Well, for one thing, I think the prompt was meant for people to stretch out their creativity a bit. We can all take pictures of a urine stain on the carpet from our dog and call it a "memory" but does it have any value to those outside of ourselves? No. Its not like it needs to be completely non-objective and there's nothing wrong with taking party photos. In some of these there is simply no meaning whatsoever outside of those who took it so therefore the judgement is going to be different. You have to step outside yourself when attempting art otherwise it boils down to subjective phoniness. Now this is not to be critical of anyone here, I think there are some great photos in this thread and the line between actual memory and subjectivity is a bit blurry. Buggy's shot I can appreciate because it has value to him AND it has its own character (the little alligator). It gives it a certain special quality and its not just a shot of a deceased loved-one's grave.

I took that photo in a black and white class last year at college and thought it would be good for the prompt. There's a certain abstract quality to it and its not technically amazing or even original (as LW pointed out) but it should convey some sort of universal or at least cultural feeling of transition, change, or movement of time. Therefore, it is a memory shot. Not to toot my own horn but I'm particuarly proud of that one considering most of my other photos in that class were average to poor in every aspect.

Its not like there's a standard set of rules for judging photos. However, with regards to the process there are certain attributes that are important in attaining or following. You can't just take a picture of anything and call it art or original, that's simply not fair. Think about what's aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Real artists spend years if not decades studying and analyzing a variety of different pieces of work from paintings to architecture. Real artists understand how to use the tools needed to create something. Real artists put a sense of soul into their work. It doesn't have to be radical or political or abstract or even original. If it says something about the state of reality or culture, the nature of things, enlightenment or divinity then I would consider it art.

Exactly. This reminds me of the arguments I had with Marines over why Creed sucked, and why it wasn't art. They were under the impression that Creed is art, just because they think it's art. To quote my good friend, "If I think Dr. Suess is art, then it's fucking art."

That's not how it goes.

You can't possibly put value into party pictures, poorly taken party pictures at that, on the same level as Buggy's photo, or GV's photo. That's not even fair.

I won't post my pictures of "memory" because they have already been done here. I also will not post this photo prompt because of what I will now call Party Picture Syndrome, or PPS. Those pictures have zero value to me. And I could post you all kinds of beautiful photo's that mean the world to me so far as memories are concerned. But when it comes to you guys, they're just pictures of girls in hijabs and kids in ghetto alleyways.

Kiddo - I don't like the crop. Ruins the quality of the photo. I like the sea of popcorn and pigeons, I just wish the bible was a tad more obvious. You had the shot, you missed it, so it goes. The story of my life. Remember your mistake, and don't make it again.

Of course Creed is art, do you not see the paradox with your logic? How can you make such a statement when the very thing your debasing relies on the same principles you use to catergorise 'art'? Just as those Marines thought it was art, you thought the opposite, each point is valid. To argue otherwise would be an exercise in futility.

That's not what we're discussing. Art doesn't necessarily have to have value to others, it exists independent of all but the artist who created 'it', just as your photographs have their own personal resonance. Surely the fundamental quality of art is the freedom to interpret it as you like? This however, should not include labelling of pieces of art once isn't too fond of as being 'not art'. Just because it may have no intrinsic value to you, that isn't to say it will not for the next person. Mondrian and Benjamin are of great use to us here...

As much as I hate to agree with calling Creed art, I have to ask why it isn't art (in fact I would like to hear the reasons given)? Whatever your view on the band and their music, they are still expressing ideas and feelings through a creative process. Art is everywhere and it exists in countless forms - from a child's macaroni pasted mess to rennaissance masterpieces. To assign the term "art" and "not art" based on ones personal taste is missing the point.

That's the exact point. It's the different between interpretation and understanding that makes it art. pearljamrocksmysocks presented an image based on the prompt of memory, and got a reaction. An artistic experience occurred.

There were many better technically taken photos there, but that's not the point of art. I could go out and take a postcard perfect shot and post it, but pearljamrocksmysocks could have communicated better with that shot. I can identify with it because I remember sitting there in houses like that, with my friends, drinking a carryout. The blurriness is like the blurred vision of having too much too drink too late, so is the skewed angle. It looks like you're being pulled or sliding down the side of the photograph.

Most importantly, though, is the fact that it's more less accidental - that picture just happened to come out like that, you couldn't set that up, and that's what makes it so special - that it was organic.

Split this topic from the photography prompt. Good debate btw.
I'll just add a little by saying I don't think Art can be limited in any way, as the whole point of creative expression is to be unlimited in it's potential.
Imitation is art, something you think is terrible and worthless can be art, the hoover dam is art, a burger king soda cup is art, someone filming a sidewalk for 3 hours is art.
You dont have to like it for it to be art. In fact, sometimes the intent of an artistic piece is for you to hate it.
Every single photo in the prompt thread was a piece of art and creative expression, wheather anyone related to it, understood it, or liked it.

I really hate to be defending Creed, but yes even Creed is art, it's just bad art.
You cannot say something is not art just because you don't like it. There a great many things in the world that qualify as art, but not all art is good art.

Thanks for splitting this off Buggy. This could lead to an interesting debate.

I'm not saying that Creed isn't art because I don't like it.

I don't really care for Bob Dylan all that much. But it's art. Same for Dave Matthews Band.

Here's what kind of art Creed and some of these pictures are. You walk into your neighbors house, and there's all these crappy pictures and paintings on the refrigerator from his six year old son from art class. That's what it is to art.

So because Bob Dylan is accliamed and has broad appeal, even though you don't like it, it is still valid art?

To me that's a pretty flimsy argument. Obviously there is a difference between photographs taken by Ansel Adams and those done by newbie photographers here. That difference lies in a lifetime of training and practice (and probably a bit of natural talent). The same can be said for a 6 year old's fingerpaintings. No, you won't find them hanging in the Louvre, but I know most parents would value a painting done by their child than any masterpiece.

You're going to have to come up with a better argument than the fact that Creed make lame music. I agree that it is pretty lame (so is Dave Matthews for that matter), but it's still art. How can one crappy group be art and another not?

Sorry, I havent read everything here at the moment (I cant find my glasses and I get a killer headache if I try to read for too long, sorry). I dont know if this has already been said.

However, in my opinion, I dont see the point in creating something for anyone else other than yourself. Create something that means something to you, if others like it, brilliant, if not, then hey shit happens. Otherwise all I see that you're doing is trying to either please others or proove yourself to others. I'm not trying to devalue the importance of criticism, I just think that the meaning you take from something is incredibly personal, so why try to please someone else?

I won't share a picture unless it satisfies both A and B.



I don't find it flimsy at all. Perhaps crude, but it's meant to be crude. Bob Dylan is art. All of his words, his notes, his methodicalness. It's poigniancy, it's beauty, it's originality. Bob Dylan envokes thought, and images. And that is what art is. Something that may not be palatable on the surface to everyone, but something that if you look at real deep, you at least find something to conversate about.

You'll never here an argument for Creed being good other than, "Creed Rocks!" "They sold millions of records!" "They're popular." There's no art to it. All of the elements that make Bob Dylan art are completely absent from the music of Creed.

Art, in my opinion, needs to be justified. It's not just art simply because it exists.

Now, I also understand that there is a big difference from Ansel Adams and all the photographers here. Whether they be ametuers with a knack for it, or newbies with a digital camera. However, I still stand that with these prompts, and putting up pictures for everyone to see, that they had best serve the purpose of the prompt. Generate the notion of memory. Generate the notion of perspective. If you don't communicate, if you have a bad photo, why waste your time sharing it? Post pictures for yourself, by all means. However, don't be shocked when you get criticized.

The problem with most music fans, is they don't approach music as an art form - which is why you get meathead comments like those. To a lot of people, music is the filler for their lives, and doesn't have a purpose as anything other than something to tap their toes or bang their heads to.

I won't disagree that Dylan's art is light years beyond Creeds, but I am fairly certain that if you were to go read a Creed message board, you would find fans that are moved by it and find the same qualities that you just posted about Dylan in Creed's music. Obviously those people lack taste, but that is their problem. Some people also find airbrush paintings of Elvis on black velvet to be quality art so go figure.

My point is that art is subjective, so some people will see qualities in something that others don't. I agree that you need some sort of validation, but broad cultural acceptance is not necessary. There are tons of works that are regarded as masterpieces today, but were dismissed during the artists period.

Back on the topic of music, I'm listening to a band right now called Wolf Eyes. They are essentially noise...violent noise at that (think Atari Teenage Riot without the catchy beats). I would imagine that if i were to play that record for anybody they would cringe and would not find any artistic merit in it. However I do. It's something that's painful to listen to, so it evokes a reaction from me, and it communicates a strong feeling in me when I listen to it. Not all music is meant to be toe-tapping good fun.

Art needs no validation, you do not need formal training to be an artist. Art is such a broad term and so subjective, that means someone will find anything beautiful. After majoring in art for nearly two years I have actually found that art by untrained artists tend to have the most emotion and a certain quality of innocence that is devoid from most art from trained artists. Most trained artists try to be too artsy and too cool, thus coming up with bullshit ideas and work that has this super-complicated meaning that they probably only applied to it after it was completed. But, someone appreciates it. If you want to see pure art, don't dismiss childrens art because that is the most honest work out there.