Is photorealistic art really "art"?

[Dr. Furface]

So if amateurs play sports that doesn't make it sport?
Schools need to stop calling what kids do as sport

If you're hitting a ball against a wall at home or having a kickabout with your mates in the street, would you call that sport?

 

[Orang Utan]

If you're hitting a ball against a wall at home or having a kickabout with your mates in the street, would you call that sport?

Of course

 

[Gromit]

If you're hitting a ball against a wall at home or having a kickabout with your mates in the street, would you call that sport?

That's called:
Sports practice

 

[Dr. Furface]

That's called:
Sports practice

It's called killing time or having fun with your mates

 

[Dr. Furface]

Why not?

If you cook yourself a meal at home that doesn't make you a chef.

 

[Gromit]

It's called killing time or having fun with your mates

It's play.

But you can play sports just as you can play soldiers.

 

[Gromit]

If you cook yourself a meal at home that doesn't make you a chef.

A home chef. Yes it does.

Or a cook.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You're proving my point about your definition. It's too loose, and defines more than just art.

"Art has to be communicated somehow to fulfill its intended purpose."

There are huge, impressive, statues robbed from the Miiddle East in The British Museum, which are 4-5000 years old, where we don't know the intended purpose, nor the cultural context, does that make them 'not art' because we can never know with certancy what the intended purpose of these statues were/are? What about cave painting? Which is arguably the birth of art (although probably there was a lot more neolithic art done on more perishable mediums, and some of which may predate that). We can only guess at what it was communicating, or what its intended purpose was. Are these cake paintings art?

Sorry jumping in here (and not really disagreeing with you) but yes, it's art even if the person who made it didn't have a category in their head called 'art'.'Art' is a relatively modern concept that is applied to particular ways we have of responding to being alive, creating objects that serve some kind of symbolic purpose or need. But it would be wrong of us modern types who have invented the term 'art' to think that we have invented a whole new kind of thing. We haven't. It's arrogance in the extreme to think that we might have.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you're hitting a ball against a wall at home or having a kickabout with your mates in the street, would you call that sport?

yes.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's called killing time or having fun with your mates

Which is what sport is. What else do you think it is? Kerbie is a sport.

Small groups of people, such as groups of mates, can create and play their own sports. Why not?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It's called killing time or having fun with your mates

This would mean that the person/s who invented football didn't actually invent football as a sport and it only became so when monetised.

 

[Dr. Furface]

A home chef. Yes it does.

Or a cook.

No it just means you've cooked yourself a meal, nothing more. Just like kicking a ball about doesn't make you a footballer. And doing a drawing doesn't make you an artist.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

No it just means you've cooked yourself a meal, nothing more. Just like kicking a ball about doesn't make you a footballer. And doing a drawing doesn't make you an artist.

It doesn't make you a professional footballer/artist/chef. But your logic basically means that someone walking isn't a walker.

 

[Dr. Furface]

This would mean that the person/s who invented football didn't actually invent football as a sport and it only became so when monetised.

No not monetised, but after it became recognised as a proper game/sport. It wouldn't make linguistic sense to call someone a footballer if the game of football didn't exist.

 

[Dr. Furface]

It doesn't make you a professional footballer/artist/chef. But your logic basically means that someone walking isn't a walker.

Everyone that can walk is a walker. But not everyone who cooks is a chef, or who kicks a ball is a footballer, or who paints something is an artist. But some might be!

 

[Magnus McGinty]

No not monetised, but after it became recognised as a proper game/sport.

What does this mean though? Who did the recognising and when? Did chess as a game exist before being recognised and are chess players only ones who earn money at the game?

 

[pbsmooth]

 

[Gromit]

And doing a drawing doesn't make you an artist.

It does. It doesn't make you a professional artist. It's not binary it's a spectrum.

There's amateur art, children's art, professional art, bad art, good art, high art, pop art, piss art (there's a surprising number of piss artists), etc. etc.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Everyone that can walk is a walker. But not everyone who cooks is a chef, or who kicks a ball is a footballer, or who paints something is an artist. But some might be!

So how do YOU define a chef, a footballer and an artist?

 

[Aladdin]

No it just means you've cooked yourself a meal, nothing more. Just like kicking a ball about doesn't make you a footballer. And doing a drawing doesn't make you an artist.

You're putting categories together and saying only professionals count because they're makkng a living from it.

Your equivalence being that artists are not artists unless someone pays for their art. By that token, Van Gogh was not much of an artist until after he died. after all his uncle and brother and family members were his big buyers. He traded his paintings for food and art supplies.

 

[Aladdin]

I love Hyper realism...




All by LilyRose Burgess

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Everything is a spectrum. Everything.
As soon as something is recognisable as something that can be defined in some form it slowly moves from a blur and into focus. It's difficult to argue about lines that don't exist.
When does walking become football, when does football become war? Is football art? It's all a spectrum not just a sliding scale of one definition (EG playing with toy soldiers - play fighting - actual fighting - war) everything branches off in every direction.

Of course photo realism is art. . . . and who are you to draw a circle around the definitions of art and say what is in and what is out? Even at the most basic argument a photograph is art, so why would the way you 'print it out/develop it' change that definition?

 

[Orang Utan]

No it just means you've cooked yourself a meal, nothing more. Just like kicking a ball about doesn't make you a footballer. And doing a drawing doesn't make you an artist.

That’s beside the point. You don’t have to be artist to produce art.

 

[Orang Utan]

I love Hyper realism...

View attachment 387259View attachment 387260View attachment 387261


All by LilyRose Burgess

That is a good example of bad art

 

[prunus]

That is a good example of bad art

I don’t think one can say that declaratively; those are still life paintings, examples of a tradition that goes back to the renaissance (at least, I’m not an art historian). They’re done in a particular style that may not be to one’s taste, but that doesn’t make them bad. They appear to my very untrained eye to be technically proficiently done (not that that always matters), and the choices of subject matter appear to be deliberate and tell stories - in a way that ‘traditional’ still lifes tend not to I think - this choice is very possibly an artistic choice itself on the part of the artist, a juxtaposition of a static art form with a narrative form. And now I find I’ve used the word ‘juxtaposition’ in anger, so I must go and cleanse myself.

 

[Orang Utan]

I don’t think one can say that declaratively; those are still life paintings, examples of a tradition that goes back to the renaissance (at least, I’m not an art historian). They’re done in a particular style that may not be to one’s taste, but that doesn’t make them bad. They appear to my very untrained eye to be technically proficiently done (not that that always matters), and the choices of subject matter appear to be deliberate and tell stories - in a way that ‘traditional’ still lifes tend not to I think - this choice is very possibly an artistic choice itself on the part of the artist, a juxtaposition of a static art form with a narrative form. And now I find I’ve used the word ‘juxtaposition’ in anger, so I must go and cleanse myself.

You say I can’t say that but I did. It’s the sort of art that you get in hotel rooms that no one really looks at

 

[ohmyliver]

That’s beside the point. You don’t have to be artist to produce art.

But producing art makes you an artist, surely.

 

[ohmyliver]

Considering how hard it is to make a living as a professional artist, and the truth in the old joke 'what's the difference between a fine artist and an 18 inch pizza? The 18 inch pizza can feed a family' then perhaps it's more acccurate to say an artist is someone who makes art, and leave the 'professional' qualification at the door. I mean we don't call Kafka an 'amature writer', despite him not making a living from his work.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Considering how hard it is to make a living as a professional artist, and the truth in the old joke 'what's the difference between a fine artist and an 18 inch pizza? The 18 inch pizza can feed a family' then perhaps it's more acccurate to say an artist is someone who makes art, and leave the 'professional' qualification at the door. I mean we don't call Kafka an 'amature writer', despite him not making a living from his work.

It would also make Picasso not an artist and Lovecraft not a writer.

 

[Orang Utan]

But producing art makes you an artist, surely.

I don’t think so