Jalfrezi,
Not really fully understanding your stance of actors not being artists, or musicians not being the artists but the composer is, so I have some questions if you will entertain me.
Let's say I am a rich independent producer, and I decide I want a film (and artistic one at that!).
So i hire myself a director, a writer, some actors and I say, look, what I am financing here is an artistic film about two lost dogs and a cat who meet some hobos going across the country and they go on grand trip and learn about life and love and humanity.
The writers write the story, the directors and cinematographer film the thing, the actors give a stellar set of performances, transforming the written word and taking the direction making it all so visceral. All along the way all parties involve are intending to make art.
Is the resulting cinematic film a work of art? Who in this process do you believe can call themselves artists? And as the originator of the whole thing, do I?
Frankly I find your positions and arguments in this thread absurd and lacking in rigorous principle.
And feel free to take a crack at my earlier two questions if you could
Quote:
Originally Posted by HastenDan
Can programs then be artists themselves and then their output be art?
My answer is of course between 'Yes' and 'it depends on how words are being defined'.
But I would still consider their creator an artist in their own right.