What do you think of this artwork?
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: What do you think of this artwork?
It's very shiny.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: What do you think of this artwork?
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.
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: What do you think of this artwork?
Here's a good question. Do the works define the art or can art be defined more generally?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.
PhilX
Re: What do you think of this artwork?
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 accidentPhilosophy Explorer wrote:Here's a good question. Do the works define the art or can art be defined more generally?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.
PhilX
Re: What do you think of this artwork?
Art can be defined. This doesn't qualify.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Here's a good question. Do the works define the art or can art be defined more generally?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.
PhilX
Re: What do you think of this artwork?
Skip wrote:Art can be defined. This doesn't qualify.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Here's a good question. Do the works define the art or can art be defined more generally?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.
PhilX
How does it not qualify, since when are big boobs not art?
Re: What do you think of this artwork?
Since they're a mass-produced, commercial consumer product, pre-packaged in plastic wrap.
Re: What do you think of this artwork?
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 wrote:Since they're a mass-produced, commercial consumer product, pre-packaged in plastic wrap.
Re: What do you think of this artwork?
I was talking about the "original".