Fritters (fritters) wrote,
Fritters
fritters

  • Mood:

Okay, enough political stuff....

I'd really like everyone to comment on this, I've been wondering about this for a while.



This originally came out of my art being rejected on Gaia (which, BTW, I am never going back to and never donating another dollar to.) Gaia doesn't allow traces, which as I said makes sense (drawing something over another drawing is rarely art...rarely), but I thought my art ought to be allowed because such a large portion of it was hand drawn, completely original and an original concept.

On the other hand, if something copied isn't art, what do you say about Andy Warhol??

Examples:









Any museum in America would be proud to have any of these hanging in their gallery. But why are they art but not my drawing of Starfire in Robin's outfit? You can't tell me that Warhol didn't copy or trace or use any other method to do that Campbell's can. And the other's are pretty much just colored pictures of copyrighted material.

Now you could argue that they were original concepts. Which I agree. No one had put up a picture of a Campbell's can or thrown a few colors on top of Mickey Mouse and called it art. So is an original concept all that is required for something to be art?

I, personally, don't agree with that. To me, I suppose, it's a percentage matter. The percentage of an image that is original concept and/or original hand drawing. Strangely enough on this picture of South Park Starfire and Robin I consider Starfire to be real art because I did a large percentage of the drawing, even if I used a base, but I DON'T consider Robin to be real art because I cheated on his hair. I cut and pasted it from another picture. Starfire's hair I drew by hand. Robin's I did not.

So by my personal standards I suppose I would have to say my Starfire in Robin's outfit is real art more than Andy Warhol's stuff because I did a lot of work by hand whereas Warhol's was only original in concept. But just like Starfire, Warhol would never get his art on Gaia because it's a trace. And because they're based on copyrighted material, Warhol could never post any the above pictures on DeviantArt. And the "found art" in museums is right out.

So, what IS art? What do you think?

I personally also think that Gaia and DeviantArt need to reconsider their standards. And no, I'm not saying that I'm a better artist than Warhol, I'm not. I used him as an example because he's a well known artist with well known works that demonstrated my points easily. But after being turned down on Gaia and seeing Warhol's works it really made me reconsider what qualifies as art and what doesn't.


I will not be posting about my last week and my holiday because they sucked beyond all reason and I try to keep whining posts to a minimum.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 34 comments