W November 2008 : Angelina Jolie by Brad Pitt

[Bahiyya]

Originally Posted by helmut.newton

This is art whether you think it or not.

Well, pardon me but...*ahem*

No offence; but who are you to say what art is?

I know we've reached the point in art theory where someone can just cut up some blank printing paper and go on about "irony" this and "deconstructed", or maybe find some ol' soup can somewhere, draw a line on it it with sharkie pen and go on about "found" this and "conceptual" that. I'm afraid I'm one of those simple folks who needs an artist to display some kind of skill, talent, and distinct POV (for starters) and, to me, these are just some B&W white pics of Brad and Angie fooling around. It's not so much "understated" as "nothing much going on at all on the part of the subjects or the photographer, except pretension, which is directly proportionate to the graininess or crappy crop of a picture". It's not about future of anything because there's banal work like this displayed all over the world these days. (Perhaps not this banal.) From your Duchamp example, it is obvious that our minds on this matter are worlds apart, so agree to disagree, and all that .

I do like the breastfeeding pics though!

[Harumi]

^well I tend to agree with Helmut.Newton is the sense that I think if a work is created with an artistic intent then it's art. After that, it is up to the viewer to decide on the value of this art. It goes from worthless to master-piece.
I think people sometime forget that art isn't implicitly good. There is no qualitative threshold to be reached for a purely creative work to be called art.
I don't have a satisfactory definition of art and I am not knowledgeable on the theory so I will ask you this: does an artist must have skills above the average to be considered an artist? If so, why is Damien Hirst considered an artist? (I loathe the guy so I would be delighted for you to tell me he isn't ).
I think this quote illustrate my point a bit better. It's a response to someone's criticism of Stephen King writing as not being literature:

Let me assure you that King's work most definitely is literature, because it was written to be published and is read with admiration. What Snyder really means is that it is not the literature preferred by the academic-literary elite

[Bahiyya]

No, I never said anything about "above average" skills but at the very least, in this case, something that goes beyond holding an old timey camera and clicking buttons. The problem I have with the only criteria being "artistic intent" is what would one define that as -- simply, say, someone picking up a pen and doodling something cute in a margin? To me, if that is the case, then the word loses all meaning and anything, anyone could churn out is art (which is pretty much where we're at now). Excellent for most but not for me (but who am I to say?).

The word "creative" too is pretty loaded in my mind. If I "create" a paper airplane does that mean I've just created an art piece? The "artistic intent" behind the creation must be more complex and/or inspired -- and complexity does not necessarily elaborate and stupendous. I mean when someone's "artsy" photos is not significantly different from any ol' family photo album I can't make myself call it "art" because Brad Pitt comes up to tell me he meant it to be and this is why he got the old timey camera.

As for that Stephen King quote...it's taken out of context and so that may be why it makes little sense to me. The definition of "literature" given there is that it's "written to be published and is read with admiration". What? So are the Nancy Drew and Gossip Girls series. Perhaps he's railing against the elevation of the term "literature" as a stamp of high quality separate from regular ol' "fiction". Well, that's fine, he's now made it apply to any ol' book, but he's simply normalized the term rather than add anything to Stephen King's stature . (Although I daresay the reason he wanted King's work to be considered "literature" in the first place was because it meant something more than "popular fiction".)

For the record, I barely know a blessed thing about art theory I just have a kind of framework --an outdated one-- that I used to assess art because I like it. I don't know much about Damien Hirst's work to say. I'd have to take a closer look. I tend not to follow who's hip these days because it's inevitably someone who dots puff paint on a clothes hanger and touts it as some landmark statement on abortion or some such poppycock .

[seahorseinstripe]

the first 3 pics on post #280 looks like they're coming from an asian horror movie LOL

[nyc_art_style]

Originally Posted by lucy92

i bought my issue today. at the bookstore where i purchased it was a notice underneath my copy from the publisher that the booksellers forgot to remove. it said to limit purchases to 5 per customer.

ugh, i just don't understand

[tigerrouge]

Like the booksellers care about anything other than shifting units and getting their cut. They're not going to care if someone wants to buy enough copies of this W to build a small temple of worship in their back yard from papier-mâché, and then sell the resulting work of art (or is it architecture, we might need to ask Brad) for a small fortune on ebay.

[LUXXX]

Originally Posted by kroqjock

Okay, brace yourselves, everyone! I have the issue in hand and I am making UHQ scans of this MASSIVE editorial as I type this. The full edit is 32 pages long with over 20 pictures of Angelina and some of her various, interchangeable kids.

OMG...that had me rollin'...

The pics are kind of boring, I'm sure Shiloh would've been a more interesting subject compared to Angelina here LOL. Usually she is more "on" in photos. I still think her best session was with Brad for W in 2005.

[LolaSvelt]

Yeah, she's definitely a media whore.

[Harumi]

^now that's top class contribution.

Originally Posted by Bahiyya

No, I never said anything about "above average" skills but at the very least, in this case, something that goes beyond holding an old timey camera and clicking buttons.

I think you are being extremely unfair. Whatever you think of these pictures, Brad didn't just click a couple of buttons. Otherwise we would have some facebook pictures. He obviously experimented with lighting, setting and I would wager that he did have a story book of sort.
Beside, knowing how to click buttons is all the skills a photographer needs. The difference between a good and a bad photographer resides in the quality of his directorial vision. I mean, Miesel supposedly doesn't even take his own pictures any-more, Annie doesn't do her photoshop job, and those top range photographers all have a team of specialised technicians who do make their vision reality. So beside clicking buttons, what skill do they have? Or do you consider imagination a skill?
It seems to me that you do expect above average skills in artists.
In the rest of the post you pretty much say that art isn't art if there in no quality. I have already explained I disagree with that. Just out of curiosity, what would you classify doodles? I don't mean the nervous kind that is akin to taping your pen on the table but the doodling kids do in classes or people do when they're bored (faces, eyes, animals, etc)? Quality aside, if it's not art, then what is it?

[Style-Addict]

I didnt realize the full edit was 32 pages long, wow!

[Mojopin]

Im not really a fan of the two, but IMO these photos are very, very beautiful.