• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

If it's automated, is it still (fine) art?

The Stone said:
For gods sake the artist who made the highest selling contemporary work of art ever (damien hurst) didn't make it himself nor does he make anything but a commodity.
Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, it was the platinum skull covered by more than 8000 diamonds?
It's hard to compare a work which has high value in materials themselves, to works crafted with commodity materials.

Also, his works have lost 30% of the value, which also says something.

Personally, I'd say the guy is a genius whose biggest art is actually scamming people with too much money.
 
jernejk said:
If I understand correctly, it was the platinum skull covered by more than 8000 diamonds?
It's hard to compare a work which has high value in materials themselves, to works crafted with commodity materials.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What I was getting at was that this work is simply a commodity which lacks anything else. What do you mean by "commodity materials"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Unfortunately under your definition most of the works of the "great masters" would not be regarded as art.

A large number were commissioned as propaganda/dogma of the Catholic Church and many were portraits of people with money.

Not really much there challenging us emotionally.

But I agree with your definition, that good artistic works should probably at least make us think or feel.
 

I strongly disagree - that's why "great" artists are considered great, because their work transcend the narrow framework of the particular circumstances, and convey/evoke timeless messages. Not convinced? Then just give more that a passing look at any great painting (Velazques' Pope Innocent X... look at insight of what lies behind that face, anything but "innocent"; or Michelangelo shameless outrageous nudity in the Sistine Chappel, the Pope personal quarters no less). Art frequently carried strong ideological message, but you cannot reduce/dismiss great art as mere propaganda sloganeering or servile portraiture (something I cannot say about well paid celebrity photographers of today).
 

Sure, well said but given that this topic is regarding "automated" means of art making which has come around since the industrial revolution, I am refering to Contemporary art not the "great masters".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Stone said:
It seems that you are drawing from examples of the great artists as the basis for your definition of art in todays time.
Click to expand...

Welcome to APUG - where nothing good happened after VE Day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register