Me : No, it's just like how the world looks like without my specs. Now shut up.
Me: And when you put your specs on?
Are the sharp art pictures artistic because they're sharp compare to the blurred one?
Is the sharpness relevant for art photography? Why?
You know, if your point about visual art is to pretend you can attain superior intellectual credibility by rendering captured stuff hard to see (which I can do automatically, and that's not a super power btw), why don't you push the enveloppe a bit further and try to judge a painting by blinking super fast, or pour ink in your eyes, or shake your head in all directions while trying to discern some picture?
Perhaps we could make olympics out of that, who knows?
Geez, those lazy "artists" don't know what to invent next these days in order to get a bit of desperate attention.
Oh! I believe it would be funny if the text on the exhibition's invitation coupon were to be blurry.
- Look, it's art, you can't understand.
- I'm a doctor Jim, not a fashionable krook!
I don't know those artists, I mean personally, so I can't know if they just want some desperate attention or no. You probably do know them, from your high judging chair and your specs on the nose, so you are able to call them lazy "artists".
Anyway you didn't answer to my questions:
Are the sharp art pictures artistic because they're sharp compare to the blurred one?
Is the sharpness relevant for art photography? Why?
About this: if your point about visual art is to pretend you can attain superior intellectual credibility by rendering captured stuff hard to see...
It's not my point no. Art isn't about getting better than the other one. It's not a competition.
If misfocused stuff is your thing, go for it, just don't expect me to regard it highly.
You know, blur has always been used in a canvas to enhance another sharp part of the same work.
In this case we're talking about intelligent partial blur. But the random full-blur material I saw is just laughable.
Now if all is blured, and you expect me to go through dozens of such myopic works of [whatever], the only thing you're going to enhance is my damn headache.
This is just dragging art down to the degenerate level of vision-disabled people (like me, since I can't see a thing without me specs).
This full-blur stuff (Serrano's, Stivers', Barth's, etc.) or the uninspired one (Levinthal's) is so devoid of sheer intrinsic quality that it begs to get a point stacked on it in order to get people chirping about it on and on.
If it ain't laziness, then it's purely a lack of talent. All in all, if both claim to make art, they're krooks.
I think it is something understandable.
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree.
