I met you in a dream.

[TheLetterQ]

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj204/Pleasetakeitkindly/IMG_1459copy.jpg

[Jim G]

Hmm... I don't get the association between title and image.

[milorad]

Me either... I don't usually forget to turn autofocus back on, in my dreams ;)

[KarlosDaJackal]

Me either... I don't usually forget to turn autofocus back on, in my dreams ;)

Maybe that is one of the difference between technicians and artists :cool:

[milorad]

I'll readily admit that I'm more technician than artist... especially if THAT ^^ is what you call creativity.

(a soft-focus filter would have been a much better choice, than going totally OoF. Argue with that, if you can)

[PETERSYMES]

I like the colours:confused:
But not for me on the focus effect:)

[Collin85]

You met.. ME *points to self* in a dream? Woah dude, that's kinda scary. :lol:

[stathunter]

If you stare at it long enough you can see a chicken crossing the path.

[KarlosDaJackal]

Its an art piece, its deliberately out of focus, so that you will look around and look for a meaning. There are many meanings and interpretations you can take from it, especially when you consider the title also. Unlike most peoples images this one has a meaning, maybe it says a lot of the people who are commenting that they can't look past the obvious. I'm pretty sure the OP knows its out of focus :rolleyes:

In fact I admire his bravery putting such an image in front of such an audience, maybe the audience need to adjust the focus of there minds eye.

[milorad]

so that you will look around and look for a meaning.

There's a 10-second snippit of the simpsons which I really REALLY love. It deals precisely with this kind of pretentious crap which features so heavily in what's loosely termed 'art'.

Lisa goes to a jazz club, where a young muso is playing. She's captivated, but the guy next to her isn't having any fun. Lisa says "you have to listen to the notes she's not playing".

He says: "pfft, I can do that at home".

There's no meaning in an accidental pull of the focus ring, on an otherwise dull frame. Any meaning you see in it is provided by you, and you can do that without the picture.

[KarlosDaJackal]

There's no meaning in an accidental pull of the focus ring, on an otherwise dull frame. Any meaning you see in it is provided by you, and you can do that without the picture.

Nope you need the picture to provoke that part of your brain into working. And its not an accident pull of the focus ring, its a deliberate one. Q's actions in taking this picture provoke thought in the viewers mind.

There is little/no meaning in a perfectly exposed/focus shot of the same subject. If you don't like "art" fine, but don't come over saying its all pretentious crap! There is nothing pretentious about it.

The OP is not saying he is the greatest artist since god himself, that would be pretentious. He just put his image up for you to take or leave. You sir are the pretentious one claiming your mind can come up with greater works than all the worlds artist combined. The fact the Simpson is your reference point says a lot, they put it up in clear letters for you in non-threatening cartoon drawings, with no hidden meaning so you can veg out and not bother to think for yourself. Glad thats working out for you :P

[woodsie]

I didn't like it at first, but it has grown on me over time. It is just a touch out of focus so that the scene can still be distinguished. It don't think it works as a small image on a computer screen. But I can see it blown up dramatically covering the back wall of a room, as a back drop rather than a point of focus.

A couple of OOF people walking along the path in the foreground I think would add to the image.

[milorad]

The OP is not saying he is the greatest artist since god himself, that would be pretentious.

It's not the OP being pretentious, it's you... if this is art, then there's 'meaning' to be found in every shot, be it overexposed, underexposed, out-of-focus, poorly framed, or otherwise.
Unfortunately you remind me of those folks who think black and white is more arty. The lack of colour doesn't make something more arty!!.. and neither does the simple act of not focusing properly.

I'm not saying that EVERY out of focus shot is trash... just this one. There's nothing interesting about the shot, and simply pulling it out of focus doesn't make it any more artistic.
Claiming that it does, is what I called pretentious crap.



The fact the Simpson is your reference point says a lot, they put it up in clear letters for you in non-threatening cartoon drawings, with no hidden meaning so you can veg out and not bother to think for yourself. Glad thats working out for you :P

Don't be silly, it was a good line, and really funny. Hardly my life philosophy, but it really does apply well to this situation.
If I wasn't thinking for myself, I'd have just accepted the premise that it was art, simply because it's odd, or because the thread implies that.... but then I'd be you.

[Collin85]

Guys guys..

[KarlosDaJackal]

It's not the OP being pretentious, it's you... if this is art, then there's 'meaning' to be found in every shot, be it overexposed, underexposed, out-of-focus, poorly framed, or otherwise.

Unfortunately you remind me of those folks who think black and white is more arty. The lack of colour doesn't make something more arty!!.. and neither does the simple act of not focusing properly.

I'm not saying that EVERY out of focus shot is trash... just this one. There's nothing interesting about the shot, and simply pulling it out of focus doesn't make it any more artistic.

Claiming that it does, is what I called pretentious crap.

Yes I'm being pretentious for appreciating something in the image, I stand corrected my brain is obviously malfunctioning, maybe I should go watch more Simpson's, oh look COPS is on, pass the potato chips, I love it when they release the dogs. :rolleyes:

[milorad]

Guys guys..

yep, you're right...

I do love how someone who supposedly believes in art, thinks that people can be convinced that something has artistic merit, though. It's like, if you insult people's taste, then automatically you're more artistic than they are.

Too much crud is referred to as art these days, just because people can't stand the realisation that they don't have any talent.

My talent may be debatable, but at least I'm not going around calling it art.

OK... I'm done... really.

[milorad]

maybe I should go watch more Simpson's :rolleyes:

Seriously... I have to get this cleared up...

Are you seriously ragging on me because I enjoy a line from the Simpsons? I have to be sure, because I really can't imagine anyone with grammar as poor as yours having the nads to pretend to be an intellectual.

Get over yourself mate.

(ok, really done this time, I promise)

[KarlosDaJackal]

I'm done too before we start the whole my IQ > than your IQ thing, you will have to live in suspense.

I like your photo Q, for the few minutes I spent to take it in, it made me think of a lot of things and I like that in photos.

[PETERSYMES]

I think it is good that this image was posted at the start of this errr...Debate:confused:
after all progress is the child of imagination and invention.
The OP has probably got a portfolio full of top quality (conventional) images and i understood from the outset this was an experimental image rather than poor technique or a mistake. Good on them for the attempt.:)
I still don't like it though:(

[midnitejam]

I've seen several submissions of mistakes and accidents that were passed off as and accepted as Artsie Revelations with deep and spiritual meaning. When in fact, they were noisy, ill-focused, ill-exposed and often with multible subjects in the same image. I've seen stuff passed off and accepted as "ART" simply because one of the several subjects in the image were wearing shoes that resembled the shoes that their Mothers once wore. Or the submitter was a long-time member with thousands of posts to his credit.

This image was not a mistake. It was intentional and deliberate. How did I get here? Look at the composition--it's excellent.

How many offering criticism (rather than crfitique) have seen this or some other dreamy effect applied to movie scenes to distinguish them as a dream rather than reality?

It's easy for me to realize that this image was deliberate in its creation and that there was a preconception of it's outcome before the shutter was snapped.

I'm a realitist. I'm a technician in my approach to my photography because an image really doesn't appeal much to me unless it has a cookie-cutter conformity of having at least a specific amount of exposure accuracy, focus accuracy, and amount of detail and saturation. In fact I could have better related to this image if it had conformed to "cookie-cutter" conformities. I like this image mainly because I perceive it to be an intentional interpretation of one of those dreamy effects used in movies.

[acchildress]

Good or bad, right or wrong you've got to admit that it's sure caused lots of consideration and discussion.

[milorad]

Soft-focus, and out-of-focus are not the same thing.

Also, even if his intention was to 'interpret' (by which you mean screw up) duplicating the tired old soft-focus cliche dreamy effect... it still wouldn't be art. :)

...

This thread, and in fact the entire phenomenon of 'art by application of effect' is extremely interesting to me which I suppose is why I just can't manage to tear myself away. It never ceases to amaze me how in so many people's eyes, a photograph turns into art by the application of any one effect...

One day it's black and white, the next day it's selective colour... today it's soft (out-of) focus, or sepia. The application of these effects to a photo, no matter how deliberate that application is, does not make it art.

If a photo were truly art, it would be art even without those effects applied.

Anyway, since I'm clearly far too enthralled to let go of this on my own, and since I've thoroughly overstayed my welcome, I'm going to cut the umbilical cord and unsubscribe. I apologise for my total lack of restraint.

[Preita]

I think the colors are really pretty, but having poor eye sight I don't think I can appreciate this as much as others as this is how the world looks (well actually more sharp!) with out my glasses.

I can appreicate what you were going for here though :D

[Bill Boehme]

I've seen several submissions of mistakes and accidents that were passed off as and accepted as Artsie Revelations with deep and spiritual meaning. When in fact, they were noisy, ill-focused, ill-exposed and often with multible subjects in the same image. I've seen stuff passed off and accepted as "ART" simply because one of the several subjects in the image were wearing shoes that resembled the shoes that their Mothers once wore. Or the submitter was a long-time member with thousands of posts to his credit.

This image was not a mistake. It was intentional and deliberate. How did I get here? Look at the composition--it's excellent.

How many offering criticism (rather than crfitique) have seen this or some other dreamy effect applied to movie scenes to distinguish them as a dream rather than reality?

It's easy for me to realize that this image was deliberate in its creation and that there was a preconception of it's outcome before the shutter was snapped.

I'm a realitist. I'm a technician in my approach to my photography because an image really doesn't appeal much to me unless it has a cookie-cutter conformity of having at least a specific amount of exposure accuracy, focus accuracy, and amount of detail and saturation. In fact I could have better related to this image if it had conformed to "cookie-cutter" conformities. I like this image mainly because I perceive it to be an intentional interpretation of one of those dreamy effects used in movies.

My thoughts closely agree with your assessment of the image and how we each perceive art. I think that the composition works well in evoking responses from the viewer. I think that the image depicts a familiar dream scenario of the light at the end of the tunnel with the dark foreground and the archway that is created by the tree branches opening up into the light at the bridge. The only thing that I might suggest doing differently is to lower the contrast in the colors to create the illusion of the background disappearing into a haziness, but then that might just be the technician in me trying to imitate reality.

[Croasdail]

I love it when people don't like something decide therefor no one else can. I can't honestly say I get this particular image either... but I wouldn't presume to decide that my opinion is the final word at that others can't enjoy it. Thats holding ones on self in pretty darn high esteem.

I do see compositionally where it is going. And it would make an interesting back drop as mentioned. But as a standalone piece... not quit there for me. I think a soft image can work, this is just a tinge too soft.

[milorad]

I love it when people don't like something decide therefor no one else can.

Sorry mate, i my own defense, please look at page 1, where I make a light-hearted comment, after which I'm sarcastically told that I must be a technician because presumably an artist would appreciate this trash.

I'm actually not the one forcing anything, except my own point of view. It's whatshisface who insists that not liking this image means you're a no-talent hack. But of course, because I'm taking the negative position, I must be the bad guy, right?

Fine fine, lets all just say we love everything, in case someone starts crying. I won't be made out to be the bad guy here.

[Coriena]

Tbh i like it

it does remind me of a dream like state - well one of mine :)

[Flo]

Q always provides debate with his photos.....and I get most of them.lol.scary.

but this one, not for me, for others it may "speak" to them, but not to me so much.but Q, keep snapping because I look forward to the next post!

[Dramatis]

Q, the composition works for what you seem to be getting across but I don't think the lack of a focal point works in your favor here. If the image (as is) were blurred and there were a single human subject that was less blurry or completely sharp, the image would work for me. The same could be said of the opposite, with a sharp background and blurry subject.

[midnitejam]

Sorry mate, i my own defense, please look at page 1, where I make a light-hearted comment, after which I'm sarcastically told that I must be a technician because presumably an artist would appreciate this trash.

I'm actually not the one forcing anything, except my own point of view. It's whatshisface who insists that not liking this image means you're a no-talent hack. But of course, because I'm taking the negative position, I must be the bad guy, right?

Fine fine, lets all just say we love everything, in case someone starts crying. I won't be made out to be the bad guy here.

Well, if we're going polar, here's my take.

milorad, generally speaking, you and I are on the same page. We have the same mindset about what is art and artists. I usually recognize the pseudo artists and so can you.

The only significance for me about the above image is that I don't feel the image was created by accident and passed off as some form of neo art. I have the feeling that the OP conceived this shot before he snapped the shutter. That doesn't mean that I like it (which I do not), but I appreciate the OP's efforts and creativity (not to mention his bravery). He obvisously is an experienced photographer. I don't think such a composition as this is an accident. The composition suggests that the shot was well thought out before its capture.

Otherwise, I'm usually disgusted when pseudo artist who try to pass off their accidents as art and pretend that there is some sort of higher-level meaning hidden that only the intellectuals can detect. I've actually seen this scenareo presented here upon occasion. But I really do not feel that the above image is one of these 'glorified accidents'. It's composition is definitely its redemption. After the title suggested to me what I'm supposed to see, the OP's intended interpretation was obvious.

I am uncomfortable with abstract concepts. I've seen existing art pieces that were created by having an elephant wade through paint onto a huge canvas and then sold amongs the intellectual croud as some sort of mystic revelation to mankind. Or how about the exibit that was created by a chimpanzee dabbling with paint buckets and brushes.

[Flo]

One simply has to go and see what other photos Q has posted, and his intentions are clear.nothing he does is by chance.;) They are all talked about, good,bad, misunderstood.

[Pekka]

Sorry mate, i my own defense, please look at page 1, where I make a light-hearted comment, after which I'm sarcastically told that I must be a technician because presumably an artist would appreciate this trash.

"this kind of pretentious crap which features so heavily in what's loosely termed 'art'"

That was not light-hearted nor sarcastical. That's was plain rude. More of that and you'll get some extra time out for reading some art history books.

I'm actually not the one forcing anything, except my own point of view.

I think people got your point of view from the first post. Why would you need to force it, do you feel that everyone else is wrong and you feel threatened by opinions that the photo is good?

I personally like that photo a lot. It's refreshing to see something in lines of impressionism here.

[Croasdail]

Fine fine, lets all just say we love everything, in case someone starts crying. I won't be made out to be the bad guy here.

Didn't say that at all. But you can say you don't like something - and let it be. If others see value in it, that is their right as well. You can disagree and debate civilly.

oh well... sorry I jumped into this... cheers all.

[Titus213]

The colors and composition are pretty good. Unfortunately my eye keeps trying to find something to focus on and there just isn't anything clear. I don't get the dream impression, just OOF. Because of that I find it tires me out to look at it, perhaps inducing a dream state?

[midnitejam]

One simply has to go and see what other photos Q has posted, and his intentions are clear.nothing he does is by chance.;) They are all talked about, good,bad, misunderstood.

You know what? I'm beginning to suspect that Q has a sense of humor. I think he's getting a kick out of creating controversy among us who haven't yet graduated to his level of growth. Now that I'm unto his sense of humor I'm starting to appreciate his work. I've been slow to catch on.

[Apshiso]

SO here is my take:

After reading the title and then the image, it took me a second to put the two together. I guess I am being overly trusting in the fact that the OP absolutely intended this but I have NO reason to think otherwise. I look at this and ask myself "what does I met you in a dream mean - in the context of this photo?" and then I answer " I imagine this being my field of view in a dream - who will come into view if I sleep for another few seconds?"

It's pretty darn simple to me. I am not normally one to enjoy "implied intellectualism in art" either but this seems pretty straight forward to me. I don't normally, but kind of had fun reading the earlier debate.

Thanks to the OP for sharing - and inviting the comedians for our entertainment.

[daveyburt]

blah, blah, blah ....arguing over personal taste will get you nowhere.

I like it. I think though, as someone had stated, 'something' in focus, even just a little....maybe a bit of the path... like a lensbaby type of thing.

i get the 'dream' thing...got it right away but, something, a human or animal or even muted shadow of someone should be included for someone to meet..I can imagine a blury figure, dressed in white, approoaching the other side of the bridge would be nice. I think if walking down the path in the dream, a little of the path should be a bit more focused.

but, I like it. nice composition and colors!

[penodr]

I like the photo, its a great example of why I like photography. Anyone can take a high school class and run around and take pictures that follow all the rules, in focus, using the rule of thirds for the subject, perfect exposure, etc. Art is very subjective, and this is a good example of art IMO. Nice work.

Dave

[dkord]

The shot reminds me of when I first wake up and there's sleep in my eyes: I can't quite focus.
Compositionally, I'd love to see more of the road leading up to the bridge. The oof highlights in the sky hurts my eyes, I think it's distracting and out of place. If it's suppose to be part of the message than it's needs to be more and softer.
Either lowering the crop or shooting in portrait crop seems more natural.

Personally, I'm not into the out of focus/this is art debate.
More power to Q if he can pass it up as art and sell some prints.
The shame is the image really didn't cause the discussions, but insults did.
BTW, most great artists are also very good techicians.

There was a story about Picasso who had a pile of broken pottery pieces. He'll go into town and buy things using these shards of pottery as a check signing his name in large letters.
You see, he figures no one will cash these "checks" because they think that it's art and with his name on it the "checks" will be more valuable than what the value of the check were written out to.

As they say, one man's art is another's pile of broken pottery.

[SwingBopper]

I keep looking for the "you" and I wonder is it the bluish-gray shape between the path and the bridge approximately centered that looks like a farm animal, maybe a cow grazing. Is a farm animal the "you"?

Or is the "you" the shape to the right of the bridge but closer to the foreground that looks like a person with head down taking a pee into the stream. Is the peeing person the "you"?

A tantalizing photo to be sure. A fun photo and an entertaining discussion!

[midnitejam]

I keep looking for the "you" and I wonder is it the bluish-gray shape between the path and the bridge approximately centered that looks like a farm animal, maybe a cow grazing. Is a farm animal the "you"?

Or is the "you" the shape to the right of the bridge but closer to the foreground that looks like a person with head down taking a pee into the stream. Is the peeing person the "you"?

A tantalizing photo to be sure. A fun photo and an entertaining discussion!



Could you please explain the significance of your questions and why they matter?

Are you for real? Or is this a funny?

I take it that you aren't overly fond of the dude's image?

[Flo]

I like this as a watercolor Q!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/emmaloudawg/IMG_1459copy.jpg
I feel this has gone as far as it can with the comments really..its all personal quips now?

[midnitejam]

Q, Redo this shot when the fall colors climax. Make it razor sharp, tack focused and nicely saturated and it'll be amazing.

[SwingBopper]

Could you please explain the significance of your questions and why they matter?

Are you for real? Or is this a funny?

I take it that you aren't overly fond of the dude's image?

I may be out of my league here, but I'm just trying to plumb the depths of the artistic mind. The OP didn't title this scene "A bridge in the woods" he called it "I met you in a dream". I think we can agree that there is intended to be some relationship between the title and the image i.e. there's a story there. So one must assume the hackneyed blur intends to convey a dream image, with two actors - an "I" and a "you". I think a dream could have been far better portrayed with a diaphanous layer - but I digress. My curiosity led me to look for the actors to try to discern the story behind the title. The overall impression of the image is not one of anger or violence, but rather of peace, serenity even love. So the "I" and the "you" probably have or may soon have some intimate bond. One can assume the "I" to be the observer, so that leaves the quest for the "you" and a clue to the meaning of the “art” at hand.


I offered two possibilities.

A prurient fondness some lonely introvert has for farm animals. It's not uncommon in certain parts of the world.
A chance meeting with a man relieving himself along the banks of a stream – love at first sight.
As to the significance of my questions, I think you are asking the wrong person the wrong question. Why not ask the OP what is the significance of the title and the picture?

[AdamC]

The funny thing about art, is that it's entirely subjective. If a person says it's art, it is, to them at least.

To explain further, saying "this is art" is akin to saying "I find this to be artistic." Therefore, saying to that person "no, it isn't" is akin to saying "no, you don't," which is obviously not for anyone else to say.

</$0.02>

[Collin85]

The funny thing about art, is that it's entirely subjective. If a person says it's art, it is, to them at least.

To explain further, saying "this is art" is akin to saying "I find this to be artistic." Therefore, saying to that person "no, it isn't" is akin to saying "no, you don't," which is obviously not for anyone else to say.

</$0.02>

Personally, I'd amend the part "Therefore, saying to that person "no, it isn't" is akin to saying "no, you don't," which is obviously not for anyone else to say."

.. to "Therefore, saying to that person "no, it isn't" is akin to saying "Well, I personally strongly disagree" which is irrelevant to the notion of the other person's view that it does." We simply have two people thinking differently on a subjective topic.

So in the end, I absolutely agree - it's not for anyone else to say. If you don't like someone else's 'art', then you can kindly object and say that you personally disagree. But to flat out assert that "It is not!" is pretty rude.

[SwingBopper]

The funny thing about art, is that it's entirely subjective. If a person says it's art, it is, to them at least.

To explain further, saying "this is art" is akin to saying "I find this to be artistic." Therefore, saying to that person "no, it isn't" is akin to saying "no, you don't," which is obviously not for anyone else to say.

</$0.02>

It's unsettling how so many people seem to think they can redefine the English language to satisfy their personal egos. The fallacious idea that art is whatever you say it is is a clear example. Why not check with the dictionary? Here's what Webster's 11th Collegiate has to say defining art as it relates to our discussion: "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; and the works so produced". Further examining "aesthetic" one gets the sense of an association with "beauty". Frankly I see neither skill nor creativity in taking an ordinary out of focus snapshot in the woods - beautiful or not.

Your statement that "no it isn't" means "no you don't" is another example. Nonsense! Those two phrases have different subjects "it" and "you" and totally different meanings, as Collin85 pointed out above.

[AdamC]

Further examining "aesthetic" one gets the sense of an association with "beauty".

Ah, but as we all know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that so too is art.

[SwingBopper]

Ah, but as we all know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that so too is art.

Once again you are taking linguistic leaps and ignoring creativity and skill - the central elements of art. If you think it's beautiful then it may be aesthetic to you; but where is the creativity, where is the skill, i.e. where is the art?

[Broncobear]

It's not bad, two things that would make me like it more, show a more focused part of the outside center particularly the path that will lead to the OOF part. the other is B&W would probably look good. I tend to like OOF images in B&W

For the people that feel the need to bash artistic expression, get a life.

[penodr]

Once again you are taking linguistic leaps and ignoring creativity and skill - the central elements of art. If you think it's beautiful then it may be aesthetic to you; but where is the creativity, where is the skill, i.e. where is the art?

But you sir are taking the same linguistic leaps in just the other direction.

Dave

[SwingBopper]

But you sir are taking the same linguistic leaps in just the other direction.

Dave

How so? The dictionary list creativity and skill as central elements of art. I just pointed out the absence of both in this photo. That's not a leap. Please explain where you see creativity and skill in this ordinary out of focus snapshot.

[penodr]

How so? The dictionary list creativity and skill as central elements of art. I just pointed out the absence of both in this photo. That's not a leap. Please explain where you see creativity and skill in this ordinary out of focus snapshot.

Mark Rothko is a famous world respected abstract artist and his work does not fit the description for skill or creativity.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_Grnfthrs_fldr/g0000_gr_inf_images/g051_rothko_vbkoy-wr.jpg&imgrefurl=http://abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_Grnfthrs_fldr/g051_rothko.html&h=426&w=346&sz=15&hl=en&start=1&sig2=EXVXBUv_nMtZuAF6ZJM1qg&um=1&usg=__ljgQfMOAiZ2C_y7RL9h-_ez-GHg=&tbnid=hGUpyexXC1lLoM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=102&ei=vYz4SMi9KaKuepuFrCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMark%2BRothko%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rl z%3D1T4GGLL_en%26sa%3DX

Where is the skill here? This is considered art, why not the OPs picture?

You also left out the following entry in Websters

6. decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

Does the photo not fit this description?

[lonelyjew]

Hehe, this image is art at it's best imo. Look at all the debate on aesthetics it has created. A simple image out of focus creating such a stir is a sign of a good work in my opinion.

With that said I honestly don't like it all that much. I can appreciate it but to me it just doesn't look good. To be honest the out of focus effect actually makes me feel a bit queezy.

Also, I have to say, I do get where milorad stands. I'm sure that if you put four people in front of a piece of dog crap on a pedestal and have them talk it up, sounding like they know what they're talking about, you could get many an art critic to fall in love with it. I strongly disagree with anyone saying something isn't art though. What is art? Why it's anything that someone believes is art.

[SwingBopper]

Mark Rothko is a famous world respected abstract artist and his work does not fit the description for skill or creativity.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_Grnfthrs_fldr/g0000_gr_inf_images/g051_rothko_vbkoy-wr.jpg&imgrefurl=http://abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_Grnfthrs_fldr/g051_rothko.html&h=426&w=346&sz=15&hl=en&start=1&sig2=EXVXBUv_nMtZuAF6ZJM1qg&um=1&usg=__ljgQfMOAiZ2C_y7RL9h-_ez-GHg=&tbnid=hGUpyexXC1lLoM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=102&ei=vYz4SMi9KaKuepuFrCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMark%2BRothko%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rl z%3D1T4GGLL_en%26sa%3DX

Where is the skill here? This is considered art, why not the OPs picture?

You also left out the following entry in Websters

6. decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

Does the photo not fit this description?

I've asked numerous times for someone to point out any skill or creativity in the OP's post; and all I read in reply are attempts to evade the question. Mark Rothko's work you linked to is not a photograph, consequently I have no idea how long he worked on it or what talent was involved; nor do you I imagine. But nevertheless his work is not the subject of discussion here. If you and others are intransigently convinced art is whatever you define it to be then I'm obviously wasting my time with logical arguments using the English dictionary as an authority and I bid you many happy delusions in your future. It does not fit your Print definition unless you can show me this photo in print (magazine or whatever).

[penodr]

I've asked numerous times for someone to point out any skill or creativity in the OP's post; and all I read in reply are attempts to evade the question. Mark Rothko's work you linked to is not a photograph, consequently I have no idea how long he worked on it or what talent was involved; nor do you I imagine. But nevertheless his work is not the subject of discussion here. If you and others are intransigently convinced art is whatever you define it to be then I'm obviously wasting my time with logical arguments using the English dictionary as an authority and I bid you many happy delusions in your future.

Look who is now evading the question. You seem to be willing to only quote part the the dictionary, the one that supports your view, not the entire section. Logic states that the entire dictionary be used not just part of it.

Also where in the dictionary does it state that the amount of time required to produce a work defines art?

As for delusions I leave you to yours.

[tonydee]

I haven't bothered to read much of the discussion... I'll just pitch in with my honest, unguarded opinion. Bin it. Cheers, Tony

[Flo]

I haven't bothered to read much of the discussion... I'll just pitch in with my honest, unguarded opinion. Bin it. Cheers, Tony

LOL.Tony..

Q seems to leave the deabte to others..wish once in a while he would come back after a post...:confused:

Upwards and Onwards Q...give us another one:cool:

[larann78]

What?