Tarzak said:
What about the work of Toulouse-Lautrec? Lots of advertising posters.
Art is what sets us apart from animals. Whether it's good or bad [art].
I didn't write that definition... I just quoted a philosopher.
Sure, T-L is definitely art (if you will allow me to ponitificate). He, and others like him, go beyond simple depiction of a product. One of the characteristics of "artistic commercial art" that can raise the product to the level of "true art" is the rendering "beyond utilitarian". There are many advertisments of everyday products that are truly artistic. There are many advertisments of everyday products that are not. It's easy to see the difference. But the same is true about all types "potentially artistic" media.
Another characteristic to consider, especially with commercial art, is it's ability to sustain the test of time. Real art is often those images that etiehr become classic or become representative of a specific era. Looking twice may not be a sufficient test. There are many bad images that all of us have looked at twice, thrice, and maybe even more than that... only to conclude that it is just plain ugly. There must be a "WOW" factor.
I have a bit of a problem with the notion of "ugly art". There is some that I personally don't like, but I can see why others might be attracted to it. Yes, it's ugly (or not pleasing, for example opera) TO ME, but not to a large range of others. I suppose even opera is still art... whether I like it or not
🙄
There are other forms of 'art' that I can't be so enlightened about. Some consider XXX porn to be artistic expression. Sure, I've looked at some of it more than twice and some of it has raised some emotions (to say the least). Sure, some of it is rendered somewhat artisticlly and is enjoyed by many. But does that make it art?
Are Jock Sturges photos art... or are they artistically rendered documentation of a particular lifestyle? I like some of his work... but some looks just like a common snapshot (except that it is shot with 8x10 camera). What about David Hamilton... same genre, but perhaps more artistic given the "dreamy soft-focus" and the attempt at depicting youth is a "timeless" manner. I'm not sure.
And.. what about shooters like Larry Clark? His work certainly evokes emotion and is a unique perspective on life, but what's so artistic about it. Certainly not anything related to artistic rendering or good printing. I consider it to be photographic documentation, but others consider it to be art. Go figure. Contrast Clark's photodocumentaries with Mary Ellen Mark... very different. Which, if either, is art?
Just because one uses the same tools as artists might not qualify the resulting product as art. Using the analogy of an earlier poster... there isn't anything I might do with either an acoustic or electric guitar that will ever be art... but in the hands of Segovia or Geo. Harrison it is!
