THE WOOD said:im still confused as to why it got dropped too...and am wondering why "tv" is considered more important than "art"![]()
wouldnt it make more sense to post about film arts within a general art forum?
atlas said:The gallery is fucked. The software is a nightmare to navigate. The approval is a pain. The legal liabilities of posting and hosting are pressing. There isn't much ability to actually have a discourse, or a community. Besides, In the intervening years (since the gallery was formed) free image hosting has become something everybody has, and is comfortable with. Eliminating the gallery is a great idea in my opinion, and divesting its uses across the forums (lounge, SO, EADD, OZsoc, the drug discussion forums) makes good sense to me. Maybe if SO got all the traffic that the gallery art sections got, a sub forum would be in order. Not a full forum though. Not yet, anyway.
personally I find art pretty boring and have a complete lack of understanding as to why anyone would pay the stupid ammounts they do for paintings.........I mean lets face it, they pay millions for something thats old and cracked and half the paints falling off.........hell I got a house here just like that and you get a whole house worth of shitty paint.
L2R said:i'd support the forum (and possibly even contribute a thing or two) but i'm not sure about the demand.
what i don't understand is: why do people consider painting and visual art as "art" yet music, film, literature, dance, sport, arseraping, science, acting and the countless other artforms are only subrecognised as such.
bah!
atlas said:they are considered as such. The line between high and low culture (others words, not mine) is just way thicker in visual art.