Quote:
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 25 2005, 10:54 AM
I think as Serge isn't here , what he may have been suggesting is two fold..
Firstly that the use of photoshop techniques detract from the artist value of the peice in the same manner that a poster of an oil painting does not show the depth and structure of the brush strokes.
Secondly art should stimulate some other deeper more "felt" reaction besides that of the visual of the subjects.
Anbd on this I kinda agree.
Its a nice touched up picture of a fat beloved cat....but is it art?
To me it is a picture of a cat sleeping on a sofa.
To you it is art 
|
My disagreement is two fold
1. I did not alter a finished work of art and called my own. The retouched picture is the finished product, not merely a copy or modification (like a poster of a painting).
2. This isnt a picture of a sleeping beloved cat. This is my representation of feelings I had when I saw said cat, in this particular moment, in that particular light. I tried to express different things through this piece... how well are they expressed? Will the same emotions be raised in another viewer?
Who knows, this relativity is what makes the beauty of art...
p.s.: I hate that stupid cat. Its my gf's cat...