altered reality

what is the difference between altered reality and creative art

Right this way: http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1941

Emre, not all casual questions are philosophic.

 

I think there's no difference, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Thankyou for your response as you say its not black/white

Creative seeing is a form of creative art and does not require altering reality.

<i>what is the difference between altered reality and creative

art</i></p>

 

<p>Altered reality is what you get when you take an overdose of

barbiturates.</p>

 

<p>Creative art is what you get when you take LSD.

Dave-- I see this thread wound up in the philosophy forum after all. So I'll start by saying

that I think

"reality" by its very nature is pretty much in a perpetual state of alteration, depending

upon whose reality we're talking about and at what moment, from what perspective, what

point in history, etc. I don't accept the notion of reality being a constant that is sometimes

altered, for example, by an artist or a drug. I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at by

your question. Perhaps you left it purposely vague just to stimulate conversation, a great

way to begin a thread in my opinion. I think photographers (I'll stick to them since we're in

a photography forum) don't represent or alter reality. I think they convey, to an extent,

what they see and how they see it. That is its own kind of creativity. "Creative art" may be a

tautology. There are too many contentious threads about the definition of art and I hate

starting wars, but I will say that many people (I'm not sure we will ever all agree on a

precise definition of art or the qualities something must possess in order to be labeled

"art") think that art without some kind of creative aspect is not art. So, instead of dealing

with "creative art," I'd prefer to keep it simple and deal with "creativity." That, to me, is not

altering reality but showing or allowing for a different way of seeing or experiencing

things. If I am made to see something in a new or unique way, I tend to think I've

experienced creativity. That doesn't mean "reality" has been altered, it means something

about my perspective changing. --Fred

Dave, I don't think you are going to get anything more enlightening until you define your question a bit more.

If you drop a nuclear bomb on something, that alters reality quite considerably, but I wouldn't call it creative art myself.<P>

But perhaps there are people who would.

I think some tongue in cheek going on here. My first reaction was to take the Mick. But

some of you are serious, not sure you'd find it amusing. Bother ......

 

Altered reality (in a photographic image) - some drug induced creation by a layman.

Creative Art - any creation made by an artist whether he be dead sober, on LSD or any

other mind altering substance.

 

You see artists make art and everyone else doesn't.

 

I'm not answering any flack that comes from this post, be warned! But watching eagerly.

I believe that altering reality is simply one small aspect of creative art. It does

not define it as such.

 

If communicating reality in photography was possible (it isn't, at least not

perfectly), itr would be record-making and not art. Those who practice this in

the name of art simply have produce I think is immensely boring - those highly

technical photos of nature or architecture or other man-made objects that are

interesting to look at, but hardly creative. They are often sold to the public as

"fine art."

You can't create art without altering reality.

You pretty much can't do ANYTHING without altering reality.

"You can't create art without altering reality."

 

Jeff, I have a feeling we've discussed this before, but can you direct me to two photographs, one just this side of the "Not Art" line and one just over the line on the other side. If this isn't possible, then all photography is not art, or all of it is.

Jeff, you seem to have omitted the concept of found art and the role of the viewer as separate from the creator.

What is reality? And why is it following me around?... t

"Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand." [Margery Williams, "The Velveteen Rabbit"]

creative art is a figment of the imagination (or someone's opinion), altered reality is a

actual physical thing (or someone's opinion)!!! hope that helps.

THE DIFFERENCE

 

Like horses

 

Men dream

 

In blinkers

 

Removed

 

In sleep

 

Awake then

 

Perceive

 

The night mare

Creative art is an interpretation of reality, not an alteration of reality.

Hanna, do you not think that interpretation is equivalent to alteration? I do,

because any interpretation is personal, and de facto, it alters the reality.

Reality cannot be altered, it alters us. Art, of which there really is very little, touches reality, through imagination is in contact with it, although it cannot name it. Art acknowledges, celebrates, indeed revels in and reveals this defeat by reality. What we call creativity is almost 100% fantasy, propagating the notion that reality is simply whimsy, becoming a matter of vanity, a symptom of fear. Art and reality takes courage however that may manifest itself.

A world war II B-17 pilot was desparately nursing his flak crippled airplane just off the surface of the English channel. As he approached the looming White Cliffs of Dover he knew had to climb to clear those cliffs. He pleaded with his airplane using terms such as "come on baby, you can do it." As he got closer he kept exhorting the airplane but he was just above stall speed and if he raised the nose the airplane would sink. In the movie he made it. In real life he ultimately hit the cliffs. Giving life to inanimate objects with some expectation of response is called anthopropathy. Hitting the cliffs was reality. Believing that you can communicate with an airplane is attempting to alter reality and was done several times in WW II movies. Airplanes used to respond to the hero; usually at the very last moment. Were these movies art? I happen to think so. I loved it when the protagonists were saved. I love old airplanes(mainly because I flew a few of them) and I am an incurable aviation romantic. I have made some pretty good aviation pictures. As an old, broken down, crotch sprung aviator they are my comfortable altered reality.

Fred, you win.

Fred...I should add that your first post is pure hot air. But that's "philosophy" for you: Can't live with it, can't live without it (unless one has a life).