So, are demos art?
category: general [glöplog]
who cares what art is or not.
its just a word that'll make you confused.
its like saying if this movie is good or bad.
one say its good, another say its bad.
someone else is in between.
then someone say this or this is art, and someone say its not art.
then what is art? how do you define art? how can you know what it is when its been abused through the ages.
its just a word that'll make you confused.
its like saying if this movie is good or bad.
one say its good, another say its bad.
someone else is in between.
then someone say this or this is art, and someone say its not art.
then what is art? how do you define art? how can you know what it is when its been abused through the ages.
Demos are art, but they're not considered to be.
We have to demonstrate the arte every time. It's synchronism arte. Computer makes possible to create an ambience the mind state of a creation more than others arts althought when it's done it's supreme.
maybe arte is reached when greetings are off.
the idea of a product with no interest is welcome too.
exactly, demos are named ARTE ;)
oh, shit.....!!! but i say as is:
adok is right!
adok is right!
FARTE
I'd like to add my two cents... Thanks Optimus for starting this thread.
I'd like to take an example to express my point of view. Some people can be ecstatic in front of a painting. I can't (sorry Nosfe). But I really enjoy watching a good demo, so this is why I consider demos are art. Some can really make me ecstatic too... Good paintings do nothing special to me, as demos can leave other people indifferent, a bit like rudi explained, it's kind of a matter of taste... and as everyone's free to think whatever they want to, this discussion can indeed get quite lengthy... or not.
There... cheers all, thanks for reading, and continue impressing us... I mean me... err, well, whatever. ;)
I'd like to take an example to express my point of view. Some people can be ecstatic in front of a painting. I can't (sorry Nosfe). But I really enjoy watching a good demo, so this is why I consider demos are art. Some can really make me ecstatic too... Good paintings do nothing special to me, as demos can leave other people indifferent, a bit like rudi explained, it's kind of a matter of taste... and as everyone's free to think whatever they want to, this discussion can indeed get quite lengthy... or not.
There... cheers all, thanks for reading, and continue impressing us... I mean me... err, well, whatever. ;)
sometimes watching the code behind some effect impresses me even more. thats like standing in front of mona lisa, drooling ;)
art
isnt art in the eye of the beholder?
a funny story about art,
my girlfriend entered some work in the Summer Expo 2011 last month , which is basically, an idols audition for artists, to say it respectless ;)
she went there, with 700 other ppl. The catch, all work was to be delivered anonymous.
No names from big artists on it to influence the 5 judges.
So while she waited on her work to be judged, she sees some pretty big artists send home (rob scholte for one ;) So she was quite nervous when the judges approached her, and much to her joy, she got selected for the second round... and then she made it to round 3, and got selected with 64 other people out of 700, to have her work exhibited in the museum in Den Haag.
oh yeah i forgot to mention what she entered in the compo...
a friggin holiday snapshot from 2 years ago made in Belgium, from some nun :D
i told her she was nuts, the judges proofed me wrong. And then we had sex!!!
a funny story about art,
my girlfriend entered some work in the Summer Expo 2011 last month , which is basically, an idols audition for artists, to say it respectless ;)
she went there, with 700 other ppl. The catch, all work was to be delivered anonymous.
No names from big artists on it to influence the 5 judges.
So while she waited on her work to be judged, she sees some pretty big artists send home (rob scholte for one ;) So she was quite nervous when the judges approached her, and much to her joy, she got selected for the second round... and then she made it to round 3, and got selected with 64 other people out of 700, to have her work exhibited in the museum in Den Haag.
oh yeah i forgot to mention what she entered in the compo...
a friggin holiday snapshot from 2 years ago made in Belgium, from some nun :D
i told her she was nuts, the judges proofed me wrong. And then we had sex!!!
oh yeah and demos are art. period. even the speedfisters ones.
what Alien said.
except BITS, which is commerce!
except BITS, which is commerce!
I say demos and pretty much all scene-related are art. Simply due to the fact, that each "piece" is interpreted differently by each spectator/listener, much like paintings, sculptures, theater-acts etc. It's one or more person's attempt at expressing something without (often, at least) telling the ordience ie: This is where you should dream back to childhood when you played soccer and this is supposed to make you feel extreme joy or sadness. The creator of the production, be it visually or audible creates his/her/their piece of "art" as they feel, and it's completely up to the recieving part to interpret it just as he/she pleases. One thing that really separates scene-art from what is usually considered art, is that neither of us has any hopes of one day, we'll be able to make a living out of it. We might get jobs requiring the same set of skills, but even a complete winningstreak at all democompos in a year, would quite be enough to actually make a living of this hobby of our's.
Well, if animated films are considered art (and they most definitely are), I can't see what would make the demoscene not an art. IMO, the only thing standing in the way of demos being recognized as pieces of art is the public's disbelief that one can be both a geek and an artist. As soon as you start explaining what this is about, and what real-time means, many people will categorize demos as yet another nerdy thingy.
That's a pretty sad definition of art... But quite widespread I fear.
Quote:
One thing that really separates scene-art from what is usually considered art, is that neither of us has any hopes of one day, we'll be able to make a living out of it.
That's a pretty sad definition of art... But quite widespread I fear.
"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics, and even disciplines such as history and psychology analyze its relationship with humans and generations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
It's art. End of thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
It's art. End of thread.
Depends on the definition of 'art'. And 'demos'.
Tamil: You really missed my point, there. The "make a living"-thing was most definately not my way of defining art. I just pointed out the fact that painters, sculpters etc. sell their art in hopes of doing it for a living. I haven't heard of any scener able to make a living out of creating demos, graphics or music. So I pointed out one major difference - not my definition of "art".
It's a part of digital arts.
Punqtured, quite a lot of artists life off from grants or doing other jobs while making their art. Same could be said from people making demos and having a dayjob.
At least here in finland it also is possible to actually apply and get grants from state to work with demos since they are 'media art'.
At least here in finland it also is possible to actually apply and get grants from state to work with demos since they are 'media art'.
@nosfe: Finland must be awesome then! :D
@Punqtured: I don't think that Tarmil missed your point. He is just saying that most of the artists in the world (and, especially, true artists) do not make a living with their art. Art (true art) is, generally, a thing very difficult to monetize.
With a true artist I mean someone that, concerning to his art creation, is devoted only to his art and not to something else (like money, public, make a living, etc).
And do not think that popularity could help to make a living with art. Beethoven and Mozart, you know, both died poor. And they were not only true artists, but even genius and very popular in their times.
Beside of this, the algorithmic and real-time aspects of our beloved art are appreciated not by senses but by intellect (like chess, music -considering the general form and harmonic relations, or transformations, between melodies- literature, or poetry -considering the internal structure, rhythm and rare semantic evocations-, that could appeal to intellect only). This make our art even more obscure to the general population that just can appreciate demos as music videos (in the same way that they could just appreciate chess as a war game or literature as a pleasant pastime) but miss a lot of aspects of the demoscene art.
Demoscene is not just art. It's a very intellectual art.
But notice that the distinction between senses and intellect is artificial. It is in our language but not in the reality. It is just a way to separate, speaking, our subconscious self and our rational, conscious, mind.
I believe that art, contrary to many dictionary and wikipedic definitions, appeals only to intellect and not to senses. Because, when we speak about arts like music or painting, we use "senses", in that context, as a word to denote the interpretation that the mind makes of some sensorial data. The art reside in the mind stimulation via this interpretation.
Art uses psychologial "tricks" to fascinate us. And most people can just reach art viscerally, not intellectually. This is just because art is complex and takes effort, learning and practice to understand, in a rational level, how it works.
Mosts arts (in fact, for most people, all art) make use of our senses to reach our subconscious mind part that is devoted to sensorial interpretation, who is, by the way, a great and very trained art critic (cause we do not see the world... we see a picture of the world that is an interpretation of our "internal artist" -the subconscious mind-). Perhaps it could be possible to make "art" that could appeal to emotions of an animal like a cat or a chicken (but not another especies) if we could understand how their brains make interpretation of certain sensorial data. Maybe is possible to emulate an equivalent of our human auditive based music in the mind of a dogs using the dog's olfactory sense.
Art is trickery, and demos are full of tricks, so demos are art.
Anyway, go and make a demo about this.
@Punqtured: I don't think that Tarmil missed your point. He is just saying that most of the artists in the world (and, especially, true artists) do not make a living with their art. Art (true art) is, generally, a thing very difficult to monetize.
With a true artist I mean someone that, concerning to his art creation, is devoted only to his art and not to something else (like money, public, make a living, etc).
And do not think that popularity could help to make a living with art. Beethoven and Mozart, you know, both died poor. And they were not only true artists, but even genius and very popular in their times.
Beside of this, the algorithmic and real-time aspects of our beloved art are appreciated not by senses but by intellect (like chess, music -considering the general form and harmonic relations, or transformations, between melodies- literature, or poetry -considering the internal structure, rhythm and rare semantic evocations-, that could appeal to intellect only). This make our art even more obscure to the general population that just can appreciate demos as music videos (in the same way that they could just appreciate chess as a war game or literature as a pleasant pastime) but miss a lot of aspects of the demoscene art.
Demoscene is not just art. It's a very intellectual art.
But notice that the distinction between senses and intellect is artificial. It is in our language but not in the reality. It is just a way to separate, speaking, our subconscious self and our rational, conscious, mind.
I believe that art, contrary to many dictionary and wikipedic definitions, appeals only to intellect and not to senses. Because, when we speak about arts like music or painting, we use "senses", in that context, as a word to denote the interpretation that the mind makes of some sensorial data. The art reside in the mind stimulation via this interpretation.
Art uses psychologial "tricks" to fascinate us. And most people can just reach art viscerally, not intellectually. This is just because art is complex and takes effort, learning and practice to understand, in a rational level, how it works.
Mosts arts (in fact, for most people, all art) make use of our senses to reach our subconscious mind part that is devoted to sensorial interpretation, who is, by the way, a great and very trained art critic (cause we do not see the world... we see a picture of the world that is an interpretation of our "internal artist" -the subconscious mind-). Perhaps it could be possible to make "art" that could appeal to emotions of an animal like a cat or a chicken (but not another especies) if we could understand how their brains make interpretation of certain sensorial data. Maybe is possible to emulate an equivalent of our human auditive based music in the mind of a dogs using the dog's olfactory sense.
Art is trickery, and demos are full of tricks, so demos are art.
Anyway, go and make a demo about this.
Amen to that, Ham! To some extend - that was what I tried to communicate in my post.