Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > And This is considered ART?

Apr 08 12 01:06 am Link

Photographer

john_ellis

Posts: 4375

Spokane, Washington, US

Your impression of art should have nothing to do with what someone else thinks it is - or isn't... and vice versa.

Whether you consider it art or not, I think you might agree it's far more original than anything you or I have done lately.

Apr 08 12 01:18 am Link

Photographer

Weapon Outfitters

Posts: 141

Seattle, Washington, US

Badass!

Apr 08 12 01:52 am Link

Photographer

tenrocK photo

Posts: 5433

New York, New York, US

Roy Lion wrote:
Badass!

+1

Apr 08 12 01:59 am Link

Photographer

Misfit Photography

Posts: 2732

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

not my cup tea. looks fake.

Apr 08 12 02:02 am Link

Model

Emi Rose

Posts: 1223

Newcastle upon Tyne, England, United Kingdom

I 100% would class this as art, very unique smile

Apr 08 12 02:03 am Link

Model

Erin Holmes

Posts: 6574

Albuquerque, New Mexico, US

I'm sincerely bewildered. Why wouldn't it be art?

Apr 08 12 02:49 am Link

Photographer

Shot By Adam

Posts: 6204

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Creative Digital Imagez wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/photograph … slideshow/

Sounds to me like you're just jealous that you:

1. Didn't think of it first.
2. Didn't think of it first then think to market it as art first
3. Didn't think others would think of this as art then go do it yourself and then sell it as art.

Apr 08 12 02:13 pm Link

Photographer

Visual Echoes

Posts: 920

Niagara Falls, New York, US

I got the shivers looking at it, imagining the dangerous height. To me, yes, it is art. If it isn't to you, that's cool.

Apr 08 12 02:17 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Hayley Alys MUA

Posts: 978

London, England, United Kingdom

Meh, different strokes for different folks.
Me? I think it's pretty rad if he actually did scale the buildings before snapping the shots.
I get goosebumps and that nervous feeling in the pit of my stomach that everyone gets with heights just looking at them briefly, so I'd say he did a great job

Apr 08 12 02:17 pm Link

Photographer

Gianantonio

Posts: 8111

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

Creative Digital Imagez wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/photograph … slideshow/

What about the work makes you question whether it is (or should be) considered art?

Apr 08 12 02:17 pm Link

Photographer

Faulty Focus

Posts: 696

Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada

Hayley Alys MUA wrote:
Meh, different strokes for different folks.
Me? I think it's pretty rad if he actually did scale the buildings before snapping the shots.
I get goosebumps and that nervous feeling in the pit of my stomach that everyone gets with heights just looking at them briefly, so I'd say he did a great job

+1

Apr 08 12 02:18 pm Link

Retoucher

Michael A Broughton

Posts: 1194

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

i always find it funny when some self-important person seems to think their own personal likes and dislikes determine whether or not something even qualifies as art.

Apr 09 12 12:27 pm Link

Model

Cait Chan

Posts: 6272

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US

Yes. Yes it is OP.

You just don't LIKE it.

Also I'll echo the poster above me. It comes across as very self-righteous and smug when one feels they are the authority on what is or isn't art.

Apr 09 12 12:48 pm Link

Model

-Nicole-

Posts: 19209

Madison, Wisconsin, US

Pretty damn cool if you ask me...smile

Apr 09 12 12:51 pm Link

Model

P I X I E

Posts: 35329

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Why shouldn't it be considered art?

Apr 09 12 12:52 pm Link

Photographer

Richard Greenly

Posts: 1006

Washington, District of Columbia, US

It makes me dizzy. lol

Apr 09 12 12:52 pm Link

Photographer

Gallery 59 Photography

Posts: 874

Glendale, Arizona, US

I'm 6'4" yet scared of heights, so these photos made me nervous.

OP, art is entirely subjective. You either like it or you don't. But to say it's not art? That seems a little close minded to me.

Apr 09 12 12:55 pm Link

Photographer

Orca Bay Images

Posts: 32383

Poulsbo, Washington, US

Hey, smug OP:

To answer your question, Yes, to those who consider it art, it's art, and to those who don't consider it's art, it's not art.

I hope you're not foolish enough to think that the rest of the species has to think like you do.

Apr 09 12 12:56 pm Link

Model

K I C K H A M

Posts: 14663

Los Angeles, California, US

I love it.

The reason I would consider it art (which I understand would vary from person to person) is the consistency of the feet from piece to piece-- creating both an understanding of what went into the shots and a common characteristic throughout the series; and also the perspective, which I think looks awesome.

But, I'll be biased towards liking it. Vertigo is one of my favorite movies of all time. =P

Apr 09 12 12:56 pm Link

Photographer

Victoria Cope

Posts: 13

Nottingham, England, United Kingdom

Michael A Broughton wrote:
i always find it funny when some self-important person seems to think their own personal likes and dislikes determine whether or not something even qualifies as art.

Exactly!

Personally the images make me feel a little sick because I don't like heights but I appreciate the effort and idea gone into taking the images.

Apr 09 12 12:57 pm Link

Model

P I X I E

Posts: 35329

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

K I C K H A M wrote:
I love it.

The reason I would consider it art (which I understand would vary from person to person) is the consistency of the feet from piece to piece-- creating both an understanding of what went into the shots and a common characteristic throughout the series; and also the perspective, which I think looks awesome.

But, I'll be biased towards liking it. Vertigo is one of my favorite movies of all time. =P

Then you'd get along great with my fiance. It's in his top 5. And mine too!

Apr 09 12 12:57 pm Link

Photographer

Robert Sawin

Posts: 6740

Carlsbad, California, US

-Nicole- wrote:
Pretty damn cool if you ask me...smile

+1

Apr 09 12 01:03 pm Link

Model

Frances Jewel

Posts: 9149

Dayton, Ohio, US

sweet!! I love it, I also love the tone mapping he has done to the images. Very cool stuff!! big_smile

Apr 09 12 01:06 pm Link

Artist/Painter

Christopher Willingham

Posts: 21859

Long Beach, California, US

Love em...  They would make great paintings...

Apr 09 12 01:14 pm Link

Model

Bunny Bombshell

Posts: 11752

Huntington, West Virginia, US

I've seen worse examples

Apr 09 12 01:21 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Diaz

Posts: 63532

Danbury, Connecticut, US

There are even more visually interesting photos on his website.
http://dennismaitland.com

Apr 09 12 02:02 pm Link

Photographer

Ashes to Ashes

Posts: 3784

Norway, Maine, US

Misfit Photography wrote:
not my cup tea. looks fake.

yeah Im not a fan either

Apr 09 12 02:23 pm Link

Photographer

Kincaid Blackwood

Posts: 23438

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Pathetic.

This guy composes photos that work in perspective, geometry and infuses a feeling of fear/helplessness/impending-doom to the viewer and you scoff at it?  You suggest that it isn't art?  A sincere question from someone who has not viewed your work: should we view your images here and use it as a guideline for art?  I freely comply with the No Unsolicited Critiques rule but when you begin threads like this you open yourself up for critical analysis from peers.

When you photograph Yucaipa, CA as beautifully as Dennis Maitland photographs Detroit, perhaps you have grounds to challenge whether his work is or isn't art.  What the fuck…

Apr 09 12 02:27 pm Link

Photographer

Lawrence Guy

Posts: 17684

Spring Valley, California, US

I think the photos are compositionally uninteresting, based on a gimmick, and photographed by a person who does not value his own life.  However, there's no reason to say they're not art.

They also give me the shivers to look at.

Apr 09 12 02:30 pm Link

Photographer

Kincaid Blackwood

Posts: 23438

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Lawrence Guy wrote:
I think the photos are compositionally uninteresting, based on a gimmick, and…

Wow…

Apr 09 12 02:34 pm Link

Photographer

Wysiwyg Photography

Posts: 6326

Salt Lake City, Utah, US

Emi Rose wrote:
I 100% would class this as art, very unique smile

Yep...

Apr 09 12 02:35 pm Link

Photographer

Lawrence Guy

Posts: 17684

Spring Valley, California, US

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:

Wow…

Why wow?

Apr 09 12 02:35 pm Link

Photographer

Andialu

Posts: 14029

San Pedro, California, US

Who cares if something is or isn't art? Either it speaks to you or it doesn't. I personally think art is pretty much a useless word. People use it as a velvet rope to disregard what they don't like and elevate what they do like.

Apr 09 12 02:37 pm Link

Photographer

Kincaid Blackwood

Posts: 23438

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Lawrence Guy wrote:
Why wow?

Because of the casual finality of the statement's dismissiveness.  To each, his or her own…

Apr 09 12 02:49 pm Link

Photographer

Lawrence Guy

Posts: 17684

Spring Valley, California, US

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:

Because of the casual finality of the statement's dismissiveness.  To each, his or her own…

How is my casual dismissal of it any different from comments in the thread where people wholeheartedly endorse it?  Note that I never said it isn't art.  I just implied that I didn't like it.

Apr 09 12 02:53 pm Link

Model

Cynthia Serrano

Posts: 12486

Newark, New Jersey, US

I think its an awesome angle the photographer could at least wear better sneakers lol

Apr 09 12 02:56 pm Link

Photographer

IrisSwope

Posts: 14857

Dallas, Texas, US

Erin Holmes wrote:
I'm sincerely bewildered. Why wouldn't it be art?

Because art required pretentious fancy lighting

Apr 09 12 03:00 pm Link

Photographer

Lawrence Guy

Posts: 17684

Spring Valley, California, US

IrisSwope wrote:

Because art required pretentious fancy lighting

No, wait... I thought pretentious fancy lighting automatically means it's NOT art?

/confused

Apr 09 12 03:01 pm Link

Photographer

C Mirene

Posts: 1610

Toledo, Ohio, US

Of course it is art.  To me.

Apr 09 12 03:03 pm Link