| > 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. |