Painting is not an art. Neither is photography. The two are a type of media, and the working with which is considered a craft. Both can be used as a medium for art, but if a person paints it does not automatically equate to art, and the same goes for photography.
I painted a wall in my home. It wasn't art. I took a photo of a bump on my arm to send to my dermatologist. It wasn't art. So, I agree. That said, there are times when I paint and it is art. Same with photography. The key differentiator is intention.
Quiz: which is a hoax? #1 Invisible Art #2 Nothing Art [spoilers removed from quotes]I painted a wall in my home. It wasn't art.
Collectors are paying through the nose for the art of 27-year-old Lana Newstrom even though you cannot see any of it. “Art is about imagination and that is what my work demands of the people interacting with it. You have to imagine a painting or sculpture is in front of you”, the artist said.
A prestigious group of curators and art historians have written to the gallery questioning why Abramović’s latest performance piece - due to open 11 June and about which she has repeatedly emphasised the importance of “nothing” - fails to acknowledge the influence of another contemporary artist who has also made “nothing” central to her work.
I agree. Here's a question for you - if the intention is to create a product to be sold, is that still art? If I make a painting under the premise of being able to market it and sell it, with everything else being secondary, is that still art? Same thing with photography and music, if the intention is consumer-based, is that still art?The key differentiator is intention.
I think the only person that can answer that question is the creator. If they feel that their work is art, then it's art. I, as the consumer of the "art" can disagree or think that it's worthless, but in the end, it's their creator that knows the intention. I think we can get too caught up in definitions.