Dave, by your definition, I consider myself imminently well qualified to decide what cricket is, since I know nothing about the game and I do not like it. Do I need to know what MCC and ICC stand for?
That cuts both ways.
They are the organisations who set the rules and laws of the game. But I suspect you guessed that.Dave, by your definition, I consider myself imminently well qualified to decide what cricket is, since I know nothing about the game and I do not like it. Do I need to know what MCC and ICC stand for?
No, you miss my point. With cricket and virtually all sports there is a defined set of rules. Absolutely nothing wrong with people having a "kick about" but if you want to play in a competition you have to follow the rules. There is no definition of what art is so why do people try to tell us/me there is?
I guess so, certainly the galleries at the time didn't think so but then again his art-dealer brother might have done.
Yes there is, any dictionary will will tell you.
Pavel, I wasn't referring to you. Have you thought about taking a photo art course? For example there is one in the UK that is possible to do remotely - university of plymouth MA Photography?
So we can agree then by a dictionary definition everything is art, end of the debate.
@toni, I am not here very long, so I may not know the instances you are talking about. I have not come across what you describe. I see art photography as a particular branch of photography where the intent is not to capture "reality" as camera interprets it, but instead tries to creatively reflect thoughts, ideas, emotions, sense of humour etc. of the maker. When I am reading in papers about a fire somewhere, I do not want the artists feeling about it but a photograph that competently documents the event as it happened (to me that is craft). The same is with photos of war correspondents. And I also want to see Picasso's Guernica, which gives me a body blow each time I see it and which reflects the artist's reaction to the bombing of civilians without documenting it. There is room for both. I am as a hobbyist more interested in art, but I could have ended up a wildlife photographer trying to learn about animals and birds and documenting their life. Why the ranking?An excellent example. The issue is the exclusivity factor.
It would be unusual to tell someone writing poetry that they weren't really poets because all they could manage was craft. Who would tell someone knocking out 3 chords on a guitar that they weren't making music? I HAVE seen it suggested that super technical musicians aren't very musical - DragonForce have been named - but that's not a serious criticism.
You wouldn't tell the kids with a bat, ball and stumps that they weren't playing cricket because they had not been approved as ableby the MCC.
And yet I've seen here people told that the pictures they produced, which they considered art, were nothing more than craft, with the implication their work was not of value. That's why there's so much heat and upset.
but rather to hear wide range of views. The idea that I could convince people of my view was in my view a nonstarter. My idea was that I and all participants will have a chance to learn something from each other. My father introduced me to a debate as a learning tool when I was about 5. He would take on the view opposite to mine and defend it vigorously (regardless of what his actual view was). By the time I was about 8, I was onto him. We stuck with it until Soviet invasion when I was 19 and I left the country. I learned a lot from the debates. My father could have nailed me easily to the wall but he did not. 5 minutes after the debate ended, I would not remember who argued for what, but my understanding of issues was far greater.
Which is the same if you want to to 'play' in the art world. The art world decides the rules. Simple as that.
Thanks, Tim for suggestion. I will definitely look into this. However I spent much of my adulthood in self-directed learning (more or less since the entry to graduate school and onwards to retirement). I find that courses try my patience (of which I have very little left) because (of course) the courses are not designed to address exactly what I feel I need. I am very good at self-directed learning (I am definitely not a talented artist, but I consider myself a talented self-learner). However, I am always open to new ideas and I will explore the link. I really do appreciate you letting me know.
The Basics of Creative Photography series of books might interest you if you haven't come across them. They sort of form a course if read in sequence. Another good book is Approaching Photography by Paul Hill.
So why should you, or anyone else, be entitled to decide what art is for them? Every other 'sub-culture' is defined by its members. I really don't understand what singles visual art out in this respect.
I am not, my point is entirely the opposite, why should an "elite few" decide what is art. If I don't like something I don't like it. Why should a "sub culture" with its elitist "members" decide what is art.
If interested, I have a report from Art Basel 2021 (Art Basel TheArtMarket-2021.pdf) that would give you details on prices and a great deal more
Thank you, Dave. I will look at those.
and it does not?
) is what they are doing not cricket/football because they are not playing within the formal rules?
Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at.
don't bait him, Richard. He had enoughSo if people are having a kick about (I guess you mean knock about really since you refer to cricket
They are playing a game that they can quite rightly call football (using football as the example) they could even get others from the next street to play with them. But it will have some rules, if only those that are agreed between the players. Generally, those rules will follow the FA rules for football. But if they want to form an actual team to play in a league they will have to follow the league rules.So if people are having a kick about (I guess you mean knock about really since you refer to cricket
Does not everybody's opinion here have the same merit? I assumed that they have. I am new to this forum, so I do not know the rules. I assumed that the extra merrit would depend strictly on the merit of your argument. Do you have to pay extra to join elite?
don't bait him, Richard. He had enough
I really don't want to prolong what is becoming quite a repetitive debate but isn't that true of just about all things? Why should an "elite few" decide what the rules of a given sport are, or decide what is in fashion, or what mathematics is, or what the law is?
I hope everybody's views on here holds the same merit, but I would also hope that opposing views should also be treated the same way.
don't bait him, Richard. He had enough
.
Yes more or less what I was getting at. It’s really the same with what is being discussed here. Those street footballers may be excluding others in the next street (you, in this example) and making their own rules but they are entitled to, it’s their street. So you feel excluded because you are, but you can go and form your own ‘club’ which in this case you probably have, ie the ‘club’ of whatever genre of photographers you favour
.
If you don’t think it’s a worthwhile discussion why waste your time joining in?
In an election,everyone’s opinion is equal. In a discussion, the persuasiveness of the argument and demonstrated knowledge does play a role. It always did and it always will. There is nothing any one of us can do anything about it. Or as one of the wise modern American philosopher said about a pandemic to which he contributed : it is what it is “
I was just smiling with you , RichardOh dear, I was really just asking a question but I’m always being accused of being sarcastic when I think I’m just being Socratic
But you weren’t really providing an opposing view but just shouting ‘rubbish! from the sidelines
.