Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

998552 Posts in 39166 Topics- by 30579 Members - Latest Member: MEGAMAD

April 19, 2014, 09:44:09 PM
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGeneralFight Thread Pollution! Post here if it's not worth a new thread!!!
Pages: 1 ... 964 965 [966] 967 968 ... 1199
Print
Author Topic: Fight Thread Pollution! Post here if it's not worth a new thread!!!  (Read 1202318 times)
C.A. Sinner
Schlagerstar
Global Moderator
Level 10
******



View Profile
« Reply #14475 on: February 25, 2013, 04:43:59 PM »

thanks, makes more sense now  Smiley
Logged

nikki
Level 10
*****


View Profile Email
« Reply #14476 on: February 26, 2013, 12:30:52 AM »

new things need old idea to express themselves. For example depending on when or where the concept of car is created it would assume vastly different form.

huh ?
Isn't that(cars) a prime example of new things evolving from the past instead of being all new and impossible to grasp ?

as in horseless carriage

as in the first cars (don't matter when or where) were just carriages where the horses/donkey/lamas whatever where taken off and a little engine was placed in instead.



where is that horse ?!

or am  perhaps missing your point completely ?
Logged
Gimym JIMBERT
Level 10
*****


Feminism is back!


View Profile Email
« Reply #14477 on: February 26, 2013, 12:54:12 AM »

Yep the idea of car is even older, I think the first horseless carriage is traced back to greece but not sure (there was a huge missing opportunity for mankind to develop steam and gears at that time).

However that pretty much demonstrate my point, the idea of "horseless carriage" use an existing idea to express its difference: it's a carriage EXCEPT without horse, which is a re composition. Car is not immensely original by the way, the wheel is a much radical new idea, car fall more into refinement (streamlining an existing idea). And today car are so streamline that, while the idea remain, the form has changed and lost reference to the original influential form, showing that idea ISN'T in the form or influence. But that's not just car, horseless carriage as also given birth to most wheeled motor based transportation.

But the essence of an idea is so illusive it's not capture well by language, it's a bit more than a concept, it's meaningful but not for it's own sake. Some people define idea as solving a problem, but expression is not a "deep" practical problem yet art is creative, yet expression alone is not creativity.

And it's rare an idea is alone, it's generally a "complex of idea", ie an aggregation of idea, generally with a main idea supported by many small idea that allow this idea to be realized.

Creation is the process of taking a meaningful idea that exist as a potential and transform it into a realization when there is no obvious way to do it. Creation is more than often solving to realize, which mean searching and finding, to uncover what was not define.

Creating is defining what wasn't define yet by realization.
Logged


ILLOGICAL, random guy on internet, do not trust (lelebĉcülo dum borobürükiss)
Leon Fook
Level 3
***


Ohh hi, or something like that.


View Profile Email
« Reply #14478 on: February 26, 2013, 01:30:16 AM »

Is Gimmy always say something this deep? Undecided

Anyway, what's the first thing/visual representation in your mind when you heard of the word like micro-organism or cell?
Logged
nikki
Level 10
*****


View Profile Email
« Reply #14479 on: February 26, 2013, 01:30:59 AM »

yeah I've heard the term "horseless carriage" the first time in art-theory to illustrate how you are unable to create fully new ideas, and even if you could how the world would not have it.
You would just be a crazy person.

People need to advance from stuff they know.

For example that wheel of yours.. probably there was a time where people used wet mud to move heavy stuff then someone figured you could use rolling tree trunks then the step to wheels wasn't as big as before. probably still took many generations though..

I personally always like the broomstick thing, I believe there was this hand duster for eons before someone finally figured you could just put a stick on it and save your back from aching as much.


Quote
For example look at art as an idea, it start as a mix of skills, social status, communication, sacred, representation, etc ... as it evolve some aspect became streamline (design) other get branched (craft), etc...
Depending on your definitions this is mildly wrong to completely wrong.
Art (for arts sake) is a rather new invention (19th century) where crafts and design go back much much further.(stoneage) Unless you mean something else with art?

I do like your original post (on borderlands ripping artstyle/artdirection/scens/shots) and it makes me sad people get away with it and be praised on their innovative ways, while they are just stealing styles. Usually the "good artists copy but great artists steal" Picasso quote isn't very far at that point. I once read where that quote originally came from (Picasso just copied it) but I cannot find it anymore (damn you steve jobs)
Logged
Impmaster
Level 10
*****


Scary, isn't it?


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #14480 on: February 26, 2013, 02:00:22 AM »

Art (for arts sake) is a rather new invention (19th century) where crafts and design go back much much further.(stoneage) Unless you mean something else with art?

What about all those Renaissance artists? The Renaissance happened in the 14th to 16th centuries, and from it, we have Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Botticelli.....

I'm sure they made art for art's sake as well.... Maybe a little bit for money.
Logged

Do I need a signature?
nikki
Level 10
*****


View Profile Email
« Reply #14481 on: February 26, 2013, 02:36:02 AM »

All of which are great and even greater. And then even more  
But have nothing to do with art for art's sake

but this is what  I mean with my
Quote
Unless you mean something else with art?
I am not going down this route I've had these discussions before where different people have their own definitions. I already give up Wink
Logged
C.A. Sinner
Schlagerstar
Global Moderator
Level 10
******



View Profile
« Reply #14482 on: February 26, 2013, 03:16:10 AM »

weren't at least the seeds for that planted in the renaissance tho, with the founding of the first art academies and consequently the shift in the role of the artist in society? (the artist as artisan vs the artist intellectual)

whatever, i disagree w/ more or less everything gimmy is saying but i dont feel like constructing an argument for it atm.  Tired
Logged

crowe
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #14483 on: February 26, 2013, 05:12:04 AM »

Yep the idea of car is even older, I think the first horseless carriage is traced back to greece but not sure (there was a huge missing opportunity for mankind to develop steam and gears at that time).

This is a myth. The first steam engine, as in something that used steam power to move a vehicle, was created at the end of the 18th century (from which development slowly matured into modern car engines.)

You're thinking of the Archimedes steam gun, which is sometimes thought to be apocryphal, as no direct evidence of his designing it exists. All we have are much, much later descriptions, and then a diagram by Leonardo da Vinci, who considering his proclivities may have just heard about the device's imagined properties and designed his own. In any case, the steam-gun as set down by Leonardo is an entirely different design from a steam engine: it was a cannon that slowly built up steam power in order to fire an object out of the barrel (like a pvc pipe and dry ice). The device was inefficient -- and of course materials technology did not exist to build anything capable of taking advantage of the pressures needed to actually build a locomotive machine. Consider that it took over a hundred years to get from the aeolipile (literally just a ball with holes that spun around) to the horseless carriage.


A tip: people who write about what the ancients knew in this manner are usually wrong. And probably didn't do the research either, of course, but this is the internet so why should they bother?
Logged
unsilentwill
Level 8
***


O, the things left unsaid!


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #14484 on: February 26, 2013, 09:21:41 AM »

I'm pretty sure he's thinking more of the Greek Odometer, as well as the aeolipile (closer to an engine than you give credit). People weren't scooting around in togas and carts, but the gear tech and propulsion is way older than we all assume. This is why we all geek out about the Antikythera mechanism, we like to think of complexity as recent when it's not.

As far as this weird discussion on creativity, the stealing and inspiration from an old current concept can vary wildly, from a complete (but still reliant) opposition and rejection to minor but substantial changes in function. I think the key is to fit the old idea to its new or desired purpose and context instead of assuming "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and just copy/pasting without considering the overall design. That process can lead to huge change, enough to appear original. Also I've found the biggest source of creativity is interdisciplinary, where something mundane in one field fits so well with the trends in another that no one sees it coming.
Logged
seagaia
Level 10
*****


this is okay


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #14485 on: February 26, 2013, 03:17:58 PM »

im drinkin root beer
Logged

Gimym JIMBERT
Level 10
*****


Feminism is back!


View Profile Email
« Reply #14486 on: February 26, 2013, 03:25:22 PM »

@nikki
We don't disagree about art, I'm saying that art and many notion that were later separate from art where NOT separate at the beginning, but slowly were as refinement happen. The notion of art for art's sake is certainly as old as art itself, the revolution brought by romanticism is just a shift of power, in culture were art and sacred is barely separated, the monk are effectively doing art for art's sake, and there is a lot of record of artist among all culture who wish they could do just that and not care about anything else. But remember art was not always the domain of the ego of the artist and his internal turmoils, it was the domain of gods and the artist merely just had inspiration by seeking transcendence, they were channel for the spirits.

On horseless carriage, i'm talking about the idea not the realization, the technology was there at that time but never gel (hence no creation).
Logged


ILLOGICAL, random guy on internet, do not trust (lelebĉcülo dum borobürükiss)
C.A. Sinner
Schlagerstar
Global Moderator
Level 10
******



View Profile
« Reply #14487 on: February 26, 2013, 03:32:49 PM »

Quote
But remember art was not always the domain of the ego of the artist and his internal turmoils, it was the domain of gods and the artist merely just had inspiration by seeking transcendence, they were channel for the spirits.
i'd argue that those are essentially the same thing
Logged

Gimym JIMBERT
Level 10
*****


Feminism is back!


View Profile Email
« Reply #14488 on: February 26, 2013, 04:08:37 PM »

In practice yes, in social dynamics and the relation we had with art, no.

The reason Modernism was such a huge shift is because before the traditional representation was tied to its spiritual origin. Basically GODS was the keeper of values and beauty, the artist then further interpret in its own style and sensibility but good artist was "gifted" by god, there was no responsibility for the art, at best the artist could be possessed.

This allowed a common framework to discuss the merit of such or such style, there were only one canon. Even invention like perspectives wasn't purely technical but assessed by their symbolic value (vanishing point as everything return to god's eye). The artist status went through many phases (here is a very loose recap for illustration):

- At first the artist and the sacred were the same, monk, priest etc... the sacred were the holder of social power.

- The king and similar title use art to glorified themselves as representation on earth of god, so the artist move to the service to power.

- When the merchant class gained power, they used the tropes of power to their own advantage, creating the "mecenat"  (not sure the english for).

- Ultimately artist start to turned their eyes to the mundane and the pious.

- Which evolve in the glorification of everydays until the artist proclaim his own eyes as sacred with romanticism and separate itself from effective social power.

- But such a tradition was turn toward the external world as a manifestation of god and then a conception beauty as a substitute of god but still holding the same value. As technical understanding allowed deconstruction of reality and render old tradition and the status of artist as obsolete. It allowed deep aspect of art, such as composition to be free from tradition and be explored as itself, which ultimately turn art into design, which is the ultimate mastery of the "craft" by manipulating his atomic component to achieve ANY kind of expression. Beauty has became a personal conception, difficult to share without "gods" as a common reference, artist was "god"

- Postmodern bring the DIY philosophy which furthered the disempowering of artist as a social class, despite the remain of a decrepit high art as a culture, opening the art to many parallel cultures (which robs high art is special place, being just one circle among too many) and bringing access to the mass to the skills and knowledge, placing the viewer above the artist. Art was never as personal and free as today. There is no more gods. But remains of the tradition is still there, we still consider art as a sacred elements that date backs to its origin even if art has tremendously change and our relation to it too.

That's what I called the Promethean history of art, fire was stolen from gods to bring light to humanity.
Logged


ILLOGICAL, random guy on internet, do not trust (lelebĉcülo dum borobürükiss)
C.A. Sinner
Schlagerstar
Global Moderator
Level 10
******



View Profile
« Reply #14489 on: February 26, 2013, 04:27:54 PM »

what you're saying is basically true but i'd say the role of art changed b/c society changed and the role of "the artist" relative to society didn't, or at least not as much. the way i see it, the "autonomy" rhetoric of modernism is just divine inspiration/artistic genius adapted to the ideology of materialism and leftwing politics that was popular at the time.

also im kinda surprised by your positive(?) assessment of postmodernism because i always thought that u advocated modernist formalism.
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 964 965 [966] 967 968 ... 1199
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic