The image on the left is considered art, the image on the right is not.
Is /lit smart enough to explain why with its literature skills?
Both images are art.
>>7378212
the one on the right is just a photo of a sunset and is therefore not considered art. its just a documentary recording on an event.
Photography isn't expressed, go fuck yourself if you think photography is art
>>7378217
is something been expressed your only definition of art?
If so how is an old bicycle tire on a chair considered art as that is hardly expressed?
Creation vs. Documentation.
Photography is art. Photography is always expressive of what the photographer decided to take a picture of.
>>7378209
>The image on the left is considered art, the image on the right is not.
By whom?
You could argue that the painting on the left is just the painter "documenting" the sunset.
>>7378234
so this is art?
>>7378227
It's also funny considering some of duchamp's art had a point of him being completely indifferent to it.
If he started to like or hate it, he would discard it.
>>7378245
Yes.
I swear to god, all these fucking newshitters with their skewed view on art's supposed inherent value.
>>7378243
If you did you'd be an idiot bleeding stupid out of his stupidhole.
Representation.
You have a lot of reading to do
>>7378245
A very nice body of art ;)
>>7378216
Sorry can you cite the non-existent dictionary that you got that non-definition of art from?
>>7378247
Do you have a single book to back up this view?
Yes a selfie is art.
I mean you can be an elitist about this, but what you're really saying is: I don't like selfies.
You cannot come up with a legitimate argument for why a selfie would not be art.
A selfie is still a text. You're still an interpretative audience. It's communication. It's art.
>>7378252
The history of western art.
You could also start with quite literally any philosophical book.
Can i just ask, what board are you originally from?
>>7378234
>Photography is always expressive of what the photographer decided to take a picture of.
literally false. plenty of retards praise photographs were the photographer did not decide of anything and the photograph was taken by an random event foreign to the photographer.
>>7378255
the word “art” carries along with it ideas of respect, refinement, technical mastery, tradition, and self-expression. Artists carry and communicate cultures, and have a place in history alongside nation-builders and powerful leaders.
>>7378257
That sounds even more artful.
>>7378209
Left is man's art and the right is God's art.
>>7378259
No it does not. That's just you having retarded connotations to words.
>>7378259
Literally dying over here
What board do you frequent family?
>>7378268
/his
>>7378274
That explains it i guess, i thought /b/ or /pol/ desu
"Photographs," written by Lady Eastlake was the most important statement made in regards to this issue. She stated that since 'beauty' was the main element expected in an artistic creation, and it was a result of refinement, taste, spirituality, genius, or intellect - qualities not found in minutely detailed super-realistic visual depictions made by a machine, therefore, although 'truth' and 'reality' were valid qualities of a camera image, it could never compete with art, even if it had a role to play in the art world.
>>7378257
In the scenario you describe the photographer decided to insert randomness into how they created their art.
Don't be fooled. There was never a more intentionally crafted text than Naked Lunch.
>>7378259
This is just elitist bullshit.
>>7378279
>qualities not found in minutely detailed super-realistic visual depictions made by a machine
This seems like a non sequitur
>>7378283
read up on surrealist artists. They had all sorts of techniques to get truly random ideas into their art.
They would take a piece of paper put it on an uneven surface and rub over it with a pencil, they would repeat this on lots of different surfaces on different bits of the paper.
Once this was done they would sit and stare at the shapes on the paper and try to see things. (like how people look at clouds and try to see animals etc). This allowed them to have truely weird and original ideas.
>>7378279
There is lots of awesome art that is not beautiful in any way.
What about artistic photography? like the following examples:
>pic related
>>7378333
>pic related
>>7378333
>>7378340
>pic related
>>7378333
>>7378340
>>7378347
>>7378209
Art is a man-made thing. A sunset is not.
>>7378243
Only if it was photorealistic to an absurd degree. The thing is that, if it isn't necessarily a faithful copy of something which exists, some choices must be made by the artist; the artist must inject his own values and desires into the art. This is what gives art its value: the fact that the artist chose to represent /this/ and not /that/. Without that choice, the art becomes empty.
>everything is art!
congrats on your low ass standards, pleb
>>7378251
I left it on your mum's bedside table last night.
I like reading while fucking her.
Hey-o!
>le what is arte thread
It's dull.
People may think this is ridiculous, but I truly believe it: the word "art" is meaningless. It has no value on its own. There are always better ways to explain that someone created something, or recorded something, and for what purpose. The word itself has nearly zero descriptive value...I try to avoid it whenever possible.
>>7378217
as somebody who studied art and design, I can assure you that photography is art.
>>7378832
"Aesthetics"
>>7378279
Was she a fascist?
>>7378832
The problem with art is that it is founded on a constitutive paradox: it exists when it should not. Take Warhol's brillo box for instance. To rescue a common merchandise from the market and give it a "shine", that is art. But the box is still the same, even if there has been a transmutation. In that regard Warhol is almost religious art.
Sorry for the broken English, it's not my native tongue.
>>7378279
When a photographer chooses to picture something he is expressing the qualities of an artist. You're assuming there is some sort of dishonesty in photography but the beauty a picture represents is entirely a manufactured by the photographer the moment he takes it.
>>7378216
So live-action films aren't art, and animated films are?Seems about right to be honest.
>>7378582
>Only if it was photorealistic to an absurd degree.
The goal of impressionism was literally to "document" the world in a way closer to how the eye/brain actually interacts with phenomena. Cubism too.
>>7378976
>films
>art
>>7378209
Wow, you're really pulling a Gregory Berrycone there
>>7378209
the right is shot with too wide a lens and has that unnatural look like when you set FOV too high in a video game. The left focuses in on its object, giving a sense of human perception; it also makes use of symmetry to its particular artistic end. The right is a picture of a sunset, but does not draw out anything about the sunset; it's flat and dull. The left brings thick strains of gold out of the sunset.
The right image gives us the impression that a not-very-good photographer thought sunset was pretty and failed to capture it. The left gives us the sense that the sun is the divine emperor descending to his earthly throne and casting the regal splendour over all the seas and skies. One might compare it to the miracle of the incarnation.
>>7379000
this ToBH
>>7378863
I get what you mean. Its like the catholic doctrine of transubstantiation
>>7379060
alright give me your undergrad tier analysis then, fuccboi
It's a difficult topic which has basically baffled philosophers and art theorists for centuries. A few positions I can remember off the top of my head:
Russian formalism. Art is a technique that has a certain function of alienation upon the human consciousness.
Linguistics and semiotics: Art is a text, a system of symbols that is more self-referential than "common" usage of symbols.
Bourgouis conception of art: It's part of the highest culture, civilisation at its best and finest, everything that is "sweetness and light". Craftsmanship and genius. Like >>7378259.
There are many more. I think you could argue against the photograph being art with all of these positions: it doesn't alienate, it's not self referential, it's not genius and so on. I personally do not think that photography in itself cannot be art, but like painting and writing, is not art in itself.
In my opinion the best way to go about this is simply to take the intentional position: if something is intended as art, it should be read and discussed as such. This doesn't mean it's good, important or even relevant, yet it's the only really useful way to go about these discussions.
does that mean realistic paintings are not art?
>>7378209
Everything can be considered art. We passed this stage of discussion in the 1920s, I believe.
>>7379037
Yes that is exactly what I meant. In fact I had a very brilliant aesthetics professor and most of his work was about how to translate and apply religious concepts to aesthetics. I recall he put a lot of importance in love as a bridge between the ideal and the physical worlds in antiquity. (Eros is what makes the transition from appreciating beautiful objects to appreciate the Idea of Beauty). But then that shifted to the christian concept of God's love, hence the need for a "theology of aesthetics"
>>7379070
Why should I give you anything, pleb
The painting looks done as if by a blind man with palsy. The subtlety of form and color in the photograph sing with truth like a orchestral composition. That's irrelevant though, and boils down to my cheering for or booing against whichever happened to strike my fancy for whatever reason. My judgment of artistic quality has no bearing on whether or not either item belongs to the category of art, which, naturally, they both do.
>>7379143
oh, so it's high school tier to have any opinion about art, then
you gave me exactly the undergraduate tier opinion I expected
>>7378592
Art appreciation is not about put-on standards. There is good art, bad art, indiferrent art. There even is art that you think is art.
>>7379155
Nah its highschool tier to have wrong opinions and to be baited into the old "which is superior" essay stay salty tho bud
>Ruskin wouldn't consider the first art either
>Turner would consider them both art
It's like you don't read basic art theory or legal documentation of art's definition.
>>7378209
>The image on the left is considered art, the image on the right is not.
>Is /lit smart enough to explain why with its literature skills?
70 replies and nobody has actually answered the question. Hint: to explain why something is considered as such one must take into account whomever is doing the considering, and the evolution of that person's ideas. Some will consider some things art and others not, but the interesting part is w h y
>>7379405
68 replies before yours and you haven't read Ruskin v Turner either.
>>7378256
>Can i just ask, what board are you originally from?
iktf anon
>>7378209
The left is a painting, the right is a photograph. Both are considered art.
>>7378262
God can't even hold a camera much less be a photographer.
>>7378216
photography is a form of art
ITT
>>7378209
The image on the left was spawned from someone's mind; it is their interpretation of reality. The image on the right is inorganic, showing no hint of humanity.
People seem to think that claiming "everything is art" is somehow going to lower their conception of high art when in reality all that's being done is elevating life itself into art.
It's not an all encompassing depreciation of value, it's a transcendent ideal that renders "value" meaningless.
There are people that will feel more passionately towards their own shit than they will towards the entire history of Renaissance painting, and guess what, they're absolutely correct by virtue of being unto themselves.
The second one tries to relegate "art" into some objective metric of aesthetic value is the second that art becomes hollow and dead.
>All these faggoty answers.
The second photograph was not intended to be beautiful.
Art is:
1. The *deliberate* creation of beautiful artifacts.
2. A product of such an act.
3. (metaphorically) Anything that is beautiful, as works of art are.
>>7380659
>humanity
Does a word with more ideology exist?
Does a more manipulatable and useless word exist?
>>7380697
>Art is:
>1. The *deliberate* creation of beautiful artifacts.
So if you create something without beauty in mind it isn't art?
If you create something beautiful without intentionality it isn't art?
Art is literally nothing but will-to-beauty?
That's some one dimensional undergrad shit anon
>>7380697
This is a very basic definition of art. Art is more than just beauty: it is the externalisation of a person's interpretation of information. The picture on the left is tinged with the maker's conscious, imbued with his thoughts and opinions and ideas.
>>7379080
But doesn't the photographer have just as much creative power as the painter? Theoretically he could arrange the scene to make it look exactly like the painting and vice versa. The documentation or any of the criteria you mentioned could be present in the photograph.
I assume I'm wrong btw, I'm not very smart, but I would appreciate a response as to the particulars of my error please.
>>7380710
>Does a word with more ideology exist?
>Does a more manipulatable and useless word exist?
Embarrassing
>>7380733
Find me a universally agreed upon definition of "humanity" and I'll show you an improper definition
>>7380710
>"ugly art is art too!"
Nice uggs, how's the spice latte?
>>7380659
H8 2 break this 2 you m8 but the camera came out of the mind of man
>>7380697
>implying you can infer the intention of the photographer
>the current year
>>7380741
>art has to be beautiful and aesthetically pleasant or it isn't art
So novels which evoke feelings of unpleasantness or disquiet aren't art?
The dullness of Madame Bovary or the wretchedness of Notes from Underground are deliberate aesthetic choices that add to the artistic merit of the work.
Were Flaubert and Dostoevsky not artists?
Art is truth as representation, not some pigeon-holed romanticist wank fest.
>>7380748
Butt thee camra int the picyour. It ttool
>>7380710
>So if you create something without beauty in mind it isn't art?
Nope.
>If you create something beautiful without intentionality it isn't art?
Nope, but check the third sense.
>Art is literally nothing but will-to-beauty?
It's also used as a language for sending messages in a dysfunctionally abstruse and grandiose way.
I just gave the literal definition of the word "art". Don't get so mad.
>>7380713
>it is the externalisation of a person's interpretation of information.
This is a good addition to the definition. Artwork invariably expresses the artist's opinions. Dadaists had le anarchie maymay all over their works and, in the same way, the naturalists had their stark view of the world expressed in theirs.
>>7380759
>So novels which evoke feelings of unpleasantness or disquiet aren't art?
Novels don't do that.
>The dullness of Madame Bovary or the wretchedness of Notes from Underground are deliberate aesthetic choices that add to the artistic merit of the work.
They make beauty of ugliness. You just discovered how art works.
>Art is truth as representation
dude what
>>7380739
In this sense, "humanity" means the human element which inarguably pervades art. If you can't recognize it, you shouldn't be here.
>>7380767
>Novels don't do that.
Translation: I don't read.
>>7380767
>beauty of ugliness
if anything you're the pseud here, family.
>>7380762
>So if you create something without beauty in mind it isn't art?
>Nope.
So an objective product of a subjective state is entirely dependent on that subjective state? Did you somehow solve the mind-body problem while we were arguing about art?
>>7380767
>Novels don't do that.
You don't read much, do you?
>They make beauty of ugliness. You just discovered how art works.
So you're literally just relegating all artistic merit unto some ineffable "beauty filter" that transmutes things that aren't beautiful into things that are? Doesn't it make more sense to say that ugly things are art by virtue of that ugliness striking a chord of truth?
>dude what
Oh, nevermind, you either can't grapple with "truth" or you are unclear on the idea of art as representation in which case you shouldn't be talking about art in the first place
>>7380790
when someone points at yellow and asserts it's red there's not much point to arguing anything but "you're just wrong".
>>7380790
Why should I reply with a well-thought-out response when you were factually wrong. Like, you don't read if you think that there aren't novels that try to make you uncomfortable (Gravity's Rainbow, American Psycho, and Naked Lunch are good examples). The fact that you are covering so hard only emphasizes the fact that you have no clue, no iota what you are talking about.
>>7380739
What's more embarrassing is picking manipulatable over manipulable imo
![hr_giger_begoetterung_xi[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wWC5h5o.jpg "hr_giger_begoetterung_xi[1].jpg")
this is for the sake of beauty, ladies and gentlemen
>>7380812
Belief in some abstract notion of "humanity" or "human nature" without rational justification is more abhorrent than a slight semantic misstep imo
>>7380801
>Gravity's Rainbow
>Soooo uncomfortable :/ :/
lmao I agree w you but cmon
![untitled-158[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/J2mOS5L.jpg "untitled-158[1].jpg")
beauty, folks
art is the pursuit of the beautiful and nothing more
![Egon_Schiele_zelfportret[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3RCPpRz.jpg "Egon_Schiele_zelfportret[1].jpg")
everything was beautiful and nothing hurt - anon's tattoo 2015
>>7380815
Giger was a hack.
>>7380823
Art isn't "beauty"
>>7380793
>So an objective product of a subjective state is entirely dependent on that subjective state?
No, the words don't change anything about their referents. What word is appropriate varies with the creator's intention. If an artisan creates a hammer, it is not a work of art unless it is ridiculously ornate and meant to be beautiful.
>So you're literally just relegating all artistic merit unto some ineffable "beauty filter" that transmutes things that aren't beautiful into things that are?
I can't explain why things that are grotesque are beautiful. It just depends on whether it is artwork or not. If you saw a very dirty place in the third world you'rd be like "ew" but if you saw a painting of it you would be fascinated (although maybe not, because artwork is not necessarily beautiful but it is intended to be so).
>Oh, nevermind, you either can't grapple with "truth" or you are unclear on the idea of art as representation in which case you shouldn't be talking about art in the first place
Don't use "truth". Some artists care only about feels and/or beauty for the sake of beauty, not truth.
>>7380798
>False analogy.
Such faggots. If I were mistaken, my stupidity would be demonstrated by something more multifacetted.
>>7380801
>Like, you don't read if you think that there aren't novels that try to make you uncomfortable (Gravity's Rainbow, American Psycho, and Naked Lunch are good examples)
I didn't deny that. I denied that novels made you feel uncomfortable. What are you? A pussy? They are mere novels.
>>7380823
>>7380833
Yes, it's completely and absolutely ugly. That is the reason beacuse of which people look at it captivated.
>>7380853
>Giger was a hack.
Explain pls
>>7380833
That IS beautiful, senpai
>>7380816
Belief that inability to find a universal definition renders any concept useless is hidebound literalism. So you've noticed every concept bleeds into its neighbors or gets fuzzy at the edges, good job, if you think this means you can't talk about anything you're welcome to walk the walk and stop talking.
![the-scream[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/pgjTYaH.jpg "the-scream[1].jpg")
>>7380853
the only thing art communicates is beauty. if it communicates something else it is only a proxy for beauty.
>>7380866
>>7380854
>No, the words don't change anything about their referents.
I meant the subjective state one creates art within has no inherent "art bestowing" capacity
A painting you make when you're feeling caustic is still art
>If you saw a very dirty place in the third world you'rd be like "ew" but if you saw a painting of it you would be fascinated
Now THIS is projecting
>Don't use "truth". Some artists care only about feels and/or beauty for the sake of beauty, not truth.
And some care only for truth and not beauty, you see how this goes?
>>7380865
I mean that "humanity" as a technical term is all but meaningless because it's referring to literally every fundamental facet of being human.
It's a convenient categorical structure and offers nothing of epistemic value beyond just that: convenience and organization.
>>7380854
>>7380854
>I didn't deny that. I denied that novels made you feel uncomfortable. What are you? A pussy? They are mere novels.
This is so unbelievably edgy and closed-minded that I doubt that you could understand why. Please grow up or leave.
>>7380865
It's the difference between Locke's conception of abstract and the actuality of the term.
It's a general statement lacking in very much actual knowledge.
>>7380854
>I didn't deny that. I denied that novels made you feel uncomfortable. What are you? A pussy? They are mere novels.
Oh I'm laffin
>>7380866
Your conception of "beauty" is askew from the rest of us.
>>7380858
More accurately he was a one trick pony. No depth of vision. Like Ziggy or Garfield.
The real answer is that neither are "art", art is a discourse of intended consideration of objects not objects.
Both objects like any object may or may not be intended towards within the discourse of art but by themselves are simply objects.
![hr_giger_022[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xlmuRy8.jpg "hr_giger_022[1].jpg")
>>7380892
you can't deny he had a knack for capturing the beautiful though, and what more do we need from art?
>>7380899
>>7380874
>I meant the subjective state one creates art within has no inherent "art bestowing" capacity
Pluto may or may not be planet. It depends on the definition of the word "planet". Some things are intended to be used in a certain way but are used in another. For example, butts were not meant to have dicks through them.
>Now THIS is projecting
:^) I was using "you" impersonally, you mongoloid Negro.
>And some care only for truth and not beauty, you see how this goes?
Yes, but some do not, which refutes the point that art is to represent truth. Artwork can portray feelings as well, and can also be used to make beautiful things for the sake of their aesthetic value.
>>7380885
This post has so much intellectually profound content that I am going through an existential crisis.
>>7380896
>Art is discourse.
No.
You will have communication problems.
>>7380921
>Yes, but some do not
Are you not the same anon that was trying to say all art does is portray beauty? If not then you're a third party that just butted in and if you are then you just made mute the very point you're trying to argue.
>>7380931
>Are you not the same anon that was trying to say all art does is portray beauty?
Yes I was, I still don't see the point that you're trying to make
>>7380931
>if you are then you just made mute the very point you're trying to argue.
whut
I said that art was the deliberate creation of beautiful things. The word "art" would be appropriate only metaphorically if the works were not intended to be beautiful but were so, as artwork is, anyway.
Actually, I need to make up my mind but this should make sense.
My point is that "art" is a word with a definite meaning. It is just a word, though. Nothing changes if you call it asdgaf although you would have communication problems.
>>7380967
u wot m8 fite me irl
>>7380967
...that art draws inspiration from places other than beauty
This has been the entire argument
>>7380972
>The word "art" would be appropriate only metaphorically if the works were not intended to be beautiful but were so
I get the feeling that we're arguing when really we have very similar views, your own just putting beauty in place of what I would call truth
Art is what the artist does niggaz
>>7380921
>>Art is discourse
>No.
>You will have communication problems.
Can you elaborate what you mean by this?
>>7378209
The guy who painted that picture had more skill than the guy who took that photo. Anyone with a smartphone can snap a pretty picture now.
>>7378255
DUDE EVERYTHING IS ART! EVEN THIS PHOTO OF A PIECE OF DOG SHIT! XD
this photo is utter shit by fiat r-right guys?
>>7378265
Lol fucking post modern thought. I bet you like Bernie Sanders too you stupid fucking faggot.
>>7381089
If anything it's a modernist view.
Go back to 200 years ago you dunce.
>>7381091
Modernists respected skill and craftsmanship you fucking pleb.
>>7381123
Someone's bullshitting here.
>>7381089
Fucking idiot.
>>7381128
Lol buttflustered liberal detected
> b-butt this man doesn't believe in my endlessly relativistic subjectivist thought analysis!!!! Let's call him a fucking idiot! !! Everything is subjective guys! My professor told me so!!!!
>>7379162
A short 4chan post is an essay? I've been "baited" into offering an opinion about which is superior?
Everyone knows well enough what someone means when they say an attempt at art is "not art". Just as nobody until this last century was confused by hearing it said that a poem was "hardly verse, certainly not poetry" or that a novel was "not even prose". Just as every old man knows what he means if he says metal is "not music".
This is not to say the photograph is not art in the same sense that a desk is not art. It is not even to say it in the sense that people sometimes say pornography is not art. It is just to say that it is failed art, or possibly not even intended as art.
Everybody knows this. And you are not being serious if you pretend that my statement was intended as a formulation about theoretical categories.
Alright—now I've been baited.
Whilst both pictures have great colours, the first has a broader range and is all the more beautiful for it.
Furthermore, the prior captures a moment in time much better than the latter. The setting sun, silhouetted townscape, the reflection of the setting sun on the water and the perspective (the sun being just shy of centre, offering alot more foreground whilst still having the sweeping sky.)
All in all, there's just a lot more going on. Couple that with it being an artist's impression of that "moment" and that they had to make those colours on their palette, to match those of their mind's eye.
The photographer may be pleased with their image (as i would be), but surely can't claim its on a par with the painting.
Hold on....ive got one of these photos around here somewhere...
Eye of the beholder, and all that. Here's mine
>>7381123
oh so you take their word for it eh
>>7383437
hunger, to be frank
>>7378976
Live action films are documentaries of on-then-off plays, which is the actual art here. The film itself is not art: it's like a photo of a painting.
>>7378209
[L]
Bosatsu approaches the contested shore, his lesser vessel occupying one golden mean as the lower firmament defines the other, and mirroring in the East the spire of promise rocketing in its stony Occident. The meniscus lapping ship and shore has borne as many names as souls: samsara, Rubicon, Jordan. The truth of the journey is on full display before him again, hidden from mundane existence yet in this moment revealed to his bewildered passenger: Hades lies not below, but between. The path to paradise doesn't avoid the stygian firescape, it courses inward, into the abyss, its transit asbestic, shaking off its glowing dross to its chaste emergence in the sanguine lapis lazuli dome the scorching orb sees but doesn't grasp, knows but doesn't overcome.
[R]
(no foreground item to provide depth, shore in featureless silhouette, no focal point, and either too little water or too much)
Art cannot function when it is in comparison. The very concept of art is problematic, in no way a scale to measure things, but there have to be certain criteria so that we can give something the label. Since this is a topic of measurement we cannot talk about art
Art is whatever you want it to be, baby.
>>7378216
>just a photo of a sunset and is therefore not considered art
By whom?
Holy shit this thread. I want to kill myself for having spent time with you lowlife uneducated morons.
