Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
When do we stop calling something "Art"
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
"Stravinsky said of his The Rite of Spring, "I was the vessel through which it poured'" That made me smile Bill, because it reminded me of a similar quote by Rudolf Valentino, who said, "I am simply a canvas on which women paint their dreams and fantasies" (or words to that effect) (-: Ref the original question, I reckon a pile of bricks and that unmade bed defined the time for me. Not sure what either was, but art it wasn't. I don't like Brussels Sprouts or carrots (strange fellow I know, my wife says so)) so I simple don't buy or eat them, same with sham art.I agree about the pile of bricks and unmade bed and I don't like sprouts, carrots or any other cooked vegetable except potatoes (and you thought you were strange?). At best some modern art is really about making a philosophical statement or an exercise in perception, or even a Zen koan-type puzzle. But art is about communication. Without a visual language that can be decoded by the viewer you can't really communicate through art and much modern and abstract art, being free and without any visual language, can communicate very little. The best of those types of art can fire your imagination and I would say they do qualify as art, but piles of bricks and random splashes of paint usually aren't art. The blank canvas, like John Cage's 4'33" (silence for that length of time) were statements of where we were in our understanding of art and music and they could only be made once. But they were never art or music per se.
Edited
by Bill Downie
Posted
I've seen some marvelous wood carvings in churches, mainly in Spain. To produce something like that from raw material and skill is surely an art form. Look, up Grinling Gibbons. It doesn't define an answer to the original question, but rather confuses it. It's all a matter of opinionism and personal choice at the end.
Posted
Your right Peter.. And all of it is Digitally Altered Photos from the internet or Altered Photo's of other peoples paintings.. Some maybe from old books... blurry images with lots of Artifacting lines and pixelation, no real detail in most, where their should be detail.. and never any signature.. He can't sign them, they don't belong to him... Oversaturating colors to try to hide evidence of tampering... very easy to spot... especially when you see lots of thin wavy lines through every part of the image. This happens when you add Art Media Effects, Brush strokes or pencil over photo's.. Then they blurr things to try to convince the viewer it's a kind of impressionism... sad really... That is why I never comment or like on those obvious fakes..
Posted
Thank you Peter and Eric for highlighting this issue of manipulated photos been passed off as digital art .
It’s the same person who nearly ever day post three or four of his so-called paintings. Unfortunately people do remark on his work so he is encouraged to do more. Eric thank you for the simple explanation of how it’s achieved as it’s a total mystery to me. The most unfortunate outcome is that it has people dismissing genuine digital art and tars it with the same brush .
I’m sorry if my comment upset some of you , that’s not my intention they are aimed at anyone who manipulates photos of other peoples work etc and says it’s artwork.
Posted
As you may well have picked up already, I am no fan of manipulated photos, at least not posted on this site. It is something that I would hesitate to call 'art', though there is no denying that some images of this ilk are visually appealing. There was one post yesterday, an apparent Victorian street scene, that appears to have little or no manipulation, and when I Googled the title I came across the same image, similar but slightly different title, posted on a Windows forum a few days earlier. I have to acknowledge that the gentleman concerned may have made both postings, or indeed be the original artist, either digitally or classically. If he is then I apologise. But it did bring one thing to mind and that would be, what a tragedy it would be if this site were to become some kind of glorified 'Pinterest of art' where people posted any painting the caught their eye, digitally manipulated or not. That is not to decry Dixie's long running 'Inspiration from Artists' which is informative, educational, and quite simply a joy to read - no manipulation, full accreditation to the artists and not random postings in the gallery - easily identified for what to is, and easily avoided if it is not your cup of tea.
Edited
by Tony Auffret
