Do We Need To Discuss What Is 'Art' And What Isn't?

[jaF0]

I kind of thought that was a given ... that art is something created by your own hand. I don't want to limit new entries here. All are welcome, regardless of your method, pen, pencil, chalk, charcoal, stylus, mouse, paper, pad, screen or whatever. But as with the story side, works here MUST be yours. They can be influenced by the works of others, but merely altering an image with filters or colorizing tools does not qualify.

But what happens when you go deeper with layers and re-imagining scenes by putting bits and pieces of others together into something new?

Discuss. Topic is open to all forms of art, what is, or what isn't.

 

[JustTeasingU]

The British dictionary defines art as "something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings."

I fully agree with this definition, to the extent that it enables a broad and inclusive interpretation of the concept of art.

The idea that "art is something created by your own hand" is excessively reductionist. Honestly, I think that the way you put it, it is an obsolete and completely outdated debate. Marcel Duchamp took care of that more than a hundred years ago.



Another very different thing is the issue of the authorship of the artistic work, but in no case should that be confused with the concept of art itself.

 

[THROBBS]

Collage has long been a legitimate form of art. *shrug*
That entails using imagery combined with other imagery to create something new.

Appropriating someone else's imagery into one's own work in a new form is one of the issues here.
It is a grey area. For the purposes of LITerotica, I suggest that folk be upfront on their methods.

My opinion on taking someone else's photograph and mucking about with it is not a legitimate form of Art.
That includes; flipping, cropping, adjusting values & hues, and applying filters (no matter how "artsy" the name of the filter) or even applying digital "brush" strokes.

"A.I." is imagery generated through typed prompts — HOWEVER... the result can still be manipulated "by hand" (digital hand) to refine it.
Never-the-less it is largely bullshit — the AI image is the result of harvesting the hard work and creativity of others.

CGI (DAZ and Poser for example) is the precursor (hahahhah cursor) of AI and is largely the work of the programers who wrote the software. HOWEVER... the user ("artist"?) can use this tool to generate figures, pose them, clothe them, light them and put them in settings... this takes some imagination and, like any art form, some skill to be any good.

 

[THROBBS]

We should be having this conversation about what "Art" is. We should also be conversing about what LITerotica allows.

 

[THROBBS]

The British dictionary defines art as "something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings."

A key facet of this definition is often overlooked — "skill"

I've harped on this before.

Many say, "everyone is an Artist" (or something along those lines).
I say that undermines the definition. For example — I dance, but I am not a "dancer". I can plink our a tune on a piano, but I am not a pianist. I "sing" (awfully), but I am not a "singer". I can cook a meal, I am not a chef.

Who is the arbitrator of "skill" or "mastery"... I dunno.

 

[Inthesewalls]

I think we are too quick to dismiss digital art as a thing. Its a tool like any other tool. I mean if I write a story and use AI to help envision my characters- it still my imagination and vision. We also dont give enough credit to those who master the art of cobbling stuff together. Those programs arent always easy- so skill is involved and again using a machine to bring their vision to life.

So to me art is anything that a person plucks from their imagination and can present to other people. The ability to let people see something through your inner minds eye. I doubt any of us have the same definition.

I agree credit is important though. Either using other peoples imagery or programs we use. Its not hard to credit someone or something that allows us to share our minds eye with others. I mean caveat for those idiots who violate others autonomy by making porn with real peoples faces- thats gross and pathetic.

As far as Lit, thats obviously up to the site. If they say no ai, no ai. On a personal note I dont understand why the first thing we didnt teach ai was like picking plastic from the ocean or fullfilling shipping orders. Like it should make out lives better, not steal peoples creative jobs. Its like the people making AI never saw a sci fi flick.

 

[Inthesewalls]

A key facet of this definition is often overlooked — "skill"

I've harped on this before.

Many say, "everyone is an Artist" (or something along those lines).
I say that undermines the definition. For example — I dance, but I am not a "dancer". I can plink our a tune on a piano, but I am not a pianist. I "sing" (awfully), but I am not a "singer". I can cook a meal, I am not a chef.

Who is the arbitrator of "skill" or "mastery"... I dunno.

I think people think of it in terms of if someone can make money off of said hobbies. Its sad we cant just enjoy stuff. Also i agree everyone is an artist. Just because you arent a master(and really how many of those are they?) Doenst negate that its your thing/hobby/enjoyment. Something doenst have to have monetary value to be valuable.- edit at least not personally. If other people dont agree who cares?

 

[THROBBS]

I think people think of it in terms of if someone can make money off of said hobbies. Its sad we cant just enjoy stuff. Also i agree everyone is an artist. Just because you arent a master(and really how many of those are they?) Doenst negate that its your thing/hobby/enjoyment. Something doenst have to have monetary value to be valuable.- edit at least not personally. If other people dont agree who cares?

I believe everyone has some measure of creativity, but that does not make them "Artists". Just expressing oneself is simply that — self expression. Exactly — how many masters are there? A lot, but not EVERYONE. This not simply about making money as the measure of artistry.

IF Everyone is an Artist, then by the same logic everyone is a musician, everyone is a mechanic, everyone is a doctor (I put on my own bandaids)

There is the word Art (and Artist) for a reason.

 

[Inthesewalls]

I believe everyone has some measure of creativity, but that does not make them "Artists". Just expressing oneself is simply that — self expression. Exactly — how many masters are there? A lot, but not EVERYONE. This not simply about making money as the measure of artistry.

IF Everyone is an Artist, then by the same logic everyone is a musician, everyone is a mechanic, everyone is a doctor (I put on my own bandaids)

There is the word Art (and Artist) for a reason.

Right but as you pointed out who gets to measure that? Their are far more failed "artists" than masters. Money is defintely a factor in what most people define as skilled/successful.

Van Gogh was not popular in his life. It wasnt after his death when his sister in law I think? Monetized his work that people started appreciating his skill. Thats the case with a lot of authors/painters who are post humously famous. Didnt mean they didnt spend their life dedicated to art. So his skill didnt get recognized until it made money. People might not have called him an artist in while he was alive, if we are talking pure mastery. To me money made the difference for what is valued as skilled.


I get what you are saying about doctors and mechanics- but I think thats apples to oranges. Those things have definable results that indicate success..Doctors have much more solid results in the form of skill. We cant even define art as a tangible thing so im not sure how we can get the term artist together really.


I guess its not up to me whether people call themselves artists. Or to judge whats art. What becomes popular is generally what people see as skilled even if I dont like or get the art. Who am I to say? Thanks for the reply- its defintely made me think..

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

So to me art is anything that a person plucks from their imagination and can present to other people.

Then I'd have to consider myself an art critic. I'm not sure if I can handle the implications of that.

 

[THROBBS]

Right but as you pointed out who gets to measure that? Their are far more failed "artists" than masters. Money is defintely a factor in what most people define as skilled/successful.

Sure, but there should be some minimal standard, as with every other pursuit. Money can be a measure. Or...awards...? Participating in juried events. Think art shows and olympics... some events are more subjective than others.

As for the earlier dictionary definition — there is also the "imagination" aspect or creativity — some of that is contextual... Look to the time period. As with Duchamp — he was challenging the definition, the art world. To do that today.... "meh", he did it already. Much like Jackson Pollack's works. Largely short on technique (though there WAS that, if you have looked into him), but high on concept. Again, it has been done. Abstract expressionism as a whole has had it's time and been exhausted – I would venture to say that any future explorations in abstract expressionism is visual masturbation - sure, go ahead for your own pleasure, but you are contributing little (tho' maybe not "nothing").

Van Gogh was not popular in his life. It wasnt after his death when his sister in law I think? Monetized his work that people started appreciating his skill. Thats the case with a lot of authors/painters who are post humously famous. Didnt mean they didnt spend their life dedicated to art. So his skill didnt get recognized until it made money. People might not have called him an artist in while he was alive, if we are talking pure mastery. To me money made the difference for what is valued as skilled.

Vincent may not have been "popular" in life, but he was recognized as an Artist.
Artistry, mastery is not simply money OR recognition.

I get what you are saying about doctors and mechanics- but I think thats apples to oranges. Those things have definable results that indicate success..Doctors have much more solid results in the form of skill. We cant even define art as a tangible thing so im not sure how we can get the term artist together really.

I think we can get closer to a definition/standard than just brushing off as everyone is an Artist. Because they are not. Everyone may have some (even minute) desire for self expression, but that is not always "Art".

I guess its not up to me whether people call themselves artists. Or to judge whats art. What becomes popular is generally what people see as skilled even if I dont like or get the art. Who am I to say? Thanks for the reply- its defintely made me think..

I also reject "popularity" as a good measure of "Artistry". Nor is being "misundertsood".

Calling oneself an "Artist" does not make it so. Not a simple answer.

 

[THROBBS]

Then I'd have to consider myself an art critic. I'm not sure if I can handle the implications of that.

We are all critics — of everything. Some opinions are weightier than others, by virtue of study and knowledge.

 

[THROBBS]

Related to this discussion:

I do not like to refer to myself as an "Artist", I tend to use the term "illustrator", as it feels more accurate and perhaps less "pompous".

*shrug*

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

If I were to fix a bathroom sink for someone and then fuck them standing up in front of it, would you have a problem with that?

Is that art? The bad kind I mean?

 

[THROBBS]

If I were to fix a bathroom sink for someone and then fuck them standing up in front of it, would you have a problem with that?

Is that art? The bad kind I mean?

Does the sink now work? Actually "fixed"? Did you make them orgasm?
I don't have a problem with it, if it was consensual (sink repair and fucking)

It is not Art, unless, perhaps if there was an audience and you had an actual message that you could articulate.

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

Yes. Yes. It was. It is.

 

[MacSlither]

A key facet of this definition is often overlooked — "skill"

I've harped on this before.

Many say, "everyone is an Artist" (or something along those lines).
I say that undermines the definition. For example — I dance, but I am not a "dancer". I can plink our a tune on a piano, but I am not a pianist. I "sing" (awfully), but I am not a "singer". I can cook a meal, I am not a chef.

Who is the arbitrator of "skill" or "mastery"... I dunno.

Skill trumps concept in art.

 

[THROBBS]

Skill trumps concept in art.

I tend to agree, but you don't have to use such foul language!

 

[MacSlither]

Ill explain.

Is a collage art? Yeah, i guess...

Is a photo art? Yeah, i guess.

Is putting a filter on a photo art? Eh? Maybe?

But none of those compare at all to a Rembrandt.

 

[YerLittleSecret]

A key facet of this definition is often overlooked — "skill"

Preach! But as you've noted, what determines skill? My opinion is, if a child or even let's say a good portion of the population could recreate said "art", it might not be art. That doesn't discount it's creativity, effort or even aesthetic beauty in my book. I just wouldn't label it art. My opinion, however, should mean nothing to those who genuinely believe they are creating art. You do you, and forget what anyone else has to say!

 

[JustTeasingU]

@jaF0
why have my messages been deleted without any prior warning?

Do you think this is the most appropriate way to proceed with an active member of this community who is otherwise sharing content and actively participating in the forum?

I think that, at least, I deserve some kind of explanation about it.

The content I shared was sensitive but in no way illegal or anything like that. It is a well known photo and I duly explained the reasons why I shared it along with my vision of the artist as an actor capable of generating impact and debate. Where is the problem? I even agreed to delete it and share it through a link with a warning.

I find it unbelievable that you removed my posts from the forum without any warning, as if I were an offender worthy of censure, while allowing certain images to be posted in other threads bordering on illegality.

Best regards,
JTU

PS I don't even know why I'm wasting my time writing this when it's obvious that you can delete it whenever you feel like it. It's up to you, honey.

 

[jaF0]

To that end, we DO NOT publish works of any type featuring the following content:

>
>
>
>Copyrighted material for which the submitter is not the owner of the copyright, or for which the submitter does not have an explicit license from the copyright owner to publish the work at Literotica.
>
>
>

https://www.literotica.com/resources/content-guidelines

 

[JustTeasingU]

To that end, we DO NOT publish works of any type featuring the following content:

>
>
>
>Copyrighted material for which the submitter is not the owner of the copyright, or for which the submitter does not have an explicit license from the copyright owner to publish the work at Literotica.
>
>
>

https://www.literotica.com/resources/content-guidelines

If that were true, you could have warned me, as you have done on other occasions with other people, don't you think?

We could have found alternatives to not delete my message and all the others that were generated about it.

Deleting posts from a forum is something a moderator cannot take lightly.

Truth be told, I don't think you are being really sincere in your response. If that is your usual way of proceeding, you will see how that affects your credibility and the credibility of this site.

By the way, I thought you were going to ask me about what I meant by photos posted here in other threads that are borderline illegal, but I see you're not too concerned about that. Good for you!

 

[ToPleaseHim]

@JustTeasingU Mods are under no obligation or expectation to alert individuals, warn them, when we are removing posts. I removed over 100 posts this weekend and certainly didn’t have time to argue with every person who thinks they were well within their right to post whatever it was they posted.

Did you take the photograph you were sharing here? Your description suggests that it is a well-known image and that it’s not yours. If you don’t own the rights to it, don’t post it here. (Also, it sounds as though it was an image of a child… other sensitive issues aside, why would you think it’s appropriate to share an image of a child on an erotica site?)

 

[OffNSFW]

It's context-dependent.

In the philosophical sense, art can be just about anything if we frame it as such.

If you're submitting a project for a grade, crafting something for a patron, or inviting yourself to be compared to someone who put in 10,000 hours of learning into their craft, your Roku City-looking Photoshop manip is probably not cutting it.