MoonGoat opened this issue on Apr 03, 2005 ยท 53 posts
Quest posted Mon, 04 April 2005 at 12:50 AM
Quoted in Christopher J. Robinsons, "The 'Recognized Stature' Standard in the Visual Artists Rights Act," Fordham Law Review, vol. 68, n. 5 (April 2000), One person's art is another person's garbage. David Cazares, Sun-Sentinel, September 29, 1995 Art is a subjective thing. Everyone interprets art from the standpoint of their upbringing, education and status in life, in general, what they have been taught to believe. As alluded to in the above quote, even when administering law, the question of what is art comes into question. You can set your own judgmental standards as to what you may interpret art to be and award accolades accordingly but that doesnt make it art or disqualifies it as such. To me, for image to be elected into the Hot 20, the piece must move me (speak to me) sublimely in some way, involve viewer mental participation. And it doesnt matter if its amateurish or not and it doesnt have to floor the viewer with awe. The image must attempt to bring the viewer into it. This takes many nuances into consideration such as composition, chiaroscuro (play of light and dark), color, intensity, formall those artistic techniques that help to breath life into the image. If the image fails to do this, in my opinion, it has no business being anyway near the Hot 20. As for people using other artists models, crediting the source not withstanding, is perfectly alright as far as Im concerned. It would be a good thing if everyone learned how to model but not everyone has the time, the experience and know-how or the talent necessary to produce believable models and incorporate them into their projects immediately. Many artists want to jump in and get their hands dirty right away and if they had to stop to first learn a 3D modeling package then try to produce the models they need for their conceived images, it would be months before they get any creative work done if at all. For surely, those lacking the patience and skills necessary, would become disenchanted and more likely than not, abandon Bryce in no time at all and walk away from the creative process. Another thing is this; composition is an art in and of itself. Take for instance the art of photography. We all can agree that photography is considered a visual art form although it wasnt always like that in its early days but for our purposes well accept it as an art. The photographer also composes his image using the objects at his disposal to do this. If the photographer had to model everything in his image himself, when will he ever have the time to develop his film? And because he has to barrow from his surroundings the elements that compose his image, does this make him less of an artist? I think not.