[Potz4Prez]

What? No close? No trigger pull!?!?!

[chris_arnet]

Originally Posted by chris_arnet

sry to kill your roll bro, but photography does take a bit of talent and know how. they are each difficult in there own ways, however.....

some people are born drawing. people cant be born photographers. no doubt, some are better than others, but even the best photographers in the world didnt just pick up a camera and knew how to get everything just right. theres exposure, lighting, iso and alot of other stuff that has to be gotten right to make a picture. true, you can learn, but you can also learn how to paint if one tries hard enough. honestly, i think that painting/drawing and photography are damn near equals.

i honestly want to know what was so funny about what i said

[Snakeplayer.]

Originally Posted by chris_arnet

i honestly want to know what was so funny about what i said

Don't worry about it sweetheart.

[chris_arnet]

Originally Posted by Snakeplayer.

Don't worry about it sweetheart.

seriously, i wanna know

[ST: Photo Hard Truth (Banned)]

When you describe Obama as the white woman's cantidate, it expresses humor because the obvious pick for a white woman is Hilary Clinton. Look meet me after the health care for all rally, and then I'll really explain. Until then keep your head up and don't let words bring you down.

[Benjammin822]

Originally Posted by mllanos1111

It was in response to two of your remarks below.

Photography is not art guys. Real art takes true talent and a real dedicated effort to be made. All of you trying to defend photography as an art are simply retarded and have never tried to paint or artistically doodle. If photography was really art, then Van Gogh would have used a Leica instead of a brush. I mean you wouldn't take away Picasso's guitar right?

Geeze, all you guys with your neat little cameras think you're all so high and mighty. You all suck.


and this one:

Originally Posted by Snakeplayer. View Post
I sure wish I shot film so I could be as ridiculously elitist as you. Obviously if I went into a darkroom and spent an hour with an enlarger I would have an incredible print that absolutely must be considered art, right? However, if I "press the button" then "dump it into Photoshop" and spend an hour in my digital work flow, it's not nearly as artistic or creative as that hour spent in the darkroom?


Don't respond to this. I don't really care to hear your answer anyways.

I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.

[ST: Photo Hard Truth (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Benjammin822

I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.

Obama is an idiot?! Because he's black right? **** you you piece of **** racist.

[Romance]

awkward that i find the photograph more interesting than the painting in it? Not at all.

Now if this was a painting of a photographer trying to take "the perfect" picture of a building, that might be interesting.

[Deimus85]

Originally Posted by Overgrownm00se

Many abstract paintings such as this sell for millions of dollars. It is a painting of 3 differently colored rectangles. How can photography be considered a lower form of art than this?

The fact that you placed this form of art on a lower scale than others just proves that you know very little about what Art is.

[therealmr]

Originally Posted by Deimus85

The fact that you placed this form of art on a lower scale than others just proves that you know very little about what Art is.

Why.

I don't consider that artistic. I do believe that whoever created it did so in an artistic manner, and had a strong idea/emotion behind it... but that doesn't mean I have to acknowledge it as art.

Like I said before, trying to compare art forms is really comparing drastically different things... too different to really place one above another.

It comes down to how you were raise (to believe what art is/what your definition of art is), which is filled in by outside influences (desire to fit in/societal pressures). So the fact that YOU whole-heartedly believe that is art is 100% OK in my book. My definition of art does not see that piece as artistic. Does that mean I know little about what art is? No. It simply means that you and I disagree about our definitions of what it is. Is that so bad? No. Disagreements on what art is & is not is what fosters artistic developments... and I'm all for that

[Deimus85]

That piece of art could have had the same amount of mental effort put behind it as a Michelangelo or Bernini or Leonardo DaVinci.

Just because somebody painted 3 colored boxes on a piece of cardboard, or used Cow feces in a painting of the Virgin Mary, or put a toilet bowl in a gallery with his signature on it, doesn't mean it is any less of an art form than some of the great masters of the renaissance, or the masters of impressionism, or the masters of the surreal, or any of the great names in art. Having an appreciation for all art is good, because it shows that you understand what art is all about. Now, not liking work, for instance, I do not like Diane Arbus's work at all. But I do appreciate it and the message she is conveying.

Art can be anything, its all in the eye of the beholder.

A blade of grass growing in an endless sea of grass can be art.

A mother breastfeeding her newborn can be art.

The killing of thousands of innocent refugees in Cambodia can be art.

The feeling you get when you jump off a cliff into water can be art.

Just as a painting of 3 simple boxes of colors can be art, a finger painting done by a gorilla in the zoo can be art.

People who are artistically minded are able to see those things as art and appreciate it. That is what I mean.

[Potz4Prez]

Originally Posted by Deimus85

The killing of thousands of innocent refugees in Cambodia can be art.

Quite an open minded view of art.

[elTwitcho]

Originally Posted by Deimus85

People who are artistically minded are able to see those things as art and appreciate it. That is what I mean.

Which is why anyone who put serious effort into responding to the hack who started this thread is a moron.

[Overgrownm00se]

Originally Posted by Deimus85

That piece of art could have had the same amount of mental effort put behind it as a Michelangelo or Bernini or Leonardo DaVinci.

Just because somebody painted 3 colored boxes on a piece of cardboard, or used Cow feces in a painting of the Virgin Mary, or put a toilet bowl in a gallery with his signature on it, doesn't mean it is any less of an art form than some of the great masters of the renaissance, or the masters of impressionism, or the masters of the surreal, or any of the great names in art. Having an appreciation for all art is good, because it shows that you understand what art is all about. Now, not liking work, for instance, I do not like Diane Arbus's work at all. But I do appreciate it and the message she is conveying.

Art can be anything, its all in the eye of the beholder.

A blade of grass growing in an endless sea of grass can be art.

A mother breastfeeding her newborn can be art.

The killing of thousands of innocent refugees in Cambodia can be art.

The feeling you get when you jump off a cliff into water can be art.

Just as a painting of 3 simple boxes of colors can be art, a finger painting done by a gorilla in the zoo can be art.

People who are artistically minded are able to see those things as art and appreciate it. That is what I mean.

Originally Posted by Deimus85

The fact that you placed this form of art on a lower scale than others just proves that you know very little about what Art is.

The following is all my opinion. I don't want to make any enemies. I respect you for your opinion, but I also disagree with it.

Just putting mental effort into something doesn't make it art. That would mean that: Doing math problems is art. Playing video games is an art. Hell, writing this post would even be art.

Just putting emotion into something doesn't make it art either. If I get enraged about, say, a fight I have with my girlfriend and I end up punching a hole in a wall. If I cut out that section of wall and take it to a gallery does that also make it art?

The line has to be drawn somewhere or anything could be considered art. My personal line is obviously placed somewhere before completely abstract art.

And on a final note. Why won't this thread die? It's like a bad movie where they make an even worse sequel. And keep doing so for 5 or 6 re-iterations.

[therealmr]

Originally Posted by Deimus85

People who are artistically minded are able to see those things as art and appreciate it. That is what I mean.

Great. You pretty much agree with me. You believe it is art, because your definition of art allows that to exist as art. Hence, you appreciate it as art. My definition of art does not allow that to exist as art. Hence, I do not appreciate it as art. This does not mean either of us are not artistically minded, but rather that we still just disagree on some of the ways to define art itself.

Originally Posted by therealmr

I don't consider that artistic. I do believe that whoever created it did so in an artistic manner, and had a strong idea/emotion behind it... but that doesn't mean I have to acknowledge it as art.

Originally Posted by Deimus85

That piece of art could have had the same amount of mental effort put behind it as a Michelangelo or Bernini or Leonardo DaVinci.

And just to make sure you understood me correctly - I never said that there was less thought involved. I acknowledged that there could have been any amount of thought/emotion... I simply said that I did not believe it was art.

[snuggles_smith]

You guys arn't seeing the real problem here. It depends on what skill level your talking about. Yeah, amatuer point and shoot photography might be easier then amatuer painting or sculpting, but when you get to the professionial level one isn't any easier then the other. Creativity is just as important if not more so then technical skill. Micheangelo(sp?) didn't create the Sistine Chapel scene with painting skill alone.

It doesn't help that society's art standards have dropped the last couple decades. These days all you need are some connections and you can display "professional" art, even if it just looks like a 3 year old on an acid trip spilled some paint on a canvas. If you can bull**** a "creative meaning" you can sell anything now. Like that painting with the 3 colored rectangles. Is it art? Sure. Did it require any technical skill? No. Does it belong in a respectable art gallery? No.

[tonybhall]

Originally Posted by snuggles_smith

Like that painting with the 3 colored rectangles. Is it art? Sure. Did it require any technical skill? No. Does it belong in a respectable art gallery? No.

listen... stop beating around the bush. Just call it what it is. It's ****! I can't believe anyone would call that art. If that's art, my back yard is an art gallery.

[ssgaR]

Its art, you just forgot to put on your arrogant hat and your pretentious glasses.

[Deimus85]

Originally Posted by snuggles_smith

It doesn't help that society's art standards have dropped the last couple decades. These days all you need are some connections and you can display "professional" art, even if it just looks like a 3 year old on an acid trip spilled some paint on a canvas. If you can bull**** a "creative meaning" you can sell anything now. Like that painting with the 3 colored rectangles. Is it art? Sure. Did it require any technical skill? No. Does it belong in a respectable art gallery? No.

You forget that most of these "3 year olds on acid trips" that you are talking about spent years studying and copying fine art. They spent years taking figure drawing lessons, learning about how oil paint works properly, how to render depth in a 2 dimensional surface, etc. They did not just wake up one morning and decide to paint some boxes on a piece of paper and throw it in a gallery. There was no loss in standards. There was no degeneration of society. People still paint beautiful landscapes and amazing portraits. People still paint in a classical style.

Is the Met not a respectable art gallery? How about the Philadelphia Museum of art? Or what about the Guggenhiem? If they are so respectable, why do they display art similar in style to this box painting we are talking about? Why do they display Andy Warhol, who duplicated Campbell's soup cans with his printing press and paintbrush? Why do they display Pollack, who sprayed paint on a canvas? Because its art. And that's that. If it's so easy, why don't you do it and hang it in a gallery?

Oh, and you know, at one time, Picasso, Duchamp, Dali, even Matisse and Renoir had their cynics, people who thought that their abstractions of reality were not art. Now, you would be lucky to find one of their originals for under a few hundred thousand dollars.

Originally Posted by tonybhall

listen... stop beating around the bush. Just call it what it is. It's ****! I can't believe anyone would call that art. If that's art, my back yard is an art gallery.

If that isn't art, then neither is you pointing your camera at some **** and pressing the shutter release button, and then uploading it into Photoshop to throw around some layers and do some cropping, then uploading it into photobucket and showing off to all of your e-critiquers. As raggs said, take off your arrogant hat and pretentious glasses.

kthnx.

[therealmr]

Or, you could respond to what I said, too, because I'd really like to hope you at least agree with me... seeing as everything you've posted STILL agrees with me

[Potz4Prez]

Why is this thread still open?