Is Vector Tracing actually art? (18)

1 Name: Nanamika!/yK8Jhnzzo : 2007-12-30 18:16 ID:3VW9iF3V

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.

2 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-30 18:23 ID:Heaven

I really hate trying to decide what is and what isn't art, so I'll refrain from that.

Vector tracing is an uninteresting derivative work unless the tracer takes some pretty drastic liberties (i.e. significant reduction of detail resulting in a rather curious change to the whole mood of the work).

3 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-30 20:56 ID:Heaven

4 Name: tripcodessuck!3GqYIJ3Obs : 2007-12-31 04:57 ID:Rb7udh5x

It's tracing, i.e. not art.
Unlike >>2, it would have to be something added, not reduced.

5 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-31 05:57 ID:Heaven

It's not art, but sometimes it's nice when it's larger high-res, clearer than the original.

6 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-31 07:09 ID:Heaven

>>4
Not at all! The omission of detail can bring just as much to a work as the addition.

7 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-31 13:57 ID:shNTziPE

8 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-31 18:57 ID:xT+QZ6Xu

Personally, I'd say No.

But if we're discussing what is widely considered art:
Easy and accessible doesn't mean it's not art.
Reproduction, templates or outright plagiarism doesn't mean it's not art.
This question goes back to things like painting by numbers and readymades.
If this is art and is worth $3.4 million, I don't see how tracing shouldn't be considered art.

9 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-31 22:45 ID:Q/cDsHSw

no.

10 Name: Anonymous : 2008-01-01 07:03 ID:Rb7udh5x

>>8
Duchamp's fountain is Dada, which is anti-art.

11 Name: Anonymous : 2008-01-01 20:37 ID:ahmb4GPV

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

12 Name: Anonymous : 2008-01-02 00:35 ID:xT+QZ6Xu

>>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?

13 Name: Anonymous : 2008-01-02 02:59 ID:Heaven

if a modernist was in a closed environment where there was no one they could show off to would they be pretensious?

14 Name: Anonymous : 2008-01-02 13:01 ID:r45F9zEf

Art is a the subjective appreciation of aesthetic properties.

15 Name: Anonymous : 2008-01-02 23:49 ID:Heaven

Art is a word.

16 Name: Anonymous : 2008-01-03 05:45 ID:TckBmIt5

>>13
If a tree fell in a forest, and nobody heard it, would it still be art?

17 Name: Anonymous : 2008-01-03 13:57 ID:Heaven

It wouldn't be art even if someone did hear it.

18 Name: Anonymous : 2008-01-15 19:48 ID:DnoNRCzM

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

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.