"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012081109411721123-

OK! Let's get my definition out of the way.
To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance,
photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes the
uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response, be it
one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter, nausea,
or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art".

A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure
photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap here, as
there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two categories as
"art".

A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it,
disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of "art".
That is probably just a snapshot.

So for those who say they hate a particular style, or process, let's say
HDR, or long exposure, by investing an emotion of hatred, they elevate any
such work to be declared "art" whether they like it or not, even if the
individual who produced that HDR image, or "silky" waterfall had no
intention of declaring it "art".


--
Regards,

Savageduck


For the most part, SD, I think you have a decent definition of Art;
however, my view goes a bit farther in a couple of areas.

First, in order to qualify as Art, I think we have to look back to earlier
views of the subject and add that Art is produced by somebody who actively
develops a certain skillset in an area: ie, doesn't just pick up a camera
and point it at a subject in order to capture an image. The artist would
try to learn as much as he or she can about the subject to master the medium
and develop a certain style of his or her own.

This is not to say that Art can only be produced by an Artist who has a post
secondary degree or Art school certificate, merely that the Artist has
devoted more time and energy learning how to produce a work in his or her
field than would normally be exhibited by the average lay person.

This would, for the most part, rule out casual participants in the
activity.

Second, I'd throw into the mix the idea that thought plays at least as big a
part in the viewer's reaction as emotion, which is to say that a work that
causes somebody to think more critically or inquisitively about the subject
of the work should also qualify as Art, even if the viewer doesn't
experience much of an emotional response to the work itself.

Take Care,
Dudley