[watwut]

Artists themselves do call it art tho. They value the technical skill on itself too, apparently. And talk about it a lot. And then it becomes separate field where you can try to excel or competition on itself. (Also, in subgenres like manga when they talk about quality of art, they typically mean technical skill more then ability to convey emotions.)

It makes it something you don't value or like, which is 100% valid. But it seems to be fairly within what artists themselves call art.

[cntainer]

I understand that people can call art whatever they like.

One can argue that doing an exact copy of a photograph with the end result being indistinguishable from the original photo is some kind of "meta" art and the lack of creativity actually puts focus on the technical skill and the effort of the artist, as a kind of "anti-creativity statement" type of art, "there is no artist just paint and effort".

But my non-artistic brain would still rate this lower compared to the original in terms of creativity, insight, originality.

Yes you can raise a skill to the level of an art, but then wouldn't the actual performance of the skill be the artwork? And the resulting picture just an artifact that has no artistic value without the original side by side + a description/video describing/showing the actual effort?

On that note, I think I'll stop. I feel I'm getting high just from all the meta-ideas I'm writing, lol.

[watwut]

> One can argue that doing an exact copy of a photograph with the end result being indistinguishable from the original photo is some kind of "meta" art and the lack of creativity actually puts focus on the technical skill and the effort of the artist, as a kind of "anti-creativity statement" type of art, "there is no artist just paint and effort".

I mean you can, but generally, artists would call this bullshit explanation. I am pretty sure you are aware of that too :). None of what I talked about was any meta. It was down to eath, pragmatically, "yeah art is also technical ability to make hyper realistic picture".

> But my non-artistic brain would still rate this lower compared to the original in terms of creativity, insight, originality.

Again, yes, judged by insight and originality. But, it is not the only valid criterium for art work. Among other things, realistic portraits are pretty low in general if judged by creativity. The old master did not went for creativity there - the realism was actual ambition for many of them.

> Yes you can raise a skill to the level of an art, but then wouldn't the actual performance of the skill be the artwork? And the resulting picture just an artifact that has no artistic value without the original side by side + a description/video describing/showing the actual effort?

I dont understand why the result would had no value. You don't have to like it or find it interesting, that is 100%. This sort of stuff is subjective. What I found out was that many artists often do value technical skill and do see value in the resulting picture, actually.

You seems to insist on one definition of art, which is super strict and exclusive. And kinda excludes majority of drawings people produce. At least I think. Most of drawings are people trying to figure out how to draw the thing, again and again.

Art, as used currently or in history, does not have to include only super deep I have philosophical opinions or deep feelings or whatever. Plenty of times it is "look guys, I finally managed to draw a nose".

[cntainer]

> I don't understand why the result would had no value.

I exaggerated that one, it has value, but to a lesser degree, imo. The value of the painting is in the skill of producing the copy, not really in having the creativity or insight that the original photographer had when taking the photo. The subject is already in 2d, perspective already frozen, and if you're replicating it perfectly you're not adding anything substantial, you're just changing the medium.

Can a copy be considered art? Sure it can, like I said previously anything can be art if framed in an artistic context. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.

> You seems to insist on one definition of art, which is super strict and exclusive.

I don't think I've tried to define or limit what can/cannot be art in any of my comments. I'm just talking about my personal criteria for differentiating between different levels of artistic quality.

My top comment in this thread merely stated that using someone else's photographs to photocopy into a painting without applying your own insight is a less-creative form of art than if you are framing and taking a picture yourself and you use that as an intermediary medium before copying it to the canvas.

Me building a wooden chair by looking at a picture on ikea's site is a form of craftsmanship. Can it be called art? Sure it can, I might even take a picture and post it on reddit. Is it great art? By my criteria, no. I would say that a chair built by Gaudi has more artistic value than my chair, and please note I'm not saying that my chair isn't a piece of art, just a lesser one.

If someone finds my preserved wooden chair in 1000 years it's historical value would be great but I wouldn't be so sure about it's artistic value, unless it's the only remaining representation of a chair left from the 21st century in any kind of medium.