Talk Art Section???

[Sejanus Aelianus]

Does this not kind of comment not rather smack of tabloid pantomime? Them and us, black and white, right and wrong? Is photography as a field not big enough to allow for a full spectrum of everything from dispassionate science (physics and chemistry) to emotionally charged art?

That all sounded a bit pretentious but I think I mostly agree with you, if I understood it correctly.

 

[Alec Malbon]

Thanks sirge, I'm keen to develop my understanding on this subject. To give you some idea on just how wrong I can get things when I first read the 'this is not a pipe' essay before I saw the painting I thought the pipe in question was a silver ventilation pipe...I can still see it now.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I'd encourage you to step beyond the somewhat narrow walls of TP, great forum though it is...

Me too. In fact I'd say step off-line and read some books. Thames and Hudson produce easy to read and understand books on art. https://www.thamesandhudson.com/catwoaar4.html

 

[ancient_mariner]

One of the 'problems' I've alluded to in the past is that calling one thing 'art' and calling another 'not art' often suggests the 'not art' thing is of no value, while the 'art' is of great value.

Nothing is further from the truth, both being worth the value that whoever is looking at it assigns to it.

 

[Phil V]

One of the 'problems' I've alluded to in the past is that calling one thing 'art' and calling another 'not art' often suggests the 'not art' thing is of no value, while the 'art' is of great value.

Nothing is further from the truth, both being worth the value that whoever is looking at it assigns to it.

I think the reality is that sometimes people hear 'not art' as 'no value' when it's actually not that at all.

Likewise, people think that whether they like something or not is remotely relevant to its value to others.

All part of the 'all opinions are valid' idiocy that people mistake for being the same thing as 'everyone's entitled to an opinion'.