Posted on 12/28/2020 2:19:08 PM PST by tbw2
A handmade print very much can be fine art and if you knew anything about the process, you could see it.
Also the debate over whether photos could be fine art even when they weren’t trying to mimic paintings was won over a century ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_Work
and since the 1960s and 1970s even more reconigtion has come to the art world
https://emuseum.mfah.org/groups/photography
The Museum’s photography collection comprises more than 30,000 items spanning the full history of the medium, from invention to present day. The photography collection also includes contemporary art, collected by the museum across many areas.
More than 4,000 photographers are represented in the photography collection. The department displays highlights of the collection on a rotating basis in A History of Photography: Selections from the Museum’s Collection as well as in temporary installations and special exhibitions. Visitors may also view photographs from the collection by appointment in the Works on Paper Study Center.
The Manfred Heiting Collection
Amsterdam-based collector Manfred Heiting set out to obtain the finest examples available of every major photographer’s work. Over a period of 30 years, he amassed an encyclopedic collection of more than 4,000 images, creating one of the top collections in the world. The MFAH acquired the holdings in 2002 and 2004, providing the public with a vivid visual record of the people, places, and events that have defined the Western world since the invention of photography. Julia Margaret Cameron, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Walker Evans, Heinrich Kühn, Gustave Le Gray, Man Ray, Nadar, Alfred Stieglitz, William Henry Fox Talbot, and Edward Weston are some of the famo
us figures whose work is included.
View all works in The Manfred Heiting Collection
https://emuseum.mfah.org/groups/The-Manfred-Heiting-Collection/results
Nothing I said contradicts your points; nor is there any “setteled science” in the art world as regards photography—the classification of a given piece of work remains a matter of subjective judgment by the gallery or museum to which an aspirant presents the work. No need to take that “if you knew anything” tone with me, who has developed many a photo by hand.
You are most manifestly incorrect. The more common a product is, the less its value. That is basic economics. Artists, and more importantly their patrons or purchasers, value the one-of-a-kind pieces of art and use them as investments. The more singular or rare a piece from a recognized artist, the greater its value. The more a piece is reproduced, combined with the low-quallity materials used in mass production, the less its value.
It's true that museums may make notecards and calendar pages out of some of their famous works that are in the public domain, but for contemporary works must have permission of the artist or his agent due to copyright and other rights. So, as with your knowledge of art, your knowledge of the investment value of fine art is lacking, but it doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth from emotion and opinion rather than fact.
This is a conservative forum. Changing the definition of words, sneering at well-earned knowledge as "elitism" and insisting that one's emotions are truth is a leftist tactic. Check yourself.
Sorry but you are, once again, full of crap. People who make art want their art to be SEEN. They don’t care about the value, they want the audience, they want to effect people. And the simple fact of the matter is that mass production allows that.
If you don’t think Da Vinci, or Munch, or Van Gogh would be doing mass produced stuff if they could you’re just plain not thinking. Heck we can see it in the great artists of the later period who actually got to spend some of their life in a world of mass distribution. Picasso made prints. Dali tried to get into animation.
This is a conservative forum we understand TRUTH and like all gatekeepers you don’t deal in the truth. You’re the one changing definition of words, and you have NOT earned your elitism because your elitism is based on closed mindedness.
You’re simply wrong. A snob who wants to declare something not art just to feel good about yourself. It’s sad. And luckily we know, YOU know if you bothered to pay attention to your classes, that your view will fail. We can see it in this book, yet another step on the long path of folks realizing that fine art is more than just what the old terrified gatekeepers want it to be. It happens over and over. And yet your kind never learn. You check yourself. You’re the one trucking in well poisoning, ad hominems, appeal to authority and outright lies to support a position history tells us WILL FAIL because it ALWAYS FAILS.
Fine art can be of any genre, any style, any method. And anybody that tells you otherwise is a loser to be mocked and ignored. It’s about quality, influence, and ability to touch the viewer and communicate. That’s fine art. it can be old painting, new painting, photos, fantasy art, sculptures, anything. If the artist has the skill. PERIOD.
For some reason, you find points of view other than your own quite threatening, especially if they are based on actual knowledge and study. My sympathies to you; but we’re done here.
Nope. You’re the one threatened. Hence why you have to shut things down. I’m pointing out that you’re full of crap. As I said, we both know that my view point will win out. We’ve seen it happen over and over. Art history is the constant story of gatekeepers losing. I see that once again you couldn’t be bothered to discuss my points, instead only attacking me. Proving, once again, that you know the facts don’t back you. You are done. Those whose goal is to shut things out are done before they start. The existence of this book shows you were done before you posted. You’ve already lost the fight. Fantasy art IS being accepted as fine art, right now.
To me, this is not bad art. The artists caught their subjects well. Two zeroes and losers. Reminds me of the lines from “Ozymandias”.
“ Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:”
You’re wrong.
You know you’re wrong.
I know you are wrong.
You know that I know you are wrong.
But you are still wrong.
(with apologies to A. Solzhenitsyn)
I’m right. And the fact that you can’t even be bothered to address what I said shows it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.