So is this a lump of rock in space, a picture or art?

Its a picture of a lump of rock in space, but it is not art.

So is this a lump of rock in space, a picture or art?

Its a picture of a pb]lump of rock in space[/b], but it is not art.

So you don't see it as a thing of beauty?

So is this a lump of rock in space, a picture or art?

Its a picture of a lump of rock in space, but it is not art.

Can I say more:)



The moon is more rock then Earth! I like to watch a fullmoon.

Lets rock.

Thanks Janne, that's the best piece of modern poetry I've ever read. Something to ponder on isn't it?

Thanks Janne, that's the best piece of modern poetry I've ever read. Something to ponder on isn't it?

Come to think of the Sun and the stars.
There just compressed gas of hydrogen and helium.
Everything except hydrogen comes from exploding stars.

I think math is both beauty and art.
So do Max Tegmark professor in astro physics at MIT.

EDIT: Flashbacks from my childhood.
Now I remember seeing this on TV (B/W of course).
I was not impressed at all:) Whats the big deal I thought.

Thanks Janne, that's the best piece of modern poetry I've ever read. Something to ponder on isn't it?

Yes it is, Sirus. Thanks Janne, for taking me back to my youth.

40+ years ago, they used to read that poem on the local TV stations right before playing the National Anthem on their nightly sign-off.

It was quite... moving.

Thanks Janne, that's the best piece of modern poetry I've ever read. Something to ponder on isn't it?

Yes it is, Sirus. Thanks Janne, for taking me back to my youth.
40+ years ago, they used to read that poem on the local TV stations right before playing the National Anthem on their nightly sign-off.
It was quite... moving.

Apollo 8. 46 years ago. Time flies.
Statue of Apollo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo#mediaviewer/File:Belvedere_Apollo_Pio-Clementino_Inv1015.jpg

So is this a lump of rock in space, a picture or art?

Its a picture of a pb]lump of rock in space[/b], but it is not art.

So you don't see it as a thing of beauty?

No its beautiful, but it lacks content. That picture never trascends to anything more than just a nice picture of our planet. Hence its not art.

So is this a lump of rock in space, a picture or art?

Its a picture of a pb]lump of rock in space[/b], but it is not art.

So you don't see it as a thing of beauty?

No its beautiful, but it lacks content. That picture never trascends to anything more than just a nice picture of our planet. Hence its not art.

If I understand you right you have to see it live to consider it art.
I agree. Thats the best thing.
But how many of us can afford a trip to moon to see our Earth from there

So is this a lump of rock in space, a picture or art?

Its a picture of a pb]lump of rock in space[/b], but it is not art.

So you don't see it as a thing of beauty?

No its beautiful, but it lacks content. That picture never trascends to anything more than just a nice picture of our planet. Hence its not art.

If I understand you right you have to see it live to consider it art.
I agree. Thats the best thing.
But how many of us can afford a trip to moon to see our Earth from there

No, seeing the earth from the moon would make it even less a piece of art. The earth is not created by human creativity which is a necessity for something to be even judged as potentially a piece of art.

Look, just because something looks amazing or beautiful does not mean it has to therefor be art. Something can be beautiful and amazing without it being considered art.

So is this a lump of rock in space, a picture or art?

Its a picture of a pb]lump of rock in space[/b], but it is not art.

So you don't see it as a thing of beauty?

No its beautiful, but it lacks content. That picture never trascends to anything more than just a nice picture of our planet. Hence its not art.

If I understand you right you have to see it live to consider it art.
I agree. Thats the best thing.
But how many of us can afford a trip to moon to see our Earth from there

No, seeing the earth from the moon would make it even less a piece of art. The earth is not created by human creativity which is a necessity for something to be even judged as potentially a piece of art.

Look, just because something looks amazing or beautiful does not mean it has to therefor be art. Something can be beautiful and amazing without it being considered art.

I think you are a bit narrowminded.
And reason too logical.

That all depends on what an individual considers art. What I consider art is an image that makes one stop & think. What I may see in that image may not be the same as what you see.

That image of the earth I consider art for the simple reason is that it is a beautiful tranquil image of the planet we live on, yet at the same time it has a dark & dangerous secret - that secret is us which is not revealed until one lands.

After all, isn't that what art is meant to do?

知己知彼，百戰不殆。 (Zhī jǐ zhī bǐ, bǎi zhàn bù dài.)
If you know both yourself and your enemy, you can win numerous (literally, "a hundred") battles without jeopardy.
Sirus. This is my new motto. You know what I mean:)
The Art of War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

That all depends on what an individual considers art. What I consider art is an image that makes one stop & think. What I may see in that image may not be the same as what you see.

That image of the earth I consider art for the simple reason is that it is a beautiful tranquil image of the planet we live on, yet at the same time it has a dark & dangerous secret - that secret is us which is not revealed until one lands.

After all, isn't that what art is meant to do?

Sirus,
By Мишель's own definition of art:

Мишель wrote:

As for what is art, I view that art is form and content. Form describes the design, shape, colors, the materials used, etc. Content is the message, the story, the way its telling the story and also the way people see the story.

That photograph of the Earth you linked in
this post should be considered Art.

It has both 'form' and 'content'.

The 'form': It is a photograph (the medium). The photographer used creativity and 'designed' the shot. It has shapes. It has colors.

The 'content': You already gave one example of its message.

Thanks Janne, that's the best piece of modern poetry I've ever read. Something to ponder on isn't it?

Yes it is, Sirus. Thanks Janne, for taking me back to my youth.

40+ years ago, they used to read that poem on the local TV stations right before playing the National Anthem on their nightly sign-off.

It was quite... moving.

That poem was writen by John Gillespie Magee jr. 1922-1941.
An American pilot who joined the Royal Candaian Air force.
And it is very moving.

---

[/quote]

Old James

There you go.
I Always thought it was Frank Borman Apollo 8 who done it:)
Anyway a good choice.

That photograph of the Earth you linked in
this post should be considered Art.

It has both 'form' and 'content'.

The 'form': It is a photograph (the medium). The photographer used creativity and 'designed' the shot. It has shapes. It has colors.

The 'content': You already gave one example of its message.

I disagree on whether it has content. There is no message inherent to a picture of Earth as seen from space. Of course you can make up a story, but it isn't inherent to the picture itself, its something you simply attach to it afterwards. Real art fuses whatever medium you use with whatever story you want to tell. The story thus becomes told through the medium.

Just take a look at the winners of the World Press Photo contest. This one for example:

You instantly see the story that this photo tells you. You don't need anyone making up a story for photos like this.

I agree with everybody :)

No I don't...

*sigh whilst rolling eyes at self* Been awhile since I've been in here - and so many posts - I thought I should cover my back :)

Awwwwwwwwwwww.... Earth... that's where I was born! I mean the side showing in the picture is... you know where I was born... *tail into silence*

Just a brief backtrack about Bernie and Julie's seated statues.

Of course art! Really striking, and love the fact that children sit on the laps of the one in the market place in Hasselt :) The Docklands one always makes me smile a little ironically whenever I see it however. I'm not sure if it was the artist's intention but he sums up that particular area of the Docklands really well in that he placed his statues on a bench that leaves little or no room for sitting either on, between or beside the figures... mirroring the fact that visiting riffraff (who are not prepared to go and seat themselves outside some pricy Bistro or other and suffer a bank balance coronary) are not encouraged to linger long in the area at all :)

As for digitally produced pieces (increasingly blurrily defined beneath the umbrella of graphic design)... they can definitely be art. I've seen some great pieces whilst traipsing around the smaller modern galleries in London with my son. And the artform extends into how they're printed, or manipulated during printing too... but not everyone would agree.

Anyway - did like yours Bernie :)

And then there's what 3D printing is doing to art... Don't know WHAT to think about that... yet... :/

Dictionary definitions time.

Rock (noun) the dry solid part of the Earth's surface, or any large piece of this that sticks up out of the ground or the sea:

Mountains and cliffs are formed from rock.

Art (noun) the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings:

or

the activity of painting, drawing, and making sculpture:

or

an activity through which people express particular ideas:

By this definition ROCK is not art. The natural rock is not a sculpture as it was formed by natural forces, and so far I have not read anything that could be conveyed as an idea that would explain this...thus is is yet another example of this modern trend for talentless gimps to earn a living by using their lack of talent to con people. To me this is nothing but fraud, but that is only my opinion.

To me Art is something like that created by Turner, Constable and similar...I do not like the Monet's etc, but they created from scratch so it is right to call it art, but tranporting a rock created by nature is simply transporting a rock...great advert for a heavy haulage firm, but it is not art.

---

Art?

It's about time someone renamed the Tate Modern the Tat Modern!

I agree, seven lines of explanation necessary, ergo not art.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.