What do you think of this artwork?

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: What do you think of this artwork?

Post by Skip »

It's very shiny.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: What do you think of this artwork?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

It's a bit sad when what qualifies as an 'artist' these days is someone who is skilled with computer graphics. It's definitely missing something. A 'soul' perhaps? Vargas was the artist.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: What do you think of this artwork?

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's a bit sad when what qualifies as an 'artist' these days is someone who is skilled with computer graphics. It's definitely missing something. A 'soul' perhaps? Vargas was the artist.
Here's a good question. Do the works define the art or can art be defined more generally?

PhilX
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: What do you think of this artwork?

Post by thedoc »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's a bit sad when what qualifies as an 'artist' these days is someone who is skilled with computer graphics. It's definitely missing something. A 'soul' perhaps? Vargas was the artist.
Here's a good question. Do the works define the art or can art be defined more generally?

PhilX
Art is what an artist creates, regardless of the medium. Several years ago there were those who contended that photography was not art. I believe that photography is now accepted by most as an art form. Likewise computer generated work is art because it is created by an artist, intentionally. Art does not happen by accident
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: What do you think of this artwork?

Post by Skip »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's a bit sad when what qualifies as an 'artist' these days is someone who is skilled with computer graphics. It's definitely missing something. A 'soul' perhaps? Vargas was the artist.
Here's a good question. Do the works define the art or can art be defined more generally?

PhilX
Art can be defined. This doesn't qualify.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: What do you think of this artwork?

Post by thedoc »

Skip wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's a bit sad when what qualifies as an 'artist' these days is someone who is skilled with computer graphics. It's definitely missing something. A 'soul' perhaps? Vargas was the artist.
Here's a good question. Do the works define the art or can art be defined more generally?

PhilX
Art can be defined. This doesn't qualify.

How does it not qualify, since when are big boobs not art?
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: What do you think of this artwork?

Post by Skip »

Since they're a mass-produced, commercial consumer product, pre-packaged in plastic wrap.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: What do you think of this artwork?

Post by thedoc »

Skip wrote:Since they're a mass-produced, commercial consumer product, pre-packaged in plastic wrap.
Reproducing an original art work does not make it less of an artwork, it just makes it more widely available. Don't confuse the original art for the means of distribution. Mass distribution does not diminish the original, do thousands of copies make the Mona Lisa less of a work of art?
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: What do you think of this artwork?

Post by Skip »

I was talking about the "original".
Post Reply