As I have said numerous times, I think a person's creation is art if any person thinks it is. The unusual scenario you have presented is one in which there is no information on whether or not anyone elses thinks it is art. In that situation, I'd judge based only on my own opinion, but willing to alter my judgment if another opinion were given.
Tricky said:I am happy to accept your contention that any piece of creation is "art".
I have answered your question directly and honestly.
No I have not. I have asked you to give us your "checklist" for what is art, but I have never said that you define art too broadly. I doubt that anyone could define art more broadly than I do.
You are restricting art because you set a condition for what all art must do, i.e. "sell something".
I have answered another question for you directly and honestly.
Thanks for ignoring my post #329, Claus.
Well, ONE of us can't.You clearly can't make heads or tails of your own argument.
That is a lie. I have answered the question you asked and done it directly. You may not care for the answer, but you cannot honestly deny that I have answered it.No you have not.
I have never claimed that art "does" anything. That would be you who makes this claim. In fact, why don't you look at my opening post in this thread.Nice evasion. You "forgot" the part about what art does.
I notice, though, you still haven't given us your checklist. What is that word for someone who asks you to do something he won't do? Starts with an "H".Art needs no purpose.
You think that limiting art to only things which sell something is "broadening" what art is and what it does? You're a funny guy.I am doing the opposite: I am broadening what art is and what it does.
You gave me a question with two options. I picked one of them and explained my reasoning. This is one of your more blatant lies.I have answered another question for you directly and honestly.
No you have not.
Advertising is competitive photography, and photography is art. Therefore advertising is art. It's also collaborative; one single person doesn't make the entire ad. Someone does the makeup, someone else shoots, someone else lights, another team does the graphics, etc.
What about the Classified Ads? I've written a number of them with no collaboration. If you want to call one "art", well, I won't say you're wrong.IMO, Advertising is art. To stick with the visual arts, I am thinking of billboards, magazine ads, signage. Advertising of this sort is primarily made up of photography; costuming, lighting, makeup, digital graphics, special effects, printing. This is why a lot of fashion ads don't have much at all to do with the actual product; it's all about the model or the colors or hairless teen boys or something. Do you really look at the Gucci bag in the photo? No, you look at the model's face or boobs or whatever she's showing. You don't look at the jeans, you look at the butt inside those jeans. You look at the dress twirling around a model that seems to be having a lot of fun, not the actual dress. Sometimes there are color contrasts or details or something in the background that are eyecatching, no matter what the product is. And then, if you compare ads to each other you can see the competiton that takes place, not between the products, but between the artists. And the photos that result from the competition are beautiful.
Advertising is competitive photography, and photography is art. Therefore advertising is art. It's also collaborative; one single person doesn't make the entire ad. Someone does the makeup, someone else shoots, someone else lights, another team does the graphics, etc.
No you aren't. You are artlessly failing to make any coherent sense whatsoever. Allow me to advertise it:I am doing the opposite: I am broadening what art is and what it does.
What is it selling?
A more refined public image through incontestable acts of charity.What is it selling?![]()
Link1The formal expression of a conceived image or imagined conception in terms of a given medium.
No you aren't. You are artlessly failing to make any coherent sense whatsoever. Allow me to advertise it:
[qimg]http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6198/dowewi6.jpg[/qimg]
You've distilled the basic problem. "Selling" and "Advertising" have fairly strict definitions, but "art" is so broad as to be nearly all-encompassing. That's why I don't even try to restrict it, but say, "If you think it's are, then it's art". That's also why it is so ludicrous to pick anything and say , "all art does this". All you have to do is find one example of art that doesn't do that, and the statement is disproved. In the case of either advertising or selling, examples are abundant.Why are we still derailed by considering "sell", when the OP mentioned "advertising" and "art"?
Advertising is that which attempts to draw attention to something, often with the intention of inducing a purchase.
Merriam-Webster Online
Wiktionary
Art is a bit more slippery :
(Perhaps I'm impaired, yet neither of the above otherwise trustworthy references for English language consensus could yield a direct link to a definition for the word "art", as it was used by the OP.)
In this context, I believe the OP means "art" to be the aesthetically graphical representation of an idea.
Link1
Right, then, carry on!
(Oh no! Now we'll need to define "aesthetic"! What have I done?)
You've distilled the basic problem. "Selling" and "Advertising" have fairly strict definitions, but "art" is so broad as to be nearly all-encompassing. That's why I don't even try to restrict it, but say, "If you think it's are, then it's art". That's also why it is so ludicrous to pick anything and say , "all art does this". All you have to do is find one example of art that doesn't do that, and the statement is disproved. In the case of either advertising or selling, examples are abundant.
I'm guessing "no". 40,000 posts and he's still at it. You almost have to respect the guy's tenacity in defending his obvious errors.I wonder if he'll one day get tired of only ever being ignored or laughed at.
I wonder if he'll one day get tired of only ever being ignored or laughed at.