next »

[anonymous]

I wrote this recently and wanted to hear what people think.  And I hope it serves as inspiration for those who doubt their creative abilities, I've had to get over a lot moving away from the all to serious soul-sucking fine arts to game development.

----------------------------------------------------

I come from a background in fine arts but have since moved in the direction of illustration and story-telling which fits nicely with my hobby of making games.  Illustration and story-telling allows one to give into their dreams, their nightmares, their imagination something that gets lost in our struggle to grow up, to think like an adult.  Both illustration and story-telling is found in the roots of every culture in it's folk tales, art, and the games that adults and children adopt and play.  Every person can weave a story, and if not physically illustrate, everyone has the ability to illustrate it in their mind.  That's quite the beauty of folk art, it's accessible to everyone, it's an expression of the individual's imagination, and no-two person's imagination is exactly the same, we all imagine stories different [until a movie comes out and fools you all].  To me games are apart of that tradition, moving from printed format to something more interactive and involving, that plays on our dreams, our nightmares, our fantasies - all of which in some regard have been written off as childish.  Yet I feel it's so essential to the development of a healthy individual, it's far to common to find these qualities of creativity and imagination being repressed.

The art industry, is just that, another industry, seeking to maximize profits by asking artists to be the most innovative, the most creative, and yet it's quite sterile.  Maybe I'm just not hip enough to be a fine artist.  However I think the worse thing to do to one's creativity is to go to art school, it instills one with all sorts of taboos, all sorts of what art is and what art isn't, everyone will have that subjective opinion influenced by the subjective opinions of their peers, teachers, and dead farts in text books.  Instead of making art for yourself it becomes about your audience, it's forced, instead of using an imagination, the creative process becomes centered around logic and reasoning.  That's also wonderful the work that comes out but it's a different kind of creativity, that often shadows the former, however the former is nourishing.

Rather than trusting intuition, we as individuals, second guess ourselves, instead of making art for arts sake [the zen of art], it becomes art for ego, recognition, philosophical discussion, "innovation".  I feel that's a great error of the world, moving away from our childhood.  

At least as children we recognize when we're just playing a game.

[gimymblert]

There is a lot of thread about that already, I'm the fine culprit of some.

However I will attack one point, art for yourself will forever be bad art. The ego is easily mire into oneself and like patting himself on the back. This tradition is pretty young and came from the the romantics. While art for art sake is millennial old it was always about transcendence ie reaching a higher purpose, to connect the ego with "truth". However today's ego is the truth, it's nothing more but the very definition of selfishness and the contradiction of "expression". If art is about the ego, why discuss it, showing it and get mad when nobody recognize the greatness of the piece, or when the mass shrug their mind and turn their back? Isn't this about getting love, fame and recognition and NOT expression? The humility of a artist is always to seek a greater purpose and to show it to people whether they like it or not, because it was worth showing them, not because it's "great" and deserve more. That said many thing I found soulless are just that, artist truly trying to reach a higher purpose, even if this is just to please its audience, the fact I found their art soulless is just me valuing "soulness" of art higher than "audience". Not to forget that art was not always tied to intuition and logic was always a big part of it, just look back at all those "rules" of composition, anatomy, shape, forms, colors, it's one of the most heavily structured field "have a vanishing point, add blue in the dark, create a hierarchy, make use of contrast", that's pure logic and reasoning! Creativity or souls was never hinder by that.

Now you may reject introspection and reflexion as being "philosophical", but that's just what your post was, a philosophy with some pat on the back, because the I is all you want to care, but don't admit it

Hope this does not come out as harsh but a bit of challenge might be needed for this discussion

[anonymous]

you're good. : )

I don't believe in ideas of "bad art", qualifying is and only subjective.  for that matter "what is art" and "what isn't art" is and only subjective.  I also don't believe in dogma, that makes art to be something other than what one decides for himself.

I characterize art for oneself, simply as the process of art and the exercise of the imagination.  The imagination, a spring often limited by doubt.  The process of art an exercise of the imagination without doubts, an imagination without hindrances.  Exploring such an imagination is for many uncharted territory, and highly creative and lends itself very much so to story-telling and illustration.  

What I talk about is the practice and process of art, and a mindset, one that has little get in the way of expression.  Common things that get in the way are learned ideas of [like I said] "what is art and what isn't" "good art and bad art" "right technique" "theory" and various feelings of inadequacy spurred on by experience, the existence of art schools, critics, doubt, past artwork.  Yes there are many examples of pleasant artwork, what looks good to the eye, and there's a science behind that, books written.  It can be argued that creativity is thus boxed into what qualifies as good art, art that meets requirements. I feel if you want to speak about creative channels, all these doubts and hindrances coming together block those channels and put your view of art into a narrow frame of mind.

But what I mean by art for yourself, I mean soul food, something to nourish you and you only through the process of making, imagining trusting your imagination, dreams, and feelings.  Simply that.  Placing not a single limit on yourself.  It's a discipline.

I bet you'll agree, social norms, status quo, have all been learned and therefore not inherent, and therefore a cosmic joke.  Ego is here to stay but one can learn to be humble.  One can learn to play.

Blah blah talk talk more words to get in the way. just do it.

[DavidCaruso]

I've written several essay-length posts on this in past weeks so I'll just concentrate all the controversy into plain bullet points this time.

1) Restrictions breed creativity. There's a reason all those conventions were established and refined by generations of artists, and it wasn't so that they could feel creatively trapped.
2) "Art for art's sake" is BS. The purpose of creating most things is to share them, usually with people similar to yourself, and great art comes from dedication and talent, not just the intention to make art. Many of the best artists didn't create "art for art's sake," a lot of the time they even created "art for their financial backers' sake."
3) Great paintings/movies/games are more artistic than bad paintings/movies/games.
4) Self-expression is just the natural result of ability and creativity put together to make a coherent, well-done work. It's not an explicit goal which an artist needs to aim for in order to achieve. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the more an artist says he aims for it, the more likely it is he's a bad artist.
5) "Messages" in art are usually laughable and/or shallow. No need to pay much attention to them, let alone use them to judge a work's merit.
6) There's no such thing as objectively bad art but there are more or less intelligent subjective standards. Subjectivity doesn't mean everything is equal.
7) What makes something great art is always content, not form. Think about how this applies to games, then think about how all the so-called most artistic games are called artistic on the basis of things like visuals, sound, and story.
8) I'm so, so sorry you had to go to art school. I hear that these days half the stuff they teach is postmodernism and art-rebellion Fight The Power movements.

[anonymous]

1) I don't believe that's the case, and that's your understanding
2) blah blah
3) subjective, on an individual basis, I like pollock apparently other people don't.  see what I am saying?
4) self-expression is not a goal, I agree.  an artist block is when creative processes have been blocked because there's too much in the way.
5) subjective
6) your tastes were learned, tell that to a child and ask them what they think of artwork you like.  or ask someone who's not gone to art school.  it's marketing.
7 ) one game you like and another person dislikes it.  i.e. passage. hate it, apparently it's genius.
8 ) assumptions. go figure.  dropout and proud of it.

reasoning, logic, opinion, dogma, let's find all the loopholes

[gimymblert]

I don't agree about doubt, doubt point you to darkness, to the unkwown, the intangible, the weird, the unspoken and the formless, in short the unexplored. Doubts is the signal of creativity. It's only when you bring light to darkness, made the unknown known, the weird normal, giving word to the unspoken and giving form to the formless that you are creative. Like lao tseu said: when you let go what you are, you become what you might be. The ego shine when he is not focus on itself. It's both an exercise of discipline and letting go (mugen state).

@david caruso

1 ) convention is not equal restriction. Restriction has to be meaningful to breed creativity, ie create doubts not comfort to the artist.

I will gloss over uniform and biased BS there and addressing the latest BS

8 ) I happen to be both autodidact and been in an artschool. Actually I was so disruptive (I start going deep about gamedesign) that they could not keep into the conventional cursus. Basically the director himself propose me after two year to stay in the school, have access to all course of all disciplines but not have a diploma because I could not fit the convention. It was also a political choice from them, they want to brag about strong personnality, they want me in art, I wanted to go in graphic design, they tried to force me but it backfire on them :/

Having said that, I want to point that in all artschool (at least in france) you have one to two year of propedeutics ONLY to learn classic way of doing thing, and if you are not good enough at handling those basics they do not accept you in higher class. Even in higher class you must provide sheet of exercise to prove you continue to train yourself regularly on classic stuff while you push your own take. That's a secular tradition, (yep even post modernist teacher use to teach classic stuff).

Now you hear thing, that's what WE said as insider, but this is a nuance only insider can get. It's like me saying mario galaxy was not good, well it is, but we are talking from a higher literacy point. You speak pretty much like the critics you despise :/

Shit too many art discussion make me a bit picky on that subject lately >.< I should drop the steam o_o'

edit:
@gr@mpa
It's like you seek immersion rather than expression. Hence the focus on "self expression". Ie art as a self therapy.


edit2:
Also it's easy to say we are creative those day, in human history we have never been so much creative. But the pallet in which we pull from is so large and diverse that's it's hard to see what's derivative and what's not, trend go and leave quicker than any other period in history, it's easy to look back and see the huge diversity of art at a single glance, not realizing those change happen in decade if not century. Because thing do not move from last year we start being bored of them. We are in a strange era of creation, where everything is accelerating, everything is possible and everyone can be an artist, if he really wants. I'm just afraid that the art ideal just cut people a bit more from reality to fiction, because that's where comfort is, that's where we are not threaten, in fantasy. I use to think that dream was only worth when they came back to strengthen reality, when they get REALized. Dream was not enough as a fiction he has to struggle to be real, seminal of new dream, making the reality and dream one and the same, not be a place to hide in fear.

In some sense I can understand Caruso's fear, that we may denied it those comfortable place to be made, place where he can escape from chaos, doubts and finally the fabric of reality, a world made of candy thrills and superficial beauty for the sense and the mind as any intelligence for intelligence sake is one another candy to feel better, superior, in control, in a world where the grasp seems to escape to us more and more. Creativity should be the answer, always bringing us further, a way to master our existence and exist in the real world, it should be our purpose, to adapt and and to master ourselves through a sheer dancing, not to be mire in the elusive temporality of the eternal fiction of the "solemn". I don't want to die in the warm womb in the mother, I want to stand firm in front of the coldness of reality and bring my own warmth to it, for me and for other.

[DavidCaruso]

man, did you really just reply to all that with "i disagree and that's just your opinion," without providing anything further? that's pretty much a discussion-terminating cliche right there

Not all individual opinions/tastes are equally valid or reasonable, and just because something's subjective doesn't mean it can't be discussed. Tastes are "learned" to some degree but not completely, because people aren't blank slates; we evolve and mature over time, but in general we're predisposed to a degree to like some things more than others. The specific things we like depends on our exposure, obviously, but the overall set of preferences is still there. Some people have never and will never like chiptunes or prog rock no matter how many songs you throw at them, and some people will go their entire life liking country music. I can't really see what that has to do with the particular point I was making there, though.

@Gilbert: Thanks for the info. I don't get the Mario Galaxy/game critic analogy though. And the steam is cool, these topics would be boring without any steam.

1) convention is not equal restriction. Restriction has to be meaningful to breed creativity, ie create doubts not comfort to the artist.

A convention is really just a general observation about what's pleasing to most people within an artform and what's not. It's developed by artists experimenting and refining their work as they receive feedback; over time, as many artists come to the same conclusions or look at the work of others, that refinement becomes a standard. Even within stylized mediums like pixel art, general drawing conventions like form, line, shape, color, etc. still carry over and in addition the medium has its own special set of conventions like antialiasing, because over time artists determined that these methods generally helped them create more pleasing art. What I'm trying to say is that these things don't necessarily hamper creativity, they can even serve as a springboard for it. Instead of starting from scratch you have the combined work of generations of artists to help you realize your vision and make it as amazing as you possibly can. I don't think breaking conventions just for the sake of it is a valuable thing to do at all.

EDIT: I can't make heads or tails of that second edit, really. But from my perspective, understanding and mastering reality is the domain of science and philosophy, whereas art is about transmitting a new kind of reality (or to be more precise, fooling our brains into thinking we're viewing, watching, or experiencing one.) Though in the end it's all connected: art has always evolved in tandem with science and technology, and in fact you could even see videogames as the ultimate expression of science, since they're literally attempting to completely discard prior "reality" and replace it with a "new" one.

[anonymous]

man, did you really just reply to all that with "i disagree and that's just your opinion," without providing anything further? that's pretty much a discussion-terminating cliche right there

Yes I did : P  More than anything I don't like broad statements that lump everyone's understanding, when that's not the case.  It's like eating a bad meal, I just didn't like it.

Initially I'd say conventions are helpful, but it is not good to rely on them, and at a certain point you can just trust eyes and the skill you've built up.  

I think though there's a certain amount of doubt in pixel-pushin-to-be's, leading to believe that they need the best programs to make the best work, or to learn all the theory and technique before hand about making a curved line, and just as they're ready to start they have to decide on choosing what colors to use.  They become dependent on self-help tutorials, and most likely give up before ever really trying.  I really don't think that any of that is necessary, and by constantly producing work you'll get comfortable working with any program and developing your palettes.  I have a sour taste in my mouth about self-help books, playing on the human condition to doubt one's self and profiting from that.  That kind of individual then takes towards the art too tentatively, they're work becomes very rigid, uninspired and is slow going.

I think individuals have a repressed imagination and creativity, and to me that's all you need to begin, and they shouldn't worry about theory and technique, just worry about flushing out those characters and scenery in some shape or form.

I'm also speaking against how game art is looked down as not being art, but stuff for children and entertainment value only.  And how the art world also serves to cut off your connection with your imagination, dreams, and fantasies, and forces you to grow up.

I believe these to be so apart of our human make up, that anything otherwise is just repressing them.  I always felt a certain amount of shame enjoying animations, games, stuff of fantasy.  These were hobbies I do in private that nobody outside of my family knows.  I've only recently come to embrace that and see the value of it for what it is.

Sorry if I talk wishy-washy.

@Gimmy I have a personal vendetta against doubt, and anything that perpetuates doubt in individuals, for it's qualities of disbelief in oneself.  I haven't looked at doubt as something to introduce to my creative process - not as restraints but as inspiration.  If I want to create a darker, weirder piece, I look at fear and nightmares.

I feel twelve.

[gimymblert]

The second edit was more intuition and expression driven I spoke from the heart rather than reason, more sensitive than sensible, but they are not generally so far from each other.

That said I was talking on the personal level, not on the ideal truth level. As a person dream should help you to cope with reality not to escape it.


On convention

Yep, but the most accomplish so called modernist has done just that. I mean the success of picasso was to master previous art, "steal" other peoples and culture idea and tied it back to western convention.


Look this is picasso's work at 14 years old

The reason the demoiselle d'avignon got big and not the influence he draws on, is only because it glorified the western tradition.



I mean

Pretty

typical

Stuff


So it is still conventional and convention are learned taste. Taste evolve through exposure too, it's also the responsibility of the artist to introduce new taste. How about convention that are not western art?

But picasso was a master at dealing with restriction



Playing with shape and mostly hard edge, yet the emotion is everything but harsh, it bleed warmth and a certain tenderness.



This my friend is Piet Mondrian early work, you can still see the future creeping in his composition as it has strong geometric shape dominating the construction. But the mark of lazyness it is not.

Having gone through similar thought without knowing they did or knowing art history (and thinking I was foolish as I had no mark to reference myself) I can totally sympathize, but that's a knowledge that one need to grasp through experience, the intellect can barely grasp it without going through it.

I wish to introduce you a bit more about african art and wilfredo lam whose picasso derive his works to show you different tradition and their complexity and convention, and how it relate to this subject, but this will grew a bit too long, let save that for another time

@gr@ndpa
You miss the point, it's not about making dark stuff or nightmare. Doubts is like the dragon to slay, if you avoid it you save the princess. My fear is that a lot of people do art to avoid just that, standing for themselves in front on what make them feel small and insignificant, make the dragon your bitch not your master. If doubt tell you not to go somewhere, go there and dispell the haze such as doubts is no more. Avoiding it does not make it disappear, it only corner you in that small bright spot not knowing there is a huge great field just a inch behind the unseen.

As I have shown above creativity can goes in pair with technical proficiency. It's like trying to write poem while being uneducated and illiterate. Learning to write can both make you a teacher or a novelist. Poem only happen when you go beyond the techniques, not avoiding it. Beware of fake creativity such as fantasy which are just another convention, more comfortable certainly, but convention nonetheless.

[ink.inc]

did this thing not just happen like 3 days ago

[JWK5]

"Just shut up and draw."

[Nuprahtor]

"Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized. "
(C)Some Badass guy

[1982]

However I will attack one point, art for yourself will forever be bad art. The ego is easily mire into oneself and like patting himself on the back. This tradition is pretty young and came from the the romantics. While art for art sake is millennial old it was always about transcendence ie reaching a higher purpose, to connect the ego with "truth". However today's ego is the truth, it's nothing more but the very definition of selfishness and the contradiction of "expression". If art is about the ego, why discuss it, showing it and get mad when nobody recognize the greatness of the piece, or when the mass shrug their mind and turn their back? Isn't this about getting love, fame and recognition and NOT expression? The humility of a artist is always to seek a greater purpose and to show it to people whether they like it or not, because it was worth showing them, not because it's "great" and deserve more. That said many thing I found soulless are just that, artist truly trying to reach a higher purpose, even if this is just to please its audience, the fact I found their art soulless is just me valuing "soulness" of art higher than "audience". Not to forget that art was not always tied to intuition and logic was always a big part of it, just look back at all those "rules" of composition, anatomy, shape, forms, colors, it's one of the most heavily structured field "have a vanishing point, add blue in the dark, create a hierarchy, make use of contrast", that's pure logic and reasoning! Creativity or souls was never hinder by that.

Here we go again. OMG this is total bull crap. I've addressed you on this before, and again it gets my blood boiling. I almost even can't read your post without vomiting.

First of all, you are mixing two different things. Being calculative entrepreneur and being artist minding his own business is not the same. While calculative art is most likely just boring it can be good too sometimes. Being just art made for artist itself can be anything from utterly bad to superior. You can't generalize.

That part I bolded from your text is good definition for quite annoying persona, but it has nothing to do with art or artworks. And I don't want to rule out the possibility that even such persona could provide us some kind of masterpiece.

I've studied my fair share of the older art culture (pre-romantic) and while they had higher purposes and all that, it doesn't automatically make the artwork itself interesting or even good. Many subtle elements are even lost because of culture has changed so much from those times. Not to talk about the single fact that most part of that art was made with religious purposes and today our culture is very atheistic. Is that then so good art when it can't stand the time and cannot deliver the message? I'd say, it doesn't matter at all. But for you it seems. The art can be still valued like we want, we don't need to understand the original messages. In point of analysis they sure are interesting works, but then it starts to be a lot more than just the painting for example. How far can we go from art and still talk about it?

Art for yourself is the best starting point, because then it is as in its purest form as it can be. I definitely value purity over humility and skill. And the best art from that field is most likely those pieces we don't ever even see, those which are so personal and close (or something else, obscure) to artist himself that he decides not to present them. Still, those works could be seen with "higher message" because the artist itself is only a filtered reflection of the society surrounding him, and that can be seen in the art. Sure there are exceptions as always, and I tend NOT TO generalize within discussion of art.

And I really hope you'd also making art for yourself, I don't think I want to know what you would like to "serve" me in your state of "higher purpose". That sounds very egoistic for me. Scary even.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I don't believe in ideas of "bad art", qualifying is and only subjective.

this is true but there are still personal standards, and average standards. just because something is subjective doesn't mean you can't judge it at all on the personal level. music is subjective too but there's often consensus on what is good music and what is bad music, even if most people don't agree on all the details. you can still go by averages; e.g. the average fan of music thinks mozart is better than "friday" by rebecca black, even though that's a subjective choice

so i think it's sort of a terrible cop-out to say that you should never discuss the quality of art ever; just because people have different opinions on something does not mean that *you* personally, or that others, should not have an opinion about that something. that's sort of oxymoronic to think about: 'there are many different opinions about something, therefore we should not have opinions about that something'

[moi]

holy shit you did it guys! you made this thread a reality , once again

[anonymous]

@Paul Eres, True I agree there are standards that are pleasing to the eye, every other work of merit however is marketed as sublime because of the *statement* it seeks to make or the one critics derive from it.  If it takes convincing and also a little bit of deceiving yourself to like a piece of art, I think that's questionable.  If it doesn't jive it doesn't jive, good art is in that sense to me is decided on an individual by individual basis. Getting into a discussion about whether a piece of art is good or bad serves few 'cept for having an heated endless debate of brains, pedigree, ego, bs.  It's water I don't want to get in and was responding to the *statement* "Any art made for yourself is bad art".

A piece of artwork can exemplify the greatest skill, but if the statement or the statement derived from it by critics and the one that the individual derives, doesn't resonate with the individual, to me it is just mediocre case by case.  I don't mean to write off any work artist have done, but I just want to say the reasons why many artists are studied and rise to their level of recognition fame often because of the people he's connected with, the powerful people he successfully marketed his malarkey to.  If you go through art school, everyone's personal tastes and works they admire, style they emulate is diverse based on how the artist or style "jives" with them.  It's a personal taste.

I think it's a waste of time, self-deception to TRY to like art because it being the standard.

I also mean to point out that the passions of an individual I believe often get superseded by what the status quo adopts as worthy pass times.  For instance maybe you got into art when you were young drawing characters, and dreamt about being an animator or cartoonist, but then you enter the art world, and see that's the least venerated of the arts because it doesn't serve a higher purpose or crock - it isn't caviar worthy, dinner discussion worthy.  So maybe you leave these passions behind and adopt something that is more reviled like painting and fine art.

This is more a question of finding what sits well with you despite the opinion of others.  I act on the belief that we're moving away from our passions, imagination and dreams, to cater in self-flagellating ways to what's been adopted and approved in general.  Playing adult is simply a game of real consequences, and the child is ever present just able to fill the costumes of an adult.  We drop our hobbies and interests to work for the industry, we drop anything that isn't acceptable at our age.  

maybe I am just a hedonist

holy shit you did it guys! you made this thread a reality , once again

we get off on our beautiful intellect and reasoning, it's a real circle jerk, join us.  I'm changing this topic name...

[gimymblert]

@1982
I still think you misunderstand me, however in this context I voluntarily exaggerate the traits with think brush strokes to provide a challenging statement.

I do so, because I will tell you that more than often artist use this as an excuse to baby sit, there is no purity but comfort, it does not lead to creativity but repetition. Actually looking deeply into onself is very difficult and painful, doing art for yourself, and pushing yourself, is way more difficult than just pleasing yourself doodling endless permutation of the modern vast palet of art. If honesty wasn't hard it would not be a virtue, tell me about purity you can't have it with honesty. Worst this false sense of entitlement give by the status of "being an artist" is itself can be destructive as it is use to shut any attempt to push beyond the obvious. I will forever challenge this notion, too many people hide themselves within "art for myself", it's too easy therefore has to no value in itself, if you make art for yourself you better stand high against challenge. Of course it is scary, I mean honesty, true honesty, will always reveal harsh stuff we don't want to see, even if it is in plain light. We better be creative than destructive. So yeah i'm fighting against the status not the spirit.

[1982]

@1982
I still think you misunderstand me, however in this context I voluntarily exaggerate the traits with think brush strokes to provide a challenging statement.

I do so, because I will tell you that more than often artist use this as an excuse to baby sit, there is no purity but comfort, it does not lead to creativity but repetition. Actually looking deeply into onself is very difficult and painful, doing art for yourself, and pushing yourself, is way more difficult than just pleasing yourself doodling endless permutation of the modern vast palet of art. If honesty wasn't hard it would not be a virtue, tell me about purity you can't have it with honesty. Worst this false sense of entitlement give by the status of "being an artist" is itself can be destructive as it is use to shut any attempt to push beyond the obvious. I will forever challenge this notion, too many people hide themselves within "art for myself", it's too easy therefore has to no value in itself, if you make art for yourself you better stand high against challenge. Of course it is scary, I mean honesty, true honesty, will always reveal harsh stuff we don't want to see, even if it is in plain light. We better be creative than destructive. So yeah i'm fighting against the status not the spirit.

You are again generalizing. You don't know if art made for oneself comes through massive self challenge. Still I don't believe that all good art should come through some sort of suffer anyway. I don't think there is ANY dishonest in a way of thinking "I love this, this is what I want to do". Honesty is the easiest starting point in making art. While I base everything on that, I am not saying it works for all people.

Maybe you should stop going to Deviantart: "I will tell you that more than often artist use this as an excuse to baby sit, there is no purity but comfort, it does not lead to creativity but repetition."

It might be that I don't quite simply understand what you are actually saying, but this what I read seems very odd.

[gimymblert]

Is me doing the generalization? I'm telling you here it's a challenge I oppose because i do not agree, where did I define art?

However I have no problem with people doing just that, I do have problem when they start going all gung ho about they are the definition of art and artist when it's only limited by ego. Notice the "I".

[moi]

there is no "I" in "TEAIM"