Thy know not of which thy speak.That can easily lead you to the notion of the "sublime", which was the ultimate art-experience coming out of medieval philosophy (almost always having to do with religious "uplifting"). The "sublime" is a concept that really pushes a rarefied notion of art (artistic/religious epiphany) and should be left in mouldering old books where it belongs.
"Fine" art is a valueless description. It is not really as a purposive object that art is ever appreciated as specifically art, so the limiting notion of a "fine" art adds nothing. That's why you can remove an object from its function and recontextualize it as an art piece. (Picasso's bicycle seat bull, for example - which is not art because it is a bicycle seat and handlebars but because of the reconfiguration of those objects into a sculpture.)
Well, portraits and documentary photos, or in the painting and drawing world, religious and historical scenes, are among works that are considered fine art. And they can have the purposes of propaganda, vanity or inspiration. Even purely decorative art (that would be categorized as vulgar under your definition) can be considered fine art given its execution and appearance."fine" art does not need any purpose. It is made with the idea that its existence is worthwhile in itself, that it is something to be experienced to the exclusion of everything else.
“Thy” is the possessive.
Then I suppose one could write this, if one likes using 'thy' a lot:
Thy knowledge is insufficient to support thy speech.
Was kind of the point. One kind of feeble pretentiousness against the other. But that is hard to prove now of course.“Thy” is the possessive.
Which can be a good thing if he askth (?) an intelligent question.OR He knowth not of which he speakth.
Does it make it "finer" art because nobody had put the two together to look like that before?
And they can have the purposes of propaganda, vanity or inspiration.
pretentiousness
The Wikipedia article does that job.This isn't pretentious. Level an argument against what I wrote, if you want.
Which aspect made these pieces fine art versus art? The prices? The sizes of the canvases? That they were in a top gallery? The fact you found them beautiful? That a school child couldn’t make them (presumably implying a high degree of technical skill was involved)? Was it fine art, great art, very good art, superb art?
The Wikipedia article does that job.
Your understanding of the art history concept of the sublime is tenuous at best.
Everybody does. That’s the point.Feel free to elaborate. I'm glad you have the Wikipedia article at your disposal, it really does a nice job substituting.
We've learned so much here, to the point of learning nothing.I’ve had the same problem with this ridiculous, absolutely useless thread. Every now and then I feel compelled to comment.
Calling anything fine art or even art, is just marketing. Nothing more. And as I said before, when someone refers to his/her own stuff as fine art, you know right away…
I’ve had the same problem with this ridiculous, absolutely useless thread. Every now and then I feel compelled to comment.
Calling anything fine art or even art, is just marketing. Nothing more. And as I said before, when someone refers to his/her own stuff as fine art, you know right away…
I think you guys need to get out and shoot more film! Oops, I forgot, in the northern hemisphere you now have that boring, grey, flat December light.... Plus it's bloody cold. Best stay inside and quibble over higher ethereal issues. Perhaps with a glass of your favourite tipple in hand. (8 hours of daylight, if you are lucky can be a downer. I last experienced that in UK in 2013 - not in a hurry to repeat.)
Downunder here in Australia photography outside the 'Golden' hour means an insane scene brightness range. Still doesn't help with creating fine art...
/tongue in cheek
It really is that simple.That's easy: An Artist.
No -- actually here in particular, it is often self-declared, one way or the other.And of course you decide who is and is not an artist.
It's only been 104 years since Marcel Duchamp showed that art is whatever someone calls art.
if it was the most important work of art from the 20th century, I'm a bit unsure if his urinal is considered "Fine Art".
[8]"
You don't find a Duchamp around every corner. And the urinal is rather shapely you must admit. Note it is not sitting as it would on a wall. The new position takes it out of context and transforms it. But in the end it's the"idea" that is the art. If you have a good idea and the sensibility to go with it, you might just be an artist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?