|
|
Re: Lord - a response to Toms post.
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Re: Lord - a response to Toms post. // Roundtable
Post by RichLevy // Jun 9, 2007, 2:32am
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
Very nice post Professor... I won't be entering in the insect modeling, but I will be spending the weekend modeling and rendering a project I have started. TS7.51 is a very cool application to play in.
I don't like all of the heavy conversation myself, 3D is just not that complicated...to each his own though.
So, has anyone here thought a bit more about entering the tS speed modelling challenge?
I bring this up not so much to hijack the topic but to make the point that quite a bit of passion is going into these threads while other areas suffer from lack of participation. Though an all out "nuclear-sized" flame war has not broken out it might be productive to refocus our efforts on something that involves the production of art, whatever your local definition of art might be. Debate can be fun but it does indeed become a distraction if you let it. I think I'll be bowing out of this conversation to get back to the stuff I really love to come here to see and do.
I'm going to try to have an entry submitted before the Monday deadline. It's been a while since I've participated as I've been pretty heavily involved with beta testing over the last couple of months. So far, that catepillar looks pretty hard to beat! :) |
Post by weaveribm // Jun 9, 2007, 2:49am
|
weaveribm
Total Posts: 592
|
much of our modern advertising is based on the art of the message
Yes that's it in a nutshell. Messages are inimical to Art with a capital A. Modern advertising is all about messages. Advertising is about messages which paratisise images, advertising rides on the back of images. Images are not Art just because they are an image. Not all images are Art that's the nub of the matter. Advertising images have something of art about them but more of artfulness which is not Art. Where artfulness means "I know something you do not know yet but you will, just look at this. There. Get it now?"
Advertising works sometimes (if the advertiser is clued-up) to deliberately puzzle the viewer. Coy adverts for something or other. No one quite knows what it's all about. Advertisers know that if the viewer has to work to understand the image, the viewer unconsciously sets up patterns within the brain that are tenacious. Setting up patterns in the brain due to working on a thought "What's that?" tends to make the message stick. This whole psychological process so artfully contrived feeds on the spiritual thing. It's beautiful but I don't know why I think that. It just seems right and makes me feel good. Who cares why. Then you buy the left-handed tin opener and starve to death :)
Peter |
Post by W!ZARD // Jun 9, 2007, 3:56am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
much of our modern advertising is based on the art of the message
This whole psychological process so artfully contrived feeds on the spiritual thing.
Peter
Fascinating - I think we are using somewhat different internal representations of what Art is - not that there's anything wrong with that. We both have a map of the same street but your map shows the water pipes and mine shows the sewer pipes. I'm a little confused by the distinction you make between art and artfullness.
Whilst agreeing that the psychological aspect can feed on the spiritual I struggle to see that as a universal thing. Advertising cunningly designed to make you want to buy whale meat wrapped in baby sealskins can be easily seen as lacking in spiritual value - tobacco advertising can also be seen that way. But if I want to sell my organic apples so that people are eating more healthily (including my family and the folk I owe money to) then can I not advertise my apples artistically and spiritually? I'm seeking to serve others - usually a spiritually sound practice - by advising them - advertising - that I have nice healthy apples for sale.
Personally I have some strong feelings about unethical advertising and unethical exploitative business practices in general but not all advertising fits that discription.
Further to that point even if I am trying to exploit you by selling some unhealthy and unneccessary product, perhaps by trying to mislead you that your life will be better if you use my toxic product instead of someone elses then why can't that message be delivered artistically?
Peter you say "It's beautiful but I don't know why I think that. It just seems right and makes me feel good. Who cares why". Maybe I'm missing your point but it seems to me to be vitally important to care why. How can one fully appreciate something without understanding the process of appreciation? Certainly we don't need to be mechanics in order to drive a car but when your car breaks down any mechanical understanding you have is going to empower you.
The human act of perceiving beauty has specific defining characteristics. Whilst we all interpret the significance of beauty in our unique ways there are similar principles behind our perception of it. Symmetry, balance, ratio of size, complementarity and contrast of form and colour, adherence to the Golden Mean, frequency resonance and harmonics in distribution, the 'law of thirds' - these things are cross-cultural characteristics of beauty and are distinct from humanly bestowed and judged attributes like gracefullness, elegance, quality or the lack thereof.
I may see an exquisitely presented image of a beautiful woman wearing finely crafted and originally designed clothing, perfectly lit and photographed against a glorious backdrop - how can this image be art when it hangs in a gallery but not art when it's selling a product or service?
If we say that adding a message to art stops it from being art where does that leave religious art? The roof of the cistine chapel contains the message that God created Adam - does this stop it from being art?
I'm the first to admit that art can contradict spiritual imperatives. I remember seeing the most wonderfully artistic metallwork on certain artifacts in a museum display in Rajasthan - this art triggered some distress in me because this sublime workmanship had been applied to weapons - guns and swords mostly - designed with no other purpose but to kill people beautifully. Does this stop these items from being works of art?
To me, all human creativity involves artistic expression, some of which is also spiritually sound. Any line drawn delineating 'art' from 'not art' must ultimately be subjective. I'm suspecting you and I draw our lines in different places which is probably inevitable given the diversity of human nature!
As RichLevy says - to each his own. |
Post by nowherebrain // Jun 10, 2007, 10:53am
|
nowherebrain
Total Posts: 1062
|
OK, I have not followed this post. I have been busy building my site....with that said this is meant as a "general statement" on my behalf.
if I choose to see nudity etc...it is my choice. no one has ever forced me to see nudity or vulgarity(ARMY aside, vulgarity).
I agree that if you do not want criticisms, or, criticisms that don't fit your idea of a good criticism, you should keep your art to yourself. By posting artwork you are inaudibly asking for judgment and criticism. If you don't like it. Remove it. I personally kinda liked it, but no reason to be sore IMHO. |
Post by jayr // Jun 10, 2007, 12:22pm
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
If we say that adding a message to art stops it from being art where does that leave religious art? The roof of the cistine chapel contains the message that God created Adam - does this stop it from being art?
My point exactly, most art produced in europe in the last 2000 years has been either mythilogical infulenced or religiously influenced i.e. illustrating a scene from the bible or from classical mythology or a folk story. By weaveribm's definition no image or sculpure ever made before the dawn of absrtaction could be considered art, that seems a bit of a narrow diffinition of art to me. Although in England the offical definition of 'Art' is that it's something that is on display in a gallery, so this is all subjective really.
However, as humans we are constantly giving and reading messages, we like to interpret things. We are used to reading signs such as body language, colors, moods. All these signs could be seen as messages, so as soons as you put brush to paper, chisel to stone, pen to wacom, finger to mouse or whatever your medium is you begin to send out signs (or messages), is the main figure cold/ angry/ happy, why? Do those colours work well/ badly, how does it make me feel. This is all a message, the artist is deliberaly manipulating matter or pixels to alter your mood, this is his message. To me, art without a message is dead, because it doesn't exist, even a blank canvas has an effect on the veiwer. |
|
