Art?

German Military Firing Squad Eliminates an Opponent of the New World Order from art.com

Hardly I would call it "art" from art.com - c'mon, a print for the wall? - but the tendecy is peculiar. Although the most arty thing here is the melodramatic title.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: German Military Firing Squad Eliminates an Opponent of the New Order Online from art.com

Hardly I would call it "art" from art.com - c'mon, a print for the wall? - but the tendecy is peculiar. Although the most arty thing here is the melodramatic title.

So is that what happened to Kershy? HOLY CRAP, don't want to piss off the wrong people around here!

its a fuckin sick world we live in when people call this shit "art".

Very much depends if you call photography an 'art', which in a loose sense it is.

It's a startling image, that's for sure.

Not all art has to be pleasing to the eye.

Nice talk, Chris

I wouldn't call any photography "art". First of all, it's a visual record of space; being merely printed doesn't necesseraly transform it into art. Like a home film - a recording of kids playing in the bath is not art. Furthermore, a machine can take pictures, too.

I understand that a photographer may intend to take a picture that would be "art" in his sense, i.e. for art's sake.

However, if we talk about originally non-art objects becoming art, you need a more or less collective consent that a certain image is an art. Like pulp mags and thrash comics - for decades they were looked down until they were gradually brought up under a different light, that is, they became framed into a certain aesthetic concept supported by art world.

If the same scene were painted by an artist, it may have become art, of morbid kind (like those medieval painters). But here there's no stagery (ok, a little - but from a military point of executing properly), so this is a simple record of action not intended to be art. Basically what I'm saying, you need shed an aesthetic light upon it.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

I wouldn't call any photography "art". First of all, it's a visual record of space; being merely printed doesn't necesseraly transform it into art. Like a home film - a recording of kids playing in the bath is not art. Furthermore, a machine can take pictures, too.

i completely disagree. it's not so much the act of taking the picture as the moment that is captured by the photographer.

i went to a richard avedon exhibition at the national portrait gallery about 12-13 years ago, and i must have stared at the iconic photo of the wizened woman holding her child during the dust bowl for near on half an hour.

as for calling this 'shit,' again i disagree. what about robert capa's photo of the man being shot (capturing the moment of his death) during the spanish civil war? it's certainly not pleasant, but, as chris wrote, it's an important historical record. i certainly believe that realism is art--which is why i like the old masters so much. ;) and maybe why i hate jackson pollock.

AgentWood wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

I wouldn't call any photography "art". First of all, it's a visual record of space; being merely printed doesn't necesseraly transform it into art. Like a home film - a recording of kids playing in the bath is not art. Furthermore, a machine can take pictures, too.

i completely disagree. it's not so much the act of taking the picture as the moment that is captured by the photographer.

i went to a richard avedon exhibition at the national portrait gallery about 12-13 years ago, and i must have stared at the iconic photo of the wizened woman holding her child during the dust bowl for near on half an hour.

I thought you said you STOPPED tripping on acid

EdelBrock wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

I wouldn't call any photography "art". First of all, it's a visual record of space; being merely printed doesn't necesseraly transform it into art. Like a home film - a recording of kids playing in the bath is not art. Furthermore, a machine can take pictures, too.

i completely disagree. it's not so much the act of taking the picture as the moment that is captured by the photographer.

i went to a richard avedon exhibition at the national portrait gallery about 12-13 years ago, and i must have stared at the iconic photo of the wizened woman holding her child during the dust bowl for near on half an hour.

I thought you said you STOPPED tripping on acid

i must be tripping, because that photo is by dorothea lange, not richard avedon, and i saw it at the elton john photo exhibit in atlanta, not in london!

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

I wouldn't call any photography "art". First of all, it's a visual record of space; being merely printed doesn't necesseraly transform it into art. Like a home film - a recording of kids playing in the bath is not art. Furthermore, a machine can take pictures, too.

i completely disagree. it's not so much the act of taking the picture as the moment that is captured by the photographer.

i went to a richard avedon exhibition at the national portrait gallery about 12-13 years ago, and i must have stared at the iconic photo of the wizened woman holding her child during the dust bowl for near on half an hour.

I thought you said you STOPPED tripping on acid

i must be tripping, because that photo is by dorothea lange, not richard avedon, and i saw it at the elton john photo exhibit in atlanta, not in london!

Shoosh. Don't correct your mistakes if nobody has actually clued on to them. ;)

BTW I agree with moment being the important thing in a photograph. It never is the exact moment the photographer wants though as it always is that little later. That is quite an interesting concept.

Photos don't have to be tasteful for the observer to be art.

AgentWood wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

I wouldn't call any photography "art". First of all, it's a visual record of space; being merely printed doesn't necesseraly transform it into art. Like a home film - a recording of kids playing in the bath is not art. Furthermore, a machine can take pictures, too.

i completely disagree. it's not so much the act of taking the picture as the moment that is captured by the photographer.

Exactly. But the moment taken is not always art itself, though it may evoke aesthetic disturbance (excitement or anger), but so can any object, like anatomy illustrations or graphic condom instructions, which are all purely utilitary. A photograph becomes art when it captures (deliberately or incidentally) something we can conceptualize (an interesting portrait, a beautiful meadow, a sad car, i.e. smth that a photographer got the concept of prior taking a picture/OR - that we, viewers, can subjectively place in those sensual categories). Here I just miss the concept. A historic document? But what does it have to do with art then?

I think I get Ian's point. Art needs a medium, whether it be paint, pastals, watercolors, photos, fingerpaint, etc. Simply having one of these does not make something an 'art-piece', it takes something more. It needs to use the medium in such a way that has balance, use of color, use of negative/positive space... something that makes you look not just at the topic of the art, but the surroundings that impact the art to give a deeper awareness or emotion. the above photo has none of these. It is a photo of someone being executed. Nothing makes you feel the moment more in the surroundings... it is what it is, a photo... and that makes it not really an art piece.

A "what is art?" debate.

What is this, SixthFormTossersOnline???!?

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: A "what is art?" debate.

What is this, SixthFormTossersOnline???!?

put on your black turtleneck, get out your kafka and join us, party pooper!

Chris Nash wrote:

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: A "what is art?" debate.

What is this, SixthFormTossersOnline???!?

Go and fiddle with one of your sixth formers Martin...

Ha! Already there, mate.......

NATCH!!!!!!