Welcome to Gaia! ::

NuMedia Millie's avatar

Prophet

Renata DS
This is silly, another 'Art, what is it not' thread.
Art is elements and principles that blend together to create a visual appealing piece.
That is subjective.
There are 'artist' out there that get paid thousands of dollars just to make statues of lines and colors. Why is it called art? Because people like to look at it. It someone can take a picture and a lot of people really like it. Then it can be considered art. Because it has the right elements, principles, and composition for it to be visually appealing. Does that make the person who took said picture an artist, maybe not...but if they pursue this as a passion then maybe so. Art is about getting people to feel through visuals, and getting them to see what you see. If you can do that, no matter what program you use. You have the potential to be an artist.

Do I think art can be made through Instagram, yes. Do I think every Joe that uses Instagram is an artist, no.
except we all use the word artist and art too liberally.
Why in the world does that photograph have to be art because people like it? Why can't it just stay a ******** pretty photo? Why is that such a problem with everyone? If it's supposed to be a pretty photograph then it's a pretty photograph and that's it and that is okay. It doesn't have to be art.
ii Sydd's avatar

8,400 Points
  • Tooth Fairy 100
  • V-Day 2011 Event 100
  • Friendly 100
whencastlesfall
Lately, I have been obsessed with Instagram and taking pictures with the app. In fact, I've been so obsessed about it that I've been trying to figure out opinions and such and a common argument that I've heard is that Instagram does not make somebody a photographer.

question ? confused

I've always thought that photography was the process of taking images and turning them into objects of art? In some manner of speaking, isn't that what Instagram does?

Place your opinions here.


photography is pictures turned into art or capturing memories/moments/feelings. you dont have to have a nice camera, but if your pictures are bad quality no ones going to take you seriously. In my opinion, i phone and photography should never be used in the same sentence.
Renata DS's avatar

Tipsy Fatcat

NuMedia Millie
Renata DS
This is silly, another 'Art, what is it not' thread.
Art is elements and principles that blend together to create a visual appealing piece.
That is subjective.
There are 'artist' out there that get paid thousands of dollars just to make statues of lines and colors. Why is it called art? Because people like to look at it. It someone can take a picture and a lot of people really like it. Then it can be considered art. Because it has the right elements, principles, and composition for it to be visually appealing. Does that make the person who took said picture an artist, maybe not...but if they pursue this as a passion then maybe so. Art is about getting people to feel through visuals, and getting them to see what you see. If you can do that, no matter what program you use. You have the potential to be an artist.

Do I think art can be made through Instagram, yes. Do I think every Joe that uses Instagram is an artist, no.
except we all use the word artist and art too liberally.
Why in the world does that photograph have to be art because people like it? Why can't it just stay a ******** pretty photo? Why is that such a problem with everyone? If it's supposed to be a pretty photograph then it's a pretty photograph and that's it and that is okay. It doesn't have to be art.

No need to get hot and bothered about it, it's just a difference in opinion. I never said it had to be art, but that it can be considered art if it had the elements, principles and a good composition. That's what art is made of. If it's not art to you and it's just a '******** pretty photo' then that's fine, but it might speak something more to someone else and that's what art is all about.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any picture can be put in a gallery. I'm just saying that if it has the right ingredients it can be considered art. Why do you think Vincent van Gogh, Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo got put into history books? Because their art reached out to so many people on so many levels. Not all the artist in history books were considered artist at their time, but their work was art none the less. Being an artist isn't about being in a history book. It's about being able to express yourself and what you see through different media in a skilled manner.
However, what speaks as art is different for every single person. It's very subjective, one person can not say that something isn't art just because they don't see it as so and everyone else has to think the same thing.
(edited)
NuMedia Millie
Deice
NuMedia Millie
whencastlesfall
x_Silver_Starlight_x
Instagram doesn't make it art if it wasn't art in the first place. It just applies some filters.
A photograph itself should be art; if it requires a bit of tweaking, it's fine, but if it isn't already art, applying filters isn't going to make it so. It just looks more 'artsy' and that's it.

So no, instagram does not make someone a photographer.
But it also doesn't make someone less of an artist because they use it. That's what I believe. Like you said, if it's a good composition, and all it needs is a little tweaking to make it better, then it just adds to the photo.
you can't take some pictures and be an artist, no matter how good they are. That's not how the title of artist works.


You don't have to be an artist to create art, just like I don't have to be a bonafied mechanic to fix a car.
I wouldn't call it the same thing. Being a mechanic is a set of learned skills. Being an artist goes beyond skills.


Art can be learned just as anything else can. It's not existential or beyond. It's just a skill set, a way of thinking, and a way of doing.

It's not some mystical concept, although many artists like to think that because it makes them feel superior and part of an enlightened group. They're not.
NuMedia Millie
Renata DS
This is silly, another 'Art, what is it not' thread.
Art is elements and principles that blend together to create a visual appealing piece.
That is subjective.
There are 'artist' out there that get paid thousands of dollars just to make statues of lines and colors. Why is it called art? Because people like to look at it. It someone can take a picture and a lot of people really like it. Then it can be considered art. Because it has the right elements, principles, and composition for it to be visually appealing. Does that make the person who took said picture an artist, maybe not...but if they pursue this as a passion then maybe so. Art is about getting people to feel through visuals, and getting them to see what you see. If you can do that, no matter what program you use. You have the potential to be an artist.

Do I think art can be made through Instagram, yes. Do I think every Joe that uses Instagram is an artist, no.
except we all use the word artist and art too liberally.
Why in the world does that photograph have to be art because people like it? Why can't it just stay a ******** pretty photo? Why is that such a problem with everyone? If it's supposed to be a pretty photograph then it's a pretty photograph and that's it and that is okay. It doesn't have to be art.


Artistic formal elements.

That is all.
NuMedia Millie's avatar

Prophet

Deice
NuMedia Millie
Deice
NuMedia Millie
whencastlesfall
x_Silver_Starlight_x
Instagram doesn't make it art if it wasn't art in the first place. It just applies some filters.
A photograph itself should be art; if it requires a bit of tweaking, it's fine, but if it isn't already art, applying filters isn't going to make it so. It just looks more 'artsy' and that's it.

So no, instagram does not make someone a photographer.
But it also doesn't make someone less of an artist because they use it. That's what I believe. Like you said, if it's a good composition, and all it needs is a little tweaking to make it better, then it just adds to the photo.
you can't take some pictures and be an artist, no matter how good they are. That's not how the title of artist works.


You don't have to be an artist to create art, just like I don't have to be a bonafied mechanic to fix a car.
I wouldn't call it the same thing. Being a mechanic is a set of learned skills. Being an artist goes beyond skills.


Art can be learned just as anything else can. It's not existential or beyond. It's just a skill set, a way of thinking, and a way of doing.

It's not some mystical concept, although many artists like to think that because it makes them feel superior and part of an enlightened group. They're not.
i never said its mystical. its a way of communicating and progress that technical training can't get you.
Most of it is a skill set, yes, but the ability to communicate an idea is another skill that life drawing won't get you. I too oppose the belief that art is highly cathartic and magical. Its not. It is all skills and there are separate skills needed to make art than there s to paint portraits or still-life.
NuMedia Millie's avatar

Prophet

Renata DS
NuMedia Millie
Renata DS
This is silly, another 'Art, what is it not' thread.
Art is elements and principles that blend together to create a visual appealing piece.
That is subjective.
There are 'artist' out there that get paid thousands of dollars just to make statues of lines and colors. Why is it called art? Because people like to look at it. It someone can take a picture and a lot of people really like it. Then it can be considered art. Because it has the right elements, principles, and composition for it to be visually appealing. Does that make the person who took said picture an artist, maybe not...but if they pursue this as a passion then maybe so. Art is about getting people to feel through visuals, and getting them to see what you see. If you can do that, no matter what program you use. You have the potential to be an artist.

Do I think art can be made through Instagram, yes. Do I think every Joe that uses Instagram is an artist, no.
except we all use the word artist and art too liberally.
Why in the world does that photograph have to be art because people like it? Why can't it just stay a ******** pretty photo? Why is that such a problem with everyone? If it's supposed to be a pretty photograph then it's a pretty photograph and that's it and that is okay. It doesn't have to be art.

No need to get hot and bothered about it, it's just a difference in opinion. I never said it had to be art, but that it can be considered art if it had the elements, principles and a good composition. That's what art is made of. If it's not art to you and it's just a '******** pretty photo' then that's fine, but it might speak something more to someone else and that's what art is all about.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any picture can be put in a gallery. I'm just saying that if it has the right ingredients it can be considered art. Why do you think Vincent van Gogh, Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo got put into history books? Because their art reached out to so many people on so many levels. Not all the artist in history books were considered artist at their time, but their work was art none the less. Being an artist isn't about being in a history book. It's about being able to express yourself and what you see through different media in a skilled manner.
However, what speaks as art is different for every single person. It's very subjective, one person can not say that something isn't art just because they don't see it as so and everyone else has to think the same thing.
(edited)
I'm not hot with you, I'm hot with idea that the difference between something that is only pretty and something that is art are and can be the same depending on the person. I'm saying that, ideally, there should be general consensus because that is why we have things that are art so we can distinguish from the things that are just nice photographs and drawings.
Da Vinci and Michelangelo made history books because they drew attention to the need to perfect foundation skills. Before that it wasn't a thing, that in order to begin working towards becoming an artist, you didn't need the skills, just someone to buy you gold leaf and some board.
Yes art that is in fact art will speak differently to each person but where the confusion lies is what is art and what is something that is just nice to look at. It is fine and wonderful if it is just nice to look at and it will speak to people but not beyond the fact that it is nice and that is still okay. If it "speaks" and simply says "I'm really freaking good looking" and you go "hell yea, good job bro" that doesn't necessarily make it art.
It's easy to assert things are art. I can preach that my strong beliefs on this topic are fact and you can continue to say it's all opinion. In the end if someone comes up to me and says I make great art and I say no, I just paint, I make paintings, not art, then what?
The lines between the two are not so fine, art and things that are nice to look at. The gap is communication more than what is just the surface. An artist will know how to communicate an idea or ask a question through an image or an object. It's skill you learn over time, you learn how to ask these questions and assert your claims and ideas in an interesting and compelling way and though that picture of that daisy is really really pretty, it has nothing to offer other than that. And so it is not art. It's just a picture of a really nice daisy. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I'm just asking that people respect the terms because if they don't and anything anyone feels like can be art, then why do I sit here thinking about modern feminist theory and try to tell people that the extreme sects of judaism have caused me personal harm? There is really very little snobbery in it because we just need to let things be what they are. The picture of the daisy is a photograph. It's really pretty. End. Tracey Emin makes work about personal connections in her life through beautiful installations and objects. The potential to be art is there. It has since gone undisputed that she makes art and not tapestries that are tapestries, etc.
It would be so nice for the definitions to be loose. But they aren't, I won't believe that. The viewer does not make something art. The person who made it makes it art and just because they say so doesn't make it so.
NuMedia Millie's avatar

Prophet

Deice
NuMedia Millie
Renata DS
This is silly, another 'Art, what is it not' thread.
Art is elements and principles that blend together to create a visual appealing piece.
That is subjective.
There are 'artist' out there that get paid thousands of dollars just to make statues of lines and colors. Why is it called art? Because people like to look at it. It someone can take a picture and a lot of people really like it. Then it can be considered art. Because it has the right elements, principles, and composition for it to be visually appealing. Does that make the person who took said picture an artist, maybe not...but if they pursue this as a passion then maybe so. Art is about getting people to feel through visuals, and getting them to see what you see. If you can do that, no matter what program you use. You have the potential to be an artist.

Do I think art can be made through Instagram, yes. Do I think every Joe that uses Instagram is an artist, no.
except we all use the word artist and art too liberally.
Why in the world does that photograph have to be art because people like it? Why can't it just stay a ******** pretty photo? Why is that such a problem with everyone? If it's supposed to be a pretty photograph then it's a pretty photograph and that's it and that is okay. It doesn't have to be art.


Artistic formal elements.

That is all.
If the photograph has these the elements then it's on its way. What can the picture offer me with its excellent color sense and composition other than something fundamentally nice to look at? If that's all it can give and wants to give then that's great and you have yourself a beautiful photograph.
Renata DS's avatar

Tipsy Fatcat

NuMedia Millie

I'm not hot with you, I'm hot with idea that the difference between something that is only pretty and something that is art are and can be the same depending on the person. I'm saying that, ideally, there should be general consensus because that is why we have things that are art so we can distinguish from the things that are just nice photographs and drawings.
Da Vinci and Michelangelo made history books because they drew attention to the need to perfect foundation skills. Before that it wasn't a thing, that in order to begin working towards becoming an artist, you didn't need the skills, just someone to buy you gold leaf and some board.
Yes art that is in fact art will speak differently to each person but where the confusion lies is what is art and what is something that is just nice to look at. It is fine and wonderful if it is just nice to look at and it will speak to people but not beyond the fact that it is nice and that is still okay. If it "speaks" and simply says "I'm really freaking good looking" and you go "hell yea, good job bro" that doesn't necessarily make it art.
It's easy to assert things are art. I can preach that my strong beliefs on this topic are fact and you can continue to say it's all opinion. In the end if someone comes up to me and says I make great art and I say no, I just paint, I make paintings, not art, then what?

I'm sorry to say, but art is what it is. The combination of Elements, Principles of art. It really is just that simple. I never said it had to be good art, but it can still be considered art. I never said it had to be, but that it can be considered art. Now, if you don't think something is art that is fine, but if someone else does, what are you going to tell them? No it's not? Just because you say it's not, their opinion isn't going to change. Even more so if it does have the elements and principles of art.
Quote:
The lines between the two are not so fine, art and things that are nice to look at. The gap is communication more than what is just the surface. An artist will know how to communicate an idea or ask a question through an image or an object. It's skill you learn over time, you learn how to ask these questions and assert your claims and ideas in an interesting and compelling way and though that picture of that daisy is really really pretty, it has nothing to offer other than that. And so it is not art. It's just a picture of a really nice daisy. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Now someone being called an artist is a more picky subject, because being an artist means being about to convey a feeling or emotion using the elements and principles in a skilled manner along with being skilled in the said media that they are using. Some people might think that the title of artist is this unattainable that only a few can reach. However, these days it's changed. So many people can be considered artist because they can convey a feeling or emotion using the elements and principles in a skilled manner along with being skilled in the said media that they are using. Now if they chose call themselves an artist, that's up to them.
Quote:

I'm just asking that people respect the terms because if they don't and anything anyone feels like can be art, then why do I sit here thinking about modern feminist theory and try to tell people that the extreme sects of judaism have caused me personal harm? There is really very little snobbery in it because we just need to let things be what they are. The picture of the daisy is a photograph. It's really pretty. End. Tracey Emin makes work about personal connections in her life through beautiful installations and objects. The potential to be art is there. It has since gone undisputed that she makes art and not tapestries that are tapestries, etc.
It would be so nice for the definitions to be loose. But they aren't, I won't believe that. The viewer does not make something art. The person who made it makes it art and just because they say so doesn't make it so.

If someone thinks that something is art, then to them it is. No matter what you say, to them it's still going to be art. End of story. Do you know how many things that end up in galleries I think aren't art? Yet how did they end up in said gallery? Because someone else thought it was. In a painter doesn't consider their work to be art. That's fine, but if someone else does. Then to that person. it's art. I'm not saying that if one person says it's art then everyone else has to think so as well, or that said painter has to call it art. I'm saying that to that one person, it's art.

In the end, a piece that can be called art is something that has the elements and principles of art. That is what art is, and it's up to an individual to decide it they want to call it art or just a pretty picture. As I said in my last post, when people usually call something art; It's because it speaks to them at a level that, something else that they just think is pretty, doesn't. What I mean by that, is that it conveys and emotion or question that maybe someone else doesn't see.
I could go on and on about, but really it just feels like I'm repeating myself. So I'm going to back away and call a 'agree to disagree' on this one. Because I think the argument lies in how we look at art, which we share different opinions on, that neither of us have any plans on changing anytime soon. smile
NuMedia Millie's avatar

Prophet

Renata DS
NuMedia Millie

I'm not hot with you, I'm hot with idea that the difference between something that is only pretty and something that is art are and can be the same depending on the person. I'm saying that, ideally, there should be general consensus because that is why we have things that are art so we can distinguish from the things that are just nice photographs and drawings.
Da Vinci and Michelangelo made history books because they drew attention to the need to perfect foundation skills. Before that it wasn't a thing, that in order to begin working towards becoming an artist, you didn't need the skills, just someone to buy you gold leaf and some board.
Yes art that is in fact art will speak differently to each person but where the confusion lies is what is art and what is something that is just nice to look at. It is fine and wonderful if it is just nice to look at and it will speak to people but not beyond the fact that it is nice and that is still okay. If it "speaks" and simply says "I'm really freaking good looking" and you go "hell yea, good job bro" that doesn't necessarily make it art.
It's easy to assert things are art. I can preach that my strong beliefs on this topic are fact and you can continue to say it's all opinion. In the end if someone comes up to me and says I make great art and I say no, I just paint, I make paintings, not art, then what?

I'm sorry to say, but art is what it is. The combination of Elements, Principles of art. It really is just that simple. I never said it had to be good art, but it can still be considered art. I never said it had to be, but that it can be considered art. Now, if you don't think something is art that is fine, but if someone else does, what are you going to tell them? No it's not? Just because you say it's not, their opinion isn't going to change. Even more so if it does have the elements and principles of art.
Quote:
The lines between the two are not so fine, art and things that are nice to look at. The gap is communication more than what is just the surface. An artist will know how to communicate an idea or ask a question through an image or an object. It's skill you learn over time, you learn how to ask these questions and assert your claims and ideas in an interesting and compelling way and though that picture of that daisy is really really pretty, it has nothing to offer other than that. And so it is not art. It's just a picture of a really nice daisy. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Now someone being called an artist is a more picky subject, because being an artist means being about to convey a feeling or emotion using the elements and principles in a skilled manner along with being skilled in the said media that they are using. Some people might think that the title of artist is this unattainable that only a few can reach. However, these days it's changed. So many people can be considered artist because they can convey a feeling or emotion using the elements and principles in a skilled manner along with being skilled in the said media that they are using. Now if they chose call themselves an artist, that's up to them.
Quote:

I'm just asking that people respect the terms because if they don't and anything anyone feels like can be art, then why do I sit here thinking about modern feminist theory and try to tell people that the extreme sects of judaism have caused me personal harm? There is really very little snobbery in it because we just need to let things be what they are. The picture of the daisy is a photograph. It's really pretty. End. Tracey Emin makes work about personal connections in her life through beautiful installations and objects. The potential to be art is there. It has since gone undisputed that she makes art and not tapestries that are tapestries, etc.
It would be so nice for the definitions to be loose. But they aren't, I won't believe that. The viewer does not make something art. The person who made it makes it art and just because they say so doesn't make it so.

If someone thinks that something is art, then to them it is. No matter what you say, to them it's still going to be art. End of story. Do you know how many things that end up in galleries I think aren't art? Yet how did they end up in said gallery? Because someone else thought it was. In a painter doesn't consider their work to be art. That's fine, but if someone else does. Then to that person. it's art. I'm not saying that if one person says it's art then everyone else has to think so as well, or that said painter has to call it art. I'm saying that to that one person, it's art.

In the end, a piece that can be called art is something that has the elements and principles of art. That is what art is, and it's up to an individual to decide it they want to call it art or just a pretty picture. As I said in my last post, when people usually call something art; It's because it speaks to them at a level that, something else that they just think is pretty, doesn't. What I mean by that, is that it conveys and emotion or question that maybe someone else doesn't see.
I could go on and on about, but really it just feels like I'm repeating myself. So I'm going to back away and call a 'agree to disagree' on this one. Because I think the argument lies in how we look at art, which we share different opinions on, that neither of us have any plans on changing anytime soon. smile
yup, no use for either of us to get any hotter over it. And for the record, I've been repeating myself too, it's exhausting.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games