This isn't art, this is the magic of Photoshop

[Naama]

Naama,

Is it 19th Century thought or is it a cultural idea that "doing" is somehow better than just "thinking".

I think of all the coffee shop conversations by folks who say "I'd do this... or that" and yet never actually proceed to the actual doing. they show no gumption or strength of will.

So the jetwash guy is "better" in my view than the guy who may have thought the same thing, but never exerted the effort to try his idea.

But, in the end, the guy who can actually paint with his own hands in any medium, including computer, is better than the jetwash guy because any idiot can stand there and throw paint into jetwash and get the same end product.

The "art", if any, is solely in the idea, not the finished product. Yet the product is what is being sold, although I could train a monkey or program a robot to throw paint.

Inventors of concepts for stuff, or processes to make stuff, can get a patent and make those concepts their own legally. A similar procedure doesn't exist for art concepts. The ownership is solely in the finished product, and then only has value when made by the actual conceiver, not by a mimic of a technique that depends on randomness.

I just think that art doesn't has to do anything with skills. Art is an idea. Well.... This jetwash guy.... I don't really know what he's all about, and I don't think that he's a conceptual artist.... more like an abstract expressionalist, and I don't really "believe" in that as well..... But if I see/hear about works from Marcel Duchamp, like his "Fountain", an Urinal he put into an museum and signed it R. Mutt I just think it's an act of a genius! Even if he didn't put really any effort in it.... You know, I started as a painter, now I'm a conceptual photographer, and I think painting is much more easier then bringing up really good ideas for conceptual things.

Naama

 

[carebear]

Your a photog right? (just looked at the "small talk" thread).

Photography, digital computer art, those sorts of things, IS "doing".

Sure I can program a machine to push a button, or train a monkey (or even me ) to frame a shot, but the vision of what is worth shooting is where concept meets action. You can control f-stops and exposure times and other things I vaguely recall. You can even control, in the darkroom or on a computer, certain effects in the transfer from image to printing.

All that involves exerting your mind through tools.

There isn't just a process based on randomness that I or something inanimate could do just as well.

Even if I had the functional skill, I wouldn't necessarily have the artistic, ineffable "eye".

 

[Naama]

Chimps will paint, and paint ,and paint for hours upon hours,...going without food, sleep, everything for the sake of their art. We may not have a clue what it is that they are trying to say, but I think it would not matter to them. They do it for the pure joy of creating. This is also a part of the answer to the question, "What is art?"

I hope that art is more then the pure joy of creating..... (?)
You know, thinking about "what is art?" when I started artschool really drove me quite crazy, maybe I'm just crazy (?)

Naam

 

[Naama]

Your a photog right? (just looked at the "small talk" thread).

Photography, digital computer art, those sorts of things, IS "doing".

Sure I can program a machine to push a button, or train a monkey (or even me ) to frame a shot, but the vision of what is worth shooting is where concept meets action. You can control f-stops and exposure times and other things I vaguely recall. You can even control, in the darkroom or on a computer, certain effects in the transfer from image to printing.

All that involves exerting your mind through tools.

There isn't just a process based on randomness that I or something inanimate could do just as well.

Even if I had the functional skill, I wouldn't necessarily have the artistic, ineffable "eye".

Sure, but, that's not what the main point on my photographs are! I try to make them as aesthetic as possible, but in the end, the main point is the messega (oh my, that sounds sooooo cheesy, I'm emberrassed right now to write something like that, actually... ) For most of them, I guess I could use polaroid, or one way cameras.

Naama

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Nah.

No crazier than me. lol I know exactly how those chimp painters feel. I will lose myself in a project sometimes and completely lose track of time. Maybe this is a form of escape from the boring mundane world for us?

 

[Naama]

No crazier than me. lol I know exactly how those chimp painters feel. I will lose myself in a project sometimes and completely lose track of time. Maybe this is a form of escape from the boring mundane world for us?

Reminds me of the time when I was still painting! I wouldn't even stop to go to the toilet until it was really, really, really necessery! lol

Naama

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

So therefore,...

"Art is fun!"
(You can quote me on that one.)

 

[carebear]

Sure, but, that's not what the main point on my photographs are! I try to make them as aesthetic as possible, but in the end, the main point is the messega (oh my, that sounds sooooo cheesy, I'm emberrassed right now to write something like that, actually... ) For most of them, I guess I could use polaroid, or one way cameras.

Naama

Yep, for that right there I'd pull your grant.

Actually, art should carry some sort of message. If only an idea of what made trhe artist choose that subject. I think intentionality, as opposed to coolness, is the key to defining art. Art, of any kind, is made or selected.

In my intro to logic class (oh, I'm old :eusa_doh: ) we discussed "what is art". Of course, we came to no definitive answer. The most frustrating (and then amusing) thing for me was the arty kids who lacked any logic (or discussion) ability and merely said. "If you call it art, it's art." as if that was a definitive argument.

After fruitlessly pointing out that, while that may in fact be true, the point of logic is to come up with an argument to support that position. I resorted to making randomly scribble and hold them up, exclaiming "Voila, more art!".

They complained I was "missing the point" but still were unable to even begin to try and assert some kind of standard or even guideline. So they were forced to admit I was an artist. Which I found very amusing.

Because I'm mean and arrogant, and enjoy teasing the debate impaired.

 

[Naama]

After fruitlessly pointing out that, while that may in fact be true, the point of logic is to come up with an argument to support that position. I resorted to making randomly scribble and hold them up, exclaiming "Voila, more art!".

They complained I was "missing the point" but still were unable to even begin to try and assert some kind of standard or even guideline. So they were forced to admit I was an artist. Which I found very amusing.

Because I'm mean and arrogant, and enjoy teasing the debate impaired.

:eusa_clap That's a good one! But you know, that's almost like an art performance in some way (maybe I'm just too optimistic )

I like the way how this thread turned out!

Naama

 

[carebear]

:eusa_clap That's a good one! But you know, that's almost like an art performance in some way (maybe I'm just too optimistic )

I like the way how this thread turned out!

Naama

Oh when it comes to teasing the logic-impaired I'll go down in history as a Master.

"What is Art?" is one of those fairly non-controversial topics that also has so many reasonable perspectives and no real objective, definitive answer. No matter your personal position, there's always one more thing to consider.

Especially as technology keeps providing more types to consider.

 

[Quigley Brown]

Reminds me of the time when I was still painting! I wouldn't even stop to go to the toilet until it was really, really, really necessery! lol

Naama

I recall an artist who didn't wait and then called it art!

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Quigley, will we ever get to see what you really look like? Who's the man behind the Photoshop brush?

Mr. Brown is hanging off of a cliff in the "What Do You Look Like?" thread.

Spilling paint through an airplane propeller is different, but I could do that too. Just give me an airplane propeller.

There's different forms of art, though. Renaissance, Surreal, Modern, etc. Every form is different from the other. What someone could call a bunch of ink plots, others can call a masterpiece. They see what others do not. Photoshop allows those who cannot paint or draw to make something "artistic". Turning your image to black and white and putting an effect in doesn't make it special persay, but it makes the person happy.

However, when you do something like what Mr. Brown does, that is something special and he does it very creatively. I'd call his works art. His face, his clothes, his posture all blend into the image and create something really interesting. With all the effects we have to work with on the computer, if you use them wisely, your project will turn out to be something special that no one else can do.

 

[Quigley Brown]

My background is newspaper work where I did stuff like this...printed in the darkroom, my hands dripping with chemicals. But thanks to digital and Photoshop I love doing the distorted photos I take of myself...all in fun. I doubt I could make a side business out of it (although a coffee and bagel shop down the street from me wants me to do a series of goofy ones involving coffee and bagels using the shop's employees...I have no idea what to charge them).

[/IMG]

 

[priestyboy]

This Photoshop thing is great but way too $$$ for the casual user.

Any input on how/what programs allow for creating a "true" vintage look in photos.

I've even seen some photos that have the scalloped type edges.

There are some photos of you reenactors out there (Paddy's Page) that look like they truely are 1940s vintage. That's the look I want without using a 40s vintage camera.

Any input?

 

[Mike in Seattle]

While the fully loaded Photoshop is pretty expensive, you can get Photoshop Elements for under $100, and there's usually a $20 upgrade rebate if you've been using another graphics or photo-editing program. It comes with all of the most popular tools for editing and enhancing photos - certainly more than enough for the average to intermediate amateur photographer will probably need.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

This Photoshop thing is great but way too $$$ for the casual user.

Any input on how/what programs allow for creating a "true" vintage look in photos.

I've even seen some photos that have the scalloped type edges.

There are some photos of you reenactors out there (Paddy's Page) that look like they truely are 1940s vintage. That's the look I want without using a 40s vintage camera.

Any input?

A company called AutoFX makes some good programs that are plug ins for Photoshop, but they also work as stand alone programs. Mystical Lights, and Mystical Tints, Tones, and Colors are great. About 150 bucks for each I think, but there's a lot you can do with them.
Then again, if you ask someone nicely here at the lounge that has the software, they just might be persuaded to whip something up for you in their PC.
Which reminds me, I have to get off this silly internet and get busy with an illustrious lounge member's photos that I promised I'd do up for him.

 

[Girl Friday]

Great Photos Quigley!

I totally love the lady hanging the skeleton next to the sign about "Diet Bread" fantastic! :eusa_clap

 

[ideaguy]

ah...look up the word "Philistine".

try MyDictionary.com