Originally posted by RGlasel Just because the artist declares their work to be art, doesn't mean it is to everyone. I'm verring off topic, but no one can declare something to be artistic for someone else, without the other person's permission. I can only make that declaration for myself.
I was actually ranking paint flinging ahead of using the Velvet lens, mainly because paint flinging is far more purposeful and more accurately represents what the artist is attempting to communicate. Taking blurry, hazy photos with limited control over the final result is more like putting a typewriter in front of a monkey.
+1. An artist is somebody who can convince enough people he is doing art. Not the other way arround.
If you do exactly the same thing even before but nobody know about it or recognise it, this isn't gonna work. This is even more true to me for art that is on the polemic side like Pollock art. If a normal person does the same kind of thing but better but is not that good at public relations, he might never be recognized.
Art is also used as a medium for money investment and is bound to the same bubles and risk you would have against stock. The art you think is so trendy and universal today can be something nobody care of tomorrow.
This is also used for money laudering. A politic buy an expensive piece of Art for display with the country money and the artist in exchange give high donation to the political party... Much more comon than one might think. To this work you need high relation and the politic will ask the museum (that is dependant uppon budget the politics give it) to have enthousiastic critic arround the piece of Art.
Anyway why we should respect other people creativity, art and also views, one must remain able to have critical view and not accept everything "as this". After it is only free minds that allowed modern Art to exist. At the times, it was not at all trendy to like it.