You've accepted a blank piece of videotape as art. Yes. It is collected and presented with intent. It conveys a message regardless of you or I understanding the message. >I neglected to mention that the camera was not currently operating. Your question stated that it was operating. Security cameras that are not operating do not produce frames to extract. I stand by my response to the question as stated. > One should be more careful in their art appraisals One should be more careful in stating the questions lest one be thought a troll. >When nothing (literally "no thing") can be considered art, then art becomes nothing. You may like the sound of that, but not I. Absence can be as powerful a message as presence. What you like is not relevant. >if everything is art Everything is not art. >And anyone who creates something is an artist. Everyone creates something at some point, therefore everyone is an artist. If everyone is an artist, then SoulTaker is an artist. And since art cannot be deemed bad or good in any objective manner, what point is there in his showing results (which he MUST have created since he's an artist) or favorite artist choices in order for you to validate whether his opinion is valid? It is not about validating his opinion. He implied that there is not art in the galleries, and requested the location of art. In an attempt to ascertain what he considers art, we viewed his gallery (or lack there of) and favored artist list as well as reviewing the specifications he stated at the beginning of this thread. In my opinion all of the artists galleries that I reviewed from his favored artists are not posting art in accordance with the specifications in his posts. >That's just an attempt to trump his opinion with your own. Would you turn 180 if he proved himself to be skillful? I would be more able to help him locate that which he considers art. >Or if his choices matched your own? That would make it easier. >Why ought he be attacked for expressing his detractive viewpoint? Attacked? You can tell by the title of this thread that he expected people to get defensive. >bad art denotes that the artist was incapable of communicating the artists beauteous intent, That neither you nor I understand the intent does not mean that it is not art nor in my opinion does this make it bad. >Occassionally, there are stories of prodigies who evidence exceptional ability to produce elaborate images with remarkable sophistication and regularity. And because prodigies do it so effortlessly, Soultaker implies that he would not consider it art (work that an artist has taken time with, staged, checked). >Usually there is an awed reaction to the work, due to the prodigy's skill at such an early age. This suggests that skill is an inherent measureable component of artistic ability. And if that is true, then not every image must be art. This suggests that admirers are viewing the complexity and technique not the intent or message. Skill is present in the execution of all works, to dismiss something as not art because you subjectively judge that there was not enough of skill, I believe, is wrong. You dont have to like it, but that doesnt mean it isnt art. Skill in and of itself is not measurable; however it can be observed in our actions (or productions) and judged relative to others.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries