What about captions?

IntrovertWantsOut · Jul 20, 2017

Do visual artists see them as visual art or as something else?

(I love to write captions, usually to pics that already exist. This may be something pure visual artists disdain. If so, please accept my apologies for interrupting.)

THROBBS · Jul 20, 2017

captions as PART of a visual art piece seems, to me, to be legit.

Pop Art and all.... Warhol, Lichtenstein for example.

HOWEVER, adding captions TO images found.... "meh"
That is more about "commentary" and can enhance and/or alter the experience, but is not really "visual art", in my opinion, more "literary", in the most basic sense.

one could push that a bit by choice of type face, color, size etc...
rather than a generic looking "meme caption"

DrDelirium · Jul 21, 2017

THROBBS said:
captions as PART of a visual art piece seems, to me, to be legit.

Pop Art and all.... Warhol, Lichtenstein for example.

HOWEVER, adding captions TO images found.... "meh"
That is more about "commentary" and can enhance and/or alter the experience, but is not really "visual art", in my opinion, more "literary", in the most basic sense.

one could push that a bit by choice of type face, color, size etc...
rather than a generic looking "meme caption"

I don't think it's that useful to make those kinds of distinctions. The issues to me are:
1) is this a witting collaboration, or are you just stealing someone else's work because you're unable to make your own? And I mean 'stealing' in the moral/ethical sense as well as the legal, because it's probably the case that you can get away with using copyrighted pictures if you caption them, especially if you really distort the intentions of the original artist.
2) I can see the idea of 'illustration in reverse' being valid- if a picture inspires you to write about it, that's fine, but the artist ought to be ultimately in control of your end of the product, as an author is when commissioning illustrations.
3) are you really adding anything of value to the work?

THROBBS · Jul 21, 2017

DrDelirium said:
I don't think it's that useful to make those kinds of distinctions. The issues to me are:
1) is this a witting collaboration, or are you just stealing someone else's work because you're unable to make your own? And I mean 'stealing' in the moral/ethical sense as well as the legal, because it's probably the case that you can get away with using copyrighted pictures if you caption them, especially if you really distort the intentions of the original artist.
2) I can see the idea of 'illustration in reverse' being valid- if a picture inspires you to write about it, that's fine, but the artist ought to be ultimately in control of your end of the product, as an author is when commissioning illustrations.
3) are you really adding anything of value to the work?

One had better make distinctions, or one cannot talk about visual arts.

I believe one can... "caption"...— work "into" someone else work and even change (or enhance) the original intent...

BUT.. "just tacking on text"... meh There could be some "value", in that it might give the viewer some "food for thought", as it were. BUT, that is, of course ignoring the legality.

IntrovertWantsOut said:
Do visual artists see them as visual art or as something else?

(I love to write captions, usually to pics that already exist. This may be something pure visual artists disdain. If so, please accept my apologies for interrupting.)

as something else

DrDelirium · Jul 21, 2017

THROBBS said:
One had better make distinctions, or one cannot talk about visual arts.

Well, I do talk about visual art. Among the distinctions that I make are those between useful distinctions and others.

THROBBS · Jul 21, 2017

DrDelirium said:
Well, I do talk about visual art. Among the distinctions that I make are those between useful distinctions and others.

"Useful" is being able to distinguish between visual (2D) arts and literary arts...and where they merge.

If those nuances are ignored (discarded), the talk is consequently narrowed.
Which is fine.

Iamsubmissive · Jul 22, 2017

THROBBS said:
captions as PART of a visual art piece seems, to me, to be legit.

HOWEVER, adding captions TO images found.... "meh"
That is more about "commentary" and can enhance and/or alter the experience, but is not really "visual art", in my opinion, more "literary", in the most basic sense.

I agree that it's more like commentary. It can be fun to play around with 'caption this picture' kind of things, but I don't really see it as art...visual or literary.

THROBBS · Jul 22, 2017

Iamsubmissive said:
I agree that it's more like commentary. It can be fun to play around with 'caption this picture' kind of things, but I don't really see it as art...visual or literary.

Haaahahahahahah!! Crack me up, I was thinking— "Yup, I do a lot of things for fun that are not art of any sort!"

DrDelirium · Jul 22, 2017

THROBBS said:
Haaahahahahahah!! Crack me up, I was thinking— "Yup, I do a lot of things for fun that are not art of any sort!"

Doesn't it depend on how you do them?

THROBBS · Jul 22, 2017

DrDelirium said:
Doesn't it depend on how you do them?

Of course, and those things, the way I do them...are not art.

distinctly.

RocketLauncher · Mar 10, 2018

No problem with it.

What about captions?

IntrovertWantsOut

Really Experienced

THROBBS

I am Fauve

DrDelirium

Literotica Guru

THROBBS

I am Fauve

DrDelirium

Literotica Guru

THROBBS

I am Fauve

Iamsubmissive

Really Really Experienced

THROBBS

I am Fauve

DrDelirium

Literotica Guru

THROBBS

I am Fauve

RocketLauncher

Literotica Guru

Similar threads