|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
And This is considered ART?
Apr 08 12 01:06 am Link 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 Badass! Apr 08 12 01:52 am Link Roy Lion wrote: +1 Apr 08 12 01:59 am Link not my cup tea. looks fake. Apr 08 12 02:02 am Link I 100% would class this as art, very unique  Apr 08 12 02:03 am Link I'm sincerely bewildered. Why wouldn't it be art? Apr 08 12 02:49 am Link Creative Digital Imagez wrote: Sounds to me like you're just jealous that you: Apr 08 12 02:13 pm Link 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 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 Creative Digital Imagez wrote: What about the work makes you question whether it is (or should be) considered art? Apr 08 12 02:17 pm Link Hayley Alys MUA wrote: +1 Apr 08 12 02:18 pm Link 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 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 Pretty damn cool if you ask me... Apr 09 12 12:51 pm Link Why shouldn't it be considered art? Apr 09 12 12:52 pm Link It makes me dizzy. lol Apr 09 12 12:52 pm Link 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 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 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 Michael A Broughton wrote: Exactly! Apr 09 12 12:57 pm Link K I C K H A M wrote: 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 -Nicole- wrote: +1 Apr 09 12 01:03 pm Link sweet!! I love it, I also love the tone mapping he has done to the images. Very cool stuff!!  Apr 09 12 01:06 pm Link Love em... They would make great paintings... Apr 09 12 01:14 pm Link I've seen worse examples Apr 09 12 01:21 pm Link There are even more visually interesting photos on his website. http://dennismaitland.com Apr 09 12 02:02 pm Link Misfit Photography wrote: yeah Im not a fan either Apr 09 12 02:23 pm Link 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 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 Lawrence Guy wrote: Wow… Apr 09 12 02:34 pm Link Emi Rose wrote: Yep... Apr 09 12 02:35 pm Link Kincaid Blackwood wrote: Why wow? Apr 09 12 02:35 pm Link 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 Lawrence Guy wrote: Because of the casual finality of the statement's dismissiveness. To each, his or her own… Apr 09 12 02:49 pm Link Kincaid Blackwood wrote: 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 I think its an awesome angle the photographer could at least wear better sneakers lol Apr 09 12 02:56 pm Link Erin Holmes wrote: Because art required pretentious fancy lighting Apr 09 12 03:00 pm Link IrisSwope wrote: No, wait... I thought pretentious fancy lighting automatically means it's NOT art? Apr 09 12 03:01 pm Link Of course it is art. To me. Apr 09 12 03:03 pm Link |
