I once attended a lecture by a photographer (can't recall his name), but he claimed that the artistic worth of any photograph can only be justified by its monetary value. A concept worthy of debate I think.
Nothing could be closer to the truth. Ain't capitalism grand?I've heard the that assertion before. That would mean the tastes of people with the money to spend on art are the only valid tastes, and the tastes of the wealthiest are the most valid.
Many bad painters are commissioned and paid to make awful murals, which clearly are art, as they cost a fortune. The more affluent the city the better the art.If an artist paints a mural on the concrete lining of a drainage channel, it cannot be sold. Therefore its monetary value is indeterminable, and irrelevant. It effectively has a monetary value of zero. So is it not art?
I think an artwork is something that speaks to people. It may not say the same thing to everyone, but if it creates a reaction in most people who view it, then it's art.
... but if it creates a reaction in most people who view it, then it's art.
the reaction should be one of aesthetic excitement or stimulation that is satisfying to the viewer
In so far as photography is becoming easier (thanks in large part to digital), it takes alot less work and is less deserving at being called art.
Those terms are purely personal in nature and thus subjective, speculative and culturally charged, making them not only non universal, but even contradictory.
The aesthetics of one culture may cause nausea in another as so blatantly demonstrated by the Europcentric quest (as interpreted in the US) to deliver "freedom" to the world.
This statement must take so many things for granted to be true. The definition of one culture as it differs from another, the definition of aesthetics etc,. All of which are personal and subjective notions of self determination, and cannot be avoided, mostly because the those defining factors do not exist in all cultures/societies/language as they do in any given one.EVERY culture has an aesthetic...
Then I'll be specific. From an online dictionary regarding culture, "1. The quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc." And, regarding aesthetic as a noun, "The philosophical theory or set of principles governing the idea of beauty at a given time and place: the clean lines, bare surfaces, and sense of space that bespeak the machine-age aesthetic; the Cubist aesthetic." Please tell me which cultures are void of a concern for what's excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.? And to clarify further, I am only referring to photographs, not the poetic sense of, say, an extremely attractive person being 'a work of art' or any other metaphor. Okay?
It looks like some make a connection between aesthetic and art. I would be interested to know why...?
Unless you are only doodling, I would dare say that using a pencil to create a work of art requires alot more effort & training than a DSLR.Its easier to pick up a pencil and draw something on a piece of a paper than it is to use a DSLR, does this devalue drawing? Of course it doesn't.
It looks like some make a connection between aesthetic and art. I would be interested to know why...?
And, though I doubt we can even concur about the meaning of either term, why would you not connect art with an aesthetic?? I absolutely do v/v the definition I cited above...culturally derived or otherwise. I accept the notion of cultural universals that transcend language, and location. Every culture appreciates, in it's own way, what it senses as aesthetically satisfying. If you don't think so, please give concrete examples rather than vague generalities. Which culture has no aesthetic? Which culture does not define beauty in its own way? Which culture does not celebrate examples of the best expression of its tenets? To be really schoolyard about it, put up or shut up.
Did I say that some cultures have no aesthetic sense? Please tell me where.
?
Catlabs
I very much resent connecting such insane drivel with my post.
That's my cue to leave this thread.
I would very much appreciate it if you would edit your post to remove my quote.
Thank you!
I ask again this simple question: why do you connect aesthetic and art?
That came out of the online dictionary quoted earlier.
Some art though can have a function, like architectural art; a building for example. But even there, the "beauty" part of it serves no function other than aesthetics for the eye.
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?