I'm in this one discussion with my friends and we're wondering should vector -tracing- be considered art.
I know for sure that it requires alot of skill and patience. But since you're just copying down something that was already drawn or whatnot (ie. Anime/Manga/Photograph), but you're not really creating something new.
It's tracing, i.e. not art.
Unlike >>2, it would have to be something added, not reduced.
It's not art, but sometimes it's nice when it's larger high-res, clearer than the original.
>>4
Not at all! The omission of detail can bring just as much to a work as the addition.
no.
i've done many traces. though i'm not a big enough faggot to post them online and show off, since the only thing i did was put forth an effort to make it scaleable.
there is some skill behind it, but is by no means art. anyone who says otherwise is likely a shitty artist who just wants to have something they can call creative
>>10
Anti-art is art. At least according to pretentious modernists.
Pierre Pinoncelli attacked 'reproductions' with a hammer and urinated in one.
Does that make his 'performance' anti-anti-art?
Or does it become art due to the double negative?
Are both artists simply frauds or is it just the unappreciated one?
if a modernist was in a closed environment where there was no one they could show off to would they be pretensious?
Art is a the subjective appreciation of aesthetic properties.
>>13
If a tree fell in a forest, and nobody heard it, would it still be art?
if you are tracing a flat image exactly, just to make it scalable, you are basically converting filetypes and it isnt art
but turning something like a photograph into a flat vectored image takes lots of skill and artistic interpretation, that is most definitely art