/art/ - Art & Creative

>>2481

Is film visual art?

>>2479
Anon, don't play the "what is art, really" game to try and get out of needing to work hard and figure things out. Man up, put your back into it, and make your ancestors proud.

>>2484
Of course, yet it has it's own set of fundamentals and rules you must follow, therefore, if you don't follow them you are not a film-maker
Is animation a visual art?
Photography?
Sculpture?
Same reasoning applies to all arts because all have a standard set of rules and basic skills you must be able to perform to be considered an artist of said discipline,or, in other words, if you can't make shit propperly you are not an artist.
I said "drawing" and "visual art" since we are evaluating an image that involves a drawing, perhaps if it was a photo i would ask if he had at least taken the photo, so, thanks for grasping at semantics I guess.

>>2484
Yes, and if you don't know how to film you are not a film-maker.

>>2490
>>2491

So why isn't this art? Like the category of film, it has it's own category, "a photoshop". An awful one. Still art, very bad art but art nonetheless.

Who does this sort of thing well? Cyriak for one. And he actually animates the shit too.

Instead of saying "it's not art" or "your not an artist", just call it what it is, crap. If you say it's "not art" you're just being an ideologue. Furthermore, art is not intrinsically positive, and I don't see the point in defending the term as if it's something special.

OP has to try a thousand times harder if they really want to imitate cyriak or other computer cut-out manipulators. They might try animation too since it's really fucking lame when left as a static image.

>>2519
>I don't see the point in defending the term as if it's something special.

It's because of this mindset that now every chucklefuck out there thinks "art" is whatever and doing whatever makes you an "artist".
Photo manipulation is not "art", however, you can master the "art" of photomanipulation, as you can master the art of sandwich making,the art of spelling, or the art of skating or programing, or painting houses.

"Art" as you see, can be used very loosely to describe any particular activity that requieres some kind of effort and knowledge to be executed, that doesn't mean those activities are actually "art".

So no, photo manipulation is not art, not even if cyriak is good at it.
Cyriak would actually be an artist if he had taken the time to learn to draw, then learn to animate, and then make those things jump to life out of his hand instead of making them with shit photos and photoshop.

>>2523
>>2533

Oh, and spaghettios in your pussy is definitively NOT NEAT. The comparison of that to cyriak's work is fucking stupid.

>>2533
Wasted potential.
Cyriak photo work is still garbage though, The idea/subject is the only interesting thing about it, even if it just is "le bizarro XD shock value", the rest looks like shit.

If it was traditionally animated however, I could dig it better, and you could call it art.

>>2534
never compared cyriak to the video, if you read again, you'd realize that I only said that people like cyriak and that retarded bitch get labelled and clumped togheter as "artists" due the degenerative mindset regarding the term "art", and a lack for a better term to describe what they do.

>>2538
> Cyriak photo work is still garbage though, The idea/subject is the only interesting thing about it, even if it just is "le bizarro XD shock value", the rest looks like shit.

This stuff wouldn't benefit from being hand drawn. The mechanical, photographic look is the whole point. That sort of pliability would change it into something else. Looking at his old illustrations should be a good hint as to why he went in this direction.

Different mediums have different advantages. I don't blame you for preferring beautiful hand drawn animation, but anyone who values variety should make room for cutouts, stop-motion, animatronics and puppetry, hell even software demos. Paint and charcoal receive no privilege (except on a specific-interest 8chan board).

His work speaks for itself.

>was wondering if anyone considered it art
In my opinion, no. I do not think all paintings or sculptures or whatever should be considered art. An art is something you have to master, and that it required mastery to create is the the lowest criteria you should have for a work of art.

Personally I also hold the criteria that it should be something beautiful, to which you of course can object with the argument that this makes the word art relative to the observer. About this I would have to say to that if you want a definition that's even close to objective you have to make the word so vague its a completely useless. I prefer that it's subjective and meaningful.