Thread 4456183

HACKS

>period.

This jpg is lovely to look at, and if the photographer assembled this assortment of her own photos, this would be a great artistic achievement, even though its tacky

But if she didn't take any of these photos, or like the other ones you see where its like a dude superimposed in space and they cut it out of magazines from 50 years ago. All hacks and theifs to boot. This is my 2nd thread ever in this board

>>4456183 (OP)
But can you take your very own photo of a tree? Didn't think so

Tree or GTFO

This genre of artist is the least talented and most self righteous in the world. They are HACKS AND THEIVES. 1/2 THIS GUYS FUCKING PHOTO PLUS ONE HALF THE OTHER GUYS PHOTO EQUALS (=) 50 ON VENMO INTO MY WALLET RIGHT NOW BITCH THIS IMAGERY IS MIINE

>>4456189
This looks shopped

sounds like you envy them

>>4456187
thank you for being online with me

The EXACT same thing goes for music samples. All that is, is unoriginality, and theft. Just because its legal doesn't mean it's right either

>>4456192
Do you even own a camera?

>>4456194
This is my 2nd thread ever but go check out my third thread but it requires reading comprehension

>>4456193
yeah

>>4456183 (OP)
They're just kids, OP. You were young and dumb once too, and like everyone, disporportionally proud of some trite olde mundane shit you thought was revolutionary too. I mean jesus christ look at the Billboard Top 100 over the last 50 years. Damn near every song on there is utter forgettable garbage, but kids thought every one of them was really fantastic and made them the most popular songs in the world, one after another. Generally, taste comes from life experience, and looking to kids for either is a mistake.

>>4456183 (OP)
i'm sorry but found art and remix/sampling ethos is based
you haven't produced any convincing arguments to change my mind

>>4456183 (OP)
Uh oh did she finally end it with you? Melting down isn't going to fix it.

>>4456284
It was based when it was formalized. ...but that was 50 years ago already. By the time Mutt Lange sampled Aerosmith & Run DMC it was mainstream, and it's been a cliche ever since. For a couple decades, the big defense was that it WASN'T an excuse for being an unimaginitive hack and regurgitating other peoples work & passing it off as your own as your "influences". 50 years later, to still be making the same shit with the same fucking samples is way, wayyy more proof of having none of your own ideas than the initial sampling. You want your shit to have integrity, make the original content AND THEN sample your own work in collage, then you'll have caught up to where the discussion was on remix culture in 1972. That is how far behind current art education is in the US, thinking this is all new when these are very old ideas that have been explored to death.

>>4456277
t. irrelevant old hasbeen or neverwas

>>4456301
you speak as if the works shown and what we talk about with sampling in general aren't transformative but rather attempting to clone the original work. personally i don't even care about the >muh integrity >muh originality arguments because i just want to see people make cool stuff. if someone 'cheated' to make an artwork, maybe i won't enjoy the meta narrative quite as much, but good stuff is good.
these arguments fall flat when literally itt the examples given are beyond what any of the source material creators envisioned. the new work is completely different from the sources, literally a new idea presented. also a fair amount of the time, the recognizability of the sample is part of the point.
furthermore i'm very curious what you have to say at the end of the >you have to create everything yourself or it's not legitimate road. what constitutes a paintbrush with integrity to you? does a guitarist have to craft their own guitar or risk stealing the guitar manufacturer's work? how does your framework apply to live action movies? do you require every prop, costume, location, and set to be fabricated by the production company itself?
honestly i feel like 2/3 of the posts on this board are randomly generated test passages just to check whether the viewers are awake. personally, i find most collages tacky. that's ok. i like less than 1% of the volume of even my favorite genres of anything. merely the act of creation is neat and i love when people get into creative expression. so i'm not some sort of collage artist champion. but you're going to have to give me something more substantial if you want to convince me of anything you are saying

>>4456309
The guitar is not the artwork.

>>4456183 (OP)
>But if she didn't take any of these photos
Isn't it already well established in the art world that claiming others' art as your own can be considered artistic because art inherently doesn't belong to anyone but to art itself or something like that? Why do you feel the need to take the photos yourself? Is that what you want to see when you look at an image, someones image capturing what you see? Or would you prefer to focus on the art itself?

>>4456356
sure, faulty analogy. still haven't heard a good reason people shouldn't take existing works, chop them up, and rearrange them at will

>>4456309
>>4456309
I think that curating a selection of other's work is an entirely separate artform. It can range from an aesthetically pleasing composition, to telling a story via composition (and I would argue the latter is an artform, whereas the former is like a half-art). As an example from music DJing is on a spectrum from "play slop to keep the crowd happy" to "a curated musical experience" which is analogous to my previous example. Thing are taken even further once you consider people who remix music live to create something entirely new.

No faggot
Appropriation art is 4chan
Go back to plebbit

You can call out these individual hack foid artists but you can't dismiss a whole genre. Women are generally hacks.