Attached Link: http://web.infinito.it/utenti/m/maclean/

At the risk of making myself highly unpopular (not that I give a hoot), I'm going to offer a few comments on art in general and this topic in particular. Mister Dog said "I have seen many of the works of the alleged "great artists". They don't move me. Therefore, they are not art. I have been far more deeply moved by arrythm of blade upon blade in a masterful _tac-a-tac_ than by entire museums of so-called "art". Therefore, fencing is art" Now, I don't deny Mr Dog the right to his opinion, but if he's right, then anything can be art. A pile of used condoms, my dinner leftovers... So how do we decide what is art? Here are a few thoughts. 1. The artist is NOT the person who decides if his/her creation is art. That is decided by several factors, the traditional ones being, the passage of time, the ability of the work to move entire generations of people. And a new factor, the value of a work of art on the stock market. Beuty is no longer in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is now in the eye of the stockholder. 2. EVERY true artist creates something ORIGINAL. This is not a comment on poser imagery, just a simple fact. 3. There's a difference between an artist and a craftsman. Art moves the soul. (Good) craft is beautifully executed work. 4. Before you rush to decide what is or isn't art, sit down and ask yourself why you like an image. If you admire it's technical excellence, that's good, but it's not the same as being confronted with an image that will haunt you for the rest of your life. 5. I said this, but evidently it needs repeating. You do NOT need to be an artist to appreciate art. Anyone with a bit of sensitivity can appreciate and pass comment on art. This idea that Tisa needs to 'prove' something is BS, pure and simple. Having said that, I personally feel that Tisa's post was phrased in a (perhaps unintentionally) provocative way. If you post stuff like that, be prepared to take the flak. I'm a fashion photographer and have been for 20 years. I do NOT consider myself an artist and NEVER have. I may be a craftsman, but I've never really cared what people call me. I do my shoots in my own style, to the best of my ability, and it's here today, forgotten tomorrow. Who cares? As an assistant, I worked with a LOT of famous photographers from Elliot Erwitt to Norman Parkinson to Oliviero Toscani, and I never heard any of them talk about their 'art'. They just got on with doing the job. Lastly, to anyone who aspires to be an artist. If you have the ability to make images and it gives you and others pleasure, do it....and do it to the best of your ability. Put your heart and soul into every image and don't worry about whether it's 'art' or not. If it relects your desires, feelings or outlook on life, then it's valid in it's own right, without any external justification or labels. Digital imagery is in it's infancy, both technically and emotionally, but it's as valid as any other medium for expressing feelings. But if it's only used to achieve technical excellence, it'll never reach the status of art. Technical excellence comes from software, not the human soul. You don't get any more realistic than a photograph, but Ansel Adams' photographs are not considered art because they look real. Whether you want to be an artist or just make good renders in poser, discussions like this are healthy. Especially if you keep an open mind. "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" - Issac Asimov mac PS I realise I'll probably be asked to 'prove' something, so I've added a link to my site. It's just a bunch of pictures, some good, some average. If you like them...fine, but they're not art. Just pictures.