The Philosophy Discussion Forum

http://www.creativebloq.com/digital-art ... 969?page=1

PhilX

It's very shiny.

It's a bit sad when what qualifies as an 'artist' these days is someone who is skilled with computer graphics. It's definitely missing something. A 'soul' perhaps? Vargas was the artist.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's a bit sad when what qualifies as an 'artist' these days is someone who is skilled with computer graphics. It's definitely missing something. A 'soul' perhaps? Vargas was the artist.

Here's a good question. Do the works define the art or can art be defined more generally?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's a bit sad when what qualifies as an 'artist' these days is someone who is skilled with computer graphics. It's definitely missing something. A 'soul' perhaps? Vargas was the artist.

Here's a good question. Do the works define the art or can art be defined more generally?

PhilX

Art is what an artist creates, regardless of the medium. Several years ago there were those who contended that photography was not art. I believe that photography is now accepted by most as an art form. Likewise computer generated work is art because it is created by an artist, intentionally. Art does not happen by accident

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's a bit sad when what qualifies as an 'artist' these days is someone who is skilled with computer graphics. It's definitely missing something. A 'soul' perhaps? Vargas was the artist.

Here's a good question. Do the works define the art or can art be defined more generally?

PhilX

Art can be defined. This doesn't qualify.

Skip wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's a bit sad when what qualifies as an 'artist' these days is someone who is skilled with computer graphics. It's definitely missing something. A 'soul' perhaps? Vargas was the artist.

Here's a good question. Do the works define the art or can art be defined more generally?

PhilX

Art can be defined. This doesn't qualify.

How does it not qualify, since when are big boobs not art?

Since they're a mass-produced, commercial consumer product, pre-packaged in plastic wrap.

Skip wrote:Since they're a mass-produced, commercial consumer product, pre-packaged in plastic wrap.

Reproducing an original art work does not make it less of an artwork, it just makes it more widely available. Don't confuse the original art for the means of distribution. Mass distribution does not diminish the original, do thousands of copies make the Mona Lisa less of a work of art?

I was talking about the "original".