monoimage Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 what is the difference between altered reality and creative art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Right this way: http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1941 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronaldo_r Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Emre, not all casual questions are philosophic. I think there's no difference, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monoimage Posted July 26, 2007 Author Share Posted July 26, 2007 Thankyou for your response as you say its not black/white Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Creative seeing is a form of creative art and does not require altering reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 <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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 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 We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin carron Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Dave, I don't think you are going to get anything more enlightening until you define your question a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith selmes Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennifer_durand Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 You can't create art without altering reality. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 You pretty much can't do ANYTHING without altering reality. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Jeff, you seem to have omitted the concept of found art and the role of the viewer as separate from the creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 What is reality? And why is it following me around?... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin carron Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 "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"] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bizon Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des adams Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 THE DIFFERENCE Like horses Men dream In blinkers Removed In sleep Awake then Perceive The night mare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanna_cowpe Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Creative art is an interpretation of reality, not an alteration of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des adams Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DickArnold Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Fred, you win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now