Below... Regards, Bob... --------------------------------------------------- "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Qkano" <wildimages@lineone.net> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@ase-listmail.rit.edu> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:43 PM Subject: Art or fart ? > "Call that art, f' off" > > An eternal question without answer. As soon as you codify art it > ceases to be so. By definition it cannot be defined without becoming > artifice. Dictionaries have been written; art still exists despite those who codify language. If the word "art" is not defined, then how can we discuss it and know that we are all talking about the same thing? Well, this forum is often an example of folks (not picking on you, Qkano) leaving behind the rules (definitions) and then becomming incensed when conflicts of misunderstanding arise. We are all just rebels who just want to have the words defined our own way, to hell with actual communication.. > Art is always what the artist produces - an excuse for irrelavence > even. > Can a machine produce art rather than just copy it? Some say yes and sell fractal designs and such for bucks. Are they arrogant for saying it is art? Are we arrogant for saying it is not? > Can an animal produce art? Some Aussies say yes. > > Does a natural object become art because we find it interesting. Maybe there is a God and He thinks it is. After all, he may have taken billions of years to create it! > - is a photograph of that object any more art than the object itself? Are there such a things as "more art" and "less art"? > > Is the intent of the photographer relavent? I vote no, but then, it's just my vote. > - does the fate of the image depend on whether it was design or > accidenet. Ask Christies(sp). > Is a copy of another piece of art ever art? Copyright office says it can be. > Is art not what we create, rather than what we see? I vote that art is both and what we see is most important. This is most certainly true to those who see art as a sublime means of communication. > Ergo only still-life photos are really artistic - the rest mere record? How does that follow?
