Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I don't have any photographs or a camera for that matter. I've no interest in photography in general as I don't rate it as an art form. It's functional and useful but not art to me. Does the last picture posted not stir anything inside you? One glance at it and I see something that's hard-hitting, though provoking and upsetting. I really doubt an amateur would be capable of that. You should have a go though and I'll be happy to eat my words if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Some of the most awe inspiring art is sculpture. How the likes of Canova found the Three Graces hiding inside marble block is incredible. Perhaps as far away from Emin's 'art' that it is possible to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Playing the piano is functional, it's a skill and can be learned by anyone. Don't see many folk wheeling out Moonlight Sonata. I don't agree with that. How is it functional? It's clearly an art and is very creative. I don't agree that anyone can learn to play the piano. Some people have zero musical talent in the same way that some people have no sporting talent or no artistic talent. The skill does not equal the art, in any medium. It simply supports it - the technique allows the artist to say what they want to say. If that sounds pretentious, then so be it, but it's true. Sounds reasonable but I equate a photographer taking a great photo to a baker baking a cake or a bricklayer building a straight wall. They're not artists, just people doing their job with the skills they've picked up and the equipment they've bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Does the last picture posted not stir anything inside you? One glance at it and I see something that's hard-hitting, though provoking and upsetting. I really doubt an amateur would be capable of that. You should have a go though and I'll be happy to eat my words if you can. It does stir me because it's an emotional image. It stirs me in the same way as the news at 9pm stirs me when there's a country shown where children are starving. Does that make the camera man for BBC news an artist too? Or the person who records the sound - are they sound artists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendorage Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 No - see, you're doing it again. The only reason these 'philosophical interpretations' exist is so untalented artists can mask their 'work' behind this veil of pseudo-intellectual, spurious credibility. Which other discipline encourages the deliberate convolution of the ideas/themes behind its work? I can only guess it's because deep down, most modern artists know that what they're doing is a sham. These interpretations give charlatan artists the chance to equivocate, basically. Art isn't necessarily an expression of talent, yes. But if it's an expression of anything then that does require talent. Even allowing for personal tastes and the circular reasoning in your last sentence, most people can spot when a body of work expresses some idea, emotion, theme or just some aesthetic. Things like that don't just happen by accident and it does require talent, which is usually acknowledged and appreciated. Art is labelled rubbish when someone with no talent essentially tries to pull the wool over someone's eyes. It's not because they don't like it or don't get it. It's because it's hollow. It represents nothing, it expresses nothing, least of all whatever the 'artist' is trying to tell you it expresses or represents. There's a lot of art I don't particularly like, but I certainly wouldn't say it's rubbish. I think, regardless of what system of interpretation is in place, artists that crave credibility will cling to whatever movement and claim that they are/were part of something. Whether that is to continue fleecing praise from critics or the public, or to convince themselves that what they are doing (sham or otherwise) is important, I'm not sure. Charlatan artists might do this more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It does stir me because it's an emotional image. It stirs me in the same way as the news at 9pm stirs me when there's a country shown where children are starving. Does that make the camera man for BBC news an artist too? Or the person who records the sound - are they sound artists? I don't think the skill, vision, technique and imagination required to capture something like Tommy posted is even comparable to a camera man tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I don't think the skill, vision, technique and imagination required to capture something like Tommy posted is even comparable to a camera man tbh. Is it not more likely that the boy just clicked away all day at some orphanage then chose the best one out of 100s of photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Is it not more likely that the boy just clicked away all day at some orphanage then chose the best one out of 100s of photos? I'm sure most artists do numerous drafts before getting their work right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I don't think the skill, vision, technique and imagination required to capture something like Tommy posted is even comparable to a camera man tbh. What's the skill? Pointing and pressing the button. What's the vision? Starving kid reaching for food looking hungry and afraid. I think if I was present at the same scenario I would probably have the same vision. Technique can be learned so all of the focus etc in the world is not going to convince me that it's a highly talented individual who took the image. What imagination did he need? He saw something and captured it just as it was. That's what cameras do. He imagined a starving African kid looking hungry and desperate. That's because it's a photo of a starving, desperate African kid. What imagination does he need for that? Why is it not art if it's a video camera recording the moment but it's art because it's a still and in black and white? That makes no sense to me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Is it not more likely that the boy just clicked away all day at some orphanage then chose the best one out of 100s of photos? Exactly. We've all seen them taking hundreds and hundreds of images. They must discard countless photos and keep the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I'm sure most artists do numerous drafts before getting their work right? Pulease. I'm in the middle on this one. I do see Cosa's point, but there have still been some incredibly iconic photos which obviously someone has thought "nice one, this would make a great photae". Is that an art form? Well it probably is for what constitutes art these days, but it definitely takes more skill and technique to paint your interepretation of a scene onto a blank canvass, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Pulease. I'm in the middle on this one. I do see Cosa's point, but there have still been some incredibly iconic photos which obviously someone has thought "nice one, this would make a great photae". Is that an art form? Well it probably is for what constitutes art these days, but it definitely takes more skill and technique to paint your interepretation of a scene onto a blank canvass, imo. You've pretty much summed up my view as well, probably much better than I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 What's the skill? Pointing and pressing the button. What's the vision? Starving kid reaching for food looking hungry and afraid. I think if I was present at the same scenario I would probably have the same vision. Technique can be learned so all of the focus etc in the world is not going to convince me that it's a highly talented individual who took the image. What imagination did he need? He saw something and captured it just as it was. That's what cameras do. He imagined a starving African kid looking hungry and desperate. That's because it's a photo of a starving, desperate African kid. What imagination does he need for that? Why is it not art if it's a video camera recording the moment but it's art because it's a still and in black and white? That makes no sense to me at all. I don't, despite being a published photographer, necessarily equate photography with art. However, I would argue that often their is an artistic intent by the photographer. Unless you start editing and applying techniques, most video recording is simply a moving record of an event. However, when taking a photograph, you are preserving a moment that will never happen again (even landscape photographs don't match exactly due to myriad factors). What you chose NOT to capture in the frame, how you chose to focus, what you chose to draw attention to, how you light the scene (or work with the available light) etc are all factors that you must decide, along with essential technique such as exposure, before taking the shot. These will all work together to produce a composition that is not just the product of a random 'click'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I like this photo. It actually gives me the fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 What's the skill? Pointing and pressing the button. What's the vision? Starving kid reaching for food looking hungry and afraid. I think if I was present at the same scenario I would probably have the same vision. Technique can be learned so all of the focus etc in the world is not going to convince me that it's a highly talented individual who took the image. What imagination did he need? He saw something and captured it just as it was. That's what cameras do. He imagined a starving African kid looking hungry and desperate. That's because it's a photo of a starving, desperate African kid. What imagination does he need for that? Why is it not art if it's a video camera recording the moment but it's art because it's a still and in black and white? That makes no sense to me at all. You could simplify most things like that and make it sound basic though. What is the skill in painting? Stroking a brush up and down a cavas. Etc etc One (of many) definition of art is 'the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture'. I don't really think that applies to a camera man filming something for the news. Suppose you could argue those who film for cinema are artists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Just Came To Say Kello Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Anyone, right place right time, could have taken these: http://www.retronaut.co/2011/06/pulitzer-prize-for-spot-news-photography-1968-1999/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 AP did a photography night class at Stevenson, NAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 AP did a photography night class at Stevenson, NAP. I take pish photos, that's why I appreciate the skill that goes into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shapes Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Anyone, right place right time, could have taken these: http://www.retronaut.co/2011/06/pulitzer-prize-for-spot-news-photography-1968-1999/ I disagree. I think it takes some talent to be able to pick the right moment to take a photograph, edit it in order to maximise the emotion etc. As Tommy said previously, there is no way that you could pick up a disposable camera and create something like that. I know for a fact I couldn't take photos of that standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.J Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 This is - genuinely - one of the most incredible threads I've ever read on here. Aggressively degrading the one thing that humanity has actually managed to achieve that is, for want of a better word, beautiful. Incredible. It's no wonder I'm a misanthrope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Prince William Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Anyone, right place right time, could have taken these: http://www.retronaut...aphy-1968-1999/ Tbf the photographers have bravely put themselves in some scary situations there. Can't imagine many people would have the dedication or baws to hang around when some of that shit kicks off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 You could simplify most things like that and make it sound basic though. What is the skill in painting? Stroking a brush up and down a cavas. Etc etc One (of many) definition of art is 'the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture'. I don't really think that applies to a camera man filming something for the news. Suppose you could argue those who film for cinema are artists. Very few people can paint to any standard. Anyone can take photos to a decent standard. A few nights at some evening classes will make someone able to take decent photos and teach the technical side of the game. There's no way you can say the same about drawing, painting and sculpting to any sort of decent level. So it doesn't take creative skill or imagination to use a video camera but it does to use a still camera? That still makes no sense to me. The same image is art if taken by a photographer but not art if taken by a camera-man. Cinematography and Art direction are coveted oscars, surely the video camera is kind of integral to those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Tbf the photographers have bravely put themselves in some scary situations there. Can't imagine many people would have the dedication or baws to hang around when some of that shit kicks off. Agreed. Art, imo. The photographer has captured the essence of man over beast, conquering his fear as man takes his rightful throne in the animal kingdom. (RIP) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shapes Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Agreed. Art, imo. The photographer has captured the essence of man over beast, conquering his fear as man takes his rightful throne in the animal kingdom. (RIP) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I don't, despite being a published photographer, necessarily equate photography with art. However, I would argue that often their is an artistic intent by the photographer. Unless you start editing and applying techniques, most video recording is simply a moving record of an event. However, when taking a photograph, you are preserving a moment that will never happen again (even landscape photographs don't match exactly due to myriad factors). What you chose NOT to capture in the frame, how you chose to focus, what you chose to draw attention to, how you light the scene (or work with the available light) etc are all factors that you must decide, along with essential technique such as exposure, before taking the shot. These will all work together to produce a composition that is not just the product of a random 'click'. Do you not take hundreds of photos and only use the best? The ones that really show the desired emotion? I just don't buy into the artistic merits of photography, i'm sorry. It's obviously useful but I can't see it as art any more than joinery or cookery. Chefs get creative with their ingredients and techniques but I don't accept their artists - just skilled technicians. That's what photographers are to me - skilled technicians. I think your job involves learning and skill and what you do is cool and useful, it's not art though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Just Came To Say Kello Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Tbf the photographers have bravely put themselves in some scary situations there. Can't imagine many people would have the dedication or baws to hang around when some of that shit kicks off. I'll give you that one. I definitely wouldn't stick around. For artistic merit I wouldn't say they're up there though. They're just great photographs, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I'll give you that one. I definitely wouldn't stick around. For artistic merit I wouldn't say they're up there though. They're just great photographs, that's all. Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Just Came To Say Kello Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 This is - genuinely - one of the most incredible threads I've ever read on here. Aggressively degrading the one thing that humanity has actually managed to achieve that is, for want of a better word, beautiful. Incredible. It's no wonder I'm a misanthrope. Why is art the only thing humanity has done that's beautiful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Very few people can paint to any standard. Anyone can take photos to a decent standard. A few nights at some evening classes will make someone able to take decent photos and teach the technical side of the game. There's no way you can say the same about drawing, painting and sculpting to any sort of decent level. So it doesn't take creative skill or imagination to use a video camera but it does to use a still camera? That still makes no sense to me. The same image is art if taken by a photographer but not art if taken by a camera-man. Cinematography and Art direction are coveted oscars, surely the video camera is kind of integral to those. I've never seen an amateur photo as striking as the ones provided in this thread. Give me a few examples if it's as simple as you make out? Interested to see how easy it is. A camera man is just filming an event, I don't see the artistic merit in that. They aren't being creative or expressing themselves through their work. Cinematography is a different story but a guy filming the news or a football match isn't an artist in the same way a photographer is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I genuinely fail to see how photographs like these are either achievable by anyone with a camera, or do not contain artistic merit: http://www.worldpressphoto.org/photo/2012remiochlikgns1-al?gallery=2634 http://www.worldpressphoto.org/photo/2011guillemvallepo-3?gallery=890 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Very few people can paint to any standard. Anyone can take photos to a decent standard. A few nights at some evening classes will make someone able to take decent photos and teach the technical side of the game. There's no way you can say the same about drawing, painting and sculpting to any sort of decent level. So it doesn't take creative skill or imagination to use a video camera but it does to use a still camera? That still makes no sense to me. The same image is art if taken by a photographer but not art if taken by a camera-man. Cinematography and Art direction are coveted oscars, surely the video camera is kind of integral to those. You're still focusing on the difficulty level, which as far as I know is NOT the deciding factor as to whether something is artistic. And with the comparison between video and stills photography I've already addressed that point. They are two distinct media that share similar technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I genuinely fail to see how photographs like these are either achievable by anyone with a camera, or do not contain artistic merit: http://www.worldpressphoto.org/photo/2012remiochlikgns1-al?gallery=2634 http://www.worldpressphoto.org/photo/2011guillemvallepo-3?gallery=890 First ones a good eye and great photography. I fail to see anything spectacular about a man posing with a stick outside a mudhut though. There's obviously a good deal of thought in the first one to capture the most dramatic background and focal point that sticks right out at the viewer though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I've never seen an amateur photo as striking as the ones provided in this thread. Give me a few examples if it's as simple as you make out? Interested to see how easy it is. A camera man is just filming an event, I don't see the artistic merit in that. They aren't being creative or expressing themselves through their work. Cinematography is a different story but a guy filming the news or a football match isn't an artist in the same way a photographer is. I don't know what photos are amateur and what are professional to be honest so I wouldn't know where to start. I like sports photos a lot. The one of Kevin Kyle's face after he scored against the Hobos sort of thing. Or Ali and Fraizer raining blows on each other. They're cool as they chronicle the event and serve as a marker in history. They're no more art than the video recording of the goal or the fight though because they're just photographs. Some people might disagree with me here but I think DJing is kind of like photography. It takes skill and years of practice but it's not actually making music, it's just being a medium to convey someone else's music in the same way as taking photos is just replicating something else / someone else's work. You can pack feelings and emotions into DJ sets but it still doesn't make you a musician in the same way as being a photographer doesn't make you an artist. DJs who think they're artists because they can beat match a few records are hilarious. Kind of like photographers who think they're artists because they take photos of cracks in the pavement, leaves on a tree or some inanimate object at extreme close-up distance. The only sort of DJing that I rate as being musically creative is the turntablist / scratching techniques where something new is being created by the DJ. 99.99999% of DJs suck and have little talent IMO yet people still fawn all over them as if they were some sort of creative genius - it's all bollocks. At the end of the day, it's just playing records. Some people who call themselves DJs can't even do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 You're still focusing on the difficulty level, which as far as I know is NOT the deciding factor as to whether something is artistic. And with the comparison between video and stills photography I've already addressed that point. They are two distinct media that share similar technology. Sorry Wheatley, but difficulty is intrinsically linked to my definition of art. That's just the way I see things. Not saying i'm right, it's just the way I make sense of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I don't know what photos are amateur and what are professional to be honest so I wouldn't know where to start. I like sports photos a lot. The one of Kevin Kyle's face after he scored against the Hobos sort of thing. Or Ali and Fraizer raining blows on each other. They're cool as they chronicle the event and serve as a marker in history. They're no more art than the video recording of the goal or the fight though because they're just photographs. Some people might disagree with me here but I think DJing is kind of like photography. It takes skill and years of practice but it's not actually making music, it's just being a medium to convey someone else's music in the same way as taking photos is just replicating something else / someone else's work. You can pack feelings and emotions into DJ sets but it still doesn't make you a musician in the same way as being a photographer doesn't make you an artist. DJs who think they're artists because they can beat match a few records are hilarious. Kind of like photographers who think they're artists because they take photos of cracks in the pavement, leaves on a tree or some inanimate object at extreme close-up distance. The only sort of DJing that I rate as being musically creative is the turntablist / scratching techniques where something new is being created by the DJ. 99.99999% of DJs suck and have little talent IMO yet people still fawn all over them as if they were some sort of creative genius - it's all bollocks. At the end of the day, it's just playing records. Some people who call themselves DJs can't even do that. I was going to use DJing as an example of what you might perceive as art but you obviously feel the same way I do on that. Fair enough on the rest. I get where you are coming from but just can't agree. It all comes down to your definition of art I suppose and there are many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 First ones a good eye and great photography. I fail to see anything spectacular about a man posing with a stick outside a mudhut though. There's obviously a good deal of thought in the first one to capture the most dramatic background and focal point that sticks right out at the viewer though. Did you read the story behind it on the link Billy? Like any piece of artwork hanging in the National Gallery the story behind it gives you much more of an insight into what the artist/photographer was trying to achieve and makes the artistic merit even more obvious. Quote from composer Howard Goodall: "There is nothing accidental about good composition". Absolutely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I was going to use DJing as an example of what you might perceive as art but you obviously feel the same way I do on that. Fair enough on the rest. I get where you are coming from but just can't agree. It all comes down to your definition of art I suppose and there are many. DJing as an art form is way overrated. To mix and put 2 records together is a skill that can be learned by most people. Unless you're talking about Q-bert, Mix Master Mike, DJ krush, DJ Craze or some other absurdly talented turntablist who actually make their own sounds using vinyl by scratching, DJing and just mixing is not really all that impressive any more. Try actually making decent music and then I'll take you seriously as an artist. As for people playing on laptops using MP3's claiming they're DJs . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Did you read the story behind it on the link Billy? Like any piece of artwork hanging in the National Gallery the story behind it gives you much more of an insight into what the artist/photographer was trying to achieve and makes the artistic merit even more obvious. Quote from composer Howard Goodall: "There is nothing accidental about good composition". Absolutely true. Oops never noticed the wee text underneath. It does indeed give it more meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Oops never noticed the wee text underneath. It does indeed give it more meaning. Just to point out as well, that first photo was taken by the French photographer who was recently killed in Homs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Just to point out as well, that first photo was taken by the French photographer who was recently killed in Homs. You've got to admire the guts it must take to go into those places armed with nothing but a vest and a camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 there was a photography competition that was shown in a museum I used to work at. it was a wildlife competition and the winning entry was a picture of a panther taken in the middle of the night. the important factor, in this particular discussion, is that the photographer was in bed asleep when the shot was taken as he'd set up the camera to go off with a motion sensor. naturally this caused some consternation. the point I'm making is that it's easy to simplify something as pointing and clicking or putting paint on a canvas, the measure of art is the output and not the process. (the process is hugely interesting in many cases, but not essential to whether or not something is art as I see it) In next week's lecture I'll explain what I've learnt about contemporary art after a year of working in a 'Visual Arts Centre for the Arts and Creativity'. May be nsfw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Sexington Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Been a good thread this. While I'm certainly not an extreme 'Bunterist' with the belief that all art is ****, I'm most certainly from the Kello school of thought that most modern art is pretentious drivel shat out by chancers. Oh, and Tracy Emmin is talentless wage feef with a face like a welder's bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah O Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Anyone can take photos to a decent standard. A few nights at some evening classes will make someone able to take decent photos and teach the technical side of the game. wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 wrong No it's not. My mate did a 6 week course in photography at some college in Glasgow last year and he seems to be fairly up on the subject now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 No it's not. My mate did a 6 week course in photography at some college in Glasgow last year and he seems to be fairly up on the subject now. You're obviously too young to remember Paint Along With Nancy, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 the point I'm making is that it's easy to simplify something as pointing and clicking or putting paint on a canvas, the measure of art is the output and not the process. (the process is hugely interesting in many cases, but not essential to whether or not something is art as I see it) This. The emphasis on this thread regarding the skill required is all relative. Many of us would see it simpler to click a button than add oil to canvas, yet to the artist, painting is perhaps so natural that it is, to them, easy. Not saying that there isn't any skill but its that level of skill relative to our own perceived lack of skill that makes us think it is harder. Bottom line is, imo, photography is art, painting is art, sculpture is art, music is art, film is art, literature is art, football can be art, sport in general....any human acheivement can be art. But as art is so subjective then there is no right or wrong answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah O Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 No it's not. My mate did a 6 week course in photography at some college in Glasgow last year and he seems to be fairly up on the subject now. This does not mean he is a competent photographer. He could still be shite and extremely limited. I could study surgery for 6 weeks and to everyone else, i'm sure i'd sound fairly up on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Hearts Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 DJing as an art form is way overrated. To mix and put 2 records together is a skill that can be learned by most people. Unless you're talking about Q-bert, Mix Master Mike, DJ krush, DJ Craze or some other absurdly talented turntablist who actually make their own sounds using vinyl by scratching, DJing and just mixing is not really all that impressive any more. Try actually making decent music and then I'll take you seriously as an artist. As for people playing on laptops using MP3's claiming they're DJs . You obviously have never experienced Ableton when Djing? Dinosaur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 This does not mean he is a competent photographer. He could still be shite and extremely limited. I could study surgery for 6 weeks and to everyone else, i'm sure i'd sound fairly up on the subject. Yeah right. It only take 11 or 12 years to be a surgeon but you can do 6 week night college course in photography at some college in North Glasgow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 You obviously have never experienced Ableton when Djing? Dinosaur. I've used Ableton to make sequenced mixes in the house. I've also used it for recording, sequencing and adding samples and stuff to my own tunes. It's not DJing if it doesn't involve vinyl. Anything else is just playing with MP3s. I don't really rate CDs either but even that's better than MP3s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.