MFA?

No, it isn't.

as I said, 'art' museums are used to exhibit many things. There is
often no other venue.

No, it isn't.

As I said, 'art' museums are used to exhibit many things. There is
often no other venue.

No, it isn't.

As I said, 'art' museums are used to exhibit many things. There is
often no other venue.

In article ,
"Jim Phelps" wrote:

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

If the public does not decide what is art or what isn't, then who does?
I sincerely hope you will not suggest some Government body or MS!

I wrote to answer that. Read it.

Missed it. Sorry, I thought the post was over with the short line.

Then, if a curator exhibits Ansel Adams' photos in his art museum, and
subsequently the exhibit travels to other art museums, then this would be a
strong suggestion the art establishment has accepted photos to be artistic?
If so, this has happened many times over with many different 'artists'.
IMHO this would be an indication that photography can, as a medium, be an
art form and has been accepted by the art establishment as a form of art.
Not to say every photo is a work of art just like every
painting/sculpture/"add your favorite genre here" is not as well. And
that's what I've been saying all along.

The same argument applies to critics and historians. Quite possibly
scholars as well, I just cannot cite an example of one.

If I'm wrong, please educate me. I am trying to learn the truth (and not
according to the casual isotope).

Your "not" wrong, and it does "not" take a PhD to figure it out.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

We cannot have a situation where 'what's art to me may not be art to
another'.

The criteria used must be 'philosophical', and cannot be based on a
survey or on public opinion. What makes art 'art' is that it is:

1) Representational (more or less)

2) Not causally linked to anything else for its subject matter

By criterion 1, a fossil could be art because it is representational
(that is, it is a 'likeness' of something, such as a sea-shell.

By criterion 2, a fossil cannot be 'art' because it is causally linked
to the existence of something else.

So, fossils are not 'art'.

A man-made object torned out on a lathe or whittled that looked exactly
like a fossil would be art. One could imagine someone who is gifted
enough to be able to turn out very good pieces that look exactly like
fossils. He sculpts raw materials by hand. Is that art?

Yes. Why? Because there is no causal connection between the existence
of the fossil and the artwork.

No, let us consider someone who makes copies of fossils (through
molding or a similar process) and mass-produces them.

Is that art?

No. Why? Because there is a causal connection between the existence of
the fossil and the reproduction.

"Gregory Blank" wrote in message
...

Your "not" wrong, and it does "not" take a PhD to figure it out.


Thank you. I've always felt that art to me may not be art to another. It's
a personal thing. So to come out and so absolutely say photography can't be
art is like saying 70 degree Fahrenheit water can't be wet (trying to be
specific for all the pickers of nits).

plonk.

add wood to the fire it never goes out.


On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:00:22 -0600, "jjs" wrote:


"Jean-David Beyer" wrote in message
...
Uranium Committee wrote:

If it cannot be art, how is it that some photographs are better than
others? That some can cause a deeply moving experience for the viewer?
That a very few can touch one's very soul?

Some 'art' might touch the very soul, but art need not evoke superficial
emotions. Some people weep with joy over paintings of Elvis on black velvet.


Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

In article ,
Some Dude wrote:

plonk.

add wood to the fire it never goes out.

Guess you got tired of the signal to noise ratio as well.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

wrote:
We cannot have a situation where 'what's art to me may not be
art to another'.

The criteria used must be 'philosophical', and cannot be based
on a survey or on public opinion. What makes art 'art' is that
it is:

Wakey wakey -- art relates to our culture. There is not /one/
definition of art. There are different cultures around the world
and they are constantly changing.

Still... we have to be able to talk about art. Let us do that.
Many art institutions of today are /not/ interested in the
art itself but on its impact on society. What about your art
definition then?


1) Representational (more or less)

2) Not causally linked to anything else for its subject matter

Sorry... It does not say anything about the impact on society.
What does it say? That a child's painting is art but Cindy
Sherman's photographs are not art? That definition does not
interest me.

So? What do I care what interests you?


I supplied a philosophical criterion of what can be art. Photography
CANNOT be art. It doesn't meet the criteria. Photography is exactly
like a fossil, and a fossil cannot be art.