating rhetoric, philosophy that enlightens and explores, music that moves, a film that fascinates, comedy, tragedy, cabaret and ballet: all these things and more are art, and are essential.


----------



## dasmith232 (Feb 2, 2017)

Overread said:


> ... what the heck is art anyway? ... sketching, drawing, painting, pottery, photography ...


I think that none of these is art. Put sculptures, fashion, architecture and performing arts on the list, and I still think that none of these is art.

For me, art is a message. All of those things above are simply the medium for the message. Choosing the right medium can make the message much more effective (or not). But ultimately, if a photograph moves me, it's because of the message that I interpret from it. If I see an inspirational sculpture, it's still the message that is evoked inside me. Amazing architecture? Same thing.

The comment about "I'll know it when I see it" is right on. It's not the medium that did it though. It's when I hear/feel/see the message that resonates with me in some medium, that's art.


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 2, 2017)

In my opinion art has little to do with the viewer and everything to do with the personal expression of the artist. Many people assume something is not art because they either don't approve of it, don't feel anything when they see it, or don't understand it. I think if it represents the expression of the person who created it though, it then becomes art regardless if it means nothing or does nothing for those who view it.


----------



## dasmith232 (Feb 2, 2017)

Ah, you're right. My focus was on the receiving end of the message. Perhaps it's the ... (looking for the right word here) ... successful(?) or accepted(?) or otherwise widely regarded artist whose message is received by others.

I definitely agree that an _artist_ is one who is seeking to craft that personal expression. The _art _is the realization of that effort...? Maybe?

The existence of an artist is pretty concrete: anyone who declares to express themselves. The concurrence of art is subjective, and therefore open to debate when trying to define it.


----------



## Designer (Feb 2, 2017)




----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 2, 2017)

Designer said:


> View attachment 134349


When I lived in San Francisco I would go out to the gay bars quite often, and in SF there is an abundance of sexual freedom and liberation especially in the gay community. One thing I remember very vividly was how unlike in many of the other cities I've lived in, the bar staff in many of the bars in SF would not kick people out for having sex in the bathrooms, nor would they even discourage it, especially during Dore Alley Street Fair and Folsom Street Fair. I personally saw a lot of vulgar things that made me both gag and laugh and I don't think I could ever forget those things. That urinal installation photo you posted presents a very satirical representation of those experiences to me, and it made me laugh and think back on my time is San Francisco. I guess that makes it _art_.


----------



## Designer (Feb 2, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> I guess that makes it _art_.


When Marcel Duchamp posed this artifact and pronounced it "art", many people thought he was "taking a Pi$$", to borrow a British colloquialism.  And, of course, Alfred Stieglitz made a famous photograph of it which he then proclaimed was also art.  

So a found object, turned on its side, and entered into an art exhibition becomes "art" whether anyone else agrees or not.  Same for the photograph.


----------



## otherprof (Feb 2, 2017)

Overread said:


> So I got to  thinking earlier - what the heck is art anyway.
> 
> If I think of art at school its sketching, drawing, painting, pottery, photography - its creativity. But its not boxes or tables; nor is it cards or bicycles because those things are Design and Technology - they are designs not artworks.
> 
> ...


I once attended an exhibition of quilts at the old Craft Museum in Manhattan, which morphed into another shop for the Museum of Modern Art. There were old quilts and contemporary quilts, and some were quite astounding (quilts from the 1800's where the pattern only appeared when viewed from twenty feet away, like a Dali effect!) ,
but my favorite was a *spherical* quilt, about ten feet in diameter. The description of the quilt included the following:"Since this quilt is totally useless, it must be art."


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 2, 2017)

Designer said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > I guess that makes it _art_.
> ...


Hey, I'm just sharing my own interpretation of it. According to what many feel is required to define something as art, this fit's the bill based on how it makes me feel.


----------



## Overread (Feb 3, 2017)

As I said - Art is rather a useless term. It's a word devoid of unified meaning and even within a tiny sample size we already have multiple personal and quite varied differences in what does and doesn't count. Even to the point where some definitions are a state of mind at the time of creation rather than any property or quality of the final product.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 3, 2017)

Everything is Art, nothing it Art for Art does not exist.  There is only Like and Dislike  being  disguised under the term of Art.


----------



## amayax (Feb 3, 2017)

Maybe it has been mentioned before, I will read through the topic at some later time, but just my opinion on art in the modern day here. 

When looking at art, I mainly see three different kinds. Sometimes a combination, sometimes purely one, sometims somewhere inbetween. It is hard to categorize art, it is not a black and white thing, it is a spectrum of colors.

First there is the "traditional art", to just call it that. These are the works of art where the artist spend hours, days, or even weeks of work on a single piece. The longer you look at these kinds of works of art, the more you see. There are a lot of details, a lot of things that are going on, even if there only seems to be one. Looking at these works mystifies by the use of perspectives, colors, shapes, patterns, anything. A sandwich would be captured as that, a sandwich. With perfect balance of shapes and colors. Right away you feel hungry, you can almost taste it and smell it. you want that sandwich to be saved for years, not touched, not eaten. They tell a story, you expect something to happen, no matter if it is a lion leaping out of the canvas to rip your face off, the snell reaching your nostrils or just an eye blinking or focus shifting. Art appealing to the feelings and senses.

Then there is the "social media art" as I like to call it. Point and shoot pictures of something with a lovely filter. Coffee mugs that you can put on your wall as a break in the plain color, but not as decoration. Much like having the tv or the radio turned on while ironing your clothes, you are not really watching or listening, but that mere blur of sounds is a comfortable break in the silence. These kinds of pictures are meant to show, but not to tell. Nothing is happening, it is silent, blank. There is no story that is created by the image, there is a story that is created solely by your mind. You don't expect the coffee mug to be washed, you don't expect the room to be filled. The sandwich would never smell, and it would never strike, it would be a snap with a filter. Even my profile picture would fit there, as it is not something with a story, there is no action. There is depth, but nothing happening. Calling it "social media art" might sound degrading, but these works of art can actually reach the sweet spot between the other two categories, where nothing is happening, but yet there seems to appear a story. Art appealing to the backgrounds of life.

Finally, there is "modern art". The white canvas on which the artist has sneezed while his nose was bleeding, as formulated in the movie 'The Intouchables'. I once read a story about a few guys simply putting up some spots, shining light on an empty corner of a modern art as if it was one of the art pieces, and people walked up to it and stood still, admiring the lightfall on the empty corner. Or a guy merely putting his glasses on the floor and people admiring the creativity. Here is the twist I have noticed during my time as a psychology graduate, modern art is a psychological game. Where a beautiful painting is made to tempt the senses, the nosebleed-on-white-canvas painting is made to tempt the mind. You are supposed to sit down and think, what does it mean to you? The art is not made by the artist, but by the person looking at it. The artist merely creates a trigger. A sandwich would be photographed so up-close that you can see the perfectly horizontal layers without immediately recognizing it as a sandwich... or maybe, even rotated 90 degrees to not have horizontal, but vertical lines. Art appealing to the philosophical thoughts of the mind.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. Some people consider dance an art, others do not. Some people consider writing poetry an art, others do not. Some people consider fencing an art, others do not. And the same goes for more narrow categories. I once read an interview with Tom Six, the mind behind the Human Centipede Trilogy. Looking at the movies, most will be digusted, few would be intrigued. But looking at the thoughts leading to him making the movies, you find quite a lot of creativity. It is just a form of creativity that most consider to be 'gross', 'sickening' and 'inhumane'. It is still a work of art, even though it is not appreciated by most.

Now, of course there is also a difference between good art and bad art (often referred to as 'being no art'). In my Buddha pictures (Feedback on this very Zen image) you can see this at work. The first pictures would be bad art, but it slowly reaches art as progress has taken place. Of course, there might be someone somewhere who just totally loves the first set of pictures, and say it is art, then it is good art. because this is purely subjective. There are people who can stare at The Night Watch by Rembrandt van Rijn for hours multiple times a year, and there are those who view it from the corner of the eye, raise a brow and walk on. That doesn't make it universal good art or bad art, it makes it art.

Art is not a predefined region with solid boundaries. Which is what I love about it from my psychological point of view.


----------



## pgriz (Feb 3, 2017)

My wife told me the story of the time she was in art school and the teacher told the class that to pass, each student will have to produce something unexpected, that caused the teacher to have strong feelings and emotions.  At the end of the session, each student was required to hand in their completed work.  One student came up to the teacher and gave him a blank piece of paper, which he asked the teacher to hold in his hands, palms up.  Then he threw up onto it.

He got an A.


----------



## weepete (Feb 3, 2017)

Here is my opinion;

Art is a very broad church. I appreciate how this creates difficulty, because it can not be defined as a single thing. As such there are different theories about what exactly art is, how it is to be defined and therefore what is and isn't art.

Unfortunatley it is also contextual. Remember the dude who played the violin on the subway? So we also rely on social context to define what art is. So we do not always know it when we experience it.

The beauty of art is that it is a broad church. It can be that thing you see in a gallery, or the thing you see in a workshop. It can be that functional piece of design or it can just be a pretty picture you hang on a wall. It can be a an emotional experience, lack thereof, it could even be a concept.

The everything can be art therefore nothing is art is a strawman argument. Everything is things, therefore nothing is a thing, therefore everything is nothing. 

It's taken me a lot of time to get there.  Years ago I would have argued with myself about it too (though dechamps urinal, which I argued with my art teacher was ******* is still one man's vanity that the artworld bought into (and still does) ). But yeah, the answer is there is room for it all.  Except dechump. He is still an ass****


----------



## table1349 (Feb 3, 2017)

weepete said:


> Everything is things, therefore nothing is a thing, therefore everything is nothing.



That is where your argument falters.  Everything in not always a thing.  A rock is a thing, as is a tree, the sun, even humans are things.  What kind of thing is a thought, a dream, a laugh or to cry?  

Humans have a great need to prove to themselves that they are the superior being.  To do so they like to invent ideas, notice I did not say things, that they perceive as elevating themselves to some higher plane.  The concept of Art is one of those inventions.


----------



## Overread (Feb 4, 2017)

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... _fantasies_ to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE _LITTLE_ LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN _SHOW_ ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME _RIGHTNESS_ IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have _got_ to believe that, or what's the _point_—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”

― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 4, 2017)

I may not know art,  but I know what I like

sent by synchronized cardioversion


----------



## table1349 (Feb 4, 2017)

What is the point of a beautiful sunset, a bird in flight against a rich blue sky?  What is the point of the near boundless gap of the  grand canyon, the dizzying height of Victoria falls, the grand majesty we call Yosemite?  Are they there just to give man a point to believe in himself, to give him purpose?   If so it sounds like a lot of work from God, Mother Nature, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or what ever entity you believe created them just to provide man with some point of being.  All of them and thousands  and thousands upon thousands of other such things in this world have been reproduced by man and called ART.  Is man so frail, so weak, so pitiful that all of this had to be created to sooth his tenuous psyche?     

And what of that purpose, is it to start wars, exterminate races of people, to bar them from traveling this world freely as they choose.  Perhaps that purpose is to cheat them in business, rob them or their place where the call home of their possessions.  Maybe it is to build bigger, better stronger weapons of destruction so one group of men may dominate over another.  Or perhaps it is simply to believe so fervently in some deity that those that believe in such a deity will throw words of distaste, of hatred, and even commit acts of violence and murder upon others for failing to have the same belief.  Is the Mercy, the Justice, the Duty of which you speak.   Is it mans purpose to foul the waters, stench up the atmosphere, cut down the trees, clear the land, level the hills and mountains and devoid the earth of other species of living things? Is that the purpose of this most noble creature we call Man?

Perhaps it is mans purpose, his being, to plagiarize that which he sees and calls beautiful by copying it in some form or another.  For surely the painting of a sunset must be more beautiful that the sunset observed since it by the hand of man.  Only the brush of man made the subject we call Mona Lisa beautiful, the chisel that gave dignity to "David"  chipped from all that stone.  With out the hand of man was not the subject we call Mona Lisa still beautiful, did David not have dignity, did the vibrant hues of a glorious sunset not exist, or the great mountains have majesty?   

So tell me, which is more beautiful, which is the true "Art", the thing that is or the plagiarism of man when he copies those things for his own enjoyment by what ever means he has at hand at the time.  If there is such a thing as "Art" then for me it is in the flight of the bird, the majesty of the great mountains, the beauty of a sunrise or sunset, the rainbow.  That and all of nature that surround it, holds it in it's bosom and nurtures is Art.  Man is the plagiarizer, the defiler, for man has in his quest for "purpose" for "meaning" to his own existence has done his best to destroy these other thing. 

So stand proud upon the mountain man and proclaim your superiority to all that there is.  Be proud of this great thing that you have called Art that only the superior man could produce.  Be proud of your history of hate, destruction, violence, intolerance, and lack of caring for all but yourself for you have proven the point of your existence.


----------



## amayax (Feb 4, 2017)

Just stumbled on an article of Vice, about the writer's experiences at an "art" gallery.

"Look at these [...] guys! Just to be clear: They are in the process of spending three minutes looking at a photograph of a woman they don't know sitting on a chair. Can you imagine how quickly they'd be skipping over this photo if it was in their mum's holiday snaps?"


----------



## Peeb (Feb 4, 2017)

I'm sure that this has already been posted, but "art" is simply an anagram for 'rat'.

We need rats, as they are smart and empathetic and they make excellent pets.  Link:  5 Reasons Why Rats Are Good Pets 

Frankly, I'm unsure how they get along with ferrets.

So, there is your answer.  Happy to help.

Next question?


----------



## Designer (Feb 4, 2017)

amayax said:


> They are in the process of spending three minutes looking at a photograph of a woman they don't know sitting on a chair. Can you imagine how quickly they'd be skipping over this photo if it was in their mum's holiday snaps?"


It's not the same photo, though, is it?

My point.


----------



## Peeb (Feb 4, 2017)

I'm about as much a musician as I am a photographer, and I enjoyed a thread on my guitar discussion board between people alternately frustrated with one another as to whether or not they were 'artists'.

It was deathly important to some that this term apply to them, while it was mortally crucial to others that this term ONLY apply to players that they deemed 'special'.

Seems to be quite a bit of emotional baggage attached to this word:  "art".

(_Artfully posted by Peeb_)


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 4, 2017)

"artist" and "professional" have always been controversial (and often self-imposed) titles.


----------



## Peeb (Feb 4, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> "artist" and "professional" have always been controversial (and often self-imposed) titles.


So if I really want to step on toes- label oneself a "Professional Artist".

I like the sound of that....


----------



## Overread (Feb 4, 2017)

Peeb said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > "artist" and "professional" have always been controversial (and often self-imposed) titles.
> ...



A professional amateur artist, who also does weddings


----------



## droaingsong (Feb 5, 2017)

Professional artist and artist are again different things. We are back to the start of controversy.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 5, 2017)

droaingsong said:


> Professional artist and artist are again different things. We are back to the start of controversy.


True.  One is just imagining what they are, the other is a professional at imagining what they are.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 16, 2017)

This sums it up nicely.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 23, 2017)

Overread said:


> So I got to thinking earlier - what the heck is art anyway.



*Definition of art*

  skill acquired by experience, study, or observation
From Merriam - Webster, a noun.  I think it's appropriate that this is number one on the list, as it is the most basic of answers to your question. To often the pseudo-intellectuals seek to define art in their own limited area of experience, failing to realize the enormity of the term.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 23, 2017)

Rina21 said:


> As an artist (other than a photographer) you are required to take pictures of your art in order to submit your art digitally for exhibitions, presentations and for promotional purposes. I think that photo art is really hard and amazing. Sometimes you should be real magician to make it works.


Really.  Tell me what camera did Van Gogh use to photograph his works?  Leonardo seems to me to be a hasselblad kinda guy but I could be wrong.


----------



## WhaleDaughter (Mar 7, 2017)

While I don't think art has gone so far as to be meaningless, I do agree with some of your points. I think some people are so desperate to have a self-claimed identity validated by others that they pull and stretch and distort the meaning of what is art beyond reasonable recognition. It's become a very "hipster" kind of thing, and also popular to blame the viewer for not understanding the "meaning" even when the artist is completely unable to articulate it in any real way.

Art has always been a force that can move our culture in a forward direction. When done well, art can challenge us to see something from a new perspective, consider a different reality, and give us a window into the other that is so often shielded by our same. But I think this has been corrupted in the most recent modern times, with people wanting in on the cultural movement without having to apply any mindfulness to their contributions. I personally have to be very guarded in modern art exhibits because I easily get angry over the apparent lack of depth in the artist's intentions (not all modern art is this way, there are still some truly inspired artists doing brilliant work). Everybody wants the fame of being the next of the greats, but very few are willing to put in the leg work to earn that distinction.

My position is that yes, there is the potential for art all around us. But it's not laying not the ground waiting to be picked up like a dropped penny. It is something that takes skill and determination to unearth and present, and it's high time we started demanding this level of thoughtfulness and effort once more from our art and artists.

I also think it's a result of our current state of society that encourages and rewards mediocrity while actively trying to stamp out the truly exceptional and unique. But that's a rant for a different day.


----------

