So, A ... or B?
GONE BABY GONE
14 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I'm a photojournalist, but I'm trying to force myself into graphics and "arty" stuff in an effort to broaden my horizons (and perhaps my income, harharhar). Leave me a note if you like, leave me a note if you don't, leave me a note if it's a gorgeous day out and you just wanted to mention. Everything is copyrighted Jake Daniels, 2008.
8 comments:
The redone ones are honestly all worse. Too much contrast and added graininess may seem artsy to the uneducated but it really just looks like a bad quality photograph.
Though I agree (they were mostly exercises in blending modes of duplicated and modified layers in PS) and won't argue that the adjusted photos ain't great, isn't that a little elitist? To say that something is worse for their qualities that would appeal to the "uneducated" ... that just seems like it aims to invalidate the opinion of others.
On a general basis, I mean -- I wouldn't expect Homeless Joe under the bridge to wipe his ass with any of these ... specially that third one ...
I didn't mean every uneducated person would think that high contrast and grain = arty. But many do, as evidenced by any foray into dA or other similar place. And this assumption that contrast + grain = better art is false.
Okay, but why is that false? If it's a concept perceived by many as attractive and such, why is it that the look is not considered "artistic?" And that leads me to the question of "what in the hell is the definition of 'artistic,' anyway?"
Many people think Thomas Kinkade's work is high art, too. But it is unanimous within the art world that it is not. Just like many people think that a certain book is a brilliant piece of literature, but those that know better know that the writing is shoddy, the plot is trite, and the characters are cliche.
I've been wondering about Kinkade, actually. Does the "art world" agree his work isn't art because he reproduces them in mass quantities, or because he doesn't seem to really convey any meaning, or what?
And that sort of leads me back to the thought of elitism. Who's to say what counts as art and what doesn't? Is it the artist who creates the piece, or the audience who is accepting or rejecting it?
I'm sure you can figure Kinkade out yourself with a couple of quick Google searches.
And "art" is a much broader term than "fine art" or "high art" or even "good art." There is low art, and high art; fine art, and commercial art, etc. Kinkade is kitsch and falls under low art. He will not go down in art history as a fine artist like someone such as Monet because he 1) did not break any boundaries 2) did not do anything new 3) did not have any message 4) is no better than an Elvis collectible plate. However he might be mentioned for his business practices, which are genius to some, deplorable to others. Some compare Kinkade to Warhol - but at least Warhol was breaking boundaries and trying new things.
If you really want to know the answer to your latter question, look up the terms high art and low art. Maybe you'll start to figure it out.
Ha, is that the "bored with answering your questions, noob" cue?
Thanks, maybe I will.
Post a Comment