Tom wrote: > Do you disagree with any of them? Well, yes, I do. The two first - about pleasing the eye and creating harmony out of to chaos - are certainly not true. Lots of art is not pleasing at all and may also be chaotic and does in fact the opposite.
I guess the sentenses can be seen as examples of what some believe can define art. To me art is a stament, that - in a creative and expressive way - sums up essential facts or points of views, askes questions, challenges your point of views or your imagination etc. - about an issue of (human) interest. I guess the general concept of art also changes over time. A few centuries ago, making a portrait (painting) that actually looked like the real person, was considered to be art. It's not realy anymore. Since photography was invented (even though painters were using lenses as early as the 17'th century), painters were forced to make abstract art (among other things) - paintings that doesn't look too much like the real world - paintings that was "more" than just a photographic recording. A nice sculpture (like some of Michelangelos famous ones) are really just recordings of what humans look like. Like a photograph/photographic recording. To me recordings can sometimes be art, if they at the same time contains a statement, a point of view or perhaps a feeling. At the end of the day, art is what people consider to be art. BTW: A few years back, a Danish home owner filled up his garden with all kinds of garbage, old furniture, rubbish of all kinds. It looked like a permanent garage sale or the city dump. The neighbours and the city council wanted him to clean up his property. The guy then claimed that, it was a work of art! It took the authorities years to get him to remove this junk from his garden. All the best Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. maj 2005 13:35 Til: [email protected] Emne: what makes a photograph art... Background: I bought Bill Fortney's "Great Photography Workshop" book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called "Developing The Creative Edge in Photography" by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese
