HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| ZephyrSky13
ZephyrSky13
[10845740]
[]
"Dante"
# Statistics
Favourites: 87; Deviations: 5; Watchers: 3
Watching: 32; Pageviews: 4319; Comments Made: 243; Friends: 32
# Comments
Comments: 30
No, I'm a musician, not a visual artist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then you probably shouldn't go around telling people what art is and that their work is rubbish,easy to criticize,harder to do
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Obviously. However, your argument is a fallacy. It's like saying, you're not a chef, therefore you can't tell if food is good or not. Or you're not a musician, so you can't judge whether music is good or not. Being in the field, obviously gives you a stronger background and understanding, however, even without being an artist, you can judge a work of art. The reason why I criticized her work is because it is lazy (for the most part) and it lacks theme. Theme, creativity, and style are generally the things that distinguish good artowrks. For the most part her photos are saying "hey look how hot my bod is". There is nothing artistic about that. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against erotic photography, but there's a fine fine line between her work, and works like this:
[link]
[link]
[link]
I hope we can at least agree that the amount of effort, thought, and time put into the work varies greatly between our busty blonde, and these ARTISTS.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nah its not like that at all,you're not saying whether its good or bad,you're saying its not food.There's a book by an art critic listing works through the history of art which she labels as art and not art,most commissioned religous pieces are 'not art',but she will never know the artistic decisions that went through those artists' minds before delivering each brushstroke which called on all their sensibily,training and experience.You don't know what is going through someones head when they make something so you're in no position to arrogantly pontificate about art and its meaning.Judge not lest ye be judged.
And to say theres a fine line means theres very little difference distinguishing the two and in the case of that second one you're right,not much difference except you seem to prefer athletic brunettes to busty blondes.
By the way you dismissed my stuff as garbage in a previous comment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, it is true I can't read her mind. But there are also factors called "common sense", and "patterns". Women/girls posting racy pictures of themselves to boost their self-esteem (via the myriad of "OMG YOU ARE SO BEAUTIFUL" comments) are a dime a dozen. Besides the girls in my pictures being brunettes, and more athletic, the very quality of the picture itself is better. They work with lighting, they work with colours, and shadows. In other words, you can see an obvious effort and elegance to the picture. In the lady in question, there is none. It is a bad quality picture, done by a bad camera. There is no photo editing, no work on lights and shadows or colours. Nothing. It just says "look at me, I'm hot". Can I know that for a 100% certainty that that is what she had in mind? No, I can't. Can I judge that it is rediculosly likely, as that is the case 9 times out of 10? Yes, I can. I looked through her whole gallery, and safe for a handful of pictures (which seemed to be done by a professional), everything else was the same: bad quality photos, no theme, just sex. As for dismissing your work as garbage, forgive me if I don't recall what I said (Deviant art doesn't let you see your previous posts), but that was not my intention. I looked at your gallery, and I find a lot of your shots very impressive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ya some may not be considered art in themselves but you have to remember that great artists in the past couldn't always afford beautiful models and often depicted the lowliest prostitutes going,likewise sometimes these photos can be a good resource,not sure if we're talking about the same woman but she has given me lots of ideas for photos,paintings,sculptures.. so I think there is a place for such photos.I'd rather see her in more natural settings than dolled up in stilettos in glamour shoots but thats where imagination comes in.
Read where you said about such photos not inspiring very profound comments and felt that could relate to my stuff as well so was interested to hear what faults you could see as I haven't had much negative feedback which is more useful than someone saying this is great
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your point about artists not always having top notch equipment/models is completely true. And if her photos inspired others to do art, that is great. But then, her work is more or less stock, not art in itself. The smallest and seemingly insignificant things can often inspire great art, but are not art in themselves. I find it strange that when people condemn something as bad art, people ask "why?", but when you reverse the question and ask the artist "how is this art?", more often than not they can't defend themselves (at least her caliber). You can call me presumptuous if you wish, but I am pretty certain that if I took one of her photos, and asked her how it is artistic, she would baffled to give me an answer. Not all art has to be pretty, or dolled up, or bound by conventional standards. However, all art has to tell a story, a feeling, an opinion, and at the very least have a theme. In her case, no themes are present. And if she has put some in, you can't tell. Even if she wanted to make art (which I doubt), she has failed to convey the theme/message she had in mind, in which case it would be bad art. So either she's really bad at doing what she does, or she isn't artist at all. I am satisfied with either outcome. And I agree with your opinion regarding feedback (negative being of more value). If you were to look at the comments on her pictures though, you would have to look very hard for something much different than "you're hot, omg you're gorgeous, or DAT ASS"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Can't argue with any of that
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
glad we could reach a point of agreement man 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
and you with your music
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I hate to break it to you but everything is art whether you like it or not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (WITH SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the SENSES, EMOTIONS, and INTELLECT. Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[1] Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions. - As taken from Wikipedia I hate to break it to you, but it's not. There's nothing wrong with erotic photography, and it can definitely be art. However, you still need a theme, and you still have to put a lot of effort in to the shot besides just bending over for a cheap camera.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dont come at me with that wikipedia bs those are simply opinions within everything there is art cheap camera or not. Not every single piece of art takes effort to make it what it is. Photography..any type of photography is a form of art. Dont think that just because you look something up youre right. Why dont you give me words coming out of your mouth and not someone elses because that is just ignorent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because it objectifies Art so that it can actually be argued on. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, displaying information by GENERAL COCENSUS. This isn't one person's view, this is the general global view on what art is. If you don't want to accept that, that's fine, live in your own little bubble where anything from brushing your teeth to taking a shit can be considered art. But you will be hard pressed to convince anyone besides a horny teenager, that what you do is art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Successful troll is successful!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Global view? let me tell you something. I have a friend who has a brother that went on wikipedia and typed in that greenland is a magical place that is going to take over the world. No it is NOT one person's view. Did I say that anywhere? Why don't you read back and tell me because I am reading it right now and I have to say...I don't see that anywhere. I see that I said those are simply opinions. Not ONE person's opinions. just.opionions.
Art is subjective. Many people have many definitions of art and it is not just one thing or another. I am not living in a bubble but it appears that you are. I happen to think that there is art in every little thing and if I'm not mistaken, what you're saying is art is this or this or this. How is that not being trapped inside of a bubble?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First of all, you can type in any trash in wikiepdia, but it is moderated weekly, and by the end of the week stuff like that's usually removed. Second of all, things like definitions and historic facts are usually taken directly from oxford encyclopedias and dictionaries, making them highly viable. At least when defining something, Wikipedia is highly reliable, sorry to inform you.
Second of all, yes art is subjective to a DEGREE. Emotional or intellectual expression can be done in almost any way. HOWEVER, in order to present something as an Artwork, you NEED to have a THEME. Your "artwork" has to SAY something, SUGGEST something, EMBODY something. Your shot doesn't, I'm sorry to say. Look at your comments if you don't believe me. The best people can say is that you have a good pose, or a cute face, or you look hot. That is because there is NO OTHER MESSAGE in your shot, therefore it isn't art, or it's VERY poor one at that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why must art have a theme can it not be random? have you not seen naked pictures before from artists? The theme of the pictures simply suggest that I think I'm cute if you're making the argument that art HAS to say something. Okay, well why do I take pictures? Because I like my body. I think it looks good and the pictures are me saying that I think so. Why did I take such pictures? Because I was showing the my body in an awkward position and the lines of it...which when you really get down to it, that's what art is. lines..patterns..which is in everything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lol if that didn't overflow with stupidity I might have actually tried to respond to it. The science of beauty is called aesthetics, and that's not art. Merely what's pleasent or nice to look at isn't art. That's aesthetics. I have seen plenty of naked pictures from artists, all of which are centered towards a particular feeling from the model or theme which are accentuated through the pose, expression, lighting, background etc. Things in short, which you have none of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So what are your credentials to tell what is art and what is not? Look at something that you consider art and then look at something you don't. They're all made of the same things anyway. I can't even find words this is difficult because I want you to see that it makes sense. When it all comes down to it isn't it all the same? Isn't everything the same because everything is made out of patterens and points? and what do patterns and points make? art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you want to get down to the core of it then. There's a distinction between the patterns/points and the themes. If you care enough to look in to this, Imannuel Kant said that the patterns and the points are the shell of Art. They are used to SHOW the art, but the actual art is the theme/meaning/expression imbedded within them. Hence why, patterns and points with no theme would not be considered Art. Humans innately like certain geometric shapes, and colour shades. Therefore, we are more partial to some more than others. However, yet again, that is merely the shell of Art. In summary, the meaning/theme defines the artwork, not the mechanics around it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is getting kind of old. We obviously both have very different views on what art is so how about we just agree to disagree? You dont like my picture thats fine. I just thought that since you took the time to comment on my picture i should take the time to reply and tell you what i thought.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And thank you for showing us a glimpse into your imagination and creativity
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no prob man
👍: 0 ⏩: 0