Savageduck
On 2013-12-07 20:48:28 +0000, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>said:

PeterN
On 12/7/2013 11:20 AM, Savageduck wrote:

Savageduck
On 2013-12-07 15:31:47 +0000, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>said:

PeterN
On 12/7/2013 9:53 AM, Savageduck wrote:

Savageduck
On 2013-12-07 14:00:34 +0000, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net> said:

PeterN
On 12/7/2013 8:34 AM, Savageduck wrote:

Savageduck
Some pretty mediocre photographers have a good, sometimes very good working knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of their equipment and PP software, and they still produce crappy images. They can call them art, but they remain for whatever reason, crappy images. Some photographers producing extraordinary imagery from their cameras have little technical knowledge of the "art of photography" or post processing, but they have an almost savant ability to capture very good images.

PeterN
Of course it takes more than pure mechanics to create a work of art. My thought is that when an artist has a concept, he must have mastery of his tools to turn the concept into reality.

Savageduck
Sometimes. There is an interesting series on the Sci Channel. "Ingenious Minds" One of the issues they deal with is the phenomenon of the savant. What some savants can produce out of sheer ability without training or exposure to the discipline of a particular art form, can easily be called art.

< http://science.discovery.com/search.htm?feedGroup=video&type=clips&terms=ingenious+minds

There are photographs which please my eye, sometimes I can define why I like them, many times there are qualities which are less tangible. Some of those images could well be called art, some are documentary, but are still good photographs, in some cases compelling, sometimes disturbing, but hardly art.

PeterN
What is art?

Savageduck
Art is a creation by an individual intended to invoke an emotional response in the viewer. Not all art is good. Just because we are told it is art, is no reason to place accolades upon the work and its creator, when it is in fact a POS.

PeterN
Is good, well exposed pron, art?

Savageduck
Perhaps. It depends on what flavor that pron is, and whether it was taken in season by a licensed pron hunter. Perhaps the chef who prepares the pron might be the true artist. I might favor pron picatta.

PeterN
Can art be rejected because it is porn?

Savageduck
An individual can reject anything that is not to their taste. I am sure that for most viewers there is a point where porn transcends "art" to become something else entirely.

PeterN
It seems to me that art is something that you know when you see it.

Savageduck
That too.

PeterN
To my eye the minimalistic linked to below is not art, but thousands of feet of museum space have be dedicated to displaying images like it.

<http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Black_Square.jpg/607px-Black_Square.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism&h=599&w=607&sz=34&tbnid=832xFlRfh5yQqM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=92&zoom=1&usg=__1tR8LxvxLl7ZLqF_KJPQtvT3Bv4=&docid=c7YLlJwQv-la2M&sa=X&ei=HIijUtz1AY6-sQSd_IKoBA&ved=0CHMQ9QEwBA>

Savageduck
<http://tinyurl.com/k22dzbz>

There

PeterN
is little emotiona impact from that image.

Savageduck
The emotional impact comes from the guy who created it, the idiot art critics who might have praised it because of the self built reputation of the vreator, and the gallery showing it, as they roll around laughing at the idiots fawning over it as a master piece. It is a joke, and the joke is on the society willing to accept it as fine art. It is no less a POS than a bad photograph. As I said above, just because we are told it is art, it is not a reason to place accolades upon the work and its creator, when in fact it is a POS. ...and that is even if it is hanging in a gallery.