Barbie as a hoarder...

[penhead]

...and my vote for 'you have got to be kidding' and/or 'what will Ken say' award goes to:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/carriembecker/sets/72157627470133958/with/6630210521/

 

[NewLondon88]

i'm impressed with the attention to detail..
but I have to ask "Why?"

 

[wiset1]

The bathroom...ick, like really SMALL ick :biggrin:

 

[NewLondon88]

mouse dookies?

 

[robersonjr]

And I thought my shop was a mess

 

[Rick P]

Wow she really did capture reality there.......looks like pics of my mother in laws place! (no I'm not kidding!!!!)

 

[Rick P]

i'm impressed with the attention to detail..
but I have to ask "Why?"

Because good art is intended to stir an emotional response through a relfection of reailty not a pretty object to match the couch. Some of the best work I have ever seen is NOT comfortable to look at!

 

[RustySplinters]

i'm impressed with the attention to detail..
but I have to ask "Why?"

Because good art is intended to stir an emotional response through a relfection of reailty not a pretty object to match the couch. Some of the best work I have ever seen is NOT comfortable to look at!

extremely well said

 

[Haynie]

Because good art is intended to stir an emotional response through a relfection of reailty not a pretty object to match the couch. Some of the best work I have ever seen is NOT comfortable to look at!

Normally I would agree with you but not in this case. I see nothing artistic in these images. If you want to see this watch hoarders. Recreating a 1/6th scale model of a hoarder's house is just that a model. For this type of image I prefer the works of Burtynsky or Jordan. Their Real vs. her emotionless and sterile. As always art is in the eye of the beholder.

Out of curiosity what about these images constitutes "good art" in your mind?

 

[sbell111]

Because good art is intended to stir an emotional response through a relfection of reailty not a pretty object to match the couch. Some of the best work I have ever seen is NOT comfortable to look at!

Normally I would agree with you but not in this case. I see nothing artistic in these images. If you want to see this watch hoarders. Recreating a 1/6th scale model of a hoarder's house is just that a model. For this type of image I prefer the works of Burtynsky or Jordan. Their Real vs. her emotionless and sterile. As always art is in the eye of the beholder.

Out of curiosity what about these images constitutes "good art" in your mind?

The easy answer is as he stated it, 'it stirs an emotional response'. THe artists description is another fine answer to your question.

That being said, I think that she missed her mark slightly because all of the items and the overall clutter is just too clean. There is no trace of dust. The items and the surrounding finishes are shiny clean. When looking at the pictures, my brain isn't fooled because it catches the dichotomy between the clutter and the cleanness.

 

[NewLondon88]

The easy answer is as he stated it, 'it stirs an emotional response'.

I get an emotional response when I step in something my
dog left behind, too. But I'm not about to re-name him Picasso :tongue:

 

[Rick P]

Well first of all it most definitely stirred an emotional response from me! That response is limited by the observers history and experiences. For me the response was immediate since hoarding has directly impacted my life. Also like it or not this would be technically difficult to do and took a fair amount of dedication and skill.

Both the Detroit institute of arts and the Chicago institute are full of crap that has far less meaning than the work in the pictures. Both have many works that say far less about the human condition........but I wouldn't call it great art. Simply better than average.

 

[Rick P]

BTW there have been many "modelers" who also are great artists! Take a look at the castle in "the dark crystal" or the cruiser in the opening shot from "Star wars" if that does not stir a little something lay down, your dead.

 

[thewishman]

I get an emotional response when I step in something my
dog left behind, too. But I'm not about to re-name him Picasso :tongue:

Charlie, you're killing me! You are one of the few guys that make me laugh out loud.

Would your dog happen to have branched off from the Dada anti-art movement - perhaps to have become a Doodooist?

 

[nava1uni]

I think that the attention to detail is very good. I work with hoarders and it looked very much like many of the homes that I go into when working with patients.

 

[navycop]

The scary thing is= I actually saw houses like that.

 

[Haynie]

Because good art is intended to stir an emotional response through a relfection of reailty not a pretty object to match the couch. Some of the best work I have ever seen is NOT comfortable to look at!

Normally I would agree with you but not in this case. I see nothing artistic in these images. If you want to see this watch hoarders. Recreating a 1/6th scale model of a hoarder's house is just that a model. For this type of image I prefer the works of Burtynsky or Jordan. Their Real vs. her emotionless and sterile. As always art is in the eye of the beholder.

Out of curiosity what about these images constitutes "good art" in your mind?

The easy answer is as he stated it, 'it stirs an emotional response'. THe artists description is another fine answer to your question.

That being said, I think that she missed her mark slightly because all of the items and the overall clutter is just too clean. There is no trace of dust. The items and the surrounding finishes are shiny clean. When looking at the pictures, my brain isn't fooled because it catches the dichotomy between the clutter and the cleanness.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. If a piece needs a description to help it along the piece fails. For me this is emotionless.

 

[Haynie]

Well first of all it most definitely stirred an emotional response from me! That response is limited by the observers history and experiences. For me the response was immediate since hoarding has directly impacted my life. Also like it or not this would be technically difficult to do and took a fair amount of dedication and skill.

So you are saying that the artistic value of this piece is only apparent to those who have a direct connection to a hoarder? That is a pretty shallow pool to want to connect with.

Dedication and skill does not an artist make. At best it makes this person a skilled and dedicated model maker. The person who made my parent's kitchen cabinets had a huge amount of dedication and a hell of a lot of skill. They are not art, they are cabinets. Sturdy, well made functional cabinets. James Krenov had dedication, skill and that extra something that moved a small cabinet into the realm of art.

I am thinking we have different definitions of art.

 

[sbell111]

I am thinking we have different definitions of art.

That's probably true, but it's important to remember that no one's definition should be limited to 'things he likes or even appreciates'.

 

[Haynie]

I am thinking we have different definitions of art.

That's probably true, but it's important to remember that no one's definition should be limited to 'things he likes or even appreciates'.

No. one's definition should NOT be limited to things he likes or appreciates.

 

[Smitty37]

Hmmmmm....

In this life, I've see "art" that I like - art that I don't like - and art that isn't art at all. They all exist.

I consider that set of pictures to be in the last catagory. But then I don't consider any collection, in and of itself, to be art even if it is an art collection. I will say that she does have an impressive collection of miniature stuff though.

I personally never considered my wife organizing her miniature collection to be an art form. It was simply doing something that she liked to do. After about 10 years or so, she tired of it and gave the miniatures away. I was also involved in that I put together and finished quite a few of the furniture items, some from kits and some from scratch. Didn't consider that art either.

 

[sbell111]

I am thinking we have different definitions of art.

That's probably true, but it's important to remember that no one's definition should be limited to 'things he likes or even appreciates'.

No. one's definition should NOT be limited to things he likes or appreciates.

Do you realize that all you did was rearrange what I said to say exactly the same thing? Were you going in a different direction and suffered a typo?

 

[sbell111]

In this life, I've see "art" that I like - art that I don't like - and art that isn't art at all. They all exist.

I consider that set of pictures to be in the last catagory. But then I don't consider any collection, in and of itself, to be art even if it is an art collection. I will say that she does have an impressive collection of miniature stuff though.

I personally never considered my wife organizing her miniature collection to be an art form. It was simply doing something that she liked to do. After about 10 years or so, she tired of it and gave the miniatures away. I was also involved in that I put together and finished quite a few of the furniture items, some from kits and some from scratch. Didn't consider that art either.

I think that you are misunderstanding. The miniatures are not the art. The photographs of the staged miniatures are the art.

 

[Haynie]

Misread your statement.

 

[Smitty37]

If you say so

In this life, I've see "art" that I like - art that I don't like - and art that isn't art at all. They all exist.

I consider that set of pictures to be in the last catagory. But then I don't consider any collection, in and of itself, to be art even if it is an art collection. I will say that she does have an impressive collection of miniature stuff though.

I personally never considered my wife organizing her miniature collection to be an art form. It was simply doing something that she liked to do. After about 10 years or so, she tired of it and gave the miniatures away. I was also involved in that I put together and finished quite a few of the furniture items, some from kits and some from scratch. Didn't consider that art either.

I think that you are misunderstanding. The miniatures are not the art. The photographs of the staged miniatures are the art.

I suppose you could think of it that way. Just from what I saw when I looked at the pictures -- I don't.

Every summer here in Delaware they have a competition on our beaches where they create sand castles and other things out of sand. There are a ton of great pictures of them around, but in my opinion, the art is in the creation not the photograph.

I also think of the art in photography as a combination of recognizing scenes that are worth preserving in pictures and getting good photo's.

 

[sbell111]

In this life, I've see "art" that I like - art that I don't like - and art that isn't art at all. They all exist.

I consider that set of pictures to be in the last catagory. But then I don't consider any collection, in and of itself, to be art even if it is an art collection. I will say that she does have an impressive collection of miniature stuff though.

I personally never considered my wife organizing her miniature collection to be an art form. It was simply doing something that she liked to do. After about 10 years or so, she tired of it and gave the miniatures away. I was also involved in that I put together and finished quite a few of the furniture items, some from kits and some from scratch. Didn't consider that art either.

I think that you are misunderstanding. The miniatures are not the art. The photographs of the staged miniatures are the art.

I suppose you could think of it that way. Just from what I saw when I looked at the pictures -- I don't.

Every summer here in Delaware they have a competition on our beaches where they create sand castles and other things out of sand. There are a ton of great pictures of them around, but in my opinion, the art is in the creation not the photograph.

I also think of the art in photography as a combination of recognizing scenes that are worth preserving in pictures and getting good photo's.

If it helps you work through it, you should note that the pictures are what are being displayed at the art gallery, not the miniatures. Further, the artists explanation makes it clear that the photos are the art when she states "... I began creating the images that are presented here, though I reflect their inspiration as a mirror and not a judgement. For me, this series is about creating a small, but perfect world where the viewer cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is fiction."

 

[Rick P]

"So you are saying that the artistic value of this piece is only apparent to those who have a direct connection to a hoarder? That is a pretty shallow pool to want to connect with."

No that is not what I said! A persons reaction to any art is limited by there experiences. I simply get a little more out of this because of my life experiences than someone else might. Example I have never seen a work by Jackson Pollock that did a thing for me. The work of Georgia O'keefe has a great deal more meaning for my lesbian friends than it dose me. I have the same experiance with some of the African American art I have seen, my black freinds adore it I merely feel its run of the mill. "I dont like it so it's not art" is what is shallow! Art is different things for diferent people, it doesn't fit in a nice tidy box......in fact it's sometimes a very mess little box.

There was another sculptor with me in art school who got great reviews honestly we had a bit of a rivalry going. To me his work was nonsense. Others thought it was innovative. The kid was also a jerk but I would never say he wasn't a artist for art is like love and the deep feelings of some folks simply don't always make sence to everyone.

 

[Smitty37]

OK

In this life, I've see "art" that I like - art that I don't like - and art that isn't art at all. They all exist.

I consider that set of pictures to be in the last catagory. But then I don't consider any collection, in and of itself, to be art even if it is an art collection. I will say that she does have an impressive collection of miniature stuff though.

I personally never considered my wife organizing her miniature collection to be an art form. It was simply doing something that she liked to do. After about 10 years or so, she tired of it and gave the miniatures away. I was also involved in that I put together and finished quite a few of the furniture items, some from kits and some from scratch. Didn't consider that art either.

I think that you are misunderstanding. The miniatures are not the art. The photographs of the staged miniatures are the art.

I suppose you could think of it that way. Just from what I saw when I looked at the pictures -- I don't.

Every summer here in Delaware they have a competition on our beaches where they create sand castles and other things out of sand. There are a ton of great pictures of them around, but in my opinion, the art is in the creation not the photograph.

I also think of the art in photography as a combination of recognizing scenes that are worth preserving in pictures and getting good photo's.

If it helps you work through it, you should note that the pictures are what are being displayed at the art gallery, not the miniatures. Further, the artists explanation makes it clear that the photos are the art when she states "... I began creating the images that are presented here, though I reflect their inspiration as a mirror and not a judgement. For me, this series is about creating a small, but perfect world where the viewer cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is fiction."

Whatever floats your boat or churns your butter is fine with me.

 

[sbell111]

In this life, I've see "art" that I like - art that I don't like - and art that isn't art at all. They all exist.

I consider that set of pictures to be in the last catagory. But then I don't consider any collection, in and of itself, to be art even if it is an art collection. I will say that she does have an impressive collection of miniature stuff though.

I personally never considered my wife organizing her miniature collection to be an art form. It was simply doing something that she liked to do. After about 10 years or so, she tired of it and gave the miniatures away. I was also involved in that I put together and finished quite a few of the furniture items, some from kits and some from scratch. Didn't consider that art either.

I think that you are misunderstanding. The miniatures are not the art. The photographs of the staged miniatures are the art.

I suppose you could think of it that way. Just from what I saw when I looked at the pictures -- I don't.

Every summer here in Delaware they have a competition on our beaches where they create sand castles and other things out of sand. There are a ton of great pictures of them around, but in my opinion, the art is in the creation not the photograph.

I also think of the art in photography as a combination of recognizing scenes that are worth preserving in pictures and getting good photo's.

If it helps you work through it, you should note that the pictures are what are being displayed at the art gallery, not the miniatures. Further, the artists explanation makes it clear that the photos are the art when she states "... I began creating the images that are presented here, though I reflect their inspiration as a mirror and not a judgement. For me, this series is about creating a small, but perfect world where the viewer cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is fiction."

Whatever floats your boat or churns your butter is fine with me.

I fail to understand how some people refuse to admit that they simply misread something. Instead, they want to have an argument; trying desperately to defend their misconceptions. This is never more obvious than this scenario. What is the art? It's the thing that is being displayed at the art gallery. The photographs.

Go ahead and reply so you can have your prescious last word.

 

[Haynie]

Art is different things for diferent people, it doesn't fit in a nice tidy box......in fact it's sometimes a very mess little box.

So anything and everything, no matter what, is art? At what point does the emperor wear no clothes?

 

[Haynie]

Further, the artists explanation makes it clear that the photos are the art when she states "... I began creating the images that are presented here, though I reflect their inspiration as a mirror and not a judgement. For me, this series is about creating a small, but perfect world where the viewer cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is fiction."

I have always had a problem with the artist's explanation. Art should not need an explanation.

 

[Smitty37]

Last word

In this life, I've see "art" that I like - art that I don't like - and art that isn't art at all. They all exist.

I consider that set of pictures to be in the last catagory. But then I don't consider any collection, in and of itself, to be art even if it is an art collection. I will say that she does have an impressive collection of miniature stuff though.

I personally never considered my wife organizing her miniature collection to be an art form. It was simply doing something that she liked to do. After about 10 years or so, she tired of it and gave the miniatures away. I was also involved in that I put together and finished quite a few of the furniture items, some from kits and some from scratch. Didn't consider that art either.

I think that you are misunderstanding. The miniatures are not the art. The photographs of the staged miniatures are the art.

I suppose you could think of it that way. Just from what I saw when I looked at the pictures -- I don't.

Every summer here in Delaware they have a competition on our beaches where they create sand castles and other things out of sand. There are a ton of great pictures of them around, but in my opinion, the art is in the creation not the photograph.

I also think of the art in photography as a combination of recognizing scenes that are worth preserving in pictures and getting good photo's.

If it helps you work through it, you should note that the pictures are what are being displayed at the art gallery, not the miniatures. Further, the artists explanation makes it clear that the photos are the art when she states "... I began creating the images that are presented here, though I reflect their inspiration as a mirror and not a judgement. For me, this series is about creating a small, but perfect world where the viewer cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is fiction."

Whatever floats your boat or churns your butter is fine with me.

I fail to understand how some people refuse to admit that they simply misread something. Instead, they want to have an argument; trying desperately to defend their misconceptions. This is never more obvious than this scenario. What is the art? It's the thing that is being displayed at the art gallery. The photographs.

Go ahead and reply so you can have your prescious last word.

OK Steve, here it is....My Post #21 in this thread, in reply to no one in particular states my opinion on the original subject.

You then posted a reply to my post, where you said I had misread or misunderstood something (btw I had not - I read pretty well).

You have your concept of "art" and I have mine - I never suggested that you change your mind just clarified my own opinion.

Now you tell me who was looking for an argument?

 

[sbell111]

Further, the artists explanation makes it clear that the photos are the art when she states "... I began creating the images that are presented here, though I reflect their inspiration as a mirror and not a judgement. For me, this series is about creating a small, but perfect world where the viewer cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is fiction."

I have always had a problem with the artist's explanation. Art should not need an explanation.

It might help for us to remember that we are looking at someone's flickr page. Who knows whether their will be an explanation of the art given at the gallery. That being said, I find it useful to know why an artist creates something and what it means to him/her. Different strokes...

 

[sbell111]

In this life, I've see "art" that I like - art that I don't like - and art that isn't art at all. They all exist.

I consider that set of pictures to be in the last catagory. But then I don't consider any collection, in and of itself, to be art even if it is an art collection. I will say that she does have an impressive collection of miniature stuff though.

I personally never considered my wife organizing her miniature collection to be an art form. It was simply doing something that she liked to do. After about 10 years or so, she tired of it and gave the miniatures away. I was also involved in that I put together and finished quite a few of the furniture items, some from kits and some from scratch. Didn't consider that art either.

I think that you are misunderstanding. The miniatures are not the art. The photographs of the staged miniatures are the art.

I suppose you could think of it that way. Just from what I saw when I looked at the pictures -- I don't.

Every summer here in Delaware they have a competition on our beaches where they create sand castles and other things out of sand. There are a ton of great pictures of them around, but in my opinion, the art is in the creation not the photograph.

I also think of the art in photography as a combination of recognizing scenes that are worth preserving in pictures and getting good photo's.

If it helps you work through it, you should note that the pictures are what are being displayed at the art gallery, not the miniatures. Further, the artists explanation makes it clear that the photos are the art when she states "... I began creating the images that are presented here, though I reflect their inspiration as a mirror and not a judgement. For me, this series is about creating a small, but perfect world where the viewer cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is fiction."

Whatever floats your boat or churns your butter is fine with me.

I fail to understand how some people refuse to admit that they simply misread something. Instead, they want to have an argument; trying desperately to defend their misconceptions. This is never more obvious than this scenario. What is the art? It's the thing that is being displayed at the art gallery. The photographs.

Go ahead and reply so you can have your prescious last word.

OK Steve, here it is....My Post #21 in this thread, in reply to no one in particular states my opinion on the original subject.

You then posted a reply to my post, where you said I had misread or misunderstood something (btw I had not - I read pretty well).

You have your concept of "art" and I have mine - I never suggested that you change your mind just clarified my own opinion.

Now you tell me who was looking for an argument?

Given that what we disagree on is whether the photographs (that are being displayed in an art gallery) or the subject matter is the thing that is art, I'll stick by my prior posts.

It's kind of like telling Ansel Adams that his photos aren't art at a gallery showing of his work.

Oops. I guess that now you're going to have to post yet again.

 

[Smitty37]

You disagree, not me

In this life, I've see "art" that I like - art that I don't like - and art that isn't art at all. They all exist.

I consider that set of pictures to be in the last catagory. But then I don't consider any collection, in and of itself, to be art even if it is an art collection. I will say that she does have an impressive collection of miniature stuff though.

I personally never considered my wife organizing her miniature collection to be an art form. It was simply doing something that she liked to do. After about 10 years or so, she tired of it and gave the miniatures away. I was also involved in that I put together and finished quite a few of the furniture items, some from kits and some from scratch. Didn't consider that art either.

I think that you are misunderstanding. The miniatures are not the art. The photographs of the staged miniatures are the art.

I suppose you could think of it that way. Just from what I saw when I looked at the pictures -- I don't.

Every summer here in Delaware they have a competition on our beaches where they create sand castles and other things out of sand. There are a ton of great pictures of them around, but in my opinion, the art is in the creation not the photograph.

I also think of the art in photography as a combination of recognizing scenes that are worth preserving in pictures and getting good photo's.

If it helps you work through it, you should note that the pictures are what are being displayed at the art gallery, not the miniatures. Further, the artists explanation makes it clear that the photos are the art when she states "... I began creating the images that are presented here, though I reflect their inspiration as a mirror and not a judgement. For me, this series is about creating a small, but perfect world where the viewer cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is fiction."

Whatever floats your boat or churns your butter is fine with me.

I fail to understand how some people refuse to admit that they simply misread something. Instead, they want to have an argument; trying desperately to defend their misconceptions. This is never more obvious than this scenario. What is the art? It's the thing that is being displayed at the art gallery. The photographs.

Go ahead and reply so you can have your prescious last word.

OK Steve, here it is....My Post #21 in this thread, in reply to no one in particular states my opinion on the original subject.

You then posted a reply to my post, where you said I had misread or misunderstood something (btw I had not - I read pretty well).

You have your concept of "art" and I have mine - I never suggested that you change your mind just clarified my own opinion.

Now you tell me who was looking for an argument?

Given that what we disagree on is whether the photographs (that are being displayed in an art gallery) or the subject matter is the thing that is art, I'll stick by my prior posts.

It's kind of like telling Ansel Adams that his photos aren't art at a gallery showing of his work.

Oops. I guess that now you're going to have to post yet again.

Still looking to argue aren't you?

 

[sbell111]

In this life, I've see "art" that I like - art that I don't like - and art that isn't art at all. They all exist.

I consider that set of pictures to be in the last catagory. But then I don't consider any collection, in and of itself, to be art even if it is an art collection. I will say that she does have an impressive collection of miniature stuff though.

I personally never considered my wife organizing her miniature collection to be an art form. It was simply doing something that she liked to do. After about 10 years or so, she tired of it and gave the miniatures away. I was also involved in that I put together and finished quite a few of the furniture items, some from kits and some from scratch. Didn't consider that art either.

I think that you are misunderstanding. The miniatures are not the art. The photographs of the staged miniatures are the art.

I suppose you could think of it that way. Just from what I saw when I looked at the pictures -- I don't.

Every summer here in Delaware they have a competition on our beaches where they create sand castles and other things out of sand. There are a ton of great pictures of them around, but in my opinion, the art is in the creation not the photograph.

I also think of the art in photography as a combination of recognizing scenes that are worth preserving in pictures and getting good photo's.

If it helps you work through it, you should note that the pictures are what are being displayed at the art gallery, not the miniatures. Further, the artists explanation makes it clear that the photos are the art when she states "... I began creating the images that are presented here, though I reflect their inspiration as a mirror and not a judgement. For me, this series is about creating a small, but perfect world where the viewer cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is fiction."

Whatever floats your boat or churns your butter is fine with me.

I fail to understand how some people refuse to admit that they simply misread something. Instead, they want to have an argument; trying desperately to defend their misconceptions. This is never more obvious than this scenario. What is the art? It's the thing that is being displayed at the art gallery. The photographs.

Go ahead and reply so you can have your prescious last word.

OK Steve, here it is....My Post #21 in this thread, in reply to no one in particular states my opinion on the original subject.

You then posted a reply to my post, where you said I had misread or misunderstood something (btw I had not - I read pretty well).

You have your concept of "art" and I have mine - I never suggested that you change your mind just clarified my own opinion.

Now you tell me who was looking for an argument?

Given that what we disagree on is whether the photographs (that are being displayed in an art gallery) or the subject matter is the thing that is art, I'll stick by my prior posts.

It's kind of like telling Ansel Adams that his photos aren't art at a gallery showing of his work.

Oops. I guess that now you're going to have to post yet again.

Still looking to argue aren't you?

Still having the last word?

 

[Smitty37]

See....

In this life, I've see "art" that I like - art that I don't like - and art that isn't art at all. They all exist.

I consider that set of pictures to be in the last catagory. But then I don't consider any collection, in and of itself, to be art even if it is an art collection. I will say that she does have an impressive collection of miniature stuff though.

I personally never considered my wife organizing her miniature collection to be an art form. It was simply doing something that she liked to do. After about 10 years or so, she tired of it and gave the miniatures away. I was also involved in that I put together and finished quite a few of the furniture items, some from kits and some from scratch. Didn't consider that art either.

I think that you are misunderstanding. The miniatures are not the art. The photographs of the staged miniatures are the art.

I suppose you could think of it that way. Just from what I saw when I looked at the pictures -- I don't.

Every summer here in Delaware they have a competition on our beaches where they create sand castles and other things out of sand. There are a ton of great pictures of them around, but in my opinion, the art is in the creation not the photograph.

I also think of the art in photography as a combination of recognizing scenes that are worth preserving in pictures and getting good photo's.

If it helps you work through it, you should note that the pictures are what are being displayed at the art gallery, not the miniatures. Further, the artists explanation makes it clear that the photos are the art when she states "... I began creating the images that are presented here, though I reflect their inspiration as a mirror and not a judgement. For me, this series is about creating a small, but perfect world where the viewer cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is fiction."

Whatever floats your boat or churns your butter is fine with me.

I fail to understand how some people refuse to admit that they simply misread something. Instead, they want to have an argument; trying desperately to defend their misconceptions. This is never more obvious than this scenario. What is the art? It's the thing that is being displayed at the art gallery. The photographs.

Go ahead and reply so you can have your prescious last word.

OK Steve, here it is....My Post #21 in this thread, in reply to no one in particular states my opinion on the original subject.

You then posted a reply to my post, where you said I had misread or misunderstood something (btw I had not - I read pretty well).

You have your concept of "art" and I have mine - I never suggested that you change your mind just clarified my own opinion.

Now you tell me who was looking for an argument?

Given that what we disagree on is whether the photographs (that are being displayed in an art gallery) or the subject matter is the thing that is art, I'll stick by my prior posts.

It's kind of like telling Ansel Adams that his photos aren't art at a gallery showing of his work.

Oops. I guess that now you're going to have to post yet again.

Still looking to argue aren't you?

Still having the last word?

Now you even want to argue about what you were arguing about.....:biggrin:

 

[alphageek]

Ok... WAY more than enough Steve and Smitty. You want to continue this 10 level deep quoted battle, please do so in email or PM.

Dean
Asst Mod

 

[MesquiteMan]

Come on, guys, really! Is this an adult group or a school playground? Let it rest already.

And this is not directed at either one of you alone.

In this life, I've see "art" that I like - art that I don't like - and art that isn't art at all. They all exist.

I consider that set of pictures to be in the last catagory. But then I don't consider any collection, in and of itself, to be art even if it is an art collection. I will say that she does have an impressive collection of miniature stuff though.

I personally never considered my wife organizing her miniature collection to be an art form. It was simply doing something that she liked to do. After about 10 years or so, she tired of it and gave the miniatures away. I was also involved in that I put together and finished quite a few of the furniture items, some from kits and some from scratch. Didn't consider that art either.

I think that you are misunderstanding. The miniatures are not the art. The photographs of the staged miniatures are the art.

I suppose you could think of it that way. Just from what I saw when I looked at the pictures -- I don't.

Every summer here in Delaware they have a competition on our beaches where they create sand castles and other things out of sand. There are a ton of great pictures of them around, but in my opinion, the art is in the creation not the photograph.

I also think of the art in photography as a combination of recognizing scenes that are worth preserving in pictures and getting good photo's.

If it helps you work through it, you should note that the pictures are what are being displayed at the art gallery, not the miniatures. Further, the artists explanation makes it clear that the photos are the art when she states "... I began creating the images that are presented here, though I reflect their inspiration as a mirror and not a judgement. For me, this series is about creating a small, but perfect world where the viewer cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is fiction."

Whatever floats your boat or churns your butter is fine with me.

I fail to understand how some people refuse to admit that they simply misread something. Instead, they want to have an argument; trying desperately to defend their misconceptions. This is never more obvious than this scenario. What is the art? It's the thing that is being displayed at the art gallery. The photographs.

Go ahead and reply so you can have your prescious last word.

OK Steve, here it is....My Post #21 in this thread, in reply to no one in particular states my opinion on the original subject.

You then posted a reply to my post, where you said I had misread or misunderstood something (btw I had not - I read pretty well).

You have your concept of "art" and I have mine - I never suggested that you change your mind just clarified my own opinion.

Now you tell me who was looking for an argument?

Given that what we disagree on is whether the photographs (that are being displayed in an art gallery) or the subject matter is the thing that is art, I'll stick by my prior posts.

It's kind of like telling Ansel Adams that his photos aren't art at a gallery showing of his work.

Oops. I guess that now you're going to have to post yet again.

Still looking to argue aren't you?

Still having the last word?

Now you even want to argue about what you were arguing about.....:biggrin: