The computer art question
P. Desopo
art. So, I've read on all graphic related sites that I've visited the
phrase: "computer art". Near a multimedia interface, web interface, 3d
graphic, Photoshop effects and so on. My idea, no, my certainty is
that this isn't computer art. Perhaps the people think that the
technology is art. But the art IS NOT the medium. I can use a paper
and a pencil, a brush, a stone, a tree!, and everything what I could
desire. The final result is what I've done, my concept, my idea, my
HEART and not the object it self!
What do you think about this?
Bye |:?)
P. Desopo,
http://phoenixart.muskpoint.com/
.:::PhoenixArt project - Tutorials for Photoshop
No1Thinks
>art. So, I've read on all graphic related sites that I've visited the
>phrase: "computer art". Near a multimedia interface, web interface, 3d
>graphic, Photoshop effects and so on. My idea, no, my certainty is
>that this isn't computer art. Perhaps the people think that the
>technology is art. But the art IS NOT the medium. I can use a paper
>and a pencil, a brush, a stone, a tree!, and everything what I could
>desire. The final result is what I've done, my concept, my idea, my
>HEART and not the object it self!
>
>What do you think about this?
I think I don't care how people label anything I create. To create artwork for
a living, for customers, maybe. However, to create it for myself and my own
personal enjoyment, well, they could call it strawberry jello and I still
wouldn't care.
Gordan Aleksandar Ziza
>So many people think that great computer graphic work is computer
>art. So, I've read on all graphic related sites that I've visited the
>phrase: "computer art". Near a multimedia interface, web interface, 3d
>graphic, Photoshop effects and so on. My idea, no, my certainty is
>that this isn't computer art. Perhaps the people think that the
>technology is art. But the art IS NOT the medium. I can use a paper
>and a pencil, a brush, a stone, a tree!, and everything what I could
>desire. The final result is what I've done, my concept, my idea, my
>HEART and not the object it self!
>
>What do you think about this?
>P. Desopo,
>http://phoenixart.muskpoint.com/
>.:::PhoenixArt project - Tutorials for Photoshop
More then irrelevant. It is the idea that counts, but some artistic ideas
are only possible with the help of a computer.
Jammer
whatever you like.
It is infantile to linger on what is and isn't art. I happen to dislike
most early impressionist works (with several exceptions) but I won't deny
that it's art. When a three year old child brings me a crayon sketch, I
can't deny that it's art.
You have a right to be disgusted with art that doesn't appeal to you or
in your mind disgraces the art you appreciate. It still fits the
definition of art though, and at least someone out there likes it, so at
least respect it in that matter.
I like to think of art as a collective, the vaster it is the stronger it
is, anything anyone can add diversifies it and expands its horizons. Any
thought that makes its way into the visual world of art is a blessing.
Keep creating,
~ Jammer
http://www.epix.net/~jammer/artgal/
David Kyte
Gordan Aleksandar Ziza wrote:
> More then irrelevant. It is the idea that counts, but some artistic ideas
> are only possible with the help of a computer.
BULL. I have yet to see anything that was done on the computer that could
not be done with traditional methods.
On the other hand I have seen many paint and brush works that the computer
could not even come close to matching.
--
David F. Kyte
http://home.att.net/~davekyte
"My God can beat up your God"
tomb...@my-dejanews.com
> > More then irrelevant. It is the idea that counts, but some artistic ideas
> > are only possible with the help of a computer.
>
> BULL. I have yet to see anything that was done on the computer that could
> not be done with traditional methods.
Well, good luck painting a Mandelbrot set.
Though I suppose Escher came close...
But seriously, there are a whole lot of artistic ideas that would never have
come into existence without computers. One could replicate fractals or
3D morphing or Photoshop layer effects using traditional paint or
photographic methods, but what's the point?
Computers have given us tools and concepts that open up new fields of
artistic endeavour. Also, the encroachment of technology into our lives
and the effects it has upon our perception are phenomena that call for
artistic investigation, and often it makes sense to use new media to
comment upon themselves.
Examples in a range of media and genres would include Stelarc, random
fonts like Beowolf, Kraftwerk, hyperfiction, Myst, Supreme Particles,
email renga, Xenakis, Christine Tamblyn, Jim Ludtke...
Tom Beard.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Anthony
>BULL. I have yet to see anything that was done on the computer that could
>not be done with traditional methods.
Anything that can be done with a computer can be done by hand--given time.
>On the other hand I have seen many paint and brush works that the computer
>could not even come close to matching.
Anything that can be done with paint and brush can be done with a computer.
It really doesn't matter whether you use paint and a brush or a computer, as
everything is possible with both, if you have talent. Using a computer
simply makes it easier to get the ideas in your head into tangible form, in
most cases.
--
Anthony
David Kyte
>
> Anything that can be done with paint and brush can be done with a computer.
Can you make a real impasto painting on the computer?
Can you make the pixels thicker so they stand off the image and show brush
strokes, hand of the artist as a friend calls it.
I use Painter for many things and it does a very good job of MIMICKING
traditional media but even Painter is not the same as real paint.
>
> It really doesn't matter whether you use paint and a brush or a computer, as
> everything is possible with both, if you have talent. Using a computer
> simply makes it easier to get the ideas in your head into tangible form, in
> most cases.
But that is the point you can spend hours on a computer work and when done all
you have is an electronic file.
>
> --
> Anthony
Marina Waltz
> Anthony wrote:
> >
> > Anything that can be done with paint and brush can be done with a computer.
>
> Can you make a real impasto painting on the computer?
>
> Can you make the pixels thicker so they stand off the image and show brush
> strokes, hand of the artist as a friend calls it.
>
> I use Painter for many things and it does a very good job of MIMICKING
> traditional media but even Painter is not the same as real paint.
> >
> > It really doesn't matter whether you use paint and a brush or a computer, as
> > everything is possible with both, if you have talent. Using a computer
> > simply makes it easier to get the ideas in your head into tangible form, in
> > most cases.
>
> But that is the point you can spend hours on a computer work and when done all
> you have is an electronic file.
Nothing wrong with an electronic file. It can always be printed anddisplayed if
one wants to hang it on a wall.
I agree with the first poster in that it doesn't matter what medium is
being used when an artist is creating artwork, but I agree with the
second poster when he states that the computer can only mimic the
look of a real brush and paint.
I really believe that all media for creating art is equally valid,
including the computer. However, it is somewhat disconcerting
to have worked very hard on something and then have people
think the computer created it instead of the artist. Many
people seem to think computer art has less validity because
they don't understand that the artist and not the computer
is responsible for the artwork.
Regards,
Marina
Anthony
>Anything done with a bulldozer can be done with a spoon -- given time.
>The point?
That there is no fundamental difference between art created with a computer
and art created without.
>Everything is _not_ possible with either. They both have strengths and
>weaknesses, as do any other two mediums. Even if you have a certain amount
>of artistic talent, if you choose the wrong medium -- or try to express
yourself
>in a medium you have no feel for -- you're hosed.
That depends on how much talent--and patience--you have.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>Can you make a real impasto painting on the computer?
All paintings amount to images. You can create images in all sorts of ways.
>Can you make the pixels thicker so they stand off the image and show brush
>strokes, hand of the artist as a friend calls it.
You can create a digital image that appears to contain brush strokes, if
that is important to you.
>I use Painter for many things and it does a very good job of MIMICKING
>traditional media but even Painter is not the same as real paint.
Theoretically this "mimicking" can be perfect. More importantly, though,
one must wonder why anyone would wish to recreate what are essentially
defects of traditional methods.
>But that is the point you can spend hours on a computer work and when done
all
>you have is an electronic file.
No, you have an image that you can communicate to others, and that's the
objective of all the visual arts.
--
Anthony
sande...@my-dejanews.com
terms they are almost meaningless. Now, a "computer artist" is anyone who
owns or at least has access to graphic software such as Photoshop. Apply a
filter, even to a stock photo and voila! a "computer artist".
No, the medium doesn't make an artist. These software programs are pricey
but not difficult to use, anyone can learn. But it takes an artist to make
the computer sing.
Same goes with typesetters, I naively hired a "typesetter" some years ago,
what a nightmare! I assumed at the time, people were truly what they claimed
to be. Little did I know the definition of "typesetter" had changed, the new
meaning is someone who has and knows how to use their desktop publishing
software. The next time around I made sure I hired a REAL typesetter.
Keep Creating!
SanDe
http://www.concentric.net/~Akeshara/home.html
SanDesigns ~ Illustration/Design/Fine Art
In article <35b8a88a...@news.interbusiness.it>,
phoen...@yahoo.com wrote:
> So many people think that great computer graphic work is computer
> art. So, I've read on all graphic related sites that I've visited the
> phrase: "computer art". Near a multimedia interface, web interface, 3d
> graphic, Photoshop effects and so on. My idea, no, my certainty is
> that this isn't computer art. Perhaps the people think that the
> technology is art. But the art IS NOT the medium. I can use a paper
> and a pencil, a brush, a stone, a tree!, and everything what I could
> desire. The final result is what I've done, my concept, my idea, my
> HEART and not the object it self!
>
> What do you think about this?
> Bye |:?)
> P. Desopo,
> http://phoenixart.muskpoint.com/
> .:::PhoenixArt project - Tutorials for Photoshop
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Darkhop
> I really believe that all media for creating art is equally valid,
> including the computer. However, it is somewhat disconcerting
> to have worked very hard on something and then have people
> think the computer created it instead of the artist. Many
> people seem to think computer art has less validity because
> they don't understand that the artist and not the computer
> is responsible for the artwork.
Yes, it's difficult to get across that you don't just learn the
application and then after that everything is a breeze. Especially now,
when these programs have become so sophisticated that the possibilities
for variations both subtle and gross are nearly the next best thing to
being limitless. I'm no artist (yet), but what some people have managed
to create on a computer utterly amazes me.
Yers,
John
Thomas Sivertsen
[SNIP]
> >Can you make the pixels thicker so they stand off the image and show brush
> >strokes, hand of the artist as a friend calls it.
>
> You can create a digital image that appears to contain brush strokes, if
> that is important to you.
Sometimes, a real physical texture cannot be mimicked truely on a
computer. The difference in perception between a physically flat image
(i.e printed) and one between a layered oil-painting is huge. Those
bumps and crevices catch light entirely differently from flat images.
> >I use Painter for many things and it does a very good job of MIMICKING
> >traditional media but even Painter is not the same as real paint.
>
> Theoretically this "mimicking" can be perfect. More importantly, though,
> one must wonder why anyone would wish to recreate what are essentially
> defects of traditional methods.
Because of the feel of the paint, the smell, the way defects catch the
light in different ways? These are all incredibly subtle details that
can only be _emulated_ on a computer. There is no substitute for real
paint, canvas and brushes, and no substitute for a computer with the
right software.
> >But that is the point you can spend hours on a computer work and when done
> all
> >you have is an electronic file.
>
> No, you have an image that you can communicate to others, and that's the
> objective of all the visual arts.
Exactly!
Cheers, Thomas Sivertsen
--
Retired Platform Warrior (member of APF)
Capitalism is the systematic annihilation of reason
Anthony
<1dcvwq8.wz...@mp-213-138.daxnet.no>...
>Sometimes, a real physical texture cannot be mimicked truely on a
>computer. The difference in perception between a physically flat image
>(i.e printed) and one between a layered oil-painting is huge. Those
>bumps and crevices catch light entirely differently from flat images.
Use a 3-D simulation generated by computer. You won't be able to tell the
difference.
>Because of the feel of the paint, the smell, the way defects catch the
>light in different ways?
You don't feel or smell images. The way light is reflected can be
duplicated with complete accuracy.
--
Anthony
Jerry Kindall
wrote:
> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
> <1dcvwq8.wz...@mp-213-138.daxnet.no>...
>
> >Because of the feel of the paint, the smell, the way defects catch the
> >light in different ways?
>
> You don't feel or smell images. The way light is reflected can be
> duplicated with complete accuracy.
However, accurately modeling the way the reflection changes in an
interactive way (based on actual light sources, viewer's head position,
etc.) is currently a bit beyond most desktop hardware...
--
Jerry Kindall mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com Technical Writing
Manual Labor http://www.manual.com Web Design, etc.
Q: What animal would you be if you could be an animal?
A: You already are an animal. -- "Microserfs," Douglas Coupland
Thomas Sivertsen
> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
> <1dcvwq8.wz...@mp-213-138.daxnet.no>...
>
> >Sometimes, a real physical texture cannot be mimicked truely on a
> >computer. The difference in perception between a physically flat image
> >(i.e printed) and one between a layered oil-painting is huge. Those
> >bumps and crevices catch light entirely differently from flat images.
>
> Use a 3-D simulation generated by computer. You won't be able to tell the
> difference.
Oh no? How about when you`re nose is 2 inches from it?
Of course, the 3D simulation will be more accurate, technically anyway.
> >Because of the feel of the paint, the smell, the way defects catch the
> >light in different ways?
>
> You don't feel or smell images.
Never touched or stuck you`re nose close to an oil-painting? It behaves
differently because it is far more textured, catching the light and
shadows interactively.
>The way light is reflected can be
> duplicated with complete accuracy.
Yes, but not as accurate as actual physical images do. Besides, the
image will change it`s mood in different light far more than a
completely flat image.
Computer images and painted images are different, with their own sets of
intangibles that set them apart. They can`t be compared.
tomb...@my-dejanews.com
> > >Sometimes, a real physical texture cannot be mimicked truely on a
> > >computer. The difference in perception between a physically flat image
> > >(i.e printed) and one between a layered oil-painting is huge. Those
> > >bumps and crevices catch light entirely differently from flat images.
> > >Because of the feel of the paint, the smell, the way defects catch the
> > >light in different ways?
Of course, all of this is irrelevant if one is talking about a reproduction,
whether it's in print or on the web. Then it's much more likely that
Painter's impasto effect might be taken for the real thing.
Anyway, the whole thread disturbs me for its implied equation:
art = natural media
and the implication that computer art might approach 'real' art as its
simulation of natural media improves in verisimiltude. Art doesn't
require natural media, any more than it requires the physical touch
of an artist (cf Donald Judd, Jeff Koons, Billy Apple).
If I was to draw a tentative distinction between computer art and other
forms of art, it would depend upon the extent to which algorithmic
techniques are involved. If Pollock had used Painter or Mondrian
had used Freehand or Ernst had used Photoshop, would that have
made their work 'computer art'? I'd suggest not: the computer would
just have been used as a tool, taking a very similar role to brushes
or scissors. However, an artist who sets up an algorithm, whether it
is as simple as a lissajous figure or as complex as a fractal landscape,
is involved in computer art.
As an analogy, would one refer to a poem that was written in Word as
'computer poetry'? I wouldn't: I'd reserve that term for poems composed
by an algorithm, such as Cage's mesostics, and perhaps for poems
that require interactive media for their delivery. Thus, I wouldn't refer
to an artist who uses Painter or Photoshop to 'paint' or 'draw' as a
computer artist, but simply as an artist who uses a computer.
Tom Beard.
Thomas Sivertsen
[SNIP excellent post]
I totally agree with you. The computer is just another tool with it`s
good and bad sides. What I was trying to get through is that natural
media and computer created art has different attributes. just that.
There is a distinct difference. Some actively use those differences as
part of their art, and it is therefore relevant. What tool is chosen to
create is in every possible way irrelevant as long as it can express the
artistic vision.
Anthony
>However, accurately modeling the way the reflection changes in an
>interactive way (based on actual light sources, viewer's head position,
>etc.) is currently a bit beyond most desktop hardware...
Ray tracing can handle this for static images. Real-time ray tracing is
indeed more than most hardware can handle, though.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>Oh no? How about when you`re nose is 2 inches from it?
Doesn't matter, as long as the two images are correctly generated.
>Never touched or stuck you`re nose close to an oil-painting?
No.
>It behaves differently because it is far more textured, catching
>the light and shadows interactively.
Just as old-fashioned vinyl LPs sound better than CDs, right?
>Yes, but not as accurate as actual physical images do.
Any desired accuracy can be obtained digitally.
--
Anthony
Jerry Kindall
And doing it for multiple points of view simultaneously, without requiring
unwieldy goggles of some sort, is a long way away. <g>
Thomas Sivertsen
> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
> <1dcy99m.sg...@mp-36-196.daxnet.no>...
>
> >Oh no? How about when you`re nose is 2 inches from it?
>
> Doesn't matter, as long as the two images are correctly generated.
There is still a difference.
>
> >Never touched or stuck you`re nose close to an oil-painting?
>
> No.
You should. You might learn something. ;-)
> >It behaves differently because it is far more textured, catching
> >the light and shadows interactively.
>
> Just as old-fashioned vinyl LPs sound better than CDs, right?
Yep! - sort of. The difference is not quantifiable. The difference
between digittal and analog is the staircase and the curve. The curve is
finer. The differnce between CD and vinyl is large, due to the various
noises that come in all the right (and wrong) places. An old Black
Sabbath vinyl album is far better than a remastered CD, for instance.
Never mind that they played like shit (also very important) in the early
days. Imperfection is an art in itself. ;-)
> >Yes, but not as accurate as actual physical images do.
>
> Any desired accuracy can be obtained digitally.
>
Yes, that is sort of true. But there is also something that is called
"overkill" and "too perfect". ;-)
The difference is the actual physical differnce between a flat image and
a physical textured image. The differnce does matter. Compare a printed
reproduction of an oil-painting and the real thing and you will
understand what I mean (not that I don`t think you already understand).
David Kyte
Anthony wrote:
>
>
> Any desired accuracy can be obtained digitally.
You are still talking about looking at a picture of something compared
to looking at the real thing. The real thing is going to have more
"substance". You are only limited by what you can see with your eyes
and not by whatever limited way the display device you are using
presents it to you.
The human eye has a much higher and wider gamut of color then the best
electronic display.
There is also the problem of detail. You are limited by the resolution
of the digital image. I have a 3 foot by 5 foot oil painting I am
working on now. How much disk space would a say 600 to 800 dpi 3x5 foot
color digital image take up.
With paint I can paint with a big brush or add minute detail with a very
small brush with the only limit being how will I can see what I am
doing.
Anthony
>There is still a difference.
Describe it.
>You should. You might learn something.
What would I learn that would be relevant here?
>Yep! - sort of. The difference is not quantifiable.
It's difficult to quantify what isn't there.
>The difference between digittal and analog is the
>staircase and the curve.
If the steps are infinitely small, they'll look just like a curve. If the
curve is rough enough, it'll look like a staircase.
>The differnce between CD and vinyl is large, due to the various
>noises that come in all the right (and wrong) places. An old Black
>Sabbath vinyl album is far better than a remastered CD, for instance.
I was being facetious when I mentioned CDs being better than vinyl. CDs are
superior.
>Yes, that is sort of true.
It's 100% true, actually.
>But there is also something that is called "overkill"
>and "too perfect".
I prefer to concentrate on the message, not the medium, so a perfect medium
is preferable.
>The difference is the actual physical differnce between a flat image and
>a physical textured image.
But if you look at an image, you cannot tell whether it is textured in three
dimensions or not.
>Compare a printed reproduction of an oil-painting and the real
>thing and you will understand what I mean (not that I don`t think
>you already understand).
It sounds like you are very attached to doing things in established ways.
Lots of artists feel that way. There isn't any logical reason for it, but
artists are rarely of a logical bent, in my experience.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>You are still talking about looking at a picture of something compared
>to looking at the real thing.
Yes. They are one and the same (or they can be).
>The real thing is going to have more "substance".
You do not detect substance simply by looking at something.
>The human eye has a much higher and wider gamut of color then the best
>electronic display.
Paints and crayons have a much more limited gamut than the human eye, also.
>There is also the problem of detail. You are limited by the resolution
>of the digital image. I have a 3 foot by 5 foot oil painting I am
>working on now. How much disk space would a say 600 to 800 dpi 3x5 foot
>color digital image take up.
You don't need 600 to 800 dpi. You need only enough resolution to cover,
say, details of about 30" in diameter (or perhaps half that, to be on the
safe side). The average person with excellent vision can't see anything
smaller. As a general rule, in consequence of this fact, no image need
contain more than about 20,000 pixels horizontally or 12,000 pixels
vertically. Anything beyond that is invisible, anyway.
--
Anthony
Thomas Sivertsen
> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
> <1dczvl6.19h...@mp-211-175.daxnet.no>...
>
> >There is still a difference.
>
> Describe it.
I can`t. ;-)
> >You should. You might learn something.
>
> What would I learn that would be relevant here?
That there is a difference between a CG image and one created with
traditional tools.
> >Yep! - sort of. The difference is not quantifiable.
>
> It's difficult to quantify what isn't there.
It`s there, for some.
> >The difference between digittal and analog is the
> >staircase and the curve.
>
> If the steps are infinitely small, they'll look just like a curve. If the
> curve is rough enough, it'll look like a staircase.
Yep, I know that. Why have infinitely small steps when a curve will do
the job?
> >The differnce between CD and vinyl is large, due to the various
> >noises that come in all the right (and wrong) places. An old Black
> >Sabbath vinyl album is far better than a remastered CD, for instance.
>
> I was being facetious when I mentioned CDs being better than vinyl. CDs are
> superior.
I know what you meant. CDs are far superior, but not better. Go figure.
;-) It`s all about "the eye of the beholder", and all that (maybe ears
in this case, but...).
> >Yes, that is sort of true.
>
> It's 100% true, actually.
Well, I still think that computers cannot perfectly mimick reality since
it is being done in 2D space, not in real 3D space (like reality). Rodin
would maybe have used Maya (or Softimage) if he had been alive today,
but he wouldn`t get the exact same result as when he did his stuff in
marble (or granite or whatever). There are limitations to any medium.
with a computer there are less limitations than with old-style tools.
They have distinct characteristics which , IMHO, set them far apart. An
artist choose between the two based on need, skill, etc. But both still
require talent and equipment.
> >But there is also something that is called "overkill"
> >and "too perfect".
>
> I prefer to concentrate on the message, not the medium, so a perfect medium
> is preferable.
The medium can be the message, or part of it. That is very important to
remember. All sides of an artwork should be considered, not just the
center of attention (i.e the image), again IMHO.
> >The difference is the actual physical differnce between a flat image and
> >a physical textured image.
>
> But if you look at an image, you cannot tell whether it is textured in three
> dimensions or not.
True. But when I move it will change with an oil-painting. A flat image
won`t change. Then I will see which is in 2 or 3 dimensions.
> >Compare a printed reproduction of an oil-painting and the real
> >thing and you will understand what I mean (not that I don`t think
> >you already understand).
>
> It sounds like you are very attached to doing things in established ways.
> Lots of artists feel that way. There isn't any logical reason for it, but
> artists are rarely of a logical bent, in my experience.
>
I am not at all interested in doing things in established ways. I like
oil-paintings, but couldn`t paint them if my life depended on it. What I
am trying to say is that there is a difference in preception between an
oil-painting and a CG image. Maybe my eyes are extra-sensitive or
something... ;-) I haven`t yet said that one is better than the other,
just that there is a difference between the two. This difference should
be recognized, and used.
Oh, and lets not turn this into another flame-fest. I find this subject
very interesting, and wouldn`t weant it to be ruined.
David Kyte
Anthony wrote:
> David Kyte wrote in message <35C126DF...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
> >You are still talking about looking at a picture of something compared
> >to looking at the real thing.
>
> Yes. They are one and the same (or they can be).
Are you kidding? So to YOU a picture is the same as the real thing? You may
have been looking at a monitor too long and have burned your eyes out,
everyone else I know can tell the difference 2D image and a 3D thing.
>
>
> >The real thing is going to have more "substance".
>
> You do not detect substance simply by looking at something.
Sure you do, that is the first way to establish substance. You can tell how
big it is, its width, how tall and depth. If I see a person standing next to
me I do not need to poke, measure, or weigh that person to know it a real
person and not a picture.
>
>
> >The human eye has a much higher and wider gamut of color then the best
> >electronic display.
>
> Paints and crayons have a much more limited gamut than the human eye, also
>
>
> >There is also the problem of detail. You are limited by the resolution
> >of the digital image. I have a 3 foot by 5 foot oil painting I am
> >working on now. How much disk space would a say 600 to 800 dpi 3x5 foot
> >color digital image take up.
>
> You don't need 600 to 800 dpi. You need only enough resolution to cover,
> say, details of about 30" in diameter (or perhaps half that, to be on the
> safe side). The average person with excellent vision can't see anything
> smaller. As a general rule, in consequence of this fact, no image need
> contain more than about 20,000 pixels horizontally or 12,000 pixels
> vertically. Anything beyond that is invisible, anyway.
I work at 300 to 400 dpi all day creating and images and doing photo
compositting for print work and I can tell you for a fact there is a
difference. We use the 300 to 400 limit only because the most common line
screen for high end printing is 150 to 200 line but I have seen some 300 line
jobs and these require a 600 dpi digital image. And thats 4 color CMYK
printing Hexachrome is a whole other thing all together.
Now all the technogeeks may agree that 20,000 pixels by whatever is the most
you need but this is the real world and I can tell you it is not enough.
There are a lot of people in this group who got into art as an adjunct there
love for computers and only see all the cool things a computer can do. And I
am sure some are a little peeved at artist types who come along and may not
give a #*@! about computers but use them anyway. I can appreciate the things a
computer can do but I am also aware of the very big limits to using one too.
Anthony
>I can`t. ;-)
FAMs have that problem a lot.
>That there is a difference between a CG image and one created with
>traditional tools.
Yes: the former involves a computer, and the latter does not. (Why does
this remind me of a conversation between F. Scott Fitzgerald and E.
Hemingway?)
>It`s there, for some.
If it's real, how can it only be there for some?
>Yep, I know that. Why have infinitely small steps when a curve will do
>the job?
Because the small steps produce a smoother, more accurate curve, and one
that cannot be damaged.
>I know what you meant. CDs are far superior, but not better. Go figure.
That is not logical.
>Well, I still think that computers cannot perfectly mimick reality since
>it is being done in 2D space, not in real 3D space (like reality). Rodin
>would maybe have used Maya (or Softimage) if he had been alive today,
>but he wouldn`t get the exact same result as when he did his stuff in
>marble (or granite or whatever).
Real life isn't made of marble or granite, either.
FWIW, the last time I passed "The Thinker," a few days ago, it looked like
it was made of bronze. That's not real life, either, of course.
>True. But when I move it will change with an oil-painting. A flat image
>won`t change. Then I will see which is in 2 or 3 dimensions.
Here at the Louvre, the guards get upset if you move the paintings while you
are looking at them.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>Are you kidding? So to YOU a picture is the same as the real thing?
From a purely visual standpoint, yes, it can be. It's just light.
>You may
>have been looking at a monitor too long and have burned your eyes out,
>everyone else I know can tell the difference 2D image and a 3D thing.
You can generate 3D images with computers, too. And they can look just like
the real thing.
>Sure you do, that is the first way to establish substance. You can tell how
>big it is, its width, how tall and depth. If I see a person standing next
to
>me I do not need to poke, measure, or weigh that person to know it a real
>person and not a picture.
With light alone, you cannot tell the difference between real life and a
picture.
>I work at 300 to 400 dpi all day creating and images and doing photo
>compositting for print work and I can tell you for a fact there is a
>difference. We use the 300 to 400 limit only because the most common line
>screen for high end printing is 150 to 200 line but I have seen some 300
line
>jobs and these require a 600 dpi digital image. And thats 4 color CMYK
>printing Hexachrome is a whole other thing all together.
We were discussing vision, not print.
>Now all the technogeeks may agree that 20,000 pixels by whatever is the
most
>you need but this is the real world and I can tell you it is not enough.
It is enough. Perhaps I should explain the details:
The resolving power for luminance detail of the human eye in a normal
individual with good vision at the center of the visual field is about 30
seconds of arc, which happens to correspond approximately to the actual
dimensions of a single cone cell in the retina (this is not a coincidence).
In a full circle, then, there are 43,200 points of 30 seconds in width. In
the horizontal plane, the visual field of both eyes covers perhaps 200
degrees (depending on how you measure it). That represents 24,000 points,
or pixels. Therefore 24,000 pixels should be sufficient for any purpose,
especially considering the fact that an image rarely covers the entire
visual field. In the vertical plane, far fewer pixels are necessary, since
the visual field is more restricted.
The image on my monitor is 36 cm in width, and my viewing distance is 50 cm.
At that distance, with good vision, the screen spans 21 degrees, and I
should be able to distinguish about 2532 pixels horizontally. Anything
beyond that would be a waste. In practice, the image contains 1600 pixels
horizontally (1600x1200x16M, which is the best that a Matrox MII can do),
which is less than optimal, but this allows for imperfections in the CRT,
less than optimal viewing conditions (CRTs are not ideal), and imperfections
in my own vision (although my vision is pretty good).
Does this help?
>There are a lot of people in this group who got into art as an adjunct
there
>love for computers and only see all the cool things a computer can do. And
I
>am sure some are a little peeved at artist types who come along and may not
>give a #*@! about computers but use them anyway. I can appreciate the
things a
>computer can do but I am also aware of the very big limits to using one
too.
The limits are an illusion. Don't forget that your brain is a computer,
too.
--
Anthony
MWLewis
On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:34:57 -0700, Thomas Sivertsen wrote
(in message <1dd1ayw.vb...@mp-211-165.daxnet.no>):
> Well, I still think that computers cannot perfectly mimick reality since it
> is being done in 2D space, not in real 3D space (like reality). Rodin would
> maybe have used Maya (or Softimage) if he had been alive today, but he
> wouldn`t get the exact same result as when he did his stuff in marble (or
> granite or whatever). There are limitations to any medium. with a computer
> there are less limitations than with old-style tools. They have distinct
> characteristics which , IMHO, set them far apart. An artist choose between
> the two based on need, skill, etc. But both still require talent and
> equipment.
Actually, if recent postings are any indication, Rodin would want to use "Poser
Marble" to do his statues, wouldn't be able to draw a lick and wouldn't want to
spend more than 15 minutes learning. He would just scan photographs of other
sculptures and combine them in layers with weird geometric figures and corroded
type featuring pithy sayings like "The medium is the message." Then he would
add techno music cranked up to 10, blurry handheld video and spinning, zooming
circles in Macromedia Flash and declare himself a multimedia artist as well.
Rodin worked for years on his sculptures and his art. What a "loser" huh?
<grin>
Bet he was living over his mom's garage forever. <lol>
Thomas Sivertsen
> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
> <1dd1ayw.vb...@mp-211-165.daxnet.no>...
>
> >I can`t. ;-)
>
> FAMs have that problem a lot.
A what?
> >That there is a difference between a CG image and one created with
> >traditional tools.
>
> Yes: the former involves a computer, and the latter does not. (Why does
> this remind me of a conversation between F. Scott Fitzgerald and E.
> Hemingway?)
Nice.
> >It`s there, for some.
>
> If it's real, how can it only be there for some?
Some take more notice of it than others, maybe?
> >Yep, I know that. Why have infinitely small steps when a curve will do
> >the job?
>
> Because the small steps produce a smoother, more accurate curve, and one
> that cannot be damaged.
But it will require more and better (i.e expensive) equipment. Still,
you`re right.
> >I know what you meant. CDs are far superior, but not better. Go figure.
>
> That is not logical.
Some value the mood of vinyl over the superior quality of CDs. Hence
vinyl is better.
> >Well, I still think that computers cannot perfectly mimick reality since
> >it is being done in 2D space, not in real 3D space (like reality). Rodin
> >would maybe have used Maya (or Softimage) if he had been alive today,
> >but he wouldn`t get the exact same result as when he did his stuff in
> >marble (or granite or whatever).
>
> Real life isn't made of marble or granite, either.
>
> FWIW, the last time I passed "The Thinker," a few days ago, it looked like
> it was made of bronze. That's not real life, either, of course.
Of course not, since the object of art is usually not to mimick real
life. Either it is or it isn`t.
> >True. But when I move it will change with an oil-painting. A flat image
> >won`t change. Then I will see which is in 2 or 3 dimensions.
>
> Here at the Louvre, the guards get upset if you move the paintings while you
> are looking at them.
I imagine. have you tried? ;-)
Anthony
>A what?
A fine-arts major, my own term for one of two broad personality types that I
often observe among people. The other type is what I call the Engineer.
Most people are more one than the other, and some people are exclusively one
and not at all the other. Any way, FAMs tend to prefer feelings over fact,
illusion over reality, emotion over logic, themselves over others, etc.
They usually work in some occupation connected to the fine arts, if they
work at all (FAMs tend to be artists, and the supply of talented artists
always exceeds the demand substantially).
>Some take more notice of it than others, maybe?
Or some see what they want to see, rather than what is really there.
>Some value the mood of vinyl over the superior quality of CDs.
What "mood"?
>Of course not, since the object of art is usually not to mimick real
>life.
In that case, it doesn't really matter whether you use a computer or a
paintbrush, does it?
>I imagine. have you tried?
No. The most famous one is protected behind bullet-proof glass, anyway. I
only go into the museum to show people around; otherwise I stick to the food
court right near the entrance.
--
Anthony
Steven
>
> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
> <1dd3160.1sf...@mp-38-121.daxnet.no>...
>
> >A what?
>
> A fine-arts major, my own term for one of two broad personality types that I
> often observe among people. The other type is what I call the Engineer.
> Most people are more one than the other, and some people are exclusively one
> and not at all the other. Any way, FAMs tend to prefer feelings over fact,
> illusion over reality, emotion over logic, themselves over others, etc.
> They usually work in some occupation connected to the fine arts, if they
> work at all (FAMs tend to be artists, and the supply of talented artists
> always exceeds the demand substantially).
The demand for opinions like these also far exeeds the demand for them. Well,
there seems to be some demand for them at Microsoft.
> >Some take more notice of it than others, maybe?
>
> Or some see what they want to see, rather than what is really there.
I think you see what you want to see and take it to be fact. You're more
diluted than those who know they deal with illusions and imagination.
> >Some value the mood of vinyl over the superior quality of CDs.
>
> What "mood"?
>
> >Of course not, since the object of art is usually not to mimick real
> >life.
>
> In that case, it doesn't really matter whether you use a computer or a
> paintbrush, does it?
Of course it does. Everything matters in the proces of creating art.
> --
> Anthony
--
ste...@sifre.demon.nl
(remove * if present)
Anthony
<901982987.1096.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>The demand for opinions like these also far exeeds the demand for them.
QED
>I think you see what you want to see and take it to be fact. You're more
>diluted than those who know they deal with illusions and imagination.
I always try to stay at full strength, actually.
--
Anthony
PhoenixArt
> Computer Artist, Graphic Artist and Computer Art have become such broad
>terms they are almost meaningless. Now, a "computer artist" is anyone who
>owns or at least has access to graphic software such as Photoshop. Apply a
>filter, even to a stock photo and voila! a "computer artist".
This is the point. The same is occured with the electronic keyboard,
in the music. Especially here in Italy most people use the keyboard to
"make" music and by this way they can work (piano-bar)! but many of
their does not play a single sound!!
> No, the medium doesn't make an artist. These software programs are pricey
>but not difficult to use, anyone can learn. But it takes an artist to make
>the computer sing.
>
True.
>
>Keep Creating!
>SanDe
>http://www.concentric.net/~Akeshara/home.html
>SanDesigns ~ Illustration/Design/Fine Art
Bye |:?)
P. Desopo
Thomas Sivertsen
> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
> <1dd3160.1sf...@mp-38-121.daxnet.no>...
>
> >A what?
>
> A fine-arts major, my own term for one of two broad personality types that I
> often observe among people. The other type is what I call the Engineer.
> Most people are more one than the other, and some people are exclusively one
> and not at all the other.
You really need to get out more. Humanity is far more rich - and they
call me anti-social...
> Any way, FAMs tend to prefer feelings over fact,
> illusion over reality, emotion over logic, themselves over others, etc.
Do you value _yourself_ over science?
> They usually work in some occupation connected to the fine arts, if they
> work at all (FAMs tend to be artists, and the supply of talented artists
> always exceeds the demand substantially).
I see what you mean. I fit your description, but not your prejudice.
Please open your mind.
> >Some take more notice of it than others, maybe?
>
> Or some see what they want to see, rather than what is really there.
Strange, isn`t it? Being human, maybe?
> >Some value the mood of vinyl over the superior quality of CDs.
>
> What "mood"?
The "noise", the inperfection. The charm?
> >Of course not, since the object of art is usually not to mimick real
> >life.
>
> In that case, it doesn't really matter whether you use a computer or a
> paintbrush, does it?
My point exactly. And I must confess that what Steven said is the truth.
"Everything matters in the process of creating art."
> >I imagine. have you tried?
>
> No. The most famous one is protected behind bullet-proof glass, anyway. I
> only go into the museum to show people around; otherwise I stick to the food
> court right near the entrance.
Eating instead of watching Mona is sort of barbarian, but I digress..;-)
(or maybe you work there <BG>)
Anthony
>You really need to get out more. Humanity is far more rich - and they
>call me anti-social...
I nevertheless note these tendencies to some extent in many people, on
occasions when I do "get out."
>Do you value _yourself_ over science?
I'm not sure what you mean.
>I see what you mean. I fit your description, but not your prejudice.
>Please open your mind.
What is closed about it?
>Strange, isn`t it? Being human, maybe?
Being controlled by emotion rather than logic and intellect, mainly.
>The "noise", the inperfection. The charm?
I don't consider noise and imperfections charming. Some people can come to
like anything, I suppose, no matter how unpleasant.
>Eating instead of watching Mona is sort of barbarian, but I digress..;-)
Eating is something I must do; looking at a small, faded, mediocre painting
of an Italian woman is not.
>(or maybe you work there <BG>)
No, I work in the suburbs.
--
Anthony
Thomas Sivertsen
> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
> <1dd45yg.z3g...@mp-38-43.daxnet.no>...
>
> >You really need to get out more. Humanity is far more rich - and they
> >call me anti-social...
>
> I nevertheless note these tendencies to some extent in many people, on
> occasions when I do "get out."
It is too far a sweep for one person to do. You cannot judge as easily
as that, IMHO. Still, it`s your choice. My point was that you seem to
only look at the actions, not the reasons. I guess I could have been a
bit less offensive, though.
> >Do you value _yourself_ over science?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
Do you always prefer fact over feeling? When it comes to yourself? If
you say yes, think again.
> >I see what you mean. I fit your description, but not your prejudice.
> >Please open your mind.
>
> What is closed about it?
You are severely prejudiced against other people, not even giving them
the benefit of doubt. It`s arrogant and patronising.
> >Strange, isn`t it? Being human, maybe?
>
> Being controlled by emotion rather than logic and intellect, mainly.
Which is the essence of humanity.
> >The "noise", the inperfection. The charm?
>
> I don't consider noise and imperfections charming. Some people can come to
> like anything, I suppose, no matter how unpleasant.
Yes, which is my point. Still, I wouldn`t want to call vinyl
"unpleasant".
> >Eating instead of watching Mona is sort of barbarian, but I digress..;-)
>
> Eating is something I must do; looking at a small, faded, mediocre painting
> of an Italian woman is not.
I who thought air would be sufficient. Stupid me. I have no special
relationship with it either, but that`s a little harsh, don`t you think?
;-)
> >(or maybe you work there <BG>)
>
> No, I work in the suburbs.
>
Probably good for you. I`m not that well aquainted with Paris.
Anthony
>Do you always prefer fact over feeling? When it comes to yourself? If
>you say yes, think again.
In most cases, yes.
>You are severely prejudiced against other people, not even giving them
>the benefit of doubt. It`s arrogant and patronising.
Which other individuals am I prejudiced against?
>Which is the essence of humanity.
No, most of it is animal physiology.
>Probably good for you. I`m not that well aquainted with Paris.
Working in Paris would actually be preferable. It's a great city in which
to live.
--
Anthony
Thomas Sivertsen
> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
> <1dd5jae.14n...@mp-37-202.daxnet.no>...
>
> >Do you always prefer fact over feeling? When it comes to yourself? If
> >you say yes, think again.
>
> In most cases, yes.
That is sort of sad, but your choice.
> >You are severely prejudiced against other people, not even giving them
> >the benefit of doubt. It`s arrogant and patronising.
>
> Which other individuals am I prejudiced against?
FAMs? Pirates? Those who happen to disagree with you?
> >Which is the essence of humanity.
>
> No, most of it is animal physiology.
That too.
> >Probably good for you. I`m not that well aquainted with Paris.
>
> Working in Paris would actually be preferable. It's a great city in which
> to live.
I`d prefer Edinburgh, London or Barcelona myself, but then again Paris
would be a nice place to visit once in a while.
Doug Venator
Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
>Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Mr. Sivetsen:
Sorry for the intrusion, but in reading your exchanges with Anthony I get
the feeling that you may be a good person to ask a question or two since you
seem to be involved in the "artistic community", but do not seem to suffer
from the superiority complex I detect in many of the same ilk.
Why do so many take a painting/sculpture and dissect it's appearance into a
thousand paragraphs describing it when it is right there for all to see?
Why do so many take such pains to describe the artist's "feelings" and
intentions when 99.9% of them never met or talked to him/her, ever?
For that matter, why do people stand around and verbalize dozens of
inappropriate adjectives to a glass of fermented grape juice?
I cannot for the life of me understand why groups of folks take such pains
to attribute such a huge gamut of shadowy attributes to simple objects. It's
almost as if they are trying to elevate themselves to a level unattainable
to "mere mortals". If one even suggests that these objects are simply
collections of molecules arranged in a certain way and readily reproduced
with the appropriate technology they retreat to arguments that attribute
"feelings" to inanimate objects that are impossible to duplicate. I listen
to these statements and can only wonder at the motive for this phenomenon.
I will probably be crucified here for these remarks, but my curiosity
over-rides my concern for other's opinions of me. If you have any input on
this matter I would be very interested in seeing it.
Doug V.
dv...@borg.com
"Better to remain silent and appear a fool than to open your mouth and
remove all doubt." - Unknown
Thomas Sivertsen
> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
> <1dd6p0b.g4...@mp-216-149.daxnet.no>...
> >Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Mr. Sivetsen:
>
> Sorry for the intrusion, but in reading your exchanges with Anthony I get
> the feeling that you may be a good person to ask a question or two since you
> seem to be involved in the "artistic community", but do not seem to suffer
> from the superiority complex I detect in many of the same ilk.
Thank you for that. I`m not that involved in art myself (more of a
tinkerer), although most of my friends are deeply involved "in the
arts". The whole range of music, photography, painting (classic) and
computer imaging. No worries about intruding, since this thread was dead
or dying.
> Why do so many take a painting/sculpture and dissect it's appearance into a
> thousand paragraphs describing it when it is right there for all to see?
I really don`t know. It might have something to do with the
self-gratification of attempting to get close to an artist they admire.
It can also be a great learning process. If you knew what colours and
brushes Rembrandt used, it won`t make you a better artist, but it will
give you something to start with. Feeling inspired by someone great, is
a very good start, even if it`s upside-down and totally out there.
> Why do so many take such pains to describe the artist's "feelings" and
> intentions when 99.9% of them never met or talked to him/her, ever?
Maybe because they want to get close to that artists mind, or something
like that. By describing their relationship with a work of art, they
feel that they understand the artwork and the artist. They migh not have
an inkling of a clue, but they still think so, and the artwork becomes
more personal to them and therefore richer. It is a very interesting
question, but I haven`t got a real answer for you. It just strange,
really.
> For that matter, why do people stand around and verbalize dozens of
> inappropriate adjectives to a glass of fermented grape juice?
Because they should be commited? ;-) The art may be in the excercise of
describing it or getting people to accept how ridiculous it is. A
reaction is really what art is supposed to provoke in many artists
views.
> I cannot for the life of me understand why groups of folks take such pains
> to attribute such a huge gamut of shadowy attributes to simple objects. It's
> almost as if they are trying to elevate themselves to a level unattainable
> to "mere mortals". If one even suggests that these objects are simply
> collections of molecules arranged in a certain way and readily reproduced
> with the appropriate technology they retreat to arguments that attribute
> "feelings" to inanimate objects that are impossible to duplicate. I listen
> to these statements and can only wonder at the motive for this phenomenon.
An interesting observation. These attributes may be what make art, to
some, but to yourself it might be an object of creation that is the art.
It all comes down to how you define art and how you value art. Some
value the intellectual excercise, others admire the detail, others the
craftmanship, blablabla, ad nauseum. I am starting to sound as bad as
the people with the fermented grape juice. ;-)
> I will probably be crucified here for these remarks, but my curiosity
> over-rides my concern for other's opinions of me. If you have any input on
> this matter I would be very interested in seing it.
If anyone crucified you, they`d need the same help as those people with
the fermented grape juice. Your curiosity should be satisfied no matter
the consequence, IMHO. I hope this is of any help in satisfying your
curiosity, although I don`t know the answers, really. Maybe something to
argue with a friend of mine? ;-) It`s all in the interpretation...
Nigel Dale
I couldn't agree more. The problem with art criticism is that you often
can't tell the difference between what is intended as a form of expression
and what is exploitative. Many critics have been fooled, witness the
infamous elephant paintings. This is because one can criticise technique
but not expression, one can only appraise expression from a point of view,
abstraction being the most difficult. Music is similar in that great
technique doesn't mean great art. In general I find art criticism to be
way off beam. If I buy a chicken & avocado sandwich with dill mayo for
today's lunch, I defy anyone to tell me what my motivations for doing so
were. Then why should anyone think they can tell me my motivations to
produce a particular peice of art, I'd tell them to fuck off personally.
Cheers,
NIGE...
Doug Venator <dv...@borg.com> wrote in article
<35c84...@nntp2.borg.com>...
>
> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
> <1dd6p0b.g4...@mp-216-149.daxnet.no>...
> >Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Mr. Sivetsen:
>
> Sorry for the intrusion, but in reading your exchanges with Anthony I get
> the feeling that you may be a good person to ask a question or two since
you
> seem to be involved in the "artistic community", but do not seem to
suffer
> from the superiority complex I detect in many of the same ilk.
>
> Why do so many take a painting/sculpture and dissect it's appearance into
a
> thousand paragraphs describing it when it is right there for all to see?
>
> Why do so many take such pains to describe the artist's "feelings" and
> intentions when 99.9% of them never met or talked to him/her, ever?
>
> For that matter, why do people stand around and verbalize dozens of
> inappropriate adjectives to a glass of fermented grape juice?
>
> I cannot for the life of me understand why groups of folks take such
pains
> to attribute such a huge gamut of shadowy attributes to simple objects.
It's
> almost as if they are trying to elevate themselves to a level
unattainable
> to "mere mortals". If one even suggests that these objects are simply
> collections of molecules arranged in a certain way and readily reproduced
> with the appropriate technology they retreat to arguments that attribute
> "feelings" to inanimate objects that are impossible to duplicate. I
listen
> to these statements and can only wonder at the motive for this
phenomenon.
>
> I will probably be crucified here for these remarks, but my curiosity
> over-rides my concern for other's opinions of me. If you have any input
on
Lawrence Dillard
I believe you have hit the nail on the head. The artistic audience spew
forth such drivel in the hopes that they will be viewed as having seen
something and experienced something others have not, therefore making them
super to others. They strive for ever far reaching adjectives to describe
the works they see mainly to "fit in" in the community from which they
strive to be included in. "when in Rome..." It is not uncommon for
individuals to want to imitate the actions of others around them therefore
the endless adjectives are ever increasing to "keep up with the Jones" so to
speak. Art does have an emotional level to it, I just believe that these
"fanatics" take it to the extreme...
And I too, I am sure will be crucified by such statement, but oh well...
Doug Venator wrote in message <35c84...@nntp2.borg.com>...
Mark Dunlop
>
>Mr. Sivetsen:
>
>Sorry for the intrusion, but in reading your exchanges with Anthony I get
>the feeling that you may be a good person to ask a question or two since you
>seem to be involved in the "artistic community", but do not seem to suffer
>from the superiority complex I detect in many of the same ilk.
>
>Why do so many take a painting/sculpture and dissect it's appearance into a
>thousand paragraphs describing it when it is right there for all to see?
If I may butt in here, one theory puts this down to Caxton's (?)
invention of the printing press, which established a pre-eminence for
the printed word and for verbal conceptualisation, at least in the west.
Most people educated in a WASP-type school system are reasonably
articulate with words, but can't draw for toffee. So they will tend to
express themselves verbally.
>
>Why do so many take such pains to describe the artist's "feelings" and
>intentions when 99.9% of them never met or talked to him/her, ever?
>
Maybe they're trying to impress a girl? Or their colleagues at work?
>For that matter, why do people stand around and verbalize dozens of
>inappropriate adjectives to a glass of fermented grape juice?
Because they're bourgeois poseurs? One theory would have it that they
are the product of advanced global consumer capitalism. Below is from a
webpage somewhere; can't remember the URL, but if you search
'Guy+Debord' or 'Situationism', this should yield a result.
.................
Society of the Spectacle.
Nearly a half century has passed since a compelling amalgam of anarchism
and dadaism calling itself the "Situationist International" erupted in
western Europe. Generated out of youthful angst and the post-war despair
of the early 1950s, Situationism was a loosely configured, hyperactive
cultural movement. Over the decades, it has repeatedly surfaced in new
contexts -- notably in the late 1970s and early eighties in association
with radical punk. Some view situationism as a self-indulgent
patriarcho- revisionist cargo cult; others see it as a prescient spark
in the gloom of mid-century. [1] As we approach the fin de siecle, it's
worth re-examining some of the ideas and perspectives Situationism
offers.
A leading member of the Parisian-based founding faction of this movement
was Guy Debord. With a particularly alienated eye, Debord observed mid-
20th-century western capitalist society and saw it dominated by a
complex phenomenon to which he gave the name "Spectacle." His
conclusions were published in 1967 as La Societe du Spectacle. [2]
Brilliantly, Debord identified and named the early stages of a trend
that has since only accelerated: the saturation of our social
environment by manufactured images. These images are not merely a
collection of relatively harmless entertainments or fantasies, Debord
insisted, but have become the primary form of social relations among
people. The manipulation of images on a mass scale makes it possible to
"manage" basic human needs, drives and functions as if they were
commodities. Like a prophet howling in the desert, Debord decried "the
degradation of being into having and an even further generalized sliding
of having into appearing." While Debord may have seemed to be raving
(and perhaps he often was, given his self-confessed alcoholism), the
vision itself was perfectly lucid. His prophesy ? That this process,
driven by mass media and advertising, would come to shape our
institutions and our very identities. And has it not?
As the 20th century draws to a close, one thing is clear: the CONSUMER
has triumphantly replaced the Citizen as the basic social unit. This is
most particularly the case in the United States, which combines the
highest per capita global rates of consumption with the lowest voter
participation of any existing democracy. Now, when we're dealing with
the work of French intellectuals, historical context and perspective
(even when not explicit) is always an underpinning of theory. So, let's
make a quick fly-over of the terrain: The role of CITIZEN was born out
of the secular-humanist concept of the individual SUBJECT, or SELF. This
Self or Individual Subject had, in turn, been the replacement (radical
at the time) for the SOUL of the Christian ideology that had dominated
Europe in the preceding centuries. As with most complex systems,
previous categories do not suddenyl vanish, they continue to operate in
various sub-systems. For example the "soul" is an operative concept in
many religious contexts, while 'self-esteem' plays a similar role in
current psychoanalysis and popular psychology. In "idealized" and
circumscribed areas -- such as in application for citizenship or
political elections -- the citizen category is operative. But in the
public realm (which becomes increasingly synonymous with the economic
arena) the prevailing mode of address is to the individual as consumer.
So Spectacle is really the "affect" or psychological face of advanced
global consumer capitalism.
.......end quote........
In other words, the wine buffs are buying into the consumer ethos, and
into the mirage of socially prestigious 'appearances'. They are being
good little consumer citizens.
>
>I cannot for the life of me understand why groups of folks take such pains
>to attribute such a huge gamut of shadowy attributes to simple objects. It's
>almost as if they are trying to elevate themselves to a level unattainable
>to "mere mortals".
Well, perhaps thats exactly what they are trying to do. They are
competing socially to appear more cultured than their peers.
>If one even suggests that these objects are simply
>collections of molecules arranged in a certain way and readily reproduced
>with the appropriate technology they retreat to arguments that attribute
>"feelings" to inanimate objects that are impossible to duplicate. I listen
>to these statements and can only wonder at the motive for this phenomenon.
>
Well I guess the people who make such statements are often sincere in
their own way, but they perhaps tend to use a derivative, socially
approved vocabulary (cliches) which makes use of caring, pc type
concepts such as 'soulful, sensitive, individual, authentic, unique,
hand of the artist...'etc, rather than speaking directly from their own
experience and perceptions. Or maybe they are subconciously trying to
fight back against the overweening global pc consumer thingy. Its
probably possible to deconstruct the phenomenon lots of different ways.
Just my tuppence worth.
>I will probably be crucified here for these remarks,
Ohhhh for that martyred feeling....:)
--
Mark Dunlop
Nigel Dale
to be a working class beverage. However in France, Spain and Italy it is.
This might explain the bullshit attributed to the qualities of wine in
UK/USA. However, beer is being described in increasingly abstract terms
BUT with a nod towards *cool* society. Still, I love wine, I don't know
much about it but I can describe it in abstract terms and I know which
wines I prefer, but these terms mean something only to me. I describe
things that relate to my experiences rather than sensory factors. People
that describe wine for others are just trying to sell it.
NIGE...
Mark Dunlop <ma...@pallas3.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<cFZnGAAM...@pallas3.demon.co.uk>...
> Doug Venator writes:
> >
> >snip>
be...@met.co.nz
> Why do so many take a painting/sculpture and dissect it's appearance into a
> thousand paragraphs describing it when it is right there for all to see?
Because nothing stands alone: every artwork illuminates and is illuminated
by the other products of culture. For example, a late Mondrian is more
interesting when seen in the context of his earlier pieces, since the process
of abstraction, of his gradual development of new ways of seeing, becomes
apparent; and art critics can show us this context.
Because good writing, whether it is art criticism, poetry, fiction,
philosophy or humour, is a pleasure to read.
> Why do so many take such pains to describe the artist's "feelings" and
> intentions when 99.9% of them never met or talked to him/her, ever?
Because when someone's work has moved us, we want to know how they
tick. Although I believe that an artist's intentions may be irrelevant to our
interpretations of her work, we are human, and thus become fascinated
by the human stories behind work that has moved us.
> For that matter, why do people stand around and verbalize dozens of
> inappropriate adjectives to a glass of fermented grape juice?
Because wine is an area where the sensual and the analytical come
together so deliciously.
> I cannot for the life of me understand why groups of folks take such pains
> to attribute such a huge gamut of shadowy attributes to simple objects. It's
> almost as if they are trying to elevate themselves to a level unattainable
> to "mere mortals".
Because everyone, "mere mortals" included, consciously and
unconsciously "attrribute ... a huge gamut of shadowy attributes to simple
objects." For example, show someone an American flag. Some will
ignore it, some will salute it, some will burn it. Show someone his
childhood toys, a photo of his lover, his old school tie, his car. The range
of feelings evoked and connoted by these objects will be vast and
powerful.
> If one even suggests that these objects are simply
> collections of molecules arranged in a certain way and readily reproduced
> with the appropriate technology they retreat to arguments that attribute
> "feelings" to inanimate objects that are impossible to duplicate. I listen
> to these statements and can only wonder at the motive for this phenomenon.
Because the key word here is "arranged". The difference between a few
buckets of paint and a Chagall painting is analagous to the difference
between a lump of steel and an Aston Martin DB7: they are all just
"collections of molecules", but depending upon the "certain way" in which
they are arranged they can be either inert and useless or beautiful and
powerful.
Nigel said "Many critics have been fooled, witness the infamous elephant
paintings." I assume that he's talking about the various occasions where
critics have raved about a painting, only for it later to be revealed as the
work of an elephant/chimp/cat etc. Now, if the critics had said "This is the
work of a genius, this painting evokes his extistentialist angst and his fear
of nuclear devastation, his use of colour shows that he was abused as a
child", then of course that critic is talking bollocks. A critical statement
along the lines of "This painting moved me to tears: the dark shapes are
evocative yet elusive; the hemispheric shape reminds me of Gretchen Albrecht,
yet with the violence of a De Kooning" would not, however, be invalidated by
revelations of an elephantine source.
At one level, I don't care whether I'm looking at the work of Da Vinci or a
chimp or a recursive algorithm or an oil leak. Art is about seeing; art
criticism is a mode of attention.
> I will probably be crucified here for these remarks, but my curiosity
> over-rides my concern for other's opinions of me. If you have any input on
> this matter I would be very interested in seeing it.
I wouldn't have you crucified for your opinions. I do, however, object to
being told (not explicitly by you, but by Mark) that because I find delight
in the art of Barnett Newman or Sonia Delaunay, or the criticism of
Walter Benjamin, or a complex and beautifully structured Pinot Noir, then
I'm a "bourgeois poseur", just trying to impress girls (I wish it worked!).
For the record, I also love South Park, Wipeout 2097, bacon burgers
and watching the All Blacks (when they win...), so I'm not just trying
to "appear more cultured".
Cheers,
Tom Beard.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Nigel Dale
be...@met.co.nz wrote in article <6qb1rq$ur7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> > snip>
> > I cannot for the life of me understand why groups of folks take such
pains
> > to attribute such a huge gamut of shadowy attributes to simple objects.
It's
> > almost as if they are trying to elevate themselves to a level
unattainable
> > to "mere mortals".
>
> Because everyone, "mere mortals" included, consciously and
> unconsciously "attrribute ... a huge gamut of shadowy attributes to
simple
> objects." For example, show someone an American flag. Some will
> ignore it, some will salute it, some will burn it. Show someone his
> childhood toys, a photo of his lover, his old school tie, his car. The
range
> of feelings evoked and connoted by these objects will be vast and
> powerful.
I think Doug meant folks who need an audience for their shadowy attributes.
> > If one even suggests that these objects are simply
> > collections of molecules arranged in a certain way and readily
reproduced
> > with the appropriate technology they retreat to arguments that
attribute
> > "feelings" to inanimate objects that are impossible to duplicate. I
listen
> > to these statements and can only wonder at the motive for this
phenomenon.
>
> Because the key word here is "arranged". The difference between a few
> buckets of paint and a Chagall painting is analagous to the difference
> between a lump of steel and an Aston Martin DB7: they are all just
> "collections of molecules", but depending upon the "certain way" in which
> they are arranged they can be either inert and useless or beautiful and
> powerful.
But opinions on collections of molecules often depend on who or what
arranged the molecules.
> Nigel said "Many critics have been fooled, witness the infamous elephant
> paintings." I assume that he's talking about the various occasions where
> critics have raved about a painting, only for it later to be revealed as
the
> work of an elephant/chimp/cat etc. Now, if the critics had said "This is
the
> work of a genius, this painting evokes his extistentialist angst and his
fear
> of nuclear devastation, his use of colour shows that he was abused as a
> child", then of course that critic is talking bollocks. A critical
statement
> along the lines of "This painting moved me to tears: the dark shapes are
> evocative yet elusive; the hemispheric shape reminds me of Gretchen
Albrecht,
> yet with the violence of a De Kooning" would not, however, be invalidated
by
> revelations of an elephantine source.
I completely agree with you on this point, but critics often want the
consumers of their crticism to feel the same way they do, Brian Sewell
being a good example.
> At one level, I don't care whether I'm looking at the work of Da Vinci or
a
> chimp or a recursive algorithm or an oil leak. Art is about seeing; art
> criticism is a mode of attention.
This is how one may approach life in general. Experience everything, take
nothing for granted.
> > I will probably be crucified here for these remarks, but my curiosity
> > over-rides my concern for other's opinions of me. If you have any input
on
> > this matter I would be very interested in seeing it.
>
> I wouldn't have you crucified for your opinions. I do, however, object to
> being told (not explicitly by you, but by Mark) that because I find
delight
> in the art of Barnett Newman or Sonia Delaunay, or the criticism of
> Walter Benjamin, or a complex and beautifully structured Pinot Noir, then
> I'm a "bourgeois poseur", just trying to impress girls (I wish it
worked!).
Mark seems also to be a product of consumerism as he has taken such a
stance against it. We are all consumers whether we like it or not. The
problems start when we try to persuade others to consume in a like-minded
fashion. You are only taking delight, and believe me, that is perfect in
itself. BUT, what if I told you that Pinot Noir has none of the subtlety
of the Pinot Gris and why would you bother with either when you should be
drinking Sancerre ... , you would have every right to tell me to fuck off
because everyone's sensory and emotive reactions and experiences are
different.
> For the record, I also love South Park, Wipeout 2097, bacon burgers
> and watching the All Blacks (when they win...), so I'm not just trying
> to "appear more cultured".
What is uncultured or cultured about the above? You have shot your own
argument down in flames ;-)
Kenny A. Chaffin
>
> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
> <1dd6p0b.g4...@mp-216-149.daxnet.no>...
> >Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
> Sorry for the intrusion, but in reading your exchanges with Anthony I get
> the feeling that you may be a good person to ask a question or two since you
> seem to be involved in the "artistic community", but do not seem to suffer
> from the superiority complex I detect in many of the same ilk.
>
> thousand paragraphs describing it when it is right there for all to see?
>
> intentions when 99.9% of them never met or talked to him/her, ever?
>
> inappropriate adjectives to a glass of fermented grape juice?
>
> to attribute such a huge gamut of shadowy attributes to simple objects. It's
> almost as if they are trying to elevate themselves to a level unattainable
> collections of molecules arranged in a certain way and readily reproduced
> with the appropriate technology they retreat to arguments that attribute
> "feelings" to inanimate objects that are impossible to duplicate. I listen
> to these statements and can only wonder at the motive for this phenomenon.
>
> over-rides my concern for other's opinions of me. If you have any input on
> this matter I would be very interested in seeing it.
>
> dv...@borg.com
> "Better to remain silent and appear a fool than to open your mouth and
> remove all doubt." - Unknown
>
>
>
>
I'm kinda with you in that there are many posers in the art community
and there's no need for it. I also know there is something about a true
"work of art" that triggers something in us that is impossible to put
into words, yet some think they have to try or at least have to try to
convince others that they have felt the "meaning" of the artwork.
In truth this is not necessary. Art is a personal, individual experience.
Or should be.
Best Wishes,
--
KAC
Website Design, Programming, Graphics --> http://www.kacweb.com
ke...@kacweb.com
Rochester
> >to attribute such a huge gamut of shadowy attributes to simple objects.
> It's
> >almost as if they are trying to elevate themselves to a level unattainable
> >to "mere mortals". If one even suggests that these objects are simply
> >collections of molecules arranged in a certain way and readily reproduced
> >with the appropriate technology they retreat to arguments that attribute
> >"feelings" to inanimate objects that are impossible to duplicate. I listen
> >to these statements and can only wonder at the motive for this phenomenon.
The funny thing is its also a double edged sword. As a designer for my company
I'm often asked, "Well, we prefer to put everything in boxes and use straight
lines, why use curves and circles, what does this picture have to do with
e-commerce or animation and so forth?" I reply "stylish, pleasant to the eye,
looks good," but they seem to beg for DYNAMIC, ENERGY, JUMPS OUT AT YOU, and the
like. I don't understand a word of it. Talk about over analysis, "Business
people don't like watermarks" and "we have to appeal to the conservative
element." My god, I'm not putting out illustrations of people getting gutted or
their eyes being cut up, but please, let's stay away from WORD or WordPerfect
clip art like imagery!
Cheers,
Rochester
Doug Venator
Kenny A. Chaffin wrote in message ...
>In article <35c84...@nntp2.borg.com>, dv...@borg.com says...
>>
>> Thomas Sivertsen wrote in message
>> <1dd6p0b.g4...@mp-216-149.daxnet.no>...
>> >Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
a
>> thousand paragraphs describing it when it is right there for all to see?
>>
>> Why do so many take such pains to describe the artist's "feelings" and
>> intentions when 99.9% of them never met or talked to him/her, ever?
>>
>> For that matter, why do people stand around and verbalize dozens of
>> inappropriate adjectives to a glass of fermented grape juice?
>> Doug V.
>> dv...@borg.com
>> "Better to remain silent and appear a fool than to open your mouth and
>> remove all doubt." - Unknown
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Doug,
> I'm kinda with you in that there are many posers in the art community
>and there's no need for it. I also know there is something about a true
>"work of art" that triggers something in us that is impossible to put
>into words, yet some think they have to try or at least have to try to
>convince others that they have felt the "meaning" of the artwork.
>In truth this is not necessary. Art is a personal, individual experience.
>Or should be.
>
>Best Wishes,
>--
>KAC
>Website Design, Programming, Graphics --> http://www.kacweb.com
>ke...@kacweb.com
Well, well. I am somewhat subdued. I've kept this opinion(s) to myself
figuring I'd be roasted by the artistic community for suggesting that there
are those who give me a bad taste in my mouth by insinuating that I do not
have the proper appreciation for certain works of art.
I know that there are photos of my kids that evoke more personal feeling
than all the Picasso's ever could, and the tone of most of the responses
were fairly indicative of agreement with this sentiment.
The above quoted reply was pretty typical of those here and sent via e-mail
and has somewhat restored my faith in human nature.
Thanks to all who replied,
sildd
beer.
Cheers,
NIGE...
be...@met.co.nz wrote in message <6qdoke$gss$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>This is drifting inexorably from the topic, so I'll try to keep it brief.
>snip<
Mark Dunlop
>
>But opinions on collections of molecules often depend on who or what
>arranged the molecules.
>
>> Nigel said "Many critics have been fooled, witness the infamous elephant
>
>I completely agree with you on this point, but critics often want the
>consumers of their crticism to feel the same way they do, Brian Sewell
>being a good example.
>
Which one is the elephant's foot, which one the Franz Kline? Brian
Sewell and a couple of other critics up against a team of wine buffs.
Which is the real rennaisance villa, which the Arizona reconstruction?.
Give the chimp a movie camera and see if they could tell that from an
Andy Warhol film. (I'm a big fan of his work btw, but maybe not his
movies...)
Reckon the wine gang would be up for it, but the critics would probably
back off?
>Mark seems also to be a product of consumerism as he has taken such a
>stance against it.
>
Hah! You've got me sussed. I had foolishly thought I was escaping
consumerism, but really I was only buying straight into the new,
upgraded ironic-consumerism market.
> We are all consumers whether we like it or not. The
>problems start when we try to persuade others to consume in a like-minded
>fashion. You are only taking delight, and believe me, that is perfect in
>itself. BUT, what if I told you that Pinot Noir has none of the subtlety
>of the Pinot Gris and why would you bother with either when you should be
>drinking Sancerre ... , you would have every right to tell me to fuck off
>because everyone's sensory and emotive reactions and experiences are
>different.
>
That's the aspect I was interested in, regarding this computer art
question. Not so much whether oil paint is intrinsically more/less
artistic than RGB, more from the point of view that 'images' ( meaning
both actual visual images and also their associated values, as in
'Clinton's image') look set over the next few years/decades to become an
important pan-global communications medium, because images can cross
language boundaries. This, on a global scale, would be something
entirely new in human culture AFAICS. And there will probably be a lot
of tweaking of images, both in Photoshop and also by the spin doctors in
Washington, for the purposes of cultural and political persuasion. It
may become more difficult to tell what's real and what's not. Perhaps
imagery will become the new capitalism, with the right image worth
billions.
Or am I just dreaming in my cups?
--
Cheers,
Mark Dunlop
be...@met.co.nz
> I think Doug meant folks who need an audience for their shadowy attributes.
Maybe for some people it is a case of "need[ing] an audience", but I for one
am happy to be an audience for intelligent criticism and scholarship. There
are many occasions when an essay has opened up for me new ways of
looking at an art work, and I am grateful for this.
> I completely agree with you on this point, but critics often want the
> consumers of their crticism to feel the same way they do, Brian Sewell
> being a good example.
I don't know Sewell, so I can't comment upon specifics, but yes, there are
schools of criticism that focus upon canon-building. I see the job of a
critic (as opposed to a reviewer) as being not evaluative or even
interpretive, but simply to be an informed and attentive observer who
shares his or her responses with readers. I know this is idealistic, but
there _are_ critics like this around: they're not all intent upon forcing
their views upon others.
> BUT, what if I told you that Pinot Noir has none of the subtlety
> of the Pinot Gris and why would you bother with either when you should be
> drinking Sancerre ... , you would have every right to tell me to fuck off
> because everyone's sensory and emotive reactions and experiences are
> different.
Well, I'd be interested to hear the reasons behind your prescriptions. Maybe
you'll drag me out of a rut and introduce me to something new; or maybe
I'll dislike the experience and go back to my old favourites. I'm glad that
someone took the effort to introduce me to Pinot Gris.
> > For the record, I also love South Park, Wipeout 2097, bacon burgers
> > and watching the All Blacks (when they win...), so I'm not just trying
> > to "appear more cultured".
>
> What is uncultured or cultured about the above? You have shot your own
> argument down in flames ;-)
Have I? I was just trying to show that I engage in "high cultural" pursuits
because I have a genuine enthusiasm for them, not because I think
they make me better than other people. There seems to be an
implication going around that no-one really _likes_ art and criticism,
and that if arty people weren't so busy posing they'd admit that they
prefer Playstation to Picasso.
Hell, let's just get a pizza, watch some Jackie Chan and argue
about Baudelaire.
Zeitbauer
>From: Rochester <nospam...@mail.mountain.wave.ca_nospam>
>Date: 8/6/98 3:07 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <35CA535E...@mail.mountain.wave.ca_nospam>
ne sais qui theological subtext... mes dieux... paid in full, and, the most
elaborate explaination comes about, immediatly you try to show boundaries about
your little entities... and as you describe you become so suddenly unsure...
your i.q. leaps (at least 3 points) as you realize that artists are trying to
explain 2 to you, and u don't get it.
i don't care if you have a job,
moik
Doug Venator
Zeitbauer wrote in message
<199808071002...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
miko:
Is this an artistic reply? You lost me between "xavage" and "paid in full".
As to "u dont get it", most artists who replied did so with a certain degree
of agreement with the main thrust of the original post, and did so in an
understandable form. If you disagree, however, please try to do so in a
simpler manner, as I am unable to comprehend your point. This may be my
shortcoming but please bear with me.
Doug V.
dv...@borg.com
"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." - Wooden
Lawrence Dillard
hint of... oh hell with it just drink the damn thing... = : )
sildd wrote in message
<902458650.13048.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Doug Venator
>.........There seems to be an
>implication going around that no-one really _likes_ art and criticism,
>and that if arty people weren't so busy posing they'd admit that they
>prefer Playstation to Picasso.
Hey, I _love_ that last......, and IMHO there's a lot to be said for
proficiency with Playstation (etc.) beyond mindless gaming. In addition to
the physical skills needed, there's the benefit of the brain-candy (like
art?) as a diversion from the work-a-day pressures we inflict on ourselves.
(of course, while I'm working, artists just play with pictures all day
anyhow. ;>] )
Lawrence Dillard
said that person or painting had a certain " je ne sais qui" I would be
saying that they are stylish...
Doug Venator wrote in message <35cb9...@nntp2.borg.com>...
Doug Venator
Lawrence Dillard wrote in message
<35cba652...@news.harland.net-MINC>...
Then why not say that they are "stylish" if that is your meaning? Why use a
four word French phrase to elucidate one word of English. This is not to be
taken personaly, Mr. Dillard, you were merely explaining the meaning of the
previous posters phrase. But it goes to the heart of my point re the
"posing", as one person here put it, that some people feel is necessary to
bolster their image. (I suppose)
Maybe I'm getting too cranky in my old age, things that I would have just
glossed over previously now seem to stick in my craw and I find myself
bitching about the dumbest things. Just ignore me until my Geritol (sic?)
kicks in. ;>]
Hey, anybody here like Dali or Escher stuff? It blows my mind! (Senile
non-sequitur?!?)
Jerry Kindall
> Lawrence Dillard wrote in message
> <35cba652...@news.harland.net-MINC>...
> >"je ne sais qui" means a certain kind of style or flare about oneself. If
> I
> >said that person or painting had a certain " je ne sais qui" I would be
> >saying that they are stylish...
> >
> >Doug Venator wrote in message <35cb9...@nntp2.borg.com>...
> >
> >>Is this an artistic reply? You lost me between "xavage" and "paid in
> full".
>
> Then why not say that they are "stylish" if that is your meaning? Why use a
> four word French phrase to elucidate one word of English.
Actually, the French phrase literally means "I don't know what." Saying
something has "je ne sais quoi" means it has a certain indefinable
"something" that you can't put your finger on. Not exactly the same as
"stylish."
The phrase is well-known enough to be in the American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language.
--
Jerry Kindall mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com Technical Writing
Manual Labor http://www.manual.com Web Design, etc.
A makeover for your Mac every week. http://www.manual.com/tss/
Anthony
>Actually, the French phrase literally means "I don't know what." Saying
>something has "je ne sais quoi" means it has a certain indefinable
>"something" that you can't put your finger on. Not exactly the same as
>"stylish."
>
>The phrase is well-known enough to be in the American Heritage Dictionary
>of the English Language.
You could simply say that it has a "certain something." Incidentally, while
"je ne sais quoi" does indeed mean "I don't know what," "je ne sais qui"
means "I don't know who."
--
Anthony
Andrea J. Parent
> invention of the printing press, which established a pre-eminence for
> the printed word and for verbal conceptualisation, at least in the west.
er, that would be Gutenberg.
(at least I remember something from graphic arts history!)
Steven
>
> > If I may butt in here, one theory puts this down to Caxton's (?)
> > invention of the printing press, which established a pre-eminence for
> > the printed word and for verbal conceptualisation, at least in the west.
>
>
> (at least I remember something from graphic arts history!)
But you forgot to say who you are quoting.
--
ste...@sifre.demon.nl
(remove * if present)