Thread: I fail to see how this is art

No I said the exact same thing you did.

Words are just sounds we apply to an object or idea.

Art is an idea. Which is basically what you were saying. But so is anything fundamentally. The idea of an Elephant, an Elephant is not a real thing. It's just a lot of atoms working together. Someone else not from this society might say an Elephant (or whatever their word is for it) is only the body, but the head is a "cromo" or something.

But not to argue about an analogy...

Art should have some sort of definition. A lot people have suggested some.

But there is always some correlations. Usually, a method of communicating an idea.
Whether it is visual art, auditory art or whatever. Even talking.
It also is usually defined as being creative. Figuring out a solution to a problem also.

A picture of a naked chick on a fucking mobile phone does not portray any of this.
Unless of course they are self portraits, communicating the aspects of her personality which include whorish, low self-esteem, desperate for attention and stupid.
In that case, very creative.

Originally Posted by tommo

The idea of an Elephant, an Elephant is not a real thing. It's just a lot of atoms working together. Someone else not from this society might say an Elephant (or whatever their word is for it) is only the body, but the head is a "cromo" or something.

Hate to digress, but is an elephant not a real thing, or rather the idea of an elephant that has no objective existence?

Also, it's kind of cute how this thread spawns from:

Originally Posted by tommo

A picture of a naked chick on a fucking mobile phone

So cute and timely, I might call it art.

Originally Posted by juroara

I want to know why art history books have a conspiracy against all forms of fantasy art and try to tell us something boring and useless like a red square is art Four years of art history and I'm still not convinced!

Roger Dean.

amirite???

Arttistic Nude pictures are a form of art for sure, but this.... Indeed seems like a cheap picture on a Dating site. Nothing artistic about it.

I dont know; she sure was able to evoke some sincere, heartfelt emotions from everyone in this thread. Some were moved to anger, some grief, some despair, some lulz... All with a shot at a well poised rump.

Exquisite in execution, no?

I repeat the question I posed earlier somewhere:

who are you to judge what is art and what is not?

Furthermore, who are you to judge what is good art and what is bad art?

I'd say all you can say is whether you personally find something 'oohh pretty' or 'thought provoking' or something. The only thing you can have is an opinion on the piece. Whether the piece itself is art or not lies in the attitude and the intention of the artist (or 'maker' if you prefer).
Or so I'd say..

Originally Posted by CryoDragoon

I repeat the question I posed earlier somewhere:

who are you to judge what is art and what is not?

Furthermore, who are you to judge what is good art and what is bad art?

I'd say all you can say is whether you personally find something 'oohh pretty' or 'thought provoking' or something. The only thing you can have is an opinion on the piece. Whether the piece itself is art or not lies in the attitude and the intention of the artist (or 'maker' if you prefer).
Or so I'd say..

And it is obvious that the creator did not intend to create art, but rather get attention from pathetic deviant art users.

But she got people thinking/feeling, even she didn't intend to.

Chances are she didn't intend to. And intention is necessary for it to be called art.

You can throw shit on a wall and call it art.

This is a touchy subject for me. I remember in high school we were doing paintings in art class. We had to do five different ones and I was on my fourth. None of my paintings were horribly good, but I had put effort into them. I had tried, but one morning in class my teacher sat everyone down and started to talk to us about trying to be frugal with the paint since we were running low. Next thing I know he's pulling out the painting I was working on and talking about how stuff like this was a waste of paint and we needed to be taking things seriously.

I can't tell you how humiliated and embarrassed I was. I hadn't signed it or anything so nobody knew it was me, but after that... I just didn't care to try anymore. I've never been a good artist and granted I didn't know where I was going with it, but what he did was uncalled for, and this is why the general creative world annoys me.

I can't see the picture, but regardless of what any of us think unless we can go into that girls head and know what she was thinking (or unless she says so in the comments) when she took it none of us have any right to say that she was just attention grabbing or that she wasn't actually trying to create something. It doesn't matter how apparent it is, it doesn't matter how certain we are all we can do is speculate and claiming otherwise is just arrogance. After all that teacher was certain that I was just wasting paint.

What is art and what isn't, what is good and what isn't, is all subjective. I think people just have a hard time acknowledging their opinions are just that when faced with something they're passionate about.

It kind of reminds me in grooming, sometimes groomers will get very stubborn about the clips they do on certain dogs. Owners will come in with special requests that they'll refuse because it isn't 'proper'. Personally I do whatever the client wants as long as it won't cause harm to the dog. So what if they want their yorkie to look like a schnauzer. I may not like the way it looks, but I'm not the one that has to live with it. If it makes them happy then who am I to tell them what they're doing is wrong or incorrect?

Originally Posted by Blackberryfox

I can't see the picture, but regardless of what any of us think unless we can go into that girls head and know what she was thinking (or unless she says so in the comments) when she took it none of us have any right to say that she was just attention grabbing or that she wasn't actually trying to create something. It doesn't matter how apparent it is, it doesn't matter how certain we are all we can do is speculate and claiming otherwise is just arrogance. After all that teacher was certain that I was just wasting paint.

^ This. I dont have a DeviantArt account so the picture doesn't show but according to her profile, she's an aspiring model. It may not have been shallow attention seeking, for all we know she meant for it to be part of her portfolio or w/e.

@ Art class: Ouch. xD

Originally Posted by GavinGill

^ This. I dont have a DeviantArt account so the picture doesn't show but according to her profile, she's an aspiring model. It may not have been shallow attention seeking, for all we know she meant for it to be part of her portfolio or w/e.

@ Art class: Ouch. xD

Not everyone can afford to buy an expensive camera either. Maybe that camera phone is the best she had? You've gotta work within your means after all. If what she's doing doesn't really work, or there are things she could be doing to improve herself I would rather people give her constructive criticism and tell her how she could have made the photo more appealing to her target rather then dismiss her as an attention seeker.

And yeah it wasn't one of my more pleasant moments... one of the many reasons I'm convinced teens should have the option to opt out of high school and go into a trade instead *would have found her calling a lot sooner*

Your Violation Report on deviation 'Looking Back 2'
from $devart
to ~rottingteeth

This is an automated message concerning a deviation which you previously reported, entitled Looking Back 2. A member of staff has reviewed your report and the deviation has been removed.

Thank you for your report.

-- deviantART Staff

oh, look at that, they finally got back to me and they removed the picture. and since deviantART is the final authority on all things art-related, uh, i guess that means I WAS RIGHT

Lol, bet you the rest of em are still there.

Originally Posted by tommo

Chances are she didn't intend to. And intention is necessary for it to be called art.

Says who, you?

Intention is irrelevant when pitted against perception.

Ok.

Originally Posted by nerve

oh, look at that, they finally got back to me and they removed the picture. and since deviantART is the final authority on all things art-related, uh, i guess that means I WAS RIGHT

I honestly hope that you're joking around otherwise that's a lot of bitter emotions to be carrying around over a picture that isn't hurting you on an art site that people stopped taking seriously long ago...

Originally Posted by nerve

I WAS RIGHT

HUZZAH!!!

About 100+ similar photos were uploaded to the site during the meantime though.

Whoa they referenced Spongebob's "You like krabby patties, don't you Squidward?" face...

I don't know what's funnier, the fact that

Originally Posted by tommo

Lol, bet you the rest of em are still there.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

HUZZAH!!!

About 100+ similar photos were uploaded to the site during the meantime though.

or that 'Raphael' knew exactly where the fuck that face came from

or 'Blackberryfox's reply that I initially ignored but just noticed, sweetheart your newb is showing I am never serious

Originally Posted by nerve

I am never serious

Soooooo you do see this (the stunning photography) as a masterpiece.

of course

jacked straight from the mind of Kricfalusi; Hillenburg: Thieving bastard for life!

See for yourself

..though I believe there is a secret alliance