The problem lies with the initial statements of being a cheat with the follow up of art has no rules. In the context of the original image posted he did not break any rules and still created art. The disqualified photograph may have broken rules set by the competition he entered, but it broke no rules of artistry.

The problem here is not the statement "art has no rules" it's the context in which it is being used. The statement is no more false than it was before as I believe that myself as well as others in this thread are using the term in the context of guidelines that are widely accepted as photographic rules....that are meant to be broken. But to take art theory into it and run it all the way up to a composite image is ludicrous as it is no longer in context with the discussion.

If anyone is to decide the context of the discussion, it is the original poster. Anything else is your attempt at guiding the dicussion in direction to your liking. It was you who brought up the issue of how art, literature, and music evolve, and your explanation was caricatured to such a degree that it is devoid of any value whatsover. The statement "art has no rules" is supremely absurd. There is a fitting word for those who abide by this sham principle: philistines. That photography is worthy of being called art is in itself highly debatable. If you claim otherwise, then the onus is on you to explicate a credible theoretical framework for such a view; this is not done by making risible statements like "art has no rules."

LOL... art has NO rules... the end.
I don't care much of what Aristotle or Horace said... those guys were anything but artists to begin with...

Sadly a very ignorant statement. The people of the antiquity were in awe of the sheer sublimity of Aristotle's dialogues, whereas Horace's odes are universally considered to be masterpieces of the Western literary canon.

[Wired]

If anyone is to decide the context of the discussion, it is the original poster.

I

I will agree to that.

Anything else is your attempt at guiding the dicussion in direction to your liking.

I was interpreting the context in a way that you did not approve of. it's not that i'm guiding the conversation to my liking, it is a difference of interpretation. Something that happens often in art.

It was you who brought up the issue of how art, literature, and music evolve, and your explanation was caricatured to such a degree that it is devoid of any value whatsover.

Just because it has no value to you? I remember earlier you stated you didn't know what website I learned my art theory from. What if I told you I have no art theory training whatsover? Sure that would mean I am without the education to be part of this debate, but I have been involved in the arts since 4 (piano studies), have taken musical theory, professionally trained musician, a painter, a shot story writer, and and a photographer. I've been creating art long enough to know that the "rules" of art are meant to be broken.

The statement "art has no rules" is supremely absurd. There is a fitting word for those who abide by this sham principle: philistines.

I may not know what a philistine is, but I do not know how the statement is absurd. Maybe it's taken to literal in this debate. Aristotle's statement that art imitates nature is such a blanket statement that anything can be considered art. The body lines of the 1960's Corvette were inspired by nature, and many would argue that the body style is a work of art.

That photography is worthy of being called art is in itself highly debatable. If you claim otherwise, then the onus is on you to explicate a credible theoretical framework for such a view; this is not done by making risible statements like "art has no rules."

I would agree with your statement regarding photography and art. The majority of people are not creating art but are documenting events with the camera. There are works of art created from photography, I would show the original image in this thread of the rancher as a work of art that uses the skills of photography. However, the photograph of the car crash on the front of todays newspaper is not a work of art in my opinion.

I

I will agree to that.


I was interpreting the context in a way that you did not approve of. it's not that i'm guiding the conversation to my liking, it is a difference of interpretation. Something that happens often in art.



Just because it has no value to you? I remember earlier you stated you didn't know what website I learned my art theory from. What if I told you I have no art theory training whatsover? Sure that would mean I am without the education to be part of this debate, but I have been involved in the arts since 4 (piano studies), have taken musical theory, professionally trained musician, a painter, a shot story writer, and and a photographer. I've been creating art long enough to know that the "rules" of art are meant to be broken.


I may not know what a philistine is, but I do not know how the statement is absurd. Maybe it's taken to literal in this debate. Aristotle's statement that art imitates nature is such a blanket statement that anything can be considered art. The body lines of the 1960's Corvette were inspired by nature, and many would argue that the body style is a work of art.




I would agree with your statement regarding photography and art. The majority of people are not creating art but are documenting events with the camera. There are works of art created from photography, I would show the original image in this thread of the rancher as a work of art that uses the skills of photography. However, the photograph of the car crash on the front of todays newspaper is not a work of art in my opinion.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You seem to understand very well that one cannot dogmatically incline to one side or the other.

[mrNewt]

Sadly a very ignorant statement. The people of the antiquity were in awe of the sheer sublimity of Aristotle's dialogues, whereas Horace's odes are universally considered to be masterpieces of the Western literary canon.

Is not ignorant, is true...
With some background in art, I like to believe I have an idea on what art is.
Now there are contest rules, which is something different. But art by itself and not part of a contest has no rules.

I know who Aristotle and Horace is... I've read their stuff (and not only) quite a lot.

Anyway, good luck with your UWA portraits...

[Wired]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You seem to understand very well that one cannot dogmatically incline to one side or the other.

I'm glad we had a healthy debate, always fun when that happens.

Anyways, good luck on the UWA portraits. I wouldn't part with the lens, I would probably just use the lens and experiment until I got it. I've taken a few UWA/WA portrait shots, and love a few of them, but it's a tricky thing to get right. I find embracing the distortion and using it creatively is the key.