Is this Art or Crime??

[flamingjimmy]

If it's so easy that a two year old could do it then why haven't you? Just because you don't understand stuff, you shouldn't denigrate it.

 

Just because he doesn't like what you like, doesn't mean you should assume he doesn't understand it.

[taxman]

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by taxman

 

If it's so easy that a two year old could do it then why haven't you? Just because you don't understand stuff, you shouldn't denigrate it.

 

Just because he doesn't like what you like, doesn't mean you should assume he doesn't understand it.

 

I didn't say I liked it but every time someone bleats about " A two year old could have done that" or "I could have done that" they are missing the point. They didn't do it. If it was so easy why didn't they?

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[MrSmith]

I didn't say I liked it but every time someone bleats about " A two year old could have done that" or "I could have done that" they are missing the point. They didn't do it. If it was so easy why didn't they?

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

 

Because I'm not a peeping tom, so I peek into people’s homes to take pictures of women cleaning the floor, if I had have been and I had my camera handy I could have taken that picture. I doubt that it would have been considered art if it was a photo taken by me.

[ronthenekred]

If your walls are glass...

 

It's observational art, some people do like to observe others, and record it. Some observational art is really interesting. It's how you interpret art on a personal level. I find it more interesting than "The Blue Boy".

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2013 at 21:33 ----------

 

Because I'm not a peeping tom, so I peek into people’s homes to take pictures of women cleaning the floor, if I had have been and I had my camera handy I could have taken that picture. I doubt that it would have been considered art if it was a photo taken by me.

 

If you were an artist and your profession was art then you would be.

 

But you're not so its a moot point.

[MrSmith]

If your walls are glass...

 

It's observational art, some people do like to observe others, and record it. Some observational art is really interesting. It's how you interpret art on a personal level. I find it more interesting than "The Blue Boy".

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2013 at 21:33 ----------

 

 

If you were an artist and your profession was art then you would be.

 

But you're not so its a moot point.

 

So if was an artist and took a picture it would be art, but if I take the same picture as a non artist, then it isn't art.

[flamingjimmy]

I didn't say I liked it but every time someone bleats about " A two year old could have done that" or "I could have done that" they are missing the point. They didn't do it. If it was so easy why didn't they?

 

For any number of reasons. That something can be done is not a reason to do it (not that I'm weighing in on whether anyone could do it).

[ronthenekred]

So if was an artist and took a picture it would be art, but if I take the same picture as a non artist, then it isn't art.

 

 

 

I didn't say that. Your art is misinterpreting something said for something not said. I'm now trying to figure out what art form that is specifically.

[MrSmith]

I didn't say that. Your art is misinterpreting something said for something not said. I'm now trying to figure out what art form that is specifically.

 

In that case I have no idea what you meant.

[horribleblob]

The photos are, to my mind, an invasion of privacy. However, I think the images in themselves do have some artistic merit (composition, shapes, colour, lighting, shadows, manipulation). They’re not just snapshots.

 

It’s not an avenue I would dream of following, but I can see the artistry in the end result even though I wouldn’t necessarily give them wall space myself.

 

I wonder how the subjects in Vermeer’s A Girl Asleep or The Kitchen Maid would have viewed the matter.

[this_life]

Vermeer's A girl asleep, and The kitchen maid, were posed for by the model.

 

In todays society in the UK, we would say the model gave Informed Consent to be painted (recorded) and knew the image would be made public.

 

The people in Svensons photographs did not consent, and did not know they were being recorded, or that the recordings would be made public.

 

Although actually, we know that at the time of Vermeer, maids and servants had few rights or autonomy, so by todays laws were unable to give Informed Consent. And it would probably be regarded as coercion. By today's standards we would not consider the kitchen maid and girl to have been harmed by the public painting. But at that time, they may have felt ashamed or humiliated.

 

Svensons photographic subjects did not give consent in any way, and were in their private home. I wonder how having glass walls affects this legally? And if they knew they could be seen.

 

Everyone has and needs windows though, for light, health etc. In built up areas people can at times see into other peoples private space.

 

Is Informed Consent the deciding factor?..or, Is it clearly being a private space the deciding factor... then there is the opposite where people 'flash' people from inside their private space... and that is clearly a crime.

 

Paparazzi do not get consent, and definitely not Informed Consent and that is not a crime.

 

Photographers take photographs of people in public places without their knowledge or Informed Consent, and that is legal and can be Art.

 

Is it a legal term 'where people have a reasonable expectation that they are not being observed or photographed etc'. And is this different if the recording is with paint or pencil etc?

 

Svenson argues it is not a crime because he did not photograph their faces, therefore they cannot be identified. Perhaps that is the law. But people can identify them from his address.

 

Is it different if the image is felt to be degrading in some way???