When is art, art?

Oh I do like it when an original poster continues the discussion.,.some posters turn tale never to be seen again. I too like Norrette s TS Elliott observation..... John your "copy, interpretation" of the photograph is amazing. You certainly can observe and draw.    

My advice… just get on with whatever interests you, plein air, using photos as a reference, or trying to painstakingly copy a photo exactly (which incidentally is impossible)… copying from (or should I say learning from) the old masters etc. etc… Don’t limit yourself and don’t try and categorise everything by putting them in separate little boxes, metaphorically speaking of course!  Art is art, it can and does take many different forms…enjoy what you do, and forget about categories… Just get on and be creative - worrying about trivialities will surely stifle creativity!

If something is created to be appreciated aesthetically it is art. That does not mean you have to like it nor does it mean you have to approve of its method of creation. I find people tend to declare "that's not art" to stuff they don't like or don't approve of. People also invent rules for themselves and declare stuff that does not fit their rules as null and void. So we hear things like, digital is not art, painting from photos is not art, pouring or throwing paint is not art, using the "wrong" materials isn't art.  I'm not exempt from doing this too, I can remember telling my daughter "that's not music, that sounds like my printer is stuck". 

I struggle with the word 'art'.  There is an art to everything, from making furniture to chatting-up girls.  When it comes to 'art' as in painting/sculpture it's a different playing field.  A cliche is that 'art is in the eye of the beholder'.  Cliches become cliches because they often are the simple truth.  Each of us will have our own idea of what is great art.  For me it's Michelangelo sculptures, most of Manet's paintings, and anything at all by Ronald Searle.  Ronald Searle in the same sentence as Michelangelo and Manet??  Yes...this is ART for me.  There are others that occupy my personal top shelf of what I consider GREAT art to be.   The rest are paintings, drawings, sculptures etches, prints, etc, etc.  That's not belittling them.  They can be wonderful, and those of us who spend time doing them are very lucky indeed.   When I think of Michelangelo's Pieta, which I've seen twice, I'm gobsmacked, bowled-over, you name it.  He made ART, he was an ARTIST.  Thinking that, I can hardly call myself an artist.  I draw things, that all.  It's enough for me, can't imagine life without it.  I don't do art, I do drawing.  It's enough. I doubt many will agree with me.

One person's triviliaties is someone else's deep and abiding concern.   Trying to address it better: "art" can be good, bad, or indifferent.  It will still be art, unless it's dishonestly intended - to trick, to cheat, to trap the gullible into praising work that is meretricious; the snag with the last of those categories is that it's subjective.  I might think that an artist who mass produces or has a workshop mass-producing his unoriginal designs is hardly an artist at all.  Others will disagree - particularly those who have been tempted to invest their excess wealth into collecting such works.  I will not home in on the usual targets, but instead offer you one Thomas Kincaid (I've probably spelled his name wrong, but it's hardly worth the effort of spelling it right).   Was he an artist?  Well, he could draw and paint; he declared himself "the painter of light".  He did not, on the whole, copy: he painted nauseatingly twee, saccharine images of a hellish American-dream suburbia, invariably sprinkled with snow, and with powerful lightbulbs illuminating every window of his ghastly little cottages.  Was he an artist?  Well, in my book no, he wasn't - he was as genuine an artist as the US multi-millionaire Bible-bashers who founded mega-churches in order to make themselves mega-wealthy were genuine Christians; he had "fake" written into every sequence of his DNA.   Staying with our chums across the ocean, was Bob Ross an artist?  He popularized a method of oil painting that he could teach in half-hour segments of television.  He couldn't draw.  He had no idea about perspective.  He was a lousy painter of the same scenes repeated just about endlessly until he became too ill to continue.  Yet - he did good things with the money he made; he did not praise himself as a great painter - he repeatedly made it quite clear that he wasn't; when a not-very-bright US talk-show host said his work should be in the Smithsonian, Ross replied, and not out of false modesty, that no, it shouldn't.  It wasn't good enough.  He was less technically proficient than Kincaid/kaid or whatever, but he wasn't trying to fool anyone - he was offering a craft approach to painting that he thought people would enjoy, and for which he did not make false and dishonest claims.  So - it may sometimes go against the grain, but I do believe Bob Ross was an artist, in a way that the crooked old soak Kincade (my third or fourth variation on his name) could never be. Which really just brings me back to something I said several posts ago: there's good art, there's bad art, but if it's honestly attempted and presented, I'm quite happy, personally, to admit it under the "art" canopy. Now - you have shown your (excellent) drawing of boats, and the photograph from which you took and faithfully rendered the image.  All I would want to know there is: was the photograph open source?  Was it on a web-page that is not open-source, and if it was, did you consult or credit the photographer before using it; and are you desirous of selling it, in which case its attribution does need to be shown.  If it came from an open-source website, there is no problem at all.  You did a great job of it, and yes - that's art.  If you found it elsewhere, the photographer is still alive and working, then you should have asked them before showing (not before doing) your drawing.   That's about ethics, not art - and it's still art. When you first posed your question, I asked you what you meant by "copying": if you answered that, it's got lost in the verbiage (mostly mine...) somewhere.  So I'll give you my answer: copying, for me, is about photographing, printing, creating by mechanical means other than your own hand and materials, a copyrighted image, generally speaking, or any other image in reality.  You have not done that: you're not really asking about that; your concern - correct me if I'm dropping my argument and yours around our ankles on this - is whether a close study of a photograph and attempt to capture it as accurately as possible is copying it.  Yes, in one sense, it is; if one is good enough to be able to do that.  But it is not copying in any ethical, intellectual, or aesthetic sense in my opinion - and we all know what they say about opinions. I don't think your question was trivial - I thought, when I saw Alan's reply, that his habitual frankness might have been toned down a bit - and I understand your own comment that you lack imagination, inventiveness, and so on: you're really not exactly alone there!  But you offered your interpretation of that image; you did a great job; and I would call, and have called, this unquestionably "art".   You'll know that art students - once upon a time at least, I don't know how they're taught now - were encouraged to draw from plaster casts, busts, to visit the galleries and try to paint their own studies of the Old Masters; that was learning, not copying; it was a recognized practice, it was ethical, it was instructive.  Having done that, these students would gradually be weaned off studying other people's work - well, working from it anyway - because they'd learned enough to put their own pieces together.  I am perfectly sure, as I'm sure of anything, that you could do just the same; maybe, being of riper years, it'll take you a bit longer to get there, maybe it HAS taken you more time than you'd like,  but I think you're conflating several different things, which is why you've got some confused replies.  We all struggle to be original; our imaginations are not always as fecund as we'd hope they were. I know you're not really looking for encouragement, a fraternal pat on the back and a "come on, ole fellow, don't be downhearted!", because you're not downhearted and not looking for condescension (though possibly getting it....).  It's just that you've asked a question which is fiendishly, phenomenally difficult to answer without going into War and Peace length and digression. As I just have.

Not sure what "giving reputation" actually means, but I've just done that for Collette and Lew. Agree with every word they both said.

Well George I think you have ask a question that a hundred people would have a different answer to. Is art in the eye of the beholder? . I was listening to a conversation quite a while back , you couldn’t miss it as the person was letting the world know how intellectual they were and the vast knowledge of well everything, “ well there is a superb piece of art , the shape the lines oh my goodness it’s so beautiful “ the object was a chair . For me it was a object to put my butt In nothing more but a nice looking chair , I would probably describe it as a excellent piece of furniture and beautifully made at that . My point is that people see art in things that many other would not even consider it to anything like art,  as they know it .  I watched a guy carve a walking stick head , it was a dogs head now to me that was art ax he actually carved it as a sculpture would cut and mould clay , other may think it’s a craft , well it is but it’s also a bit of art . See how difficult it is to answer what looks like a simple question. Is my glass engravings art , I engrave pictures onto sheets of glass , I think it is .  By the way I think your a very good artist having seen some of your superb sketches, copied or not , I throw that in but not as a answer to your original question.  Now I’m confused but that’s easily done these days. 

Sigh!! The title of this board is "General Art Discussion". I can't help but feel that a 'discussion' is the one thing we're not going to get. I am not seeking advice, I DO enjoy what I do, and I am not worrying about trivialities. It is easy to say "Art is Art" but is that always true, really? I'm trying Sylvia but it isn't easy.

I have now deleted all of my posts because they are supposedly not on topic, which is expected from the creator. I'm extremely sorry if I've bored you with this because I'm off topic. Will never happen again. Promised. I have dealt with it and given my personal thoughts on the topic. But if that causes such a "sigh" then I apologize. All my thoughts are deleted here. Maybe ask the questions more precisely in the future.

It was directed at me, and quite unnecessary if I might say so… and my tone wasn’t said in a way to be taken as confrontational, (not that you’ve said it was), that’s how I express myself, and I’m entitled to express my opinions. I don’t appreciate it being greeted with a ‘sigh’, it’s damn insulting. I wasn’t particularly directing my response to you John, just a general statement - to a question that there is no definitive answer, we all have different views! I’ll stop posting any more comments on the forum from now on.., I’m finished with it - I will however, continue to post my artwork on the gallery…