I guess that's the whole point, to mimic a digital photograph. Most of these are based on actual photos.

 

I understand, but I think that style shows that you have mastered the technique but I don't consider it as art or creative.

 

the slippery slope some people value art for its aesthetic (and some would argue such art is merely graphic design), some for the craftmanship (and others would argue that's just craft, not art), some for the intention of the artist (where this would be an A+) and some for the theories behind it (where others would argue it's just a bunch of malarkey.)

i like to think high art combines all 4 but i still haven't solved this problem for myself yet.

there are also others who argue that art has a magical/irrational component to it, thanks to the artist's hand. by not taking a photograph, and painting instead, one could say by that logic it is most definitely art.

and on and on and on... (and my art teacher wondered why i didn't want to major in art history.)

- chuck

 

While we are on the verge of a philosophical discussion of art, let me say that I really enjoy these types of pieces.

My perspective is that there will always be someone willing to assign a value (not necessarily monetary) and the term "work of art" to something that was created. Do we draw the line based on its uniqueness, or if the technique employed was beautifully mastered? As long as the piece evokes an emotion and presents the concepts or ideas intended to someone I believe it qualifies. In the end, its really up to you as the artist, or the client, what someone's work is worth

 

Well said, well put. Thanks Eshaun.