JFKvsNixon Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Because I wouldn't feel comfortable selling crap to gullible people. ---------- Post added 04-06-2013 at 20:35 ---------- No, I don't believe it to be art. Art The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. Taking a picture of someone’s arse isn't a creative skill or very imaginative. Surely you don't really believe that you can define what art is in a 10 word sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 In that case I have no idea what you meant. Then I'll indulge you, this once. So if was an artist and took a picture it would be art Only if you presented it as art, otherwise how would anyone know. but if I take the same picture as a non artist, then it isn't art. Unless you presented it as so, then no. Being an artist , and a recognised one at that will get you recognition far greater than being a plumber who paints, although being a plumber isn't necessarily a barrier to being recognised or artistic. Anyway, back to "Art or Crime". If it's a crime, what crime has been committed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Surely you don't really believe that you can define what art is in a 10 word sentence? I didn't define it, and yes, if something isn’t an expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, then it isn’t art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I didn't define it, and yes, if something isn’t an expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, then it isn’t art. So you do believe that it's possible to define what art is or isn't in a 10 word sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Art The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. Taking a picture of someone’s arse isn't a creative skill or very imaginative. Maybe it's the type of arse you don't like rather than the arstistic merit. Wish I had 50p for every pic that went on a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horribleblob Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I think we’re on similar wavelengths, this_life. I merely chose the Vermeer examples as they popped into my head first, as comparisons (although the 17th century subjects have their faces full on and were studied paintings, not surreptitiously captured images). Even though Svenson’s photographic subjects didn’t give consent (as far as we know), they were in a goldfish bowl, as we all are these days with ubiquitous cctv. Do I have “a reasonable expectation that [i am] not being observed”? No, I don’t think so. I have every expectation that I am being observed. I don’t like it, but there you go. Personally, I think Svenson should have sought permission from the subjects to show the images (maybe he did - I don’t know) as he was seeking commercial gain and not having any pretensions towards photojournalism. (Where’s Cartier-Bresson when you need him?) Also, in order to capture the final, exhibited images, Svenson would have probably taken hundreds of rejected shots, including some where faces are shown. If I were one of the subjects, I’d like to know that they’d all been destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Maybe it's the type of arse you don't like rather than the arstistic merit. Wish I had 50p for every pic that went on a wall. Whilst that is a nice arse and worthy of wall space I wouldn't define it as art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.