Art?

[Ryan]

Ryan, i think you missread what i typed, or i just said it wrong. I wasn't talking about getting flamed on my opinions about landscapes and abstract sigs (btw, i was talking about brushed abstracts, where people use other's brushes. if they make their own it always looks so much nicer because of originality.) I never said anything about 3d renders (unless you count TG renders), i know how hard it can be to make an original one, so please don't put words into my mouth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i was talking about this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lmao, go make urself a landscape better than nadrils with ur random poop (lack of a better word xD) and then get back to us

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a misunderstanding then.

[Sy_Accursed]

Your defination is art is soo old

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Art is a creative work by someone that proves interesting or nice to look at

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and as for landscape generates they r basic and do not produce good landscapes I have nevre once used one I any of my pixel work I have hand created all my bgs for them and for muhc other work

[Guest]

I don't ever recall seeing 'distance a ball drops' on my Terragen sliders, so lets leave that out of this, shall we?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically, I'm going to imply that you are implying that anything by accident is not considered art? A few random calculations, and yet someone gets a render worthy of a DD on DevART, and it's not art because maybe they randomly moved the haze slider in TG a bit beyond what you may have logically and conciously punched in at the number slot?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In all seriousness though, now that I think of it, it is rather childish for any of us to tell Nacho to make a better render than Nadril. The fact remains, 'random calculations' or not, Zack is a experienced and veteran TG user, and his renders will most likely always be better than Nacho's if he were to try (no offence, of course, just logistics) because he uses the program regularly and has for several years. He would need to quit and let Nacho catch up on learning the program to his extent if he were to do better. There's really just no point in telling him to try and do something better... either way, he never said he could.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Cal

[Guest]

and as for landscape generates they r basic and do not produce good landscapes I have nevre once used one I any of my pixel work I have hand created all my bgs for them and for muhc other work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could you repeat that? :? :shock:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Cal

[Zonorhc]

lmao, go make urself a landscape better than nadrils with ur random poop (lack of a better word xD) and then get back to us

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do movie critics have to be able to make excellent movies? No? Well, get out of this discussion, you half-literate sod.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing with art in my opinion is that things have to be placed consciously to look good. This just doesn't happen in a lot of things that people on this board post.

[How2PK]

 

lmao, go make urself a landscape better than nadrils with ur random poop (lack of a better word xD) and then get back to us

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do movie critics have to be able to make excellent movies? No? Well, get out of this discussion, you half-literate sod.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more. :D

[Ryan]

Your defination is art is soo old

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Art is a creative work by someone that proves interesting or nice to look at

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and as for landscape generates they r basic and do not produce good landscapes I have nevre once used one I any of my pixel work I have hand created all my bgs for them and for muhc other work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And look how good they turn out :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who is anyone to say something is art or it isn't? There's been enough logical posts with thorough descriptions in here for you nay-sayers to [bleep] off.

[SubDivi]

To think, this all could have been avoided with a look in a dictionary.. come to think of it, that happens alot here.

[WutangFlu]

my opinion...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just shut... up...

 

 

 

no one cares.. no ones gunna ever agree.. ur not gunna change the world..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

have fun.. good-night, and good luck..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and there plenty of people on the board who think the same XD

[Licky Kat]

Characteristics of art:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Requires creative perception both by the artist and by the audience

 

 

 

Elusive (as in "tending to evade cut-and-dried definitions or being fixedly grasped")

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communicates on many levels and is open to many interpretations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connotes a sense of ability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interplay between the conscious and unconscious part of our being, between what is real and what is an illusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any human creation which contains an idea other than its utilitarian purpose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That which is created with intention to be experienced as art

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search of different forms of beauty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The word art is also used to apply judgments of value, as in such expressions as "that meal was a work of art" (the cook is an artist), or "the art of deception," (the highly attained level of skill of the deceiver is praised). It is this use of the word as a measure of high quality and high value that gives the term its flavor of subjectivity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Making judgments of value requires a basis for criticism: a way to determine whether the impact of the object on the senses meets the criteria to be considered art, whether it is perceived to be ugly or beautiful. Perception is always colored by experience, so a reaction to art as 'ugly' or 'beautiful' is necessarily subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because of its elusive nature, "good" art is not always, or even regularly, appealing. In other words, it does not have to be "nice-looking", and often depicts terrible images made for social, moral, or thought-provoking reasons. Countless schools have proposed their own ways to define quality, yet they all seem to agree in at least one point: once their aesthetic choices are accepted, the value of the work of art is determined by its capacity to transcend the limits of its chosen medium in order to strike some universal chord (which, oddly enough, tends to be the most personal one).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many people's opinions of what art is would fall inside a relatively small range of accepted standards, or "institutional definition of art" (George [bleep]ie 1974). This derives from education and other social factors. Most people did not consider the depiction of a Brillo Box or a store-bought urinal to be art until Andy Warhol and Marcel Duchamp (respectively) placed them in the context of art (i.e., the art gallery), which then provided the association of these objects with the values that define art.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most viewers of these objects initially rejected such associations, because the objects did not, themselves, meet the accepted criteria. The objects needed to be absorbed into the general consensus of what art is before they achieved the near-universal acceptance as art in the contemporary era. Once accepted and viewed with a fresh eye, the smooth, white surfaces of Duchamp's urinal are strikingly similar to classical marble sculptural forms, whether the artist intended it or not. This type of recontextualizing provides the same spark of connection expected from any "good" art....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art for the full "ARTicle"

[Sy_Accursed]

 

lmao, go make urself a landscape better than nadrils with ur random poop (lack of a better word xD) and then get back to us

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do movie critics have to be able to make excellent movies? No? Well, get out of this discussion, you half-literate sod.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing with art in my opinion is that things have to be placed consciously to look good. This just doesn't happen in a lot of things that people on this board post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow that is a weird concept of art. Art is a creative skill, creative skills are not something that are defined or consicously controlled. Things are placed at rnaodm to fill spaces and removed if they don;t fit. Pictures slowly build up from small beginings. Artistic things if placed consciously juts become like graphical designs forming to a rgemented pattern.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean surrealism was the rnaodm placement of objects at incorrect locations or sizes or in rnadomly choosen colours they do not fit - that is not something that is done with conscious pklacement and colouring its done onm a wim of what would have the greatest effect yet that is art

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cubism is the usage of random shapes or pattens to convey the original image- that is not consciously thouhg throuhg of decideding whihc would look better where they are juts placed again on a wim and this is art

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With 2 such examples of well known art contering your theory, I think its pretty obvious ur talking bs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Do not mess with gcse art students :twisted: )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also forgot as a foot note my last art project is a project about yourself, so my hobbie rs has come into and my art teacher has actually told me it would be good to do a pixel image as it is linked with the game as a piece of the project. If such images are not art work why would I be told to put one into my art project that results in 30% of my final gcse grade?

[Zonorhc]

If you're placing things at random then removing them if they don't look good, then you're consciously controlling composition. If, however, you're like one of the grunge "artists" on this board and you just brush at random to make a cookie-cutter render-on-brushed-background, then you're hardly making art at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surrealists don't just apply things at random. There IS conscious effort behind the apparent "random" placement of features. What you're saying about random placement is equitable to saying that poets who write in free verse break lines at random and put no thought into what words they use where.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Art is a creative skill, creative skills are not something that are defined or consicously controlled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course not, which is obviously why people pay attention to composition and the fact that the word itself even applies to art. Please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pictures slowly build up from small beginings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That just screams "composition" to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Artistic things if placed consciously juts become like graphical designs forming to a rgemented pattern.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regimented pattern? I thought we were talking about a creative skill here, where people are CREATIVE rather than being strongly regimented. Regimented patterns in "art" are what you find in cookie-cutter grunge pieces, not in consciously composed work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The better artists in this forum are those that compose their art rather than just throwing things together at random. Look at the good pixel artists. They compose. Landscape artists? They compose. Photomanipulators? Hell yes, they compose. They do what they do consciously, even if the original idea came into their head at random.