Re: Conversions : Art or not ?

> >I think if you spent a good deal of time tweaking the settings , making your
own
> >shade chars, manipulating the image so it would convert well then it did
require
> >skill on your part and can .. even if it's a conversion still be considered
an
> >artwork.

> No it's not. Would you consider Leonardo da Vinci good at painting if he
> just scanned in his pictures and touched them up a bit? No, would you fuck.

If we asume that da Vinci made digital images on a PC (and he did'nt) and that
he just made a few touchups then.. no.
But if he altered great deal of the image putting in a lot of work .. then YES.
If you just scanned and then altered very little as you put it .. then no.

The fine line that decides what is and what is'nt art , in my opinion is not
judged by the tool to make with which you made it .. but by the idea , the skill
and the heart that went into creating the work.
If you make something only few people could have done , or have gotten the idea
for , it can be considered art.

This group rediddles many of the original posts .. do the diddles become less of
an artwork because they are not the original image ?
No .. because they too require a skill and/or an idea.

Besides how far do you have to be from the completed work when you begin the
work ?
Leonardo observed many of the scenes for his paintings before he painted them -
Does that make him less of an artist than for example Picasso ? (who I really
hope didn't see the scenes as he painted them , but imagened most of it)

> >If you diddle and tweak a conversion afterward making a more than trivial
change
> >to the conversion, then it too requires skill and can be considered art.
>
> No it can't, it's just a tweaked conversion.

Depends on the work you put into it , in my opinion.

> What would you say if you discovered the Mona Lisa was just made by
> paint-by-numbers? Would you still consider the bloke you painted it a great
> artist?

No , a paint-by-numbers requires no skill.