Art vs. Approval

I really can't tell you what defines "Art". It is all in our own heads. There are many types of Art, that I don't understand evidently, because it gets rave reviews, and I say "what"? What is that supposed to mean? I don't get it. I am also one who has an aversion to most B/W Photography, why? I have no idea. I am not an Artist, or a Photographer. I have my type of "work" that I do. Some like it, some don't. Most of my posts are "wild" images. I don't really care, what score I get, on what I do anymore. I just enjoy it when someone says, that they liked it. What I do is for my pleasure first, then if someone else likes it, I'm happy.

go jarjar go jarjar go jarjar go jarjar There have been times where I have worked really hard to come up with what I think people will like. I swear that this image will get great reviews and comments by people because I did everything that they complain about correctly. Guess what... Those are some of my worst scoring images. After a few of those "perfect" images I gave that up and do what I do and post my favorites and or the ones that I think others might like. Scores? Whatever. Although I think that if you could consistantly create images that people like on photo sites you could probably do well selling them, which is the best comment anyone can give isn't it?

"ART" is not a single entity (photography, painting, rendering, ect.) Art is a creation of the creator and can be made of one simple thing such as a photograph or many complex things such as a photograph mixed into photoshop mixed into homemade paper and framed. It can be made of old wires and metals and into sculptures, jewelry, pottery,ect. All forms of art will get mixed reviews - period. You cant please everyone and that is not the intention of a true artist. Personally I will post a "wild" image because I like it. I know anything I post will get mixed reviews. That is the whole point of this site I believe - correct me if I am wrong on this Zee. This is an outlet for artists to commune and show what they have inside them. Thus the categories so far, photo art, photography, and illustration. Maybe at some point there will be a need for a sculpture category? I dont know. Everyone has a different style of what they do and not all of it is liked by everyone. I happen to love the work of Jackson Pollock, but some say he was a sloppy drunk who just threw paint on a canvas along with his beer tabs, yet after his death his work became priceless.....

Bec, I too happen to love Jackson Pollock, happens to be one of the people that has highly influenced me. Sloppy drunk? Yeah. Incredible artist? Yeah.

Some time ago I came to the realization that I'm better off making photos for me and not to procure praise from others. Yes, I enjoy it when others praise what I've done. But that's not paramount to me. As a result, I'm not only much happier with my work, people like my work better. Imagine that. Art to me is a creative work (be it photography, painting, sculpture, music, writing, or whatever else you can think of) that touches people. It may touch the souls of some or the imginations of others. Art envokes feelings in people. What's most amazing to me is that two people can see or hear the same thing and experience entirely different feelings. For online contests, I will submit only what I feel is my best. But again, I won't shoot just to enter. The entry still has to be what I want, not what I think will get high marks. I think I feel an essay coming on... ;)

As madame_ava said, Art is extremely subjective. Also, if you ever noticed, professional art critiques and professionals painters, photographers etc, never say that someone else's work of art has something wrong with it. A good critique always finds something which is good in an artwork and never says "That painting is not good!"

i have lately been doing a lot of manipulation of photographs that i have taken,,layering ,joining, and that sort of ps stuff..should it be classified as photo-art,graphics or just photography? i would guess that "digital art" would be starting with a blank screen and creating the entire piece digitally and not from a photo.. i have a show coming up, and i do not know how pieces should be classified..

To me, digital art is using the computer or darkroom to "manipulate", things. Whether or not it has been done, starting with a photograph. I have seen some of your photographs, layered, joined, PSed. They are Digital Art. I was doing some photography, and found that I really am not a Photographer. I then began to manipulate photo's. They no longer are here, because of the change over. That for me was the beginning of Digital or Manipulative Art. What I do now is Pure Digital work, the computer makes the Fractal and I manipulate it to my satisfaction. To me, anything that has been altered, just in places and not overall is Digital art. Whether it is done in the computer or in the darkroom. I have pictures in various sites, which have been altered by Sat or sharpen, but done over the whole pic, which felt odd, to do, but have been told it was alright to do so, and still be called Photography. I don't want to start anything by this, I have seen it become a battlefield in other places. This is only my opinion. This Comment has been edited, to add some Old Spice to it. :P

I agree with JarJar pretty much. If you are combining two images it is digital art or photo art, not photography any more. If you post process one RAW image multiple times to bring out different parts and combine them I would say it's still photography since you are using your digital dark room to create the 'print'. As long as you don't add or remove things I don't see why it wouldn't be considered photography. Some disagree I'm sure. I remove things like dust spots or dead pixels... to me that is just part of the darkroom process. I have no real idea if I am right or wrong. I guess I am right from my perspective.