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.

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

  (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".)

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> There should be - at least - a certain "something" which appeals to a random 
> and miscellaneous group of (at least a bit) knowledgeable observers before a 
> piece is considered part of the artistic domain. If not, really everything 
> could be called art, killing art in the process and putting kitch in its 
> place. Would you consider the ubiquitous "tearful child" or "busty gypsy" as 
> art? Probably not. Still, many people love them enough to put them on their 
> walls, and thus indeed a subjective question of opinion at large, but not if 
> one has taken the trouble or the time to learn/understand what art is really 
> about.

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>

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> It can be used to artistic effect but not in that photo of the cat. (I hope that
> it was not Mike that took it)

It was me that took it... :P

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> part of the image that needs focussing. However, if instead the eyes had 
> been focussed sharply and the rest of the cat slightly out of focus, the 
> image would have gained in intensity. It would not have been a wow image, 
> but certainly a more interesting one. But why not simply photograph the cat 

Ah, but I was going for something different. I wanted the focus to be on 
something different. I have many pictures of my cats with their eyes in 
focus.... Rules are meant to be broken. He often sits with his front 
paws outstretched and together like that, so I thought I'd emphasize the 
paws. I see it didn't work, and the intent is lost on people ;)

> sharply and leave it at that? The personality of the animal is more than 
> enough to make the shot attractive without extra add-ons.

> All this said without intentions to hurt whoever took the photograph. This 
> is the kind of analysis one would get in any photography or art class in the 
> world

Right. Strangely, the photo forum I frequent had an entirely different 
view of it, but there you go ;)

My feelings are not hurt, I take lots of Okay photos, and lots of bad 
photos... Depending on who you ask, this one is either a masterpiece, or 
a train wreck :) I think it's somewhere in between. The bicycle in the 
back killed it, and I don't think my focus/DOF was where I really 
intended it to be.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Still, I really don't like shots /without/ any focal blur. Aside from 
> giving a sense of scale, it also gives a sense of depth, and helps add 
> emphasis to some elements of the image (by literally putting them in 
> focus), so you lose a lot if you don't use at least some subtle focal blur.

Yep :) very true, the image seems to look flat w/o any sort of blurring. 
   Blur does give a hint of depth.

Someone in this thread mentioned they liked to use fog. I abhor fog in 
rendering. Only when it is very, very light like the haze of mountains 
in the distance does it make sense to me... That also conveys scale, 
imo. Too much fog makes the image murky, to me.

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a88a206$1@news.povray.org...
>
> It was me that took it... :P

Good! Or I should say: you can do better than that :-)
But seriously, I would be interested to hear from you why you wanted to 
place the cat out of focus. This may seem off topic, but I don't consider it 
so. It also concerns your choice for your glass animal.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"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

"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

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:18:28 -0500, Mike Raiford <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> It can be used to artistic effect but not in that photo of the cat. (I hope that
>> it was not Mike that took it)
>
>It was me that took it... :P
>
>
Oops! Well it doesn't work for me, sorry.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a88a3a2$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Ah, but I was going for something different. I wanted the focus to be on 
> something different. I have many pictures of my cats with their eyes in 
> focus.... Rules are meant to be broken. He often sits with his front paws 
> outstretched and together like that, so I thought I'd emphasize the paws. 
> I see it didn't work, and the intent is lost on people ;)

Yes, I am afraid your intention was good, but it did not work out as 
intended, and I would say the same about your glass animal. To return to 
that one, I would be interested to see the same more focussed in a neutral 
but interesting environment slightly out of focus. In the present shot the 
"material" does not really "speak" while it looks suggestive but is blurred 
by the soft focus.

> My feelings are not hurt, I take lots of Okay photos, and lots of bad 
> photos... Depending on who you ask, this one is either a masterpiece, or a 
> train wreck :) I think it's somewhere in between. The bicycle in the back 
> killed it, and I don't think my focus/DOF was where I really intended it 
> to be.

I sincerely think that honestly and freely discussing issues is a great way 
to progress. We may not agree, even fundamentally, but at least we both 
learn something I am sure.

I would not call your cat a train wreck myself, but an interesting attempt 
at a different "angle" of interpretation or awareness. I think that the real 
culprit is the cat here! He is way too interested and looks too intelligent 
to be caught into that trap. Your attempt therfore might well have worked 
with another "subject" :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message