Hatred

to set the stage...

http://mageproductions.com/10.jpg

That's no photograph. What it shows exists, nowhere else... or maybe not at all, depending on how you think about it.

http://mageproductions.com/brick.jpg

it's the same with this simple, but comely little thing - lol

http://mageproductions.com/37.jpg

Are these art? I think so - the reason being that artists (the classically trained kind) do NOT like them! They know they are on the way out; soon, perhaps even the next to succumb to the steam roller, called progress. The hatred I feel from them, while not usually verbalized, certainly is intense!

http://mageproductions.com/2.jpg

"Class Ring" does not look good on a white background :( Be that as it may, I did that in a day or three. Who knows how long it would have taken, using stone-age methods?

http://mageproductions.com/21.jpg

I did that in mere minutes. No hand to eye talent required.

I would disagree with the definition of art as something that evokes an emotional response. I perceive art as communication, in a thousand different forms, from singing to this:

http://mageproductions.com/1.jpg

Art: Whence the artist says something and the user perceives what the artist made, almost always in a manner of which the artist never thought!

For more insanity, go to mageproductions.com

I don't know if art has to evoke an emotional respose but if your definition is that it communicates, then your presentation fails to be art for me as it neither evokes an emotional response nor does it communicate anything.
If others recive some form of communication then that's great.

Why do you think 'classical art' is on the way out?

Trying to define "What is art?" will certainly be a lifetime endeavor. I know, I took a class on the Philosophy of Art back at college, a very deep course, with tons of ramblings by famous philosophers. Some were interesting, some ridiculous. .. Anyway..

I course I would have to disagree on some of your writings that go along with the art here. :) Classical art vs whatever art isn't a good me-versus-you argument because it will never be resolved.. The implementation isn't so important as the subject, the mood, the idea, etc. Sculpture was in during Roman times, oil paintings during the Renaissance, ... and today some artists are experimenting with computer graphics and digital manipulation. Tomorrow it will be something else. It's like a new musical instrument making a new sound - it isn't so much the sound as the tune and song it plays.

Jumping off the soapbox, I would say your photo manipulation artwork here is worthy of display but that it personally doesn't jump out at me and it does seems somewhat cool to the touch. Some of the shots are clever, like the football. Some, like the brick walls, would be so much better, maybe, for example, with a man standing in the middle between the walls looking down the way. The carnival lacks composition and a focal point. The tree on a mountain is pretty, but not super special. Actually, its manipulation seems like a digital representation of French Impressionist artwork (the colors, style, etc). The bottom one is OK and I am sure that a lot of folks would like it if it were enlarged and printed out for display at an art opening. Try it and see!

G

G - thanks. Check my site @ mageproductions.com to see if there are any more you might like...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDigitalMage

Are these art? I think so - the reason being that artists (the classically trained kind) do NOT like them!

---

You're asking an unanswerable question. On one hand, nothing is ever worth any more than anyone else is willing to invest in it. On the other hand, by showing it to artists, you may or may not be trying to sell it to the right customers. Digital images can be art, they are not however art by virtue of being digital images. I hold the same philosophy about straight photography - in my mind there are a VERY small percentage of the collective works known as photography which also qualify as art. Others would (and probably will) totally disagree with that statement, and that's fine. Just because I'm not buying "photography is art" doesn't mean someone else won't. Develop your style and find your audience, and you won't have to ask if it's "art" anymore, because it won't be all that important :wink:

jetrim... it's not important, now - lol

all i am doing is expressing my self. images are but one of the ways ... .)

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Robert McCloskey

I have had a look at your website and I still can't understand the message in your "Art"

It may be that I am not framing your subjects the way you do. I am aware that all forms of communication interact in complex ways and perhaps I am not able to grasp your message. My lack of understanding of your message however leaves me feeling that your work isn't artistic. Certainly the message in any given piece of art need not be explicit, sometimes the art is in the reprisentation itself, be it a well composed sonnet a technically perfect sculpture or a photo of a pretty landscape or perhaps something more subtle like the enigmatic smile of the mona lisa or even the meanings generated through the discord of the juxtapositional editing in Sergei Eisenstein's film "The Ballteship Potempkin" Perhaps like me people who don't feel your work is art fail to grasp the difference between what they hear and what you mean. Still many artists are not accepted by the society they live in as the society itself is ill equiped to decode their messages.