[so]

Go with the brighter hue, the blue is so done. The brighter one could use even more vibrant colors imo. Future doesn't have to be depressing. And even it is, it doesn't need to be emphasizes with depressing colors. Dystopia presented with lively real world colors and brightness, can be much more depressing than just using dark grays and blues.

I feel that this music discussion should have its own topic... I would not like to participate here.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-TrAvp_xs

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPEETWZOBUA

oh god whic one is art?? help me google image search help me

Thats easy, both are.

What the hell are you reading into my post?

? Very hostile man you are.

@1982
I'm hostile to lack of integrity, there is something hypocrite about bashing thing you didn't take time to ponder just to feel good about yourself. It's not the melodramatic deformation you just made. It's not just about NOT enjoying, or just doing the same basic stuff, it's about the lack of respect about difference. I'm not oppose to critical opposition, but I have no patience if you just don't care. Alsso, a life where you don't try to enrich yourself is even more miserable, you don't have to go to the caricature you paint to push yourself, it only takes to try and some discipline, it does not even takes effort.

But everything you say there, that is everything that is automatically included in creating art. That what makes the whole thing fun. Seeing, experiencing, learning new things you didn't know of about art outside. Later it will reflect to your personal work through your sub-consciousnesses, or even deliberately. You may not see the change at the time, but you later see how your art evolves, how you try new things. Creative process is in constant change, even you only think you do stuff what is most fun at the time. I've seen that personally in 15 years I've done stuff, and I think I have quite board experience history of art outside. That is at least something I have deliberately trying to achieve.

But I am still proud of being able to let myself loose from outside exceptions. I only do art completely for myself, sometimes I show it to outside world and what ever happens happens. I don't really care. If positive feedback comes, it is bonus. If not, it doesn't matter.

Now you probably think that I am scumbag if I showcase art that is completely manufactured because 100% selfish reasons? Well, I never force anyone to experience my works. But I am not lying when I say that is the basis behind all my art which has become truly successful.

Yes sometimes I bash things, but it is completely because of matter of personal taste. It is like bashing ice cream that tastes crap.

there are some man-made things which are primary functional and only a little bit aesthetic, such as construction tools, some which are primarily aesthetic and only a little bit functional, such as cosmetics, and most which are a little of both, such as ipods

I am completely lost with the mug, congratulations  

Anyway, I feel that many construction tools have very high values of aesthetic. Making them quite interesting as art. Functionalism in purest form is quite high level art actually.

shitting on anything you don't know or don't understand, because yeah your stuff is what makes you fell good so anything less is worthless.

How can you make such assumptions? That sounds just overwhelmingly stupid. It doesn't mean that stuff I don't do, is someway worthless. Art has two functions, other is experiencing art and the other is creating art. They are not related any way. Sure there are matter of tastes, but even taste doesn't relate to objective analysis over something. I can easily understand why for example film Metropolis is notable work of art, even I don't enjoy it personally.

You are usually very relaxed person in these discussions, but how you sound so hostile about this?

What is so wrong of doing something you enjoy most? You can call it being easy, and staying in comfort zone, and not challenging itself, but you don't even know what kind of work of art you are referring to. I can say you, for example comedy/drama acting which I do a lot is everything but "comfort zone", "not-challenging", "easy" and I enjoy it a lot, just because of its very demanding in various levels.

So good art only comes through personal misery and overwhelming self-critique, and is something that has been made only for the audience in mind? That sounds horrible way of living for an artist.

art is any intentional artificial experience, and a liquid is not an intentional artificial experience unless a person created that liquid for the purposes of experience (e.g. spicy tea made by a chef for a customer would be art, but water alone, or orange juice alone, are not art)

Well, liquid been art or not, I don't still know how it would make the mug not art. And I didn't say you said liquids are art, or the performance of drinking them, I said that.

I've played video games for so many years and I've played a lot of video games that you're ranking highly, and I can say that they lack A LOT of what other forms have. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it should question your stance that video games are superior to other art forms, you know.

This is something I have experienced as well. While I somewhat accept the fact that VG is "lesser" form of artistic entertainment and enjoy as is, I don't quite like the artificial atmosphere where they try to be more than they are. That is very cheap imo...

How many videogames do you see that do that? And would you ever really want to?

Actually, when talking about games that happen in our real world, advertising adds value to it. For example NHL games have real adverts on the sides of the rink. So do they also in real life. It is elemental part of it. Same applies to racing games, but I haven't yet seen this used so much. Not aware of the most recent titles like Forza4 or GT5. I wouldn't mind some nice FP-game that happens in our world and dimension, that features ingame paid advertisment, like billboards, posters, what ever.

I blame it on romanticism who lauch "I want to feel important I'll make art how I feel and not caring", which is more about selfishness than art, but still is a valid way to get into art (encourage singularity of vision), but only if you are original to begin with, most "bad" artist use that to just babysit on convention and claiming it's their own vision. Now talk about spoil child who give art a bad rep (because they don't want to acknowledge anything that isn't themselves as worthy).

Well that was harsh.

For me as a viewer it is the end result that needs to be look at, not the ways of leading there. For me as a artist, I definitely fall into that "selfish romantic spoiled brat" artist category. And you can add even more negative adjectives there. There is no point making any art if you don't get the maximum enjoyment out of it. And kissing anyones buttocks by purpose is always a reduction from happiness. I agree that it should be built in genuine feature in artist persona, not wannabe or show off stuff. That would not be very cool.

You are also mixing up things, artist I talked about above and those who go to conventions claiming other peoples ideas, are not the same people. Those are only generally thought of being idiots, scumbags, or dorks.

How can anyone give art a bad reputation? We had media-artist who killed a cat, he give himself a bad reputation (in some degree) but hardly on art in general.

I've curiously read tens of pages of your views on art, and then you come up with something banal like this. Many of the examples you have given about art, are born from genuine romanticism.

Also there's nothing inherently wrong with thinking about art in a formal way like Gilbert does. It has nothing to do with being a programmer or w/e, formalism in art has existed for a long time and is generally accepted/respected as a valid way to approach art.

All art discussions and valuing are about formalism...

You are thinking like a programmer and dealing in logical constructs, "In order to be artgame, game must have these properties". Think like a gam designer instead of a programmer.

I believe they are actually the game designers themselves that think like that, not coders. Coders usually only solve the technical challenges set by designers. And I truly wish that designers would end such form of thinking.

but i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's more dominant in videogames than in any other medium.

Hmm, it seems like it yeah... Thou I think that status of any area of art should not be judged by it's mainstream branch, but by its underground or indie movement. From that aspect, I must say that music and films are lightyears ahead.

Some people here does not have read the thread at all and are pinning on a very small part, sad

That is usually problem in such long discussions as this.

If you want to spoil the 2001 experience, there is two very interesting explanations for it which either add a ton of "depth" or kill the whole thing:


1. You must see the monolith as a Stanley Kubrick himself
2. You must see the monolith as a presentation of film screen

I hear the end is better when watched while playing Pink Floyd in the background.

Why ruin good film?

More explicitly, I bring up two points which look plain on the surface, but are actually both quite subtle and deep: Entertainment isn't art. Neither is beauty.

Those are only adjectives.

i'd say that something is not art if its purpose is purely functional utility rather than existing to be experienced

computer

mug

I think that is kind of a weak definition. You are going into complicated area where you ask if a thought is art. Yes mug is art, picture on mug is art, the liquid in it is art, the performance of drinking that liquid is art. What is left? Nothing. Except the very first idea or thought of "there has to be a mug to drink from". Is that art? If you say that art has to be able to experience, then possibly its not art because only person itself can experience his own thoughts. If I think something, but you dont know what and never will, is that art? If it is for me, is it enough?

In the end, the idea behind the mug however is being experienced so it becomes art at least that point.

Functionality can not out rule art in any case. I don't even know if such thing as pure functionality exists.

2001 is quite excellent, assuming you ignore the two other movies (at the beginning and the end) that bookend the REAL film (aka the part with HAL).

While the whole film is great, those two parts you mentioned are easily best parts of the film. What is your definition for REAL film?

sure they are, when drawn by a person and not a computer or some other mechanical process

Well.. I wouldn't say so. The computer and software it runs is designed, crafted and arranged by a person(s). Even it maybe isn't meant to be to produce art, it still does. How about category of "glitch art"? Its purpose is to see what kind of art computer produces by "accident". Thou it involves human to pick the interesting glitches from non-interesting glitches, but I see it as closest genuine possible form of art that computer can produce being as independent as possible. ...And we havent even touched the area of art produced by artificial intelligence yet.



Sure there are levels inside glitch art which involve more or less human input to produce various glitches. It is sometimes hard to tell which is accidental and which done deliberately unless you know.

Very interesting question might be what definitely is NOT art? I have thinking about nature for many years and if it is art or not. Sure when you level rain forests with Caterpillars, it can be seen as art. But how about rain forest in its purest form, seemingly untouched? Can the  nature be seen as artificially generated art? ...Then again, it seems that there is no human input behind creating the nature, or the mechanics that create nature. Does there have to be human input? If aliens come here and present their art, is it considered as art? Can a birds nest be seen as art?