"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a883e01$1@news.povray.org...
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Consider the cat. When looking at a photograph, or a painting, one wants 
>> to
>> understand the intentions of the artists (not always clear, I agree). Why
>> did he do this? Or why did he not do that?
>
>  Just because *you* don't understand the photo doesn't mean that it's
> not a valid piece of art.

Of course not! I don't pretend to be a universal judge :-) However, the 
point is not that. In the case of the cat, my first reaction is: "Work out 
of focus" and not (as imo it should be): "Cat. Contact. Expression". The 
technical blur dominates so much that it takes away the emotional link the 
image should create.

>
>  I'd say that if a photograph evokes emotion or thought, that's art.
> And this photograph has clearly succeeded in exactly that.

To return your statement, just because *you* understand the photo doesn't 
mean that it is a valid piece of art :-)
I know, this is not a fair answer but  I could not resist. Again, if I am 
immediately overwhelmed by a technical detail in the image, I cannot 
appreciate it properly.

>
>  (One could argue that if a photograph only evokes thought about the
> artistic value of the photograph itself, rather than what the photograph
> is trying to convey, that's not art. Once again, that's a subjective
> question of opinion. One could even call that "meta-art".)

I agree.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message