10 statements all of us can agree on.
Man
merry x-mas season, let's find 10 statements we can all agree on!!
These 10 statements are so profoundly true that we can nod in
agreement, hold hands, have a coke and a smile.
I want to start off by saying 2040 sucks but beknighted fools--though
decent human beings in most respects--like will and lowensodium will
surely disagree. but what follows are what we can all agree on.
1. Sylia is cool but Priss is hot.
2. Crisis is better than Crash.
3. Suzuki's artistic decline is a tragedy.
4. 2040 has little to do with the original.
5. Sonoda is one of 5 best character designers ever.
6. Sylia is more interesting than Nene.
7. Mackie is hornier than the average lad.
8. Largo's biggest enemy was himself.
9. Sylia is different but not a boomer.
10. Daley is gay.
See, we do have much in common. yes we belong to the brotherhood of
man, sisterhood of women, fatherhood of fathers, and motherhood of
mothers and fanhood of fans.
--
http://thenewrepublic.com/ & http://www.newcriterion.com/
http://www.observer.com/arts.htm
http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/
http://www.villagevoice.com/film/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Will
news:90cjvv$bo7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I want to start off by saying 2040 sucks but beknighted fools--though
> decent human beings in most respects--like will and lowensodium will
> surely disagree.
Thank you for keeping that in mind.
> 1. Sylia is cool but Priss is hot.
Agreed.
> 2. Crisis is better than Crash.
Yep.
> 3. Suzuki's artistic decline is a tragedy.
Define 'artistic decline' :)
But I agree.
> 4. 2040 has little to do with the original.
Absolutely.
> 5. Sonoda is one of 5 best character designers ever.
Which are the other four, and what did they do?
But yes.
> 6. Sylia is more interesting than Nene.
In the original series, not in 2040. So I disagree a little.
Revised 6: OVA Sylia is more interestring than OVA Nene.
> 7. Mackie is hornier than the average lad.
True!
> 8. Largo's biggest enemy was himself.
I guess ...
> 9. Sylia is different but not a boomer.
Exactly what that means varies with the series, but you can probably define her as
'different but not a boomer' in both. So yes.
> 10. Daley is gay.
Not in 2040.
Revised 10: OVA Daley is gay.
> See, we do have much in common. yes we belong to the brotherhood of
> man, sisterhood of women, fatherhood of fathers, and motherhood of
> mothers and fanhood of fans.
Lol ^_^
Nene sends her regards.
/w
http://come.to/nene
Robyn, Duke of Amber
Mmmmm coke.
and for the *other side*
Mmmm Dr. Pepper.
I'dd like ot teach the world to sing :)
I would actually debate (or more possibly "quibble" ) a couple of
thse...but you are essentually correct sir.
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, it was written:
> Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 04:59:44 GMT
> From: Man,an ancient race,BestButNotTheBeast <mananci...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.fan.bgcrisis
> Subject: 10 statements all of us can agree on.
>
> We disagree, we bicker, and want to punch one another out but in this
> merry x-mas season, let's find 10 statements we can all agree on!!
> These 10 statements are so profoundly true that we can nod in
> agreement, hold hands, have a coke and a smile.
>
> 5. Sonoda is one of 5 best character designers ever.
I think you will get som edisagreements over this...some feel her
re-uses the character styles to much..but in saying that
who who are the others?
(This does not include mecha/Gundam designs)
Shiro, and Miazaki (love them redheads!)
Yoshitaka Amano (love his designs for Angel's Egg and Vampire Hunter D)
CLAMP (who can be seen as a single entity for this.
Kosuke Fujishima (Love them Goddesses!)
Leiji Matsumoto: Our star Blazers!
Crap... that *does* make 5. Any other suggestions here?
>
> 6. Sylia is more interesting than Nene.
>
Naw...She's just younger. I would say that anyone whose father is killed
in a corperate bid for world control who may (or may not) have some sort
of *alteration* to her normal physical condidtion could be considered more
*interesting.*
7. Mackie is hornier than the average lad.
Hmmmmm thinking back to when I was 14-20 I'dd have to disagree there. :)
other than that yes.
Neil
__________________________________________________________________
_____________
Seraphim, the Restless Angel with a (borrowed) sword.
________
Nene, Ami,
Girls with glasses. girls with computers. Pink hair. blue hair
_______________________
Robyn, Duke of Amber. Agent of Chaos.
***************************************************************************
Sarah Davis
Man ; an ancient race ; BestButNotTheBeast wrote in message
<90cjvv$bo7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> We disagree, we bicker, and want to punch one another out but in this
>merry x-mas season, let's find 10 statements we can all agree on!!
>These 10 statements are so profoundly true that we can nod in
>agreement, hold hands, have a coke and a smile.
Did you collect your endorsement check from Coca Cola yet, or is it still in
the mail?
>I want to start off by saying 2040 sucks but beknighted fools--though
>decent human beings in most respects--like will and lowensodium will
>surely disagree. but what follows are what we can all agree on.
You seem awfully confident about that.
>1. Sylia is cool but Priss is hot.
Hotheaded? Yes, she certainly is.
>2. Crisis is better than Crash.
I don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise.
>3. Suzuki's artistic decline is a tragedy.
This, too, is a given.
>4. 2040 has little to do with the original.
As is this, although only one out of every hundred people realizes it.
>5. Sonoda is one of 5 best character designers ever.
*snort* Not by a long shot. He has three character designs: Beautiful, sexy,
and cute, applicable in such terms to both females and males. Watch them be
reused time and time again until you're dead tired of them all. BGC is the
one series where Sonoda's potential shone through, and even in this case, I
would argue that most of his designs were extremely basic.
>6. Sylia is more interesting than Nene.
I'd love to see someone give a strong, objective argument to the contrary
without the entire argument hinging on "Nene got more screen time" or
"interesting is subjective." I'm reminded of a recent thread on raam that
asked, "Is Anime Art?," to which some replied that all things made by men
are art, or of artistic value. This speaks more of the vanity ingrained into
us from birth than of the actual worth of our productions. Their naievete of
worldly things is matched only by their inexperience with life. Most things
are *not* subjective; people merely fool themselves into believing otherwise
because this makes them more comfortable. But I digress.
>7. Mackie is hornier than the average lad.
Is he? I've met very few teenage boys who wouldn't take a peep at their
buxom sisters if given the chance. They wouldn't be as obvious about it as
Mackie, but his twerpy moments were supposed to be humorous, and hence were
exaggerated for intended comedic effect.
>8. Largo's biggest enemy was himself.
No, it was Mason. Everything wrong with Largo was a product not of Largo's
design, but of Mason's integration of himself into that design. The conceit,
the grudges, and all else were the corruption of one man's mind in one
Boomer's body.
>9. Sylia is different but not a boomer.
I thought the good Mister Woodhead had already cleared this up. So why did
so many regulars not hear it?
>10. Daley is gay.
And even a little perky.
>See, we do have much in common. yes we belong to the brotherhood of
>man, sisterhood of women, fatherhood of fathers, and motherhood of
>mothers and fanhood of fans.
Surprisingly, I can find myself agreeing with some of what you said and
flaming you over none of it. Gee, the Christmas spirit *must* be thick in
the air this year.
Sarah
Sean O'Mara
"Robyn, Duke of Amber" wrote:
> > 5. Sonoda is one of 5 best character designers ever.
>
> I think you will get som edisagreements over this...some feel her
> re-uses the character styles to much..but in saying that
> who who are the others?
> (This does not include mecha/Gundam designs)
> Shiro, and Miazaki (love them redheads!)
> Yoshitaka Amano (love his designs for Angel's Egg and Vampire Hunter D)
> CLAMP (who can be seen as a single entity for this.
> Kosuke Fujishima (Love them Goddesses!)
> Leiji Matsumoto: Our star Blazers!
>
> Crap... that *does* make 5. Any other suggestions here?
Haruhiko Mikimoto
And uh, howabout the guy that did the designs for the original Gundam? I know
he signed his work YAS (I think) but his actual name escapes me.
Peace.
Sean
"Musashi was not afraid to die, but his objective was to win definitively, not
just survive, and he was trying to build up the confidence to do so. Let others
die heroic deaths, if that suited them. Musashi could settle for nothing less
than a heroic victory." - Musashi, Eiji Yoshikawa (1892-1962)
John C. Watson
weyland...@mindspring.com wrote on 4/12/2000 22:36:
>
>
> "Robyn, Duke of Amber" wrote:
>
>>
>> Crap... that *does* make 5. Any other suggestions here?
>
> Haruhiko Mikimoto
> And uh, howabout the guy that did the designs for the original Gundam? I know
> he signed his work YAS (I think) but his actual name escapes me.
>
> Peace.
> Sean
>
Yoshikazu Yasuhiko. He also illustrated the original Dirty Pair novels, and
created _Venus Wars_ and _Arion_.
Ciao,
John
John C. Watson
World Otakunization Project, Amherst Division
"Victory or Death, Otaku!"
Robyn, Duke of Amber
designs...but thinking about this....Gundams...well they are characters.
Neil
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Sean O'Mara wrote:
> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 20:36:39 -0700
> From: Sean O'Mara <weyland...@mindspring.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.fan.bgcrisis
> Subject: Re: 10 statements all of us can agree on.
>
>
>
> "Robyn, Duke of Amber" wrote:
>
> > > 5. Sonoda is one of 5 best character designers ever.
> >
> > I think you will get som edisagreements over this...some feel her
> > re-uses the character styles to much..but in saying that
> > who who are the others?
> > (This does not include mecha/Gundam designs)
> > Shiro, and Miazaki (love them redheads!)
> > Yoshitaka Amano (love his designs for Angel's Egg and Vampire Hunter D)
> > CLAMP (who can be seen as a single entity for this.
> > Kosuke Fujishima (Love them Goddesses!)
> > Leiji Matsumoto: Our star Blazers!
> >
> > Crap... that *does* make 5. Any other suggestions here?
>
> Haruhiko Mikimoto
> And uh, howabout the guy that did the designs for the original Gundam? I know
> he signed his work YAS (I think) but his actual name escapes me.
>
> Peace.
> Sean
>
> --
> weyland...@mindspring.com
>
> "Musashi was not afraid to die, but his objective was to win definitively, not
> just survive, and he was trying to build up the confidence to do so. Let others
> die heroic deaths, if that suited them. Musashi could settle for nothing less
> than a heroic victory." - Musashi, Eiji Yoshikawa (1892-1962)
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
Robyn, Duke of Amber
>
> >5. Sonoda is one of 5 best character designers ever.
>
> and cute, applicable in such terms to both females and males. Watch them be
> reused time and time again until you're dead tired of them all. BGC is the
> one series where Sonoda's potential shone through, and even in this case, I
> would argue that most of his designs were extremely basic.
Honestly...I was waiting for this....Saw it coming a mile off but like
most things you can never avoid....such as a rampaging hyperboomer or
Priss thrashing out a bike it just couldn't be stopped.
>
> >6. Sylia is more interesting than Nene.
>
> I'd love to see someone give a strong, objective argument to the contrary
> without the entire argument hinging on "Nene got more screen time" or
> "interesting is subjective." I'm reminded of a recent thread on raam that
> asked, "Is Anime Art?," to which some replied that all things made by men
> are art, or of artistic value. This speaks more of the vanity ingrained into
> us from birth than of the actual worth of our productions. Their naievete of
> worldly things is matched only by their inexperience with life. Most things
> are *not* subjective; people merely fool themselves into believing otherwise
> because this makes them more comfortable. But I digress.
hmmm do I feel lucky?
>
> >7. Mackie is hornier than the average lad.
>
> Is he? I've met very few teenage boys who wouldn't take a peep at their
> buxom sisters if given the chance. They wouldn't be as obvious about it as
> Mackie, but his twerpy moments were supposed to be humorous, and hence were
> exaggerated for intended comedic effect.
I agree.
>
> >8. Largo's biggest enemy was himself.
>
> No, it was Mason. Everything wrong with Largo was a product not of Largo's
> design, but of Mason's integration of himself into that design. The conceit,
> the grudges, and all else were the corruption of one man's mind in one
> Boomer's body.
>
I thinkyou are correct here as well...I think that looking at both the ADP
novel and Shawns' "No Armour" Series tends to indicate that largo was a
"rush job" with more intrest in quick vengence that a whole integrate
personality or any dreams of stability.
>
> >10. Daley is gay.
>
> And even a little perky.
Hey....
the rest of the Sabers are just as perky....Scoop Chase shows this with
Nene and I bet Sylia was after her swims as well....
(I am so sorry I wrote this)
> Sarah
Sarah Davis
Robyn, Duke of Amber wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Sarah Davis wrote:
>>
>>
sexy,
>> and cute, applicable in such terms to both females and males. Watch them
be
>> reused time and time again until you're dead tired of them all. BGC is
the
>> one series where Sonoda's potential shone through, and even in this case,
I
>> would argue that most of his designs were extremely basic.
>
>Honestly...I was waiting for this....Saw it coming a mile off but like
>most things you can never avoid....such as a rampaging hyperboomer or
>Priss thrashing out a bike it just couldn't be stopped.
I'm just not a Sonoda fan. I can't help it. I've tried, and consequently
failed, to find it in my hear to think anything of his designs.
>> >6. Sylia is more interesting than Nene.
>>
>> I'd love to see someone give a strong, objective argument to the contrary
>> without the entire argument hinging on "Nene got more screen time" or
>> "interesting is subjective." I'm reminded of a recent thread on raam that
>> asked, "Is Anime Art?," to which some replied that all things made by men
>> are art, or of artistic value. This speaks more of the vanity ingrained
into
>> us from birth than of the actual worth of our productions. Their naievete
of
>> worldly things is matched only by their inexperience with life. Most
things
>> are *not* subjective; people merely fool themselves into believing
otherwise
>> because this makes them more comfortable. But I digress.
>
>hmmm do I feel lucky?
It's not meant to be an insult. ^^;; But to be honest, I'm dead tired of
people coming up with *horrible* support for what (of any number of things)
is or is not art. By the sugar coated standards of today, anything is art
because it is manmade is of great artistic value dependant on how it is
viewed by the audience, which I think is a silly feel-good rationale.
Opinions will always vary, as will tastes and other factors, but what is art
and what is artfully designed is not open to debate as often as some would
argue.
>> >8. Largo's biggest enemy was himself.
>>
>> No, it was Mason. Everything wrong with Largo was a product not of
Largo's
>> design, but of Mason's integration of himself into that design. The
conceit,
>> the grudges, and all else were the corruption of one man's mind in one
>> Boomer's body.
>>
>I thinkyou are correct here as well...I think that looking at both the ADP
>novel and Shawns' "No Armour" Series tends to indicate that largo was a
>"rush job" with more intrest in quick vengence that a whole integrate
>personality or any dreams of stability.
'Tis why I love the little bastard of a machination. Largo, defects and all,
is just one of those rare cases of the writers actually trying to create a
character and not just a face that speaks lines. *cough*miriamyoshida*cough*
>> >10. Daley is gay.
>>
>> And even a little perky.
>
>Hey....
>the rest of the Sabers are just as perky....Scoop Chase shows this with
>Nene and I bet Sylia was after her swims as well....
Not considering what a good dose of chlorine can do to one's hair.
> (I am so sorry I wrote this)
Maybe it was for the best. Topic drift isn't so bad...
Sarah
David Johnston
> It's not meant to be an insult. ^^;; But to be honest, I'm dead tired of
> people coming up with *horrible* support for what (of any number of things)
> is or is not art. By the sugar coated standards of today, anything is art
> because it is manmade is of great artistic value dependant on how it is
> viewed by the audience, which I think is a silly feel-good rationale.
> Opinions will always vary, as will tastes and other factors, but what is art
> and what is artfully designed is not open to debate as often as some would
> argue.
One problem comes when people think that only good art is art. Bad art
is still art. It's just bad. Of course some things are bad just because
a person lacked the skill to accomplish what he was trying to do, while other
things are bad because what they tried to do was make people puke.
Sarah Davis
David Johnston wrote in message <3A2D66...@telusplanet.net>...
I guess this depends on one's perspective: Is art the final product as
accomplished in a competent manner, or is art the vision itself rather than
the overall design and execution? I'd opt for the former. A familiar example
would be the fifth episode of the BGC OVAs. It isn't perfect, and it has
many flaws, but I *do* think it's art, in spite of its failings, because of
the thought that was put into it.
Sarah
Man
>
> One problem comes when people think that only good art is art. Bad
art
> is still art. It's just bad. Of course some things are bad just
because
> a person lacked the skill to accomplish what he was trying to do,
while other
> things are bad because what they tried to do was make people puke.
>
>
It depends on how one defines art. If you define art broadly as any
creative endeavor, any crude drawing by a kindergartener is art. But,
there is another definition. A work of imagination that has something
more than mere entertainment value. Something that opens new paths in
how we see and understand reality, something of universal relevance or
peculiar strangeness, something of lasting beauty and approaching the
divine, etc.
By the latter definition, charlie's angels the movie is not art though
by a broader definition any movie is a work of visual art. One
definition is generic, the other is qualitative.
Rob Kelk
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Sarah Davis wrote:
>
>> It's not meant to be an insult. ^^;; But to be honest, I'm dead tired of
>> people coming up with *horrible* support for what (of any number of things)
>> is or is not art. By the sugar coated standards of today, anything is art
>> because it is manmade is of great artistic value dependant on how it is
>> viewed by the audience, which I think is a silly feel-good rationale.
>> Opinions will always vary, as will tastes and other factors, but what is art
>> and what is artfully designed is not open to debate as often as some would
>> argue.
>
>One problem comes when people think that only good art is art. Bad art
>is still art. It's just bad. Of course some things are bad just because
>a person lacked the skill to accomplish what he was trying to do, while other
>things are bad because what they tried to do was make people puke.
>
I think what Sarah might be trying to get at here is that some people
are calling things "art" when they really shouldn't be considered art
in the first place. (If I'm wrong, Sarah, please slap me down now...)
One of the posters to last week's "Is Anime Art?" thread over on
r.a.a.misc mentioned a definition that claimed anything people did
that wasn't related to survival is "art". My reply to that was that
that definition made the entirety of r.a.a.misc "art".
(I still haven't come up with a definition of "art" that I like. It
used to be "any expression that I can't do", but I've since become a
decent writer, and I consider writing to be an artform...)
--
Rob Kelk http://robkelk.tripod.com/ rob...@ottawa.com
"I'm *not* a kid! Nyyyeaaah!" - Skuld (in "Oh My Goddess!" OAV #3)
"When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of
childishness and the desire to be very grown-up." - C.S. Lewis, 1947
Sarah Davis
Rob Kelk wrote in message <3a2e39b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
>On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 21:58:32 GMT, David Johnston
><rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>>Sarah Davis wrote:
>>
>>> It's not meant to be an insult. ^^;; But to be honest, I'm dead tired of
>>> people coming up with *horrible* support for what (of any number of
things)
>>> is or is not art. By the sugar coated standards of today, anything is
art
>>> because it is manmade is of great artistic value dependant on how it is
>>> viewed by the audience, which I think is a silly feel-good rationale.
>>> Opinions will always vary, as will tastes and other factors, but what is
art
>>> and what is artfully designed is not open to debate as often as some
would
>>> argue.
>>
>>One problem comes when people think that only good art is art. Bad art
>>is still art. It's just bad. Of course some things are bad just because
>>a person lacked the skill to accomplish what he was trying to do, while
other
>>things are bad because what they tried to do was make people puke.
>>
>
>I think what Sarah might be trying to get at here is that some people
>are calling things "art" when they really shouldn't be considered art
>in the first place. (If I'm wrong, Sarah, please slap me down now...)
(Damn... There I had the chance to slap someone, but I didn't take it...)
You're right about my basic statement. The definition of what is art varies
greatly from person to person, but anyone who argues that all things have
the capacity to be art and that art encompasses all is making too broad and
unreliable an argument. By that definition, we're all artists, and this,
like I said before, is too WAFFy a definition for my tastes.
The rest of what I said can be summed up in saying that not even all
intended art is art. By the kindergarten You're All Special definition,
Britney Spears' music is art. To me, that is not art; it is slime, a
by-product of an artistically complacent and deprived society. But if I were
asked if some of Tori Amos' music qualified as art, I'd concede. Singling
out real art requires a filtering process which causes knees to knock and
feelings to be hurt, but it's a necessary evil to preverse what is beautiful
about the human condition: opposable thumbs. (j/k)
>One of the posters to last week's "Is Anime Art?" thread over on
>r.a.a.misc mentioned a definition that claimed anything people did
>that wasn't related to survival is "art". My reply to that was that
>that definition made the entirety of r.a.a.misc "art".
Exactly. I think it's sad that people must stretch the word to fit every
aspect of their lives.
>(I still haven't come up with a definition of "art" that I like. It
>used to be "any expression that I can't do", but I've since become a
>decent writer, and I consider writing to be an artform...)
I don't have a definition that I use. I guess my post about the "vision"
behind something sums up best how I feel about art. Loose ends and
imperfections are to be expected. Professionalism can even be damaging to
the expression.
Sarah
TheG0dThatFailed
The problem with defining what is and is not art is that art is in the eye of
the beholder. A hacker's newest virus, tweaked with the latest codes and
designed to eat anit-virus software, may be in his eyes a piece of art. But to
most people it's an annoyance at best. It's all in perspective and taste. I
personally can't stand most abstract paintings (I mean come on, it just looks
like an epileptic 5 year old went nuts with finger paint), but many people come
away from looking at that art with something new on their minds. To them it is
art, to me, it's crap. The point of this post then, is that the definition of
"art" is personal and not really subject to quantitative analysis.
To keep this almost on-topic : why is it that anime characters almost never
have any kind of "body art"? Even the characters that you would think would
have tattoos usually don't. Do you think it's because they'd be too much of a
pain in the ass to animate, or because of the cultural connection that tat's
have to the Yakuza?
^v^ Dan ^v^
Yeah... I know... pathetic attempt at keeping the discussion near topic....
maybe it'll drift back there on it's own.
Sarah Davis
TheG0dThatFailed wrote in message
<20001206131841...@ng-md1.aol.com>...
>The problem with defining what is and is not art is that art is in the eye
of
>the beholder. A hacker's newest virus, tweaked with the latest codes and
>designed to eat anit-virus software, may be in his eyes a piece of art.
But to
>most people it's an annoyance at best. It's all in perspective and taste.
I
>personally can't stand most abstract paintings (I mean come on, it just
looks
>like an epileptic 5 year old went nuts with finger paint), but many people
come
>away from looking at that art with something new on their minds. To them
it is
>art, to me, it's crap. The point of this post then, is that the definition
of
>"art" is personal and not really subject to quantitative analysis.
This theory is too *friendly* for me to accept it. By this definition, once
again, all things are art. This disregards the fact that most creations
involve no individual expression, finery, or skill. As one who values
aesthetics, I loathe the thought of art being entirely subjective and
dependant on the individual. What appeals to one's tastes and what is art
are mutually exclusive, albeit loosely related.
>To keep this almost on-topic : why is it that anime characters almost never
>have any kind of "body art"? Even the characters that you would think
would
>have tattoos usually don't. Do you think it's because they'd be too much of
a
>pain in the ass to animate, or because of the cultural connection that
tat's
>have to the Yakuza?
I've just assumed that it was never en vogue in Japan to have permanent
drawings on one's skin... Then again, there could be external influences, as
you postulated. Anyway, when you're looking for body art, shoujo manga is
the best place to seek it, as tattoos, earrings, and other forms of
self-mutilation have proven popular with the recent onslaught of visual kei
(roughly, Japanese glam rock taken to extremes). One of my favorite examples
is "Angel Sanctuary," which features *many* tattoos, characters with
multiple piercings, wild (but not big) hair, eccentric fashion, and whatnot.
The author is an admitted fan of visuel kei, and even wrote a short manga on
a fictitious rock group.
Sarah
Robyn, Duke of Amber
Hmmm...I'm not getting into this methinks..as it ranges from questions
like "does art exist without creation?" (eg: if it's "natural can it still
be art?")
As well as intent.
Rembrant did a lot of paintings for people who wanted "something nice
for the living room" not "as art" yet time has made some of thse selfsame
pictures art.
ooog.
Neil
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Rob Kelk wrote:
> I think what Sarah might be trying to get at here is that some people
> are calling things "art" when they really shouldn't be considered art
> in the first place. (If I'm wrong, Sarah, please slap me down now...)
>
__________________________________________________________________
Robyn, Duke of Amber
Which leads us to Beldandy and Co.. :)
They all have large ritual markings which by in large most people in the
manga tend to pointedly ignore. They also have an aundance of jewlery
which in some cases might seem a little odd...anklets for instance.
Generally it seems that tattooing is left to the practice of religious and
spiritual fetishism...ditto for any abstract body piercing....such as the
"Super" forms of the Sailor Senshi who have multiply perced ears.
There "might" be a pierced lip and nose or two in "lain" but I could be
wrong.
One common ritual adornment that we see (which does not in mast cases seem
to be self-inflicted) is scarring. the appears anywhere from Outlanders
and Trigun to Outlaw Star and it's most classic in the scars of Harlock
and Emereldis.
Neil
On 6 Dec 2000, TheG0dThatFailed wrote:
>
> To keep this almost on-topic : why is it that anime characters almost never
> have any kind of "body art"? Even the characters that you would think would
> have tattoos usually don't. Do you think it's because they'd be too much of a
> pain in the ass to animate, or because of the cultural connection that tat's
> have to the Yakuza?
>
> ^v^ Dan ^v^
> Yeah... I know... pathetic attempt at keeping the discussion near topic....
> maybe it'll drift back there on it's own.
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
Ben Cantrick
TheG0dThatFailed <theg0dth...@aol.com> wrote:
>To keep this almost on-topic : why is it that anime characters almost never
>have any kind of "body art"? Even the characters that you would think would
>have tattoos usually don't. Do you think it's because they'd be too much of a
>pain in the ass to animate, or because of the cultural connection that tat's
>have to the Yakuza?
Well, the Yakuza traditionally wear sunglasses and the guys have long
hair. This doesn't seem to stop animators from drawing bishounen with
sunglasses. ;]
Nah, seriously, I think it's probably a little bit of both. It's
probably difficult for the inbetweeners to accurately reproduce a
good detailed tat, and the Yakuza thing probably has something to
do with it too. This is, after all, supposed to be kiddy entertainment
for the most part. They probably would get some flack from hyper-PC
sponsors if they started putting gangsters in it.
-Ben
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
"<Grumble> Rather kick ass than solve stupid puzzle..." -Lo Wang
Ben Cantrick
Robyn, Duke of Amber <sera...@sentex.net> wrote:
> Rembrant did a lot of paintings for people who wanted "something nice
>for the living room" not "as art" yet time has made some of thse selfsame
>pictures art.
Just goes to show you how slippery the definition of "art" really is.
I think, instead of trying to get everyone to agree on a definition
for a word that perhaps simply does not have a real definition, it'd be
better to just have people explain WHY they consider something art
when they say it is.
We needn't all agree on what art is or isn't. But let's at least be
conscious of the factors that lead to our personal definitions of "art."
-Ben "Posting to Usenet might be an art... depending" Cantrick
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
"Who died and made you root?" -Justin Moe
Sarah Davis
Ben Cantrick wrote in message <90m6rl$b...@flatland.dimensional.com>...
>In article <Pine.BSF.4.05.100120...@granite.sentex.net>,
>Robyn, Duke of Amber <sera...@sentex.net> wrote:
>> Rembrant did a lot of paintings for people who wanted "something nice
>>for the living room" not "as art" yet time has made some of thse selfsame
>>pictures art.
>
> Just goes to show you how slippery the definition of "art" really is.
I don't know... Would anyone deny that Rembrandt has fantastic skill, even
if they don't like his paintings or know that certain works of his were
created for no better reason than to fill up some empty space on a wall?
> I think, instead of trying to get everyone to agree on a definition
>for a word that perhaps simply does not have a real definition, it'd be
>better to just have people explain WHY they consider something art
>when they say it is.
I'm sticking with my "vision" thing. Add to this "uniqueness" and a certain
level of "competence."
> We needn't all agree on what art is or isn't. But let's at least be
>conscious of the factors that lead to our personal definitions of "art."
I still don't buy this. One's tastes will invariably differ from others'
tastes, but this should not have bearing on what one recognizes as art. If
one does not like Picasso's cubism, shouldn't an objective soul still be
able to discern whether or not it is of artistic value? One need not *like*
something in order to appraise it without bias, assuming one has the
capacity to do so.
Sarah
TheG0dThatFailed
>TheG0dThatFailed wrote in message
><20001206131841...@ng-md1.aol.com>...
>>The problem with defining what is and is not art is that art is in the eye
>of
>>the beholder. A hacker's newest virus, tweaked with the latest codes and
>>designed to eat anit-virus software, may be in his eyes a piece of art.
>But to
>>most people it's an annoyance at best. It's all in perspective and taste.
>I
>>personally can't stand most abstract paintings (I mean come on, it just
>looks
>>like an epileptic 5 year old went nuts with finger paint), but many people
>come
>>away from looking at that art with something new on their minds. To them
>it is
>>art, to me, it's crap. The point of this post then, is that the definition
>of
>>"art" is personal and not really subject to quantitative analysis.
>
>This theory is too *friendly* for me to accept it. By this definition, once
>again, all things are art.
No no no... Not ALL things are art... only those things percieved to be art,
are art, and then they are only art in the eye of the person beholding them as
such. I doubt anyone would percieve the ocean as art... perhaps a picture of
it as art, but the ocean itself is not (here we could get into kabitzing about
wether art has to be created or not, and in my little world art has to be
created. If something is simply there it goes under the heading of "natural
beauty" in my book).
This disregards the fact that most creations
>involve no individual expression, finery, or skill.
And most creations are not art by MY definition. If someone else's definition
want's to call them art, fine. I'll point, laugh, and ridicule to my hearts
content. But it does pose the question.... are all those postcards with the
Mona Lisa on their front art? Or is only the original piece artwork because it
was created by the hand of a master painter? Then what of literary art? Is
only the original manuscript of Huckleberry Finn art, or is every copy in
existence art? What of automobiles as art? Or graphic art? Is the coca-cola
symbol art or just a neat logo that catches your eye, was it art to begin with
that degenerated into a mass marketing symbol?
As one who values
>aesthetics, I loathe the thought of art being entirely subjective and
>dependant on the individual.
Wether or not you loathe the idea is irrelevant, no offense. I respect your
opinion, but it doesn't mean much right now, wether or not the idea holds true
is what's relivant (and no, I can't spell for crap). I value aesthetics as
well, but my sense of aesthetics doesn't always match with everyone elses (in
fact it conflicts more often than not). My personal sense of aestetics has
absolutely zero relavance when someone else's opinion of something is
concerned. I point out the example of "abstract art" again. I wish i could
remember the "artist's" name right now but I can't.... the one who put a
rotting bull's head inside of a glass case with a bug zapper, and let flies
grow on it and be killed by the bug zapper. This is not art in my book... it
may be an inspired action (though even that is questionable), and other people
may call it "art" (and they did, and it was on exhibition in a museum); but to
me, it ain't art (for all the reasons you can think of). Living proof that art
is in the eye of the beholder.
What appeals to one's tastes and what is art
>are mutually exclusive, albeit loosely related.
Mutually exclusive? say what??
Granted, not everything someone likes is art, but by the same notion, if
something is not liked by someone it is not likely to be considered art by
them.
The whole crux of my argument esentially sits on the fact that I am of the
opinion that art can only be defined for a person by themselves. My definition
as well as everyone elses will probably differ from theirs, but they, like
everyone else, is entitled to their opinion on the subject. I suppose there
could be some general guidelines, such as the necescity of creation by a
person; but honestly, right now off the top of my head, I can't think of any
others.
>
>>To keep this almost on-topic : why is it that anime characters almost never
>>have any kind of "body art"? Even the characters that you would think
>would
>>have tattoos usually don't. Do you think it's because they'd be too much of
>a
>>pain in the ass to animate, or because of the cultural connection that
>tat's
>>have to the Yakuza?
>
>I've just assumed that it was never en vogue in Japan to have permanent
>drawings on one's skin... Then again, there could be external influences, as
>you postulated. Anyway, when you're looking for body art, shoujo manga is
>the best place to seek it
as tattoos, earrings, and other forms of
>self-mutilation have proven popular with the recent onslaught of visual kei
>(roughly, Japanese glam rock taken to extremes)
GO EIGHTIES!!!
. One of my favorite examples
>is "Angel Sanctuary," which features *many* tattoos, characters with
>multiple piercings, wild (but not big) hair, eccentric fashion, and whatnot.
>The author is an admitted fan of visuel kei, and even wrote a short manga on
>a fictitious rock group.
>
>Sarah
^v^ Dan ^v^
Like Sarah... Dudette, hairbands totally rock!
....owch...
'80's flashbacks hurt...
Ben Cantrick
Sarah Davis <sdavis...@mad-hatter.org> wrote:
>Ben Cantrick wrote in message <90m6rl$b...@flatland.dimensional.com>...
>>In article <Pine.BSF.4.05.100120...@granite.sentex.net>,
>>Robyn, Duke of Amber <sera...@sentex.net> wrote:
>> Just goes to show you how slippery the definition of "art" really is.
>
>I don't know... Would anyone deny that Rembrandt has fantastic skill, even
>if they don't like his paintings or know that certain works of his were
>created for no better reason than to fill up some empty space on a wall?
Personally, I would say it's art for two reasons. First, it's a
"I can't do it"/"level of skill" thing. Second, painting is traditionally
considered art, and so I have historical prejudices that make me consider
it art purely because of the medium. (Is this silly and irrational?
Absolutely!)
I'm not claiming I have a hard and fast definition of art here. I most
definitely do not. Or at least not one I can adequately define. I'm just
saying, I feel like it is art (or should be considered art), and here's why.
That's really the substance of my argument. "Art" is a vague and
subjective term, and it probably always will be. So it's better to say
how something is or isn't art, rather than to flatly assert that X
is art just because.
That all said, some of the paintings Rembrandt did just to put food
on the table might not be art by your definition. How can we say for
sure that he had some great "vision" for those pieces? Maybe he just
picked up his brush and did what he'd done hundreds of times before,
maybe not even enjoying it much. The fact that he did it very skillfully
and that the end result is very aestheticly pleasing don't necessarily
seem to prove it's art by your "vision, uniqueness, competence" definition.
>> I think, instead of trying to get everyone to agree on a definition
>>for a word that perhaps simply does not have a real definition, it'd be
>>better to just have people explain WHY they consider something art
>>when they say it is.
>
>I'm sticking with my "vision" thing. Add to this "uniqueness" and a certain
>level of "competence."
I don't object to your definition of art. Those three factors are
definitely present in my personal definition of art. And I also have
several more factors as well, not all of which I can even think of at the
moment. And even then, not all my factors are strictly necessary for
something to fall into my definition of art.
It's kind of like I have several categories that something must fall
into to some extent in order to be art. And the more it falls into them,
the more it's art. Also, some categories are worth more than others.
For instance, something that's extremely creative and requires a high
degree of skill can be hideously ugly and still be art. HR Geiger's
stuff falls into this category, and I consider his works very high on
the art totem pole. But something that's very beautiful isn't necessarily
art just because I find it aestheticly pleasing. Flip through a copy
of Playboy for several examples...
Again, I'm not saying anyone's definition of art is wrong. (Or right,
for that matter.) I'm just attempting to explain my subjective understading
of the term. I'm hoping that by demonstrating my definition in action
here, I'll engender a better understanding of my point. And I don't
necessarily expect you to agree with my point, either. Just to understand
it. Like my non-definition of art, this is a very zen thing. ;]
>> We needn't all agree on what art is or isn't. But let's at least be
>>conscious of the factors that lead to our personal definitions of "art."
>
>I still don't buy this. One's tastes will invariably differ from others'
>tastes, but this should not have bearing on what one recognizes as art. If
>one does not like Picasso's cubism, shouldn't an objective soul still be
>able to discern whether or not it is of artistic value? One need not *like*
>something in order to appraise it without bias, assuming one has the
>capacity to do so.
I'm sure that almost everyone's definition of art has commonalities.
As a matter of fact, I'd expect those commonalities to be rather large.
Never the less, I can not bring myself to believe that there is one,
rigidly defined, universally applicable definition for what constitutes
"art." I believe everyone's definition of art is slightly different,
even if there are common factors between them. And if you define "art"
as only those commonalities that everyone agrees on, then you're
going to leave out an immense amount of stuff that a large number
of people probably agree is art.
It's not that I wouldn't like there to be a rigid and concrete
definition of what art is. It's just that studying different cultures
has taught me that everyone has very different standards for beauty,
skill and worth. And those qualities factor in heavily in my (and
hopefully everyone's) perception of what is and isn't art.
But I digress...
-Ben "Vision, uniqueness, competence. So, are the hardsuits art? ;]" Cantrick
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
Do I look like a freakin' people person?
Sarah Davis
Ben Cantrick wrote in message <90mf4v$k...@flatland.dimensional.com>...
>In article <90ma3r$1k30a$1...@ID-55621.news.dfncis.de>,
>Sarah Davis <sdavis...@mad-hatter.org> wrote:
>>Ben Cantrick wrote in message <90m6rl$b...@flatland.dimensional.com>...
<lots of snippage since I agree with much of what you wrote>
>>> We needn't all agree on what art is or isn't. But let's at least be
>>>conscious of the factors that lead to our personal definitions of "art."
>>
>>I still don't buy this. One's tastes will invariably differ from others'
>>tastes, but this should not have bearing on what one recognizes as art. If
>>one does not like Picasso's cubism, shouldn't an objective soul still be
>>able to discern whether or not it is of artistic value? One need not
*like*
>>something in order to appraise it without bias, assuming one has the
>>capacity to do so.
>
> I'm sure that almost everyone's definition of art has commonalities.
>As a matter of fact, I'd expect those commonalities to be rather large.
Certainly.
>Never the less, I can not bring myself to believe that there is one,
>rigidly defined, universally applicable definition for what constitutes
>"art."
I didn't mean to insinuate that there is "one, rigidly defined, universally
applicable definition," but I do think that certain things must be taken to
*not* be art. The inverse of the statement may also be true, if to a lesser
extent. There is no comparing "Oops! I Did it Again" to "The Messiah."
>I believe everyone's definition of art is slightly different,
>even if there are common factors between them. And if you define "art"
>as only those commonalities that everyone agrees on, then you're
>going to leave out an immense amount of stuff that a large number
>of people probably agree is art.
That's why the common traits are best left ignored when deciding what is
art. Art is individual and must be judged as such.
> It's not that I wouldn't like there to be a rigid and concrete
>definition of what art is. It's just that studying different cultures
>has taught me that everyone has very different standards for beauty,
>skill and worth. And those qualities factor in heavily in my (and
>hopefully everyone's) perception of what is and isn't art.
It would have to, of course. But there's that percentage of the world's
population that would argue that because something is not accessible, it is
not art. That's just... sickening? I can't think of a better word. Have you
ever tried to argue about a specific work with someone? It's damn near
impossible to do so within the bounds of maintaining an amible front if that
opposition isn't willing to admit that tastes may vary but value need not.
> But I digress...
Suuuure you do. You know that by tomorrow we'll still be debating this. ^_^
Sarah
Sarah Davis
TheG0dThatFailed wrote in message
<20001206170614...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
>>From: "Sarah Davis" sdavis...@mad-hatter.org
>
>>TheG0dThatFailed wrote in message
>><20001206131841...@ng-md1.aol.com>...
>>of
>>>"art" is personal and not really subject to quantitative analysis.
>>
>>This theory is too *friendly* for me to accept it. By this definition,
once
>>again, all things are art.
>
>No no no... Not ALL things are art... only those things percieved to be
art,
>are art, and then they are only art in the eye of the person beholding them
as
>such.
What I meant was that by this definition, all manmade things once again
become art, which is incomprehensible to me. I'm pretty sure that the shoes
I am wearing right now are typical athletic shoes, and that the flashlight
sitting on my desk is just like almost any other flashlight.
<snip>
> This disregards the fact that most creations
>>involve no individual expression, finery, or skill.
>
>And most creations are not art by MY definition. If someone else's
definition
>want's to call them art, fine. I'll point, laugh, and ridicule to my
hearts
>content.
All right. There are always cases where something's worth is indeed
arguable. I think "The Jungle Book" is an comically bad work of literary
brain-farting, but many believe it to be one of the finest set of adventure
stories written. Not all things are inherently good or bad.
>But it does pose the question.... are all those postcards with the
>Mona Lisa on their front art? Or is only the original piece artwork
because it
>was created by the hand of a master painter? Then what of literary art? Is
>only the original manuscript of Huckleberry Finn art, or is every copy in
>existence art? What of automobiles as art? Or graphic art? Is the
coca-cola
>symbol art or just a neat logo that catches your eye, was it art to begin
with
>that degenerated into a mass marketing symbol?
Now you're talking about copies of existing art. The original is the art,
the copy is the disposable extension thereof.
>> As one who values
>>aesthetics, I loathe the thought of art being entirely subjective and
>>dependant on the individual.
>
>Wether or not you loathe the idea is irrelevant, no offense.
None taken. I know it's irrelevant, but I thought I'd try to make my stance
clear.
>I respect your
>opinion, but it doesn't mean much right now, wether or not the idea holds
true
>is what's relivant (and no, I can't spell for crap). I value aesthetics as
>well, but my sense of aesthetics doesn't always match with everyone elses
(in
>fact it conflicts more often than not). My personal sense of aestetics has
>absolutely zero relavance when someone else's opinion of something is
>concerned.
As could be said for any opinion from any person. But my original point was
that some people try to argue for cheap, derivative, pop-culture trash as
being art simply because it's popular, and that is where I draw the line.
Not all things are art. Some sense of real value - value that we cannot find
anywhere and everywhere - must be attained.
>I point out the example of "abstract art" again. I wish i could
>remember the "artist's" name right now but I can't.... the one who put a
>rotting bull's head inside of a glass case with a bug zapper, and let flies
>grow on it and be killed by the bug zapper. This is not art in my book...
it
>may be an inspired action (though even that is questionable), and other
people
>may call it "art" (and they did, and it was on exhibition in a museum); but
to
>me, it ain't art (for all the reasons you can think of). Living proof that
art
>is in the eye of the beholder.
Speaking for myself, I find the idea of the bull's head intriguing. But
anyway...
>> What appeals to one's tastes and what is art
>>are mutually exclusive, albeit loosely related.
>
>Mutually exclusive? say what??
>Granted, not everything someone likes is art, but by the same notion, if
>something is not liked by someone it is not likely to be considered art by
>them.
Not necessarily. I've read some novels that I thought were positively
agonizing, but I knew that they were good, even if I didn't like them. The
same could be said for movies I've watched, and paintings upon which I've
gazed. Liking them was a nonissue.
[Tattoos in anime/manga]
>>Anyway, when you're looking for body art, shoujo manga is
>>the best place to seek it
> as tattoos, earrings, and other forms of
>>self-mutilation have proven popular with the recent onslaught of visual
kei
>>(roughly, Japanese glam rock taken to extremes)
>
>GO EIGHTIES!!!
>
>^v^ Dan ^v^
>Like Sarah... Dudette, hairbands totally rock!
>....owch...
>'80's flashbacks hurt...
Remember... the hair?! the skintight leopard-print pants? the bargain bin
jewelry?
These are *not* fond memories...
Sarah
Sarah Davis
TheG0dThatFailed wrote in message
<20001206195855...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
>>From: "Sarah Davis" sdavis...@mad-hatter.org
<bunches of snippage>
>>What I meant was that by this definition, all manmade things once again
>>become art, which is incomprehensible to me. I'm pretty sure that the
shoes
>>I am wearing right now are typical athletic shoes, and that the flashlight
>>sitting on my desk is just like almost any other flashlight.
>
>True, and good point.
>I personally would never qualify such things as works of art, but I can see
how
>any number of people contained within the masses of the vacuously brained
>majority of the population would swallow it right up as 'art' if it was
>presented on a pedestal in a museum. Is it right in my opinion? No. Can I
>argue them out of their opinions? No. Are they entitled to their opinion
even
>if it makes no sense whatsoever? Yes.
I guess diversity is the spice of life. Or something like that. I've nearly
given up trying to understand what the spice of life is...
>>Speaking for myself, I find the idea of the bull's head intriguing. But
>>anyway...
>
>:::raises an eyebrow::: Care to tell me why via e-mail?
I'll try to put it into words in just a moment. ^^;;
>>Not necessarily. I've read some novels that I thought were positively
>>agonizing, but I knew that they were good, even if I didn't like them. The
>>same could be said for movies I've watched, and paintings upon which I've
>>gazed. Liking them was a nonissue.
>
>True. But what I'm saying is that people's personal taste often and
usually
>does color their opinion of things. Being objective can be difficult.
It always is. But objectivity is supposedly one of the things that makes
humans the dominant species on this planet. That, and opposable thumbs. (I'm
not kidding this time.)
>>>Like Sarah... Dudette, hairbands totally rock!
>>>....owch...
>>>'80's flashbacks hurt...
>>
>>Remember... the hair?! the skintight leopard-print pants? the bargain bin
>>jewelry?
>>
>>These are *not* fond memories...
>>
>>Sarah
>
>Oh, I dunno. I kind of liked parts of the '80's. Hell, BGC and Metallica
both
>came from the '80's.
Yes, I guess BGC did, as proven by Priss' *interesting* stage wig, but I
could swear that the original Metallica was formed back in the late
seventies. I wonder what a BGC video set to "One" would look like...
Sarah
Ben Cantrick
Sarah Davis <sdavis...@mad-hatter.org> wrote:
>Yes, I guess BGC did, as proven by Priss' *interesting* stage wig, but I
>could swear that the original Metallica was formed back in the late
>seventies. I wonder what a BGC video set to "One" would look like...
I think "Of Wolf and Man" would be better. (Or "Stone Cold Crazy"
if you did footage of rampaging boomers. ;])
-Ben
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
All the world's a stage, and most of us are desperately unrehearsed.
Sarah Davis
Ben Cantrick wrote in message <90n500$a...@flatland.dimensional.com>...
>In article <90n4l0$1kug2$1...@ID-55621.news.dfncis.de>,
>Sarah Davis <sdavis...@mad-hatter.org> wrote:
>>Yes, I guess BGC did, as proven by Priss' *interesting* stage wig, but I
>>could swear that the original Metallica was formed back in the late
>>seventies. I wonder what a BGC video set to "One" would look like...
>
> I think "Of Wolf and Man" would be better. (Or "Stone Cold Crazy"
>if you did footage of rampaging boomers. ;])
And while we're at it, let's set a "Revenge Road" video to "Gasoline." Come
on, you know what want to.
Sarah
Ben Cantrick
Sarah Davis <sdavis...@mad-hatter.org> wrote:
>Ben Cantrick wrote in message <90n500$a...@flatland.dimensional.com>...
>>In article <90n4l0$1kug2$1...@ID-55621.news.dfncis.de>,
>>Sarah Davis <sdavis...@mad-hatter.org> wrote:
>>>Yes, I guess BGC did, as proven by Priss' *interesting* stage wig, but I
>>>could swear that the original Metallica was formed back in the late
>>>seventies. I wonder what a BGC video set to "One" would look like...
>>
>> I think "Of Wolf and Man" would be better. (Or "Stone Cold Crazy"
>>if you did footage of rampaging boomers. ;])
>
>And while we're at it, let's set a "Revenge Road" video to "Gasoline." Come
>on, you know what want to.
There's a ton of videos I *want* to do. If nothing else, I must pull
off Aerosmith's _Dude Looks Like A Lady_ set to Ranma 1/2 footage sometime
in my lifetime. (Or maybe that's set to the endless parade of androgynous
anime bishounen. Either way. ;])
The problem is, at my current rate I'll be geriatric before I get
any of them done! :P
-Ben "ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC" Cantrick
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
"You are the perfect drug, the perfect drug, the perfect drug..." -NIN
TheG0dThatFailed
>TheG0dThatFailed wrote in message
><20001206170614...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
>>>From: "Sarah Davis" sdavis...@mad-hatter.org
>>
>>>TheG0dThatFailed wrote in message
>>><20001206131841...@ng-md1.aol.com>...
>>>The point of this post then, is that the definition
>>>of
>>>>"art" is personal and not really subject to quantitative analysis.
>>>
>>>This theory is too *friendly* for me to accept it. By this definition,
>once
>>>again, all things are art.
>>
>>No no no... Not ALL things are art... only those things percieved to be
>art,
>>are art, and then they are only art in the eye of the person beholding them
>as
>>such.
>
>What I meant was that by this definition, all manmade things once again
>become art, which is incomprehensible to me. I'm pretty sure that the shoes
>I am wearing right now are typical athletic shoes, and that the flashlight
>sitting on my desk is just like almost any other flashlight.
True, and good point.
I personally would never qualify such things as works of art, but I can see how
any number of people contained within the masses of the vacuously brained
majority of the population would swallow it right up as 'art' if it was
presented on a pedestal in a museum. Is it right in my opinion? No. Can I
argue them out of their opinions? No. Are they entitled to their opinion even
if it makes no sense whatsoever? Yes.
><snip>
>
>> This disregards the fact that most creations
>>>involve no individual expression, finery, or skill.
>>
>>And most creations are not art by MY definition. If someone else's
>definition
>>want's to call them art, fine. I'll point, laugh, and ridicule to my
>hearts
>>content.
>
>All right. There are always cases where something's worth is indeed
>arguable. I think "The Jungle Book" is an comically bad work of literary
>brain-farting, but many believe it to be one of the finest set of adventure
>stories written. Not all things are inherently good or bad.
Agreed.
>>But it does pose the question.... are all those postcards with the
>>Mona Lisa on their front art? Or is only the original piece artwork
>because it
>>was created by the hand of a master painter? Then what of literary art? Is
>>only the original manuscript of Huckleberry Finn art, or is every copy in
>>existence art? What of automobiles as art? Or graphic art? Is the
>coca-cola
>>symbol art or just a neat logo that catches your eye, was it art to begin
>with
>>that degenerated into a mass marketing symbol?
>
>Now you're talking about copies of existing art. The original is the art,
>the copy is the disposable extension thereof.
So a copy of the artwork is not art in and of itself by your standards. Kewl.
I can understand the need for an effort to be put into something before it is
considered art in a person's eyes.
>>> As one who values
>>>aesthetics, I loathe the thought of art being entirely subjective and
>>>dependant on the individual.
>>
>>Wether or not you loathe the idea is irrelevant, no offense.
>
>None taken. I know it's irrelevant, but I thought I'd try to make my stance
>clear.
Understood.
>>I respect your
>>opinion, but it doesn't mean much right now, wether or not the idea holds
>true
>>is what's relivant (and no, I can't spell for crap). I value aesthetics as
>>well, but my sense of aesthetics doesn't always match with everyone elses
>(in
>>fact it conflicts more often than not). My personal sense of aestetics has
>>absolutely zero relavance when someone else's opinion of something is
>>concerned.
>
>As could be said for any opinion from any person. But my original point was
>that some people try to argue for cheap, derivative, pop-culture trash as
>being art simply because it's popular, and that is where I draw the line.
>Not all things are art. Some sense of real value - value that we cannot find
>anywhere and everywhere - must be attained.
I can definately agree with that statement.
>>I point out the example of "abstract art" again. I wish i could
>>remember the "artist's" name right now but I can't.... the one who put a
>>rotting bull's head inside of a glass case with a bug zapper, and let flies
>>grow on it and be killed by the bug zapper. This is not art in my book...
>it
>>may be an inspired action (though even that is questionable), and other
>people
>>may call it "art" (and they did, and it was on exhibition in a museum); but
>to
>>me, it ain't art (for all the reasons you can think of). Living proof that
>art
>>is in the eye of the beholder.
>
>Speaking for myself, I find the idea of the bull's head intriguing. But
>anyway...
:::raises an eyebrow::: Care to tell me why via e-mail?
>>> What appeals to one's tastes and what is art
>>>are mutually exclusive, albeit loosely related.
>>
>>Mutually exclusive? say what??
>>Granted, not everything someone likes is art, but by the same notion, if
>>something is not liked by someone it is not likely to be considered art by
>>them.
>
>Not necessarily. I've read some novels that I thought were positively
>agonizing, but I knew that they were good, even if I didn't like them. The
>same could be said for movies I've watched, and paintings upon which I've
>gazed. Liking them was a nonissue.
True. But what I'm saying is that people's personal taste often and usually
does color their opinion of things. Being objective can be difficult.
>[Tattoos in anime/manga]
>>>Anyway, when you're looking for body art, shoujo manga is
>>>the best place to seek it
>> as tattoos, earrings, and other forms of
>>>self-mutilation have proven popular with the recent onslaught of visual
>kei
>>>(roughly, Japanese glam rock taken to extremes)
>>
>>GO EIGHTIES!!!
>>
>>^v^ Dan ^v^
>>Like Sarah... Dudette, hairbands totally rock!
>>....owch...
>>'80's flashbacks hurt...
>
>Remember... the hair?! the skintight leopard-print pants? the bargain bin
>jewelry?
>
>These are *not* fond memories...
>
>Sarah
Oh, I dunno. I kind of liked parts of the '80's. Hell, BGC and Metallica both
came from the '80's.
^v^ Dan ^v^
Warren Werner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 12/6/00, 2:16:53 PM, mackys...@dim.com (Ben Cantrick) wrote
regarding Re: 10 statements all of us can agree on.:
> In article <Pine.BSF.4.05.100120...@granite.sentex.net>,
> Robyn, Duke of Amber <sera...@sentex.net> wrote:
> > Rembrant did a lot of paintings for people who wanted "something nice
> >for the living room" not "as art" yet time has made some of thse
selfsame
> >pictures art.
> Just goes to show you how slippery the definition of "art" really is.
> I think, instead of trying to get everyone to agree on a definition
> for a word that perhaps simply does not have a real definition, it'd be
> better to just have people explain WHY they consider something art
> when they say it is.
> We needn't all agree on what art is or isn't. But let's at least be
> conscious of the factors that lead to our personal definitions of "art."
How's this: "I don't know if it's art, but I like it!"
Warren
--
Knightsabre
Warren Werner
e-mail: knigh...@crucialrealm.com
Homepage: http://www.crucialrealm.com
- OR - : http://knightsabre.tripod.com
David Johnston
>
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 21:58:32 GMT, David Johnston
> <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >Sarah Davis wrote:
> >
> >> It's not meant to be an insult. ^^;; But to be honest, I'm dead tired of
> >> people coming up with *horrible* support for what (of any number of things)
> >> is or is not art. By the sugar coated standards of today, anything is art
> >> because it is manmade is of great artistic value dependant on how it is
> >> viewed by the audience, which I think is a silly feel-good rationale.
> >> Opinions will always vary, as will tastes and other factors, but what is art
> >> and what is artfully designed is not open to debate as often as some would
> >> argue.
> >
> >One problem comes when people think that only good art is art. Bad art
> >is still art. It's just bad. Of course some things are bad just because
> >a person lacked the skill to accomplish what he was trying to do, while other
> >things are bad because what they tried to do was make people puke.
> >
>
> are calling things "art" when they really shouldn't be considered art
> in the first place. (If I'm wrong, Sarah, please slap me down now...)
>
> r.a.a.misc mentioned a definition that claimed anything people did
> that wasn't related to survival is "art". My reply to that was that
> that definition made the entirety of r.a.a.misc "art".
>
> used to be "any expression that I can't do", but I've since become a
> decent writer, and I consider writing to be an artform...)
I am content with my definition: That "art" is anything original made
for people to look at. Maybe stretch it to include all senses, but
really I'm content to class music as music and writing as writing.
David Johnston
>
> Hmmm...I'm not getting into this methinks..as it ranges from questions
> like "does art exist without creation?" (eg: if it's "natural can it still
> be art?")
> As well as intent.
> for the living room" not "as art" yet time has made some of thse selfsame
> pictures art.
Once again, this involves classing only "good art" as "art". Those pictures
were _always_ art. Now they are just art that is admired.
Rob Kelk
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Rob Kelk wrote:
<snippage>
>> (I still haven't come up with a definition of "art" that I like. It
>> used to be "any expression that I can't do", but I've since become a
>> decent writer, and I consider writing to be an artform...)
>
>I am content with my definition: That "art" is anything original made
>for people to look at. Maybe stretch it to include all senses, but
>really I'm content to class music as music and writing as writing.
"Art is anything original made for people to experience", perhaps?
That might work, yes... Let me think about this one, too.
Cyclone
Rob Kelk wrote in message <3a2f9cf...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
>On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 11:22:29 GMT, David Johnston
><rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
<snip>
>"Art is anything original made for people to experience", perhaps?
>That might work, yes... Let me think about this one, too.
So does that mean a roller coaster is art?
This is Cyclone, signing off.
http://members.citynet.net/betweentwilight/cyclone.htm
An anime fan who just wants to find a good BGC/Robotech crossover...
--End Transmission--
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
TheG0dThatFailed
>>>>....owch...
>>>>'80's flashbacks hurt...
>>>
>>>Remember... the hair?! the skintight leopard-print pants? the bargain bin
>
>>>jewelry?
>>>
>>>These are *not* fond memories...
>>>
>>>Sarah
>>
>>Oh, I dunno. I kind of liked parts of the '80's. Hell, BGC and Metallica
>both
>>came from the '80's.
>
>could swear that the original Metallica was formed back in the late
>seventies. I wonder what a BGC video set to "One" would look like...
>
The original band may have formed in '79 (been a while since I watched that
particular VH-1 "Behind the Music") but I'm not sure. Their first album came
out in '83, and arguably their best music came out of the '80s, so I consider
them a product of that decade.
As for BGC set to Metallica, I have to vote for :
A Priss video done to "Fade to Black" (lots of angsty footage here with scenes
from Asu E Touchdown and Moonlight Rambler)
Quincy to "Master of Puppets"
Sylia to "Hero of the Day"
I'm sure I could fit a Metallica song to just about every character in BGC, but
those three just kinda call to me. Besides, they're the only one's I can think
of off the top of my head.
^v^ Dan ^v^
Robyn, Duke of Amber
> > Just goes to show you how slippery the definition of "art" really is.
>
> if they don't like his paintings or know that certain works of his were
> created for no better reason than to fill up some empty space on a wall?
but does technichal ability mean art?
I don't think so. But it *does* add a hell of a lot. I have seen pics
painted by people which just look so amazing... the ideas and concepts
behind them just call to one (I know this sounds silly) BUT sometimes
these pictures lack a good deal of technical mastery.
>
> > I think, instead of trying to get everyone to agree on a definition
> >for a word that perhaps simply does not have a real definition, it'd be
> >better to just have people explain WHY they consider something art
> >when they say it is.
>
> I'm sticking with my "vision" thing. Add to this "uniqueness" and a certain
> level of "competence."
I'll agree to a certain level but then there is the "trained" skills vrs
the ability to create sometihn which arives naturaly.
Is a zen garden art..?
or is it somply a "tool" that appears to be art?
>
> > We needn't all agree on what art is or isn't. But let's at least be
> >conscious of the factors that lead to our personal definitions of "art."
>
>
> I still don't buy this. One's tastes will invariably differ from others'
> tastes, but this should not have bearing on what one recognizes as art. If
> one does not like Picasso's cubism, shouldn't an objective soul still be
> able to discern whether or not it is of artistic value? One need not *like*
> something in order to appraise it without bias, assuming one has the
> capacity to do so.
I think that in a truely objective person this is true....but objectivity
is hard to achieve at some times.
N.
Robyn, Duke of Amber
Oddly enough I'm reminded of Scott McCloud's quest to find an actual
definition of comics in "Understanding Comics" and later to develope this
even more in "Reinventing Comics."
Neil
Sarah Davis
Robyn, Duke of Amber wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Sarah Davis wrote:
>> > Just goes to show you how slippery the definition of "art" really is.
>>
>> I don't know... Would anyone deny that Rembrandt has fantastic skill,
even
>> if they don't like his paintings or know that certain works of his were
>> created for no better reason than to fill up some empty space on a wall?
>
>but does technichal ability mean art?
No. Technical details are almost always less important than presentation,
IMO.
>I don't think so. But it *does* add a hell of a lot. I have seen pics
>painted by people which just look so amazing... the ideas and concepts
>behind them just call to one (I know this sounds silly) BUT sometimes
>these pictures lack a good deal of technical mastery.
Not silly. I agree completely, actually. But in the case of Rembrandt, I
think it would be hard to deny that his sheer skill qualifies something as
simple as a self-portrait as art. Rembrandt was a pioneer; a revolutionary.
His technical details were not as fine as those of many other artists, but
he invested himself in his work to such an extent that he created a style,
something that most artists could never hope to do.
>> > I think, instead of trying to get everyone to agree on a definition
>> >for a word that perhaps simply does not have a real definition, it'd be
>> >better to just have people explain WHY they consider something art
>> >when they say it is.
>>
>> I'm sticking with my "vision" thing. Add to this "uniqueness" and a
certain
>> level of "competence."
>
>I'll agree to a certain level but then there is the "trained" skills vrs
>the ability to create sometihn which arives naturaly.
Competence does not equate acquired skills. I only ask that the wouldbe
artist doesn't clutz out beyond redemption, as many seem to.
>>One need not *like*
>> something in order to appraise it without bias, assuming one has the
>> capacity to do so.
>
>I think that in a truely objective person this is true....but objectivity
>is hard to achieve at some times.
At all times. That's why the audience must strive to comprehend the work
just as the artist must strive to make it comprehensible.
Sarah
Sarah Davis
Ben Cantrick wrote in message <90nbff$f...@flatland.dimensional.com>...
>In article <90n5pm$1kvr8$1...@ID-55621.news.dfncis.de>,
>Sarah Davis <sdavis...@mad-hatter.org> wrote:
>>Ben Cantrick wrote in message <90n500$a...@flatland.dimensional.com>...
>>>In article <90n4l0$1kug2$1...@ID-55621.news.dfncis.de>,
>>>Sarah Davis <sdavis...@mad-hatter.org> wrote:
>>>>could swear that the original Metallica was formed back in the late
>>>>seventies. I wonder what a BGC video set to "One" would look like...
>>>
>>>if you did footage of rampaging boomers. ;])
>>
>>And while we're at it, let's set a "Revenge Road" video to "Gasoline."
Come
>>on, you know what want to.
>
> There's a ton of videos I *want* to do. If nothing else, I must pull
>off Aerosmith's _Dude Looks Like A Lady_ set to Ranma 1/2 footage sometime
>in my lifetime. (Or maybe that's set to the endless parade of androgynous
>anime bishounen. Either way. ;])
Have you seen the "Ugly Girls of Anime" video? It's a play on the infamous
"Barbie Girl" song by Aqua, only with new lyrics ("I'm an ugly girl, my face
makes you huuuuurl!"), and it features footage of unbecoming young ladies
whining about their ugliness. It's worth the download if you can find it
somewhere.
> The problem is, at my current rate I'll be geriatric before I get
>any of them done! :P
I share in this woe.
> -Ben "ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC
> ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES BEN A PSYCHOPATHIC MANIAC"
Cantrick
You're not going to start embedding axes in the backs of groundskeepers, are
you?
Sarah
David Johnston
> David Johnston wrote in message <3A2D66...@telusplanet.net>...
> >Sarah Davis wrote:
> >
> >> It's not meant to be an insult. ^^;; But to be honest, I'm dead tired of
> >> people coming up with *horrible* support for what (of any number of
> things)
> >> is or is not art. By the sugar coated standards of today, anything is art
> >> because it is manmade is of great artistic value dependant on how it is
> >> viewed by the audience, which I think is a silly feel-good rationale.
> >> Opinions will always vary, as will tastes and other factors, but what is
> art
> >> and what is artfully designed is not open to debate as often as some
> would
> >> argue.
> >
> >One problem comes when people think that only good art is art. Bad art
> >is still art. It's just bad. Of course some things are bad just because
> >a person lacked the skill to accomplish what he was trying to do, while
> other
> >things are bad because what they tried to do was make people puke.
>
> I guess this depends on one's perspective: Is art the final product as
> accomplished in a competent manner, or is art the vision itself rather than
> the overall design and execution? I'd opt for the former. A familiar example
> would be the fifth episode of the BGC OVAs. It isn't perfect, and it has
> many flaws, but I *do* think it's art, in spite of its failings, because of
> the thought that was put into it.
Isn't that opting for the latter?
The skill of the artist is not important unless you are seriously arguing that
there can never be any such thing as bad art.
There are some things that I do think make something clearly not art.
A: Utility. If something was made to be useful regardless of how beautiful or
entertaining it is, then it is not art but craft.
B: Lack of originality. If something is simply a replica of an artist's work
then it is not art but merchandise. To be sure, this is a subjective
measurement when you
get into the question of just how original something must be before it qualifies
but a total copy is clearly not art even though it is a copy of art.
C: Artificiality. Someone actually has to have made an artwork intentionally,
even if only by arranging the elements. Something that is beautiful through no
human or human-like design is not art, but rather nature.
Sarah Davis
David Johnston wrote in message <3A317ED2...@telusplanet.net>...
>> >is still art. It's just bad. Of course some things are bad just
because
>> >a person lacked the skill to accomplish what he was trying to do, while
>> other
>> >things are bad because what they tried to do was make people puke.
>>
>> I guess this depends on one's perspective: Is art the final product as
>> accomplished in a competent manner, or is art the vision itself rather
than
>> the overall design and execution? I'd opt for the former. A familiar
example
>> would be the fifth episode of the BGC OVAs. It isn't perfect, and it has
>> many flaws, but I *do* think it's art, in spite of its failings, because
of
>> the thought that was put into it.
>
>Isn't that opting for the latter?
Oops... Yes, that's what I meant. ^^;;
>The skill of the artist is not important unless you are seriously arguing
that
>there can never be any such thing as bad art.
This brings up the question of whether Bad Art is really art or is a failed
attempt at creating art. Can something be art and be awful? Probably, but
it's open to dissent.
>There are some things that I do think make something clearly not art.
>
>A: Utility. If something was made to be useful regardless of how
beautiful or
>entertaining it is, then it is not art but craft.
Agreed.
>B: Lack of originality. If something is simply a replica of an artist's
work
>then it is not art but merchandise. To be sure, this is a subjective
>measurement when you
>get into the question of just how original something must be before it
qualifies
>but a total copy is clearly not art even though it is a copy of art.
VERY much agreed. This is what disqualifies most popular media, IMO.
>C: Artificiality. Someone actually has to have made an artwork
intentionally,
>even if only by arranging the elements. Something that is beautiful
through no
>human or human-like design is not art, but rather nature.
Agreed on this point, as well.
Sarah
TheG0dThatFailed
>There are some things that I do think make something clearly not art.
>
>A: Utility. If something was made to be useful regardless of how beautiful
>or
>entertaining it is, then it is not art but craft.
>
What about artdeco (i think that's the term I want)? There's an entire store
here in town devoted to utilitarian items that are also art : lamps, radios,
pipes, etc.... They were made to be both useful and art at the same time.
^v^ Dan ^v^
David Johnston
> >B: Lack of originality. If something is simply a replica of an artist's
> work
> >then it is not art but merchandise. To be sure, this is a subjective
> >measurement when you
> >get into the question of just how original something must be before it
> qualifies
> >but a total copy is clearly not art even though it is a copy of art.
>
> VERY much agreed. This is what disqualifies most popular media, IMO.
But of the three criteria, that one is the most subjective unless you are
dealing with element for element plagiarism. You have to set an individual
cut-off point for the degree of unoriginality that you will tolerate (and still
call something art) and no two people will have the same cut-off point.
Except for mine, of course. Many, many people agree with mine. Trust me.
The thing is, there are no totally original artistic concepts except for the
occasional oddity like the guy who came up with the concept of a fragrance
concert. And needless to say, most such ideas, like his, stink. Even when
you borrow many elements from others, it is possible to
combine them in new ways and give them new twists. In fact, it is easier to
do that than to create a perfect copy without automation.
Sarah Davis
David Johnston wrote in message <3A3283...@telusplanet.net>...
>Sarah Davis wrote:
>
>> >B: Lack of originality. If something is simply a replica of an
artist's
>> work
>> >then it is not art but merchandise. To be sure, this is a subjective
>> >measurement when you
>> >get into the question of just how original something must be before it
>> qualifies
>> >but a total copy is clearly not art even though it is a copy of art.
>>
>> VERY much agreed. This is what disqualifies most popular media, IMO.
>
>But of the three criteria, that one is the most subjective unless you are
>dealing with element for element plagiarism. You have to set an individual
>cut-off point for the degree of unoriginality that you will tolerate (and
still
>call something art) and no two people will have the same cut-off point.
Very true. This is why more people are starting to take notice of the
independent circuit of films, music, and other media, though. Some of us can
take only so much Backstreet Boys and films about big rocks slamming into
the earth before they start to long for something a little more thoughtful
and unique. The majority seem content to endure whatever is accessible.
>Except for mine, of course. Many, many people agree with mine. Trust me.
>
>The thing is, there are no totally original artistic concepts except for
the
>occasional oddity like the guy who came up with the concept of a fragrance
>concert. And needless to say, most such ideas, like his, stink. Even when
>you borrow many elements from others, it is possible to
>combine them in new ways and give them new twists. In fact, it is easier
to
>do that than to create a perfect copy without automation.
It is. Most people will borrow just enough elements to emulate what made the
original successful. In most cases, it's not hard to spot a lazy work. To
keep this discussion a little on-topic, the number of remakes, alternate
universes, sequels, prequels, and spin-offs in the anime industry has become
staggering. Corollary: But not all of them are bad because some dare to
breathe new life into an old idea and stand on their own two legs.
Sarah
a lone Wanderer
<sdavis...@mad-hatter.org> wrote:
>
>Ben Cantrick wrote in message <90mf4v$k...@flatland.dimensional.com>...
>>In article <90ma3r$1k30a$1...@ID-55621.news.dfncis.de>,
>>Sarah Davis <sdavis...@mad-hatter.org> wrote:
>>>Ben Cantrick wrote in message <90m6rl$b...@flatland.dimensional.com>...
>
>
8<SNIP>8
>
>I didn't mean to insinuate that there is "one, rigidly defined, universally
>applicable definition," but I do think that certain things must be taken to
>*not* be art. The inverse of the statement may also be true, if to a lesser
>extent. There is no comparing "Oops! I Did it Again" to "The Messiah."
>
>>I believe everyone's definition of art is slightly different,
>>even if there are common factors between them. And if you define "art"
>>as only those commonalities that everyone agrees on, then you're
>>going to leave out an immense amount of stuff that a large number
>>of people probably agree is art.
Ah, yes, the scientific principle of proving/defining something by
proving/defining what it not is. :)
8<SNIP>8
>
>Sarah
>
And just to add my two cents to the discussion, my definition of art
is something like "creation for creations sake".
I realise that that is a bit to narrow, so I'd say that all unique
creations on which some amount of effort was expended could be
considered art.
Soo... how many of you would consider the Gibson's Griffon or the
Highway Star to be pieces of art? I would...
--
A lone Wanderer (lone-w...@gmx.net),
unconcernedly jaywalking through life.
Visit a Shard of Infinity ...
http://home.germany.net/100-81952/index.htm
Sarah Davis
a lone Wanderer wrote in message <3a361d27.1587669@localhost>...
>And just to add my two cents to the discussion, my definition of art
>is something like "creation for creations sake".
Oscar Wilde pushed a similar philosophy in "The Picture of Dorian Gray."
However, I believe his testimony was more that art had to serve no practical
purpose, which is vaguely similar to something that David said (unless I
misinterpreted what he wrote).
>I realise that that is a bit to narrow, so I'd say that all unique
>creations on which some amount of effort was expended could be
>considered art.
'Kay. I'd agree with this in part, but also add that, for myself, "creation
for creation's sake," as you mentioned above, plays a great role in this. I
wouldn't agree absolutely with Mister Wilde, however, for one reason: some
useful things can be turned into beautiful things by innovative minds. The
Washington State Capital building is an example. It's pretty to look at, but
it was made for, shall we say, organizational purposes. IMO, utility and
aesthetics collided for the better of both in this case. Most buildings,
though, do not, IMO, qualify as art so much as blocks of selected materials.
Mass production is also an issue.
(If I'm droning incoherently, as I am apt to do frequently, ignore me.)
>Soo... how many of you would consider the Gibson's Griffon or the
>Highway Star to be pieces of art? I would...
I wouldn't consider them to be so, if only because they were designed with
purpose in mind, which makes them utilitarian, in function if not in form.
Sarah
a lone Wanderer
<sdavis...@mad-hatter.org> wrote:
>
>a lone Wanderer wrote in message <3a361d27.1587669@localhost>...
>>And just to add my two cents to the discussion, my definition of art
>>is something like "creation for creations sake".
>
>Oscar Wilde pushed a similar philosophy in "The Picture of Dorian Gray."
>However, I believe his testimony was more that art had to serve no practical
>purpose, which is vaguely similar to something that David said (unless I
>misinterpreted what he wrote).
Must read that book sometime...
Hmm.. one could say that the "artsy" part of the piece of art has to
serve no other purpose than looking beautiful.
I.o.w. you can build something, a motorcycle for example, that simply
fulfills a certain function - then its not art - and you can build
something, putting uneccessary effort into it so that it not only
fulfills its function, but also looks great/cool, has a lot of frills
and add-ons which serve not purpose but are just there "because the
creator could do them" - then its art.
Rereading what I've just written, I'm not sure whether or not I've
made myself clear... ^-^
>
>>I realise that that is a bit to narrow, so I'd say that all unique
>>creations on which some amount of effort was expended could be
>>considered art.
>
>'Kay. I'd agree with this in part, but also add that, for myself, "creation
>for creation's sake," as you mentioned above, plays a great role in this. I
>wouldn't agree absolutely with Mister Wilde, however, for one reason: some
>useful things can be turned into beautiful things by innovative minds.
Yes, and the effort, how small it was, that went into making it
beautiful was not really necessary (as I'm reminded of when I see the
ugly lumps of concrete that pass for buildings here sometimes). So Mr.
Wilde was still right: the architect made the building beautiful
because he could - the beauty serves no practical purpose.
>The
>Washington State Capital building is an example. It's pretty to look at, but
>it was made for, shall we say, organizational purposes. IMO, utility and
>aesthetics collided for the better of both in this case. Most buildings,
>though, do not, IMO, qualify as art so much as blocks of selected materials.
>Mass production is also an issue.
I think most people would agree that once its massproduced, it becomes
a sort of replica and loses the status of art.
>
>(If I'm droning incoherently, as I am apt to do frequently, ignore me.)
>
>>Soo... how many of you would consider the Gibson's Griffon or the
>>Highway Star to be pieces of art? I would...
>
>I wouldn't consider them to be so, if only because they were designed with
>purpose in mind, which makes them utilitarian, in function if not in form.
Well, I'll agree with you on the Griffon (after thinking it over
you're right - its just a tool) but the Highway Star didn't really
serve a purpose. Heck, it was impossible to ride without a hardsuit. I
think Mackie built it just for the fun of it, which is (IMHO) a
qualifier for art.
>
>Sarah
Robyn, Duke of Amber
I am brought to mind of the pic of Priss smiling softly as she rets her
head on her bike.
Here is art made of the (appreciation of funtional form) type of art.
in other words...the art of funtionality has been raised to a higher
degree by the observation and encapsulaton of that appreciation.
Neil
Who has promised himself (over and over) he would keep out of this little
discussion.
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, a lone Wanderer wrote:
>
> Must read that book sometime...
> Hmm.. one could say that the "artsy" part of the piece of art has to
> serve no other purpose than looking beautiful.
> I.o.w. you can build something, a motorcycle for example, that simply
> fulfills a certain function - then its not art - and you can build
> something, putting uneccessary effort into it so that it not only
> fulfills its function, but also looks great/cool, has a lot of frills
> and add-ons which serve not purpose but are just there "because the
> creator could do them" - then its art.
> Rereading what I've just written, I'm not sure whether or not I've
> made myself clear... ^-^
__________________________________________________________________
Chrontius
>>>Highway Star to be pieces of art? I would...
>>
>>I wouldn't consider them to be so, if only because they were designed with
>>purpose in mind, which makes them utilitarian, in function if not in form.
>
>Well, I'll agree with you on the Griffon (after thinking it over
>you're right - its just a tool) but the Highway Star didn't really
>serve a purpose. Heck, it was impossible to ride without a hardsuit. I
>think Mackie built it just for the fun of it, which is (IMHO) a
>qualifier for art.
But it was also an expression of purpose, which re-qualifies it. However, the
highwaystar has no argument from me; it is art, in a fun way. I wonder if
Mackie could make a jet-powered Highwaystar-2? Nothing that flies, but even
more ridiculous than the first in terms of speed. (supersonic cycle? I hope
so =) I'd love to see Priss try that one, but not in a fight, I want that one
coming home too.)
--
Well, we all have the madness part down, so let's start on the method.
-me.
Sarah Davis
a lone Wanderer wrote in message <3a411b04.3368359@localhost>...
You may be right about this, when I rethink it. Mackie is a hobbyist, and
the Highway Star was a product of his hobby (and a nifty plot device), so it
could qualify.
Sarah
Robyn, Duke of Amber
Bert's Sky-cycle in Zone :)
Neil
On 22 Dec 2000, Chrontius wrote:
> Date: 22 Dec 2000 00:06:49 GMT
> From: Chrontius <dragon...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.fan.bgcrisis
> Subject: Re: So, what is art,
anyway? (was Re: 10 statements all of us can agree on.)
>
> But it was also an expression of purpose, which re-qualifies it. However, the
> highwaystar has no argument from me; it is art, in a fun way. I wonder if
> Mackie could make a jet-powered Highwaystar-2? Nothing that flies, but even
> more ridiculous than the first in terms of speed. (supersonic cycle? I hope
> so =) I'd love to see Priss try that one, but not in a fight, I want that one
> coming home too.)
>
> --
> Well, we all have the madness part down, so let's start on the method.
> -me.
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
Chrontius
not much to detract from the fact that it's just a jet engine (with an
afterburner... =] ) and the raw power of it. Can you imagine the look on
Priss's face? =]
A lone Wanderer
on 22 Dec 2000 23:43:06 GMT I heard Chrontius say:
>Nah, I mean an 8-foot long gas turbine with two stubby little wheels on it, and
>not much to detract from the fact that it's just a jet engine (with an
>afterburner... =] ) and the raw power of it. Can you imagine the look on
>Priss's face? =]
Sounds fun. I wonder if I would survive wiping the drool from her chin
... ^-^
I can also imagine that she'd need the hardsuit simply to stay in
control of that monster and to survive the inevitable crash...
>
>--
>Well, we all have the madness part down, so let's start on the method.
> -me.
So, where do I find pointers on how to work on the method?
A lone Wanderer
>
>I am brought to mind of the pic of Priss smiling softly as she rets her
>head on her bike.
> Here is art made of the (appreciation of funtional form) type of art.
> in other words...the art of funtionality has been raised to a higher
>degree by the observation and encapsulaton of that appreciation.
Umm, somehow I can't seem to wrap my mind around what you're saying...
Are you saying the bike is art because Priss thinks of it as art?
(I think her bike could be said to be art anyways since Doc Raven
probably spent quite a bit of time on it and don't forget the original
designers of the bike, who probably put more effort and frills into
the bike than necessary).
>
>
> Neil
> Who has promised himself (over and over) he would keep out of this little
> discussion.
No chance, buddy ^-^
A lone Wanderer
on Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:03:44 -0500 I heard Robyn, Duke of Amber say:
>
>I am brought to mind of the pic of Priss smiling softly as she rets her
>head on her bike.
> Here is art made of the (appreciation of funtional form) type of art.
> in other words...the art of funtionality has been raised to a higher
>degree by the observation and encapsulaton of that appreciation.
Umm, somehow I can't seem to wrap my mind around what you're saying...
Are you saying the bike is art because Priss thinks of it as art?
(I think her bike could be said to be art anyways since Doc Raven
probably spent quite a bit of time on it and don't forget the original
designers of the bike, who probably put more effort and frills into
the bike than necessary).
>
>
> Neil
> Who has promised himself (over and over) he would keep out of this little
> discussion.
No chance, buddy ^-^
>
>
>On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, a lone Wanderer wrote:
>>
>> Must read that book sometime...
>> Hmm.. one could say that the "artsy" part of the piece of art has to
>> serve no other purpose than looking beautiful.
>> I.o.w. you can build something, a motorcycle for example, that simply
>> fulfills a certain function - then its not art - and you can build
>> something, putting uneccessary effort into it so that it not only
>> fulfills its function, but also looks great/cool, has a lot of frills
>> and add-ons which serve not purpose but are just there "because the
>> creator could do them" - then its art.
>> Rereading what I've just written, I'm not sure whether or not I've
>> made myself clear... ^-^
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> _____________
> Seraphim, the Restless Angel with a (borrowed) sword.
> ________
>
> Nene, Ami,
> Girls with glasses. girls with computers. Pink hair. blue hair
> _______________________
> Robyn, Duke of Amber. Agent of Chaos.
> ***************************************************************************
>
>