A new Rembrandt?

[LONDONER]

Extremely clever buy worrying and creepy at the same time:

http://qz.com/655978/a-new-work-by-rembr...d-printed/

[Emiliano]

It is very clever, and impressive. And in addition to the other questions it raises, I want to ask - is it art? Is the art in the image, the object, or the hand/touch of the artist?

[Insertnamehere]

is it art?

Define art.

I'm guessing you'll have problems trying to do that.

That's the point though.

[Emiliano]

Define art.

I'm guessing you'll have problems trying to do that.

That's the point though.

I connect art to humanity. Like a deliberate act of human expression. That doesn't define good art vs bad art, but that's a pretty simple definition of art. I don't believe in elephant art.

But I don't think what I was asking has to be limited to how I define a word.

[Insertnamehere]

But I don't think what I was asking has to be limited to how I define a word.

It doesn't have to, but it will be, regardless.

You define art as "A", so asking "is it art?" will have a different answer for you, me, Londoner or anybody else, as we all define something that subjective as "B", "C", "D".....

[Emiliano]

It doesn't have to, but it will be, regardless.

You define art as "A", so asking "is it art?" will have a different answer for you, me, Londoner or anybody else, as we all define something that subjective as "B", "C", "D".....

Maybe it was different, subjective answers that I was inviting.

[LJay]

Insert, perhaps you should study the definition of "pedant."

[LONDONER]

If you saw it in a gallery and knew nothing of its origins I don't think that anyone would have any doubt about labelling it art. If it were labelled as a reproduction youn would still call it art but it would be less interesting. However, it has been produced without any real human intervention, the sort of intervention that produces the soul of a painting. It as if they had taken the eyes from one painting, the nose from another, the mouth from another etc. and just cleverly combined them. In the end it is a moral issue and it shows how technology is blurring the borders. Stephen Hawkins has warned about the danger of robots so maybe we shoud stop trying to be so clever. The soul is more important and we should understand that it is that that produces the "spark".

I could go on and on but it is 08.15 and far too early for such a weighty subject. Anyway, I'm glad that my post has started such an interesting debate.

[LONDONER]

This is a continuation of my message number 8 not written in the early morning this time:

Art is also what you know about something. Quite some years ago I was privileged to enter the Caves of Altamira in the North of Spain,

https://es.images.search.yahoo.com/searc...=yfp-t-907

not once but twice, to see the 20,000 year old paintings, a magical experience. That privileged is no longer extended to the public. Instead the local authorities have built a 100% accurate copy made out of fibreglass. It is exact in every single detail achieved by scanning and 3D printing (!) but, it lacks the soul of the original. The act of lying on my back, looking up, where a man had done exactly the same 20,000 years ago to paint those marvellous paintings was just magic, a feeling that could not be experienced in any other way or place, something that simply is not possible to feel in a fibreglass copy nor a 3D "creation" made by an algorithms.

[Insertnamehere]

Insert, perhaps you should study the definition of "pedant."

I am fully aware of that definition. Although, if I didn't, it would take a simple read in a dictionary and not something as compromising and time consuming as a "study"

If you have a problem with me say it, use clear words. Insult me if you want to, do it publicly or in private. I can take about as much as anyone can dish out.

The one thing I don't find ok is passive-agressiveness. That reeks of cowardice.

Are we on a clear note, then?