|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:49 am |
  |
|
From an artistic standpoint I do think that games are a bigger waste of time than movies. But mostly because movies are, on average, only an hour and a half long.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:44 am |
|
|
| Interstellar Dinghy wrote: |
| guys i don't think dancing is art so i guess art is pretty subjective, huh |
I'm with you on that one Dingy. Mostly because it's a blanket statement. Whether or not dancing could be art, or whether there's ever been dancing as art, I'd have to think on.
I guess Interpretive Dance could be shitty art.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:25 pm |
|
|
Quick questions:
Can high art be funny?
If it can't, does that mean that high art is lacking in some way?
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:58 pm |
|
|
| Shapermc wrote: |
| option wrote: |
| Guys what is "Art"? |
“conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements”
and
“human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature” |
I don't think that definiton really works, as it can be applied to just about everything. I've got a water bottle I bought from Target on my desk that I wouldn't call art, but that definition reads on it.
Edit: And Shakespeare's comedies make my stomach turn. He can shove Merchant of Venice up his ass. But I never actually liked Shakespeare, so if you can laugh at it and find it high art then that answers my question.
Last edited by Predator Goose on Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:11 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:13 pm |
|
|
| JamesE wrote: |
| Shapermc wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Can high art be funny? |
I hear that Shakespeare wrote a few comedies. |
Which meant different things back then: IE that everyone didn't end the play raped up and murdered.
Art can be fucking hilarious. |
But can what people call "high art" be funny? I've only ever seen this rather pretentious term directed toward serious or disturbing pieces.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:59 pm |
|
|
| Mr Mustache wrote: |
| You guys should read Understanding Comics. |
No. Never again.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:47 pm |
|
|
| FortNinety wrote: |
| Why the vehement no? |
Because I thought it was a terrible book. As I recall I found it both misleading and full of itself.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:04 pm |
|
|
| FortNinety wrote: |
| Can you cite any specific examples? Not trying to must your chops, but whenever any goes on record by saying they flat-out hate it, they can never seem to offer many concrete/specific reasons. |
Understandable. And in this case as well I can't cite very specific examples. This is because my memory is for shit, especially where books are concerned, and I'd estimate that it's been at least 4 years since I've read the book. I'm not eager to revisit it just to provide reasons why I hate it to someone else (no offense intended).
The only vague thing that I can recall is that he seemed to often present his conclusions before he asked for the readers, and it felt like the book was leading you on.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:24 pm |
|
|
| FortNinety wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
Understandable. And in this case as well I can't cite very specific examples. This is because my memory is for shit, especially where books are concerned, and I'd estimate that it's been at least 4 years since I've read the book. I'm not eager to revisit it just to provide reasons why I hate it to someone else (no offense intended).
The only vague thing that I can recall is that he seemed to often present his conclusions before he asked for the readers, and it felt like the book was leading you on. |
I can live with that. And to be honest, I really like the book, but I can understand why some might think its overrated.
But ultimately, it was the first of its kind, and very few to this day have attempted to cover the same territory, and for that, I have to respect it. Its also kind of sad... sort of how, and I know this is off-topic and highly debateable, but Watchmen was the last true high watermark for super hero comics and nothing has come close in the past twenty years. But you know, IMHO.
When many people bitch about the first McCloud book, it just comes off as sour grapes, as if they were pissed that they didn't think of it first. But it almost always works like that. I think its best for those who have no clue about comics in general, and some proof that it ain't just about Hulk smash. Again, it kinda deserves the acclaim that it gets.
Though I have heard nothing but bad things about his third book...
What was this thread about again? Gondry? A personal hero of mine, so its dissapointing to hear such thoughts, but hey... when you become a parent, a lot of opinions change/appear to be rather hardlined. A basic fact of life. |
The only issue that I really take with this post is that I don't evaluate whether I like something based on how influential it was, or if it was the first to do something. While I think those qualifications are important, I try to keep them separate from my opinion of a work.
Oh, and I can say that it wasn't sour grapes for me because I never intended to write what I thought about comic books, and because I recall I disagreed with a lot of his conclusions - though I still can't tell you why, or even recall what his conclusions were.
And I'll agree with your comment about 1986-1987 being the high water mark of the past 20 years. I haven't actually read Watchmen yet (know I should) but my personal favorit, Dark Knight Returns, came out in 1986 as well. The sequel to that book was good, but it didn't come near to the original. And it was oddly about Superman.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:07 pm |
|
|
| Mr Mustache wrote: |
| Mr Mustache wrote: |
| You guys should read Understanding Comics. |
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Mr Mustache wrote: |
| You guys should read Understanding Comics. |
No. Never again. |
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:22 pm |
|
|
| Talbain wrote: |
| Art is art. It has no definition, but you know it when you experience it. |
Then answer me this, if a man finds a sunise to be beautiful and a painting of a sunrise beatiful, which one does he call art?
If you're answer isn't both, then there must be a definition of art.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:37 pm |
|
|
| antitype wrote: |
So this discussion gets rehashed in a major way at least once every year, then, huh?
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Talbain wrote: |
| Art is art. It has no definition, but you know it when you experience it. |
Then answer me this, if a man finds a sunise to be beautiful and a painting of a sunrise beatiful, which one does he call art?
If you're answer isn't both, then there must be a definition of art. |
Both. Neither? Whatever. |
Oh yeah, my bad, the answer could be neither.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:58 pm |
|
|
I'm tempted to defend those as I do respect GitS and Eva, but instead I'll just suggest that we get back on topic.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:58 pm |
|
|
For the record, my question was "can high art be funny?" And it was meant in all seriousness.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:53 am |
|
|
Talbain, what I was going for was that if something has constraints, then it must be definable even if only in broad terms. I attempted to point that out by saying that nature is not art, and that we reserve that term for man made creations. But even if we accept nature as art, I still believe there is a constraint that it must be viewed by man, or more generally, an intellect. And since it has a constraint, it must be definable.
| Joe wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| For the record, my question was "can high art be funny?" And it was meant in all seriousness. |
Ah. It most certainly can. I think a good example was mentioned earlier. |
If you're referring to the Frank Zappa post, I would have to disagree on its qualification as art (just don't like the guy). But the fact that you find it funny high art answers my question sufficiently. I think that "One Flew Over the Cukoo's" nest is my own example of high art that can be funny. Should have thought of that before I asked the question.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:24 am |
|
|
| Talbain wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Talbain, what I was going for was that if something has constraints, then it must be definable even if only in broad terms. I attempted to point that out by saying that nature is not art, and that we reserve that term for man made creations. But even if we accept nature as art, I still believe there is a constraint that it must be viewed by man, or more generally, an intellect. And since it has a constraint, it must be definable. |
If nature is not art, then what does that make man, who is of nature?
Just because something has a constraint does not make it definable. Granted, things that are constrained are definable, but the question is to what extent? The reality is that the extent, in some cases, is infinite. An excellent example might be something more mathematical, such as pi. It has a constraint, but it cannot be defined in a strict sense. Thus the extent that art exists, is the infinite ability of, as you say, an intellect to perceive it. One might argue then the definition of intellect; but that's unrelated to this argument. |
Man is not art. Man is something in nature which can perceive and create art.
As for the definition, as long as something has a constraint, that constraint can be used as a definition. For example, you used the number pi. It's true that pi cannot be calculated, but that implies a definition: Pi is a number that we cannot currently calculate. To further improve the definition we find other constraints, such as the fact that we cannot calculate pi is because pi is an irrational real number such that we have not yet been able to calculate it to a suffieient number of decimal places to observe a patter in the remainder, if one even exists. Furthermore we can define the number pi precisely if we do so indirectly: "pi is defined either as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, or as the ratio of a circle's area to the area of a square whose side is the radius." (Taken from wikipedia)
So, I propose the following definition:
Art is something that is perceived by an intellect.
Personally I would amend it to the following, but I think we can both agree on the above statement.
Art is something that is perceived by an intellect and must have been crafted by an intellect for some purpose.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:05 am |
|
|
| Talbain wrote: |
| I'm curious, but is a sticking point for my definition that if man were to be art, he might be likened to God? |
Actually it's quite the opposite if I understand what you're saying. By my definition art is something which can be perceived by an intellect, and must have been created for a purpose. A purpose to nature, and to man himself, presupposes the existence of a god, specifically a god that is not man.
I sort of dimissed the claim that man is art because I didn't really want to bring the question of god into things, as that question tends to muck things up. So instead I went with the simpler universe to try and prove my point. You could say that man and nature have the potential to be art, if they were created by an intellect for a purpose. But I'm not sure if we'd be able ascertain the purpose, and thus I don't know if nature, or man, qualifies as art to man.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:08 am |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| I'm tempted to defend those as I do respect GitS and Eva, but instead I'll just suggest that we get back on topic. |
Fuck! I should listen to myself more often. I'll let you get the last word in Talbain and I'm going to stop talking about this. Sure was fun though.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:09 am |
|
|
JamesE, Eric made some remarks about what he thought art was. That didn't agree with what you thought art was, so you made fun of him. That's called juvenile.
I understand that you don't want to spend the time to respond to everyone else's ideas, but if you end up having to explain yourself anyways, wouldn't it make it faster to explain up front, and make you look like less of a dick? Or find some one liners that don't sound like personal attacks so people don't feel the need to defend themselves?
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:29 pm |
|
|
| JamesE wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
JamesE, Eric made some remarks about what he thought art was. That didn't agree with what you thought art was, so you made fun of him. That's called juvenile.
I understand that you don't want to spend the time to respond to everyone else's ideas, but if you end up having to explain yourself anyways, wouldn't it make it faster to explain up front, and make you look like less of a dick? Or find some one liners that don't sound like personal attacks so people don't feel the need to defend themselves? |
I presented a counterpoint and a quote from two pretty well regarded artists, with the intent of it generating some kind of intelligent rebuttal or modification of the initial stance. I don't usually put that amount of effort into responding to Aderack, because he seriously seems to think he has everything worked out definitively, innocent of things like constructed arguments or citations. His response was that he'd got it all worked out in the usual (seemingly) smug, arrogant, tone, which I usually find pretty objectionable. That's why I don't respond to aderack beyond one-liners, usually. I'll spell that out now so I don't get another snotty private message.
I mean... if anyone's going to work out art it's going to be a poet or a lover or a fighter, not a dude who gets paid to write long, citation and fact-check light rambling essays on Dr Who and jRPG installments, don't you think? The Livejournal he writes for his cat is utterly amazing art though, and I swear to christ I mean that when I say it.
(I'm serious about the Catjournal, Eric) |
Yeah JamesE, sorry about that, I missed the snippiness of his second comment. Probably because I don't like Merchant of Venice, so I was willing to dismiss it as well, which I shouldn't have been. I still think you took things too far too quick, but since you were somewhat justified you still came off as less of a dick than I.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:50 pm |
|
|
Sorry, this isn't on topic, I just wanted to correct something that I said earlier in the thread. I said that the last high water mark for comics was in 1986~7 for Batman:Dark Night Returns. I'd just like to push that date forward two years to 1989 for The Crow.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:40 pm |
|
|
| kthorjensen wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Sorry, this isn't on topic, I just wanted to correct something that I said earlier in the thread. I said that the last high water mark for comics was in 1986~7 for Batman:Dark Night Returns. I'd just like to push that date forward two years to 1989 for The Crow. |
That... that's a retarded thing to say. |
I don't think so. Which is the wonderful thing about art, it's a matter of opinion.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:48 pm |
|
|
I've followed the comic scene till roughly 96~97. Got really bored with it, especially the standard lines such as superman, spider man, and the x-men. Since that time I've never seen something that interested me, nor has anyone brought to my attention anything close to those two works. I won't say I'm an authority on the subject, much more of a casual observer.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:24 pm |
|
|
| kthorjensen wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| kthorjensen wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Sorry, this isn't on topic, I just wanted to correct something that I said earlier in the thread. I said that the last high water mark for comics was in 1986~7 for Batman:Dark Night Returns. I'd just like to push that date forward two years to 1989 for The Crow. |
That... that's a retarded thing to say. |
I don't think so. Which is the wonderful thing about art, it's a matter of opinion. |
Yes, and your opinion is horrible. If an idiot was allowed to see two movies in his lifetime and they were Scary Movie 3 and Scary Movie 4, he'd probably say that Scary Movie 3 was "the last high water mark for movies." Hint: you are the idiot. |
Ok.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:03 am |
|
|
You can probably stop attacking The Crow now as well, because I'm not going to defend it. I only brought it up to correct an earlier post of mine, and it expresses my opinion. It's ok that you disagree with my opinion, and under different circumstances I might discuss it, but I'd rather see this thread get back on track, if that's even possible at this point.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:16 pm |
|
|
DarwinMayflower, your name is awesome.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
