"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a884c9f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> This is the core notion which drives Fine Arts professors to sneer down 
> their noses and say haughtily, "Ugh, Illustration.  That's not ART".
>
> (Guess what my major at university was :P  )
>
> "Oh no!" they cry.  "XYZ is removing mystique from The Thing Which 
> Elevates Our Clique To Superiority, killing Art:  it's not a legitimate 
> artform!"  (All photography was once in that category, you might be aware. 
> CGI generally still is.)
>
> "Art" used to just be any skill performed by a crafter, before being 
> corralled into a narrow pen of being something only a few, educated elite 
> could 'understand'.  Skill used to mean more...but now, skill can be had 
> at the push of a button.  Even if you don't use artificially-generated 
> skill to accomplish a task, the end product is no longer considered 
> something which someone skilled made, even though you can still have 
> something that's very low quality made with pushbutton skill.
>
> FFFFFfffffff.
>
> </rant>

I loved your rant! :-)

Of course you are right about this in principle. However, if "art" means 
that every single item of whatever production by whoever throws a dot of 
paint or pushes a button or shoots an image should be considered just that, 
art, I disagree. Art is no free meal so to speak, neither was it when it was 
merely a "skill" performed by a crafter.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message