They are pictures taken by a nano microscope. Nice enough, but look at the headline: ”Nano Photos Rival Modern Art”
Either the headline is stupid, or I am. How are the pictures not ”modern art” themselves? Sure, the pictures were not taken with the intent of making a work of art (although I suppose they were colorized afterwards with that intent). But does it really matter? Surely it can't be the INTENTION when something is created that ultimately decides whether it is a piece of art or not. That would disqualify many real masterpieces. And it can't be the method. You can take delight in the fact that you've created something using a thing so unromantic as an electron microscope, but it still just another method. To say anything else would imply that there are limits to what equipment you can use to create art. So, the nano photos do not ”rival modern art”. If they rival anything, they rival OTHER WORKS of modern art.
written by Mattias
Art in itself is a very fickle thing I think. To begin discussing the definition of art is, in my opinion, a bit pointless. And I agree with you that the title is slightly stupid, I can't see how this would rival art in any way.
The image you are referring to could indeed be classified as art if one wanted to, just hang it in a gallery and you are at least halfway there. Marcel Duchamp already set the standard with his urinal 90 years ago.
posted by Kjell
Isn't it quite uncommon for beautiful nature photos to be classified as art as well. Does it really matter if something's classified as art or not. Nature = beautiful, art = pretentious.
posted by Sam