Quote:
Originally posted by J__
whoa it's getting to look like fight club here  i consider photography as an art. and AS AN ART everyone has their priviledge of taking a stab at it. if one considers his own photography as an art then you should consider urself as an artist. this is the hard part. no matter how inexperienced the audience may be in the field, they still have a sense of beauty and what looks good and what doesnt. so the artist's job is to take into consideration of what they say AND balance that with their original ideas, and ways of portraying themselves. it is this balance that makes a good piece. good art is what appeals to everyone, even if it is strange and odd, it still has to been viewed by everyone and anyone and get a reaction of "it works" from them. got art is not something that gets "great" from one group but "wtf" from another. this is what makes a good artist so hard to come by. i think we all should listen to what others have to say about our work that they are not satisfied with and adjust it accordingly while still keeping our own unique ways. this is the stepping stone to perfecting our skills.
|
i don't agree at all
here's why.
-i dont think artwork has to be viewed int he same positive way, for it to be considered 'good' art.
-what is 'good' to me, might be the opposet to the masses. what makes their perception of 'good' artwork more creditable?
ie/ look at maxim's photography. in a whole, i think its mostly crap. does it appeal to a large audience? YES!
when i read your above statements, in regards to the correlation between a widely accepted piece of art and 'good' art, i instead make the correlation between financial success and a widely accepted piece of art. i think if you want to be succesful financially in photography, you have to have images that are demand, therefore popular. if they're not, you'll have a hard time selling.
either way, imo, art is art. we're all entitled to draw the boundaries between 'good' and 'bad' art.