1eyedking Graphics =/= Art Direction

[StrangeCase]

It's interesting that you challenge the artistry of a photograph, when a film is just a bunch of photographs one after the other with a soundtrack. Where is the jump made? Is a jump made at all?

I guess it just seems strange to me. If I paint an African child with rags on his back and an AK-47 as big as he is looking at a sunset, it might arguably be art; if I took a picture of same, it would not be?

Does my boss's LEGO castle qualify as art? He conceived, designed, and built it himself (and yes, we work for the company, so it's not all that unusual.)

EDIT: Formatting error

 

[1eyedking]

So you don't understand abstract, sigh, according to rothko, those were meant to represent his work and the audience. The fundamental separation of the two is important. It's one of his only pieces he's ever really explained. Also as to skill it was painted on a 6ft by 9ft frame.

So a rectangle equals himself, the other equals his audience. Why? Where is the parallel drawn? Did you know two side-by-side rectangles can mean...practically anything?

By the way, I didn't know construction painters were artists.

Bonus: did you know that the Creation of Adam fresco was painted on the ceiling of a Chapel, is 19 ft x 9 ft, at a height of 68 ft?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

So, 1eyedking, what's your definition of art and what is its source?

 

[roll-a-die]

So you don't understand abstract, sigh, according to rothko, those were meant to represent his work and the audience. The fundamental separation of the two is important. It's one of his only pieces he's ever really explained. Also as to skill it was painted on a 6ft by 9ft frame.

So a rectangle equals himself, the other equals his audience. Why? Where is the parallel drawn? Did you know two side-by-side rectangles can mean...practically anything?

By the way, I didn't know construction painters were artists.

Bonus: did you know that the Creation of Adam fresco was painted on the ceiling of a Chapel, is 19 ft x 9 ft, at a height of 68 ft?

That's kinda the point of any abstract art, you drawing your own meanings. You finding your own emotions about the piece.

 

[1eyedking]

It's interesting that you challenge the artistry of a photograph, when a film is just a bunch of photographs one after the other with a soundtrack. Where is the jump made? Is a jump made at all?

Jesus Christ just how stupid can the Codex get? Movies are different, you stupid dumbfuck: there's a script, there are words, there is music.

Photography is just a fucking still image with no creation whatsoever. No creation, no art. It's fucking dead simple.

I guess it just seems strange to me. If I paint an African child with rags on his back and an AK-47 as big as he is looking at a sunset, it might arguably be art; if I took a picture of same, it would not be?

It's not art because it has political sub-themes. Furthermore sunsets don't qualify as art unless there's a specific magnificent theme in it, such as the rebirth of life, or somesuch, expressed subtly- definitely not with a nigger holding a gun. For the record, you destroy art the minute you put politics into it. Politics have nothing to do with the human condition at all, so it's utter tastelessness to include it in a work.

Does my boss's LEGO castle qualify as art? He conceived, designed, and built it himself (and yes, we work for the company, so it's not all that unusual.)

EDIT: Formatting error

No. Common sense aside (which I've noticed is completely nonexistent in the Codex), it's not aesthetically pleasing, it's not made of noble materials, it's not original in its design, it's actually architecturally stale, and, you know what? Maybe it's just a fucking LEGO castle.

 

[1eyedking]

That's kinda the point of any abstract art, you drawing your own meanings. You finding your own emotions about the piece.

You know...now that I think of it, the most abstract kind of art is art like Michelangelo's who are attempting to capture a divine moment with human figures, positions, and other mundane elements such as clothes. Do you know how much abstraction is going on there?

Speaking of abstract (cool buzzword, by the way) "art" itself, if I'm the one supposed to create the message, then no message was created in the first place. That instantly disqualifies it as art.

Even then, it looks like two fucking rectangles and that is just boring and not visually appealing at all - quite basic and childish, actually.

 

[1eyedking]

So, 1eyedking, what's your definition of art and what is its source?

The definition is floating around the thread. Lurk around, shouldn't be hard to find, though from watching the images posted that wouldn't be healthy advice, I guess.

The source? They are various, honestly, mostly stuff I picked up from critics such as Harold Bloom. If you want something you can Google, I could say I sympathize with most conservative "aestheticist" views & definitions.

 

[roll-a-die]

That's kinda the point of any abstract art, you drawing your own meanings. You finding your own emotions about the piece.

You know...now that I think of it, the most abstract kind of art is art like Michelangelo's who are attempting to capture a divine moment with human figures, positions, and other mundane elements such as clothes. Do you know how much abstraction is going on there?

Speaking of abstract (cool buzzword, by the way) "art" itself, if I'm the one supposed to create the message, then no message was created in the first place. That instantly disqualifies it as art.

Even then, it looks like two fucking rectangles and that is just boring and not visually appealing at all - quite basic and childish, actually.

Fuck does the concept of genre or style not appear at all in your mind. Let me give you a test,

Is that art?

Now what about this

Or this

If they are art, explain why?
If they aren't, the same?

 

[Chateaubryan]

Guy in bloody apron + gigantic sword + gigantic metal triangle helmet = Butchering (which is direct and not a symbol at all) + serious self-esteem issues + mathematical...something? Apparently not - it's supposed to be an executioner with sexual overtones. LULZ.

By those second standards I should also consider the hammer to be a phallic object since it's composed of a shaft and a gigantic head (which obviously represents the glans) and striking with a hammer "calling forth sparks" is obviously a metaphor for semen. Herp derp.

Exactly, first degree interpretations are often misleading because they need context to be relevant. I thought the article stressed enough that the symbolism is as not as much in Pyramid Head's attire than in its actions.
In the same way, the crimson and rust spheres (not BALLZ LOL) indicates the nature of James' guilt : violent murder for one, euthanasy of his wife who suffered from terminal illness for the other. You can't guess it until you put them in context.

Movies are different, you stupid dumbfuck: there's a script, there are words, there is music.

Just like in video games. It shows how retarded you were for simply interpreting Pyramid Head on a visual basis. Wasn't your initial post about how a successful Art Direction rely not only on graphics but also on what is implied by the medium ?

 

[StrangeCase]

Jesus Christ just how stupid can the Codex get? Movies are different, you stupid dumbfuck: there's a script, there are words, there is music.

Words and music make a movie art? Literature and music already have that covered. Acting is covered by theatre. Does film have any artistic qualities of its own? Make sure to use more profanity in your response, it makes you sound smarter. It's more artistic, too.

Photography is just a fucking still image with no creation whatsoever. No creation, no art. It's fucking dead simple.

Like that. No particular response to this point.

It's not art because it has political sub-themes. Furthermore sunsets don't qualify as art unless there's a specific magnificent theme in it, such as the rebirth of life, or somesuch, expressed subtly- definitely not with a nigger holding a gun. For the record, you destroy art the minute you put politics into it. Politics have nothing to do with the human condition at all, so it's utter tastelessness to include it in a work.

Politics have everything to do with the human condition. There's not a person alive who hasn't been affected by politics in some way.

No. Common sense aside (which I've noticed is completely nonexistent in the Codex), it's not aesthetically pleasing, it's not made of noble materials, it's not original in its design, it's actually architecturally stale, and, you know what? Maybe it's just a fucking LEGO castle.

Maybe it is. I certainly wouldn't display it in my house. I dig "noble materials", though. It's very you.

 

[Orgasm]

hypotetical situation

Um, it would be art then I guess, it would have required a modicum of skill beyond pushing a button, and a great deal of creative/guano level insane thought. And it's not necessarily context so much as a creative thought behind it. And skill/effort beyond "Click and I'm done."

Photography is by far not an amateur skill. Light, focus, filter, angles, motion, bunch of other things I cant think of now. Are you a skilled photograph? Would you be able to recognize skill in any photograph I present you? Are you completely sure that that pic of shit is skillfree? That the form of the shit matter means nothing?

I would argue taht you cant. Hence labeling it as not art even by your definition would be potentially wrong. The following are not a rhetorical question, I'd like an answer and reasoning: and if you cant safely discern between art and not art, should you? If you cant discern a human from an AI, should you?

And since you accept skill/good technical execution as part of "art", is then a newly developed antenna (creative: revolutionary new form - flat, can be glued to the top of car, this is a real world example, technically impossible today, would be great if worked) with good attributes art?

If yes, is the smithing of a wheel 10000 year ago, art?

If yes, is it today if somebody does it?

If you see a photograph of great technical skill with a creative spark for the first time and dont know that it has been done to death before, is it art?

Do you follow my line of thought?

 

[dr. one]

holy shit this thread delivers

 

[1eyedking]

(Picasso stuff)

I don't pay particular attention to genre. If someone needs to give me a particular intellectual framework to make something "appreciable", the fact it isn't art is out of the question since it violates the axiom that art is atemporal and precedes context, escaping its purpose of portraying human wisdom, characterization, and "psychology" (and I use this term very lightly and more in the meaning of the way humanity feels, behaves, and reacts, rather than its academic usage).

As for Picasso, he fucking sucks. Period.

 

[StrangeCase]

holy shit this thread delivers

I can't even remember who I'm trolling anymore. It was 1ek, and kinda still is, but there are too many sides to keep straight. Might just go to bed.

 

[1eyedking]

Words and music make a movie art? Literature and music already have that covered. Acting is covered by theatre. Does film have any artistic qualities of its own?

No, a movie can only be good by its theatrical merits. Everything else is just fluff.

Make sure to use more profanity in your response, it makes you sound smarter. It's more artistic, too.

You're the goddamn Codex. What the fuck do you expect?

Like that. No particular response to this point.

Argue against my point, then. How is something with no creation, no imagination preceding its conception something artistic? It boggles the mind, truly.

I'm not saying photography is bad, nor that I don't appreciate it. I do like it, actually, but it's not art. Sorry if you can't understand the simple concepts I just laid bare. Read more serious stuff; question the reasoning behind the logic you believe correct; I don't know what to say, really.

Politics have everything to do with the human condition. There's not a person alive who hasn't been affected by politics in some way.

No. Politics are, in a way, a manifestation of ethical codes of conduct, which in themselves are tied with human condition, but politics itself is about semantics, power, stereotyping, and propaganda. Nothing artistic about that.

Maybe it is. I certainly wouldn't display it in my house. I dig "noble materials", though. It's very you.

Noble materials = marble = warm-colored smooth stone = pleasing to the eye.

LEGO = segmented blocks with circles everywhere = looks like shit.

Simple, no?

 

[roll-a-die]

hypotetical situation

Um, it would be art then I guess, it would have required a modicum of skill beyond pushing a button, and a great deal of creative/guano level insane thought. And it's not necessarily context so much as a creative thought behind it. And skill/effort beyond "Click and I'm done."

Photography is by far not an amateur skill. Light, focus, filter, angles, motion, bunch of other things I cant think of now. Are you a skilled photograph? Would you be able to recognize skill in any photograph I present you? Are you completely sure that that pic of shit is skillfree? That the form of the shit matter means nothing?

I found it on a blog post expounding that if you ate a high fiber diet your shit would float. Also, yes it's fairly easy to recognize a good or artistic photograph. All it takes is a few indicators, quality, art photography tends to be of a higher quality than most normal photos. Style and composition, this can be picked up through around an hour of browsing art photographs.

I would argue taht you cant. Hence labeling it as not art even by your definition would be potentially wrong. The following are not a rhetorical question, I'd like an answer and reasoning: and if you cant safely discern between art and not art, should you? If you cant discern a human from an AI, should you?

See above

And since you accept skill/good technical execution as part of "art", is then a newly developed antenna (creative: revolutionary new form - flat, can be glued to the top of car, this is a real world example, technically impossible today, would be great if worked) with good attributes art?

It depends, is it just a flat disc or line, than no, that's just a rudimentary shape. if it's some sort of sculpture, yes.

If yes, is the smithing of a wheel 10000 year ago, art?

No that served a purely utilitarian purpose, and was made in a form that wasn't anything but functional.

If yes, is it today if somebody does it?

If you see a photograph of great technical skill with a creative spark for the first time and don't know that it has been done to death before, is it art?

Art is not individuality, it is creation. Just because something is derivative doesn't mean it is denied creativity. Creativity!=unique. So yes, it is art.

Do you follow my line of thought?

Slightly, but please extrapolate further.

EDIT: fuck I fucked up a contraction.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Nope, it's the premise behind pretentious shit as Rococo - which, by the way, isn't art because it doesn't retain purity of form.

pretentious shit as Rococo - which, by the way, isn't art because

Rococo - which, by the way, isn't art

Just leaving this here in case anyone is still paying attention to him.

 

[roll-a-die]

(Picasso stuff)

I don't pay particular attention to genre. If someone needs to give me a particular intellectual framework to make something "appreciable", the fact it isn't art is out of the question since it violates the axiom that art is atemporal and precedes context, escaping its purpose of portraying human wisdom, characterization, and "psychology" (and I use this term very lightly and more in the meaning of the way humanity feels, behaves, and reacts, rather than its academic usage).

As for Picasso...he is...a sore topic for me. I consider him borderline, and my opinion about him variates. There are some paintings he made that I particularly like - a lot - but am afraid to call it art. Its discussion escapes the interest of this forum.

And why aren't they art, please explain?


Just because you don't "get" something doesn't deny it artistic merit. You know Rothko the artist I mention earlier, he was a famed artist for the emotion he managed to convey with such simplicity, obviously they got it. So just because you don't get it it's not art?

 

[StrangeCase]

No, a movie can only be good by its theatrical merits. Everything else is just fluff.

Eh, I've always thought of theatre as more artistic anyway, so I'll drink to that.

You're the goddamn Codex. What the fuck do you expect?

No no, really. The most serious arguments about art always involve copious amount of profanity. I'm serious, for once, they really do.

Argue against my point, then. How is something with no creation, no imagination preceding its conception something artistic? It boggles the mind, truly.

I'm just asking questions. Initially just to troll, but increasingly because you're not actually dumb, much as I might like to think so.

I'm not saying photography is bad, nor that I don't appreciate it. I do like it, actually, but it's not art. Sorry if you can't understand the simple concepts I just laid bare. Read more serious stuff; question the reasoning behind the logic you believe correct; I don't know what to say, really.

Yeah, that's kinda where I'm at. I question my logic regularly, and the logic of people around me. That's why I question your logic.

No. Politics are, in a way, a manifestation of ethical codes of conduct, which in themselves are tied with human condition, but politics itself is about semantics, power, stereotyping, and propaganda. Nothing artistic about that.

Fair enough, but... many of Shakespeare's plays (specifically his tragedies) are about politics. They're not themselves political, so far as I know, but politics are a recurring theme. I've always thought that the beauty of Shakespeare has always been in his language, not his stories, but has the introduction of politics in, say, Macbeth ruined the work as a whole?

Noble materials = marble = warm-colored smooth stone = pleasing to the eye.

LEGO = segmented blocks with circles everywhere = looks like shit.

Simple, no?

It was your choice of words I was commenting on, not the meaning. :D

 

[StrangeCase]

EDIT: Double-post.

 

[1eyedking]

(Ottobeuren Abbey)

Rococo. Excessive beyond respect for form, geometrical purity, formality, proportions, etc. France should really thank Napoleon for making Neoclassicism sweep all of that shit away.

As for you, CK, you're the typical ignorant who immediately tags something over-designed, superficial and degenerate as artistic. Your petty brain associates a ridiculous mess of contours, twirls, figurines, leafs, and cherubs as an exponent of art.

I feel sad for you. Though I do like you when you're not stupid.

 

[StrangeCase]

EDIT: Triple post, apparently. I'm going to bed. G'night Codexian art critic. Keep on swearing, and I'm sorry I trolled you.

 

[1eyedking]

No no, really. The most serious arguments about art always involve copious amount of profanity. I'm serious, for once, they really do.

Can't argue against politeness. Agreed, no more profanity then.

I'm just asking questions. Initially just to troll, but increasingly because you're not actually dumb, much as I might like to think so.

Interesting.

Yeah, that's kinda where I'm at. I question my logic regularly, and the logic of people around me. That's why I question your logic.

Interesting, again. And what do you make out of it?

Fair enough, but... many of Shakespeare's plays (specifically his tragedies) are about politics. They're not themselves political, so far as I know, but politics are a recurring theme. I've always thought that the beauty of Shakespeare has always been in his language, not his stories, but has the introduction of politics in, say, Macbeth ruined the work as a whole?

No, of course not. It's when, as you said, the thing is political in itself, kinda like Doris Lessing adopting a feminist stance in her novels.

About the African kid with an AK-47: you instantly associate those elements with racism, illegal weapon trafficking, and children as faction militia, which are all political issues at their core.

It was your choice of words I was commenting on, not the meaning. :D

I tried to argue logically, at least.

 

[1eyedking]

And why aren't they art, please explain?

They aren't visually pleasing. They serve no aesthetic purpose. There is no harmony in form and shape (and that's why I like that painting I linked so much, it's almost crossing said boundaries), no attention to formalism whatsoever, and it's not like formalism is very restraining either - you can always go the Impressionist route, even it's somewhat boring.

Not all abstract exponents are bad, however. You've got guys like Escher, you know, who explored some very nice themes - funny since he didn't consider himself an artist, contrary to most of these dumbfucks who only drew random lines, rectangles and cubes.

Just because you don't "get" something doesn't deny it artistic merit. You know Rothko the artist I mention earlier, he was a famed artist for the emotion he managed to convey with such simplicity, obviously they got it. So just because you don't get it it's not art?

Oh, please. As if abstract art were universally accepted as ingenious and inventive. It's one of the most brand-driven movements, and that alone should arouse immediate suspicion, at least if you weren't dropped on your head as a child.

There's tons of critics who expose it as decadent and trivial.

 

[crufty]

Art Vs Illustration

art: http://www.liquidsculpture.com/fine_art ... WetOneRed#
illustration: http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3362893 ... ntains.jpg

art: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/
illustration: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/

art: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vuPyAOH41E

etc etc.