1eyedking Graphics =/= Art Direction

[Radisshu]

Anime isn't an abstract form of art, it's what japanese cartoons are called.

No no Radisshu, Anime is animated Manga, which is an art with a large sexual undertones and large degree of stylization. Have you seen that 300 years old Manga image (Tied up woman had a sex, that penis was quite visible.)? Manga heavily borrowed from these old Japanese artistic/sexual images.

I hope I'm not adressing a troll now.

No, anime is not animated manga. Some anime adapts manga, but some manga adapts anime. Manga are japanese comics. The term is relatively new, and is not suited for older japanese art.

 

[Turjan]

The next person that says "this is/isn't art" when they actually mean "ME LIEK / HAET" will get a swift kick on the prostate.

While I like the general idea of the thread and agree with many of 1EK's points, I can only repeat this notion. I don't like manga or anime, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't qualify as art. I still remember my teachers telling me that science fiction and fantasy are not literature. That was just an uncalled for cultural elitism that became very obvious when it came to reading George Orwell's "1984". As the book was good, it could not be science fiction. Problem solved. Sure.

 

[Radisshu]

ALSO:

It's not all bad, and it's not really a single artform.

 

[Black Cat]

@ 1eyedking

"Please explain more."

This is going to be long and boring so please bear with me. It works like this, more or less...

Qabalists, hermetists, gnostics, and several catholic heresies, as well as most eastern things, etc, consider creation as the production of not one force but of two diferent forces, at the same time part of, like, the thing in Ain but opposite and, in a limited way, at war. To this end the separate the concept of creator (god) to that of the little creator (the demiurge), the later one being the one described in the old testament and the former one being so completely alien and distant that's stupid to even try to reach it in thought, much less in prayer.

Back to the point, the gesture of light and darkness being separated was not a gesture of creation but of ordering. In a similar way to, say, the Olympics defeating and exiling the Titans, order is brought and thus creation, as we know it, may exist. This is more obvious in old qabalistic texts as, for example, most of the high aristocracy of the angry evil things (say, demons) are not fallen angels nor beasts but part of the so called outer beings. The most famous case of this being Samael and Lilith, both seen originaly as gods of the outer darkness and, when reunited and fused in a being known as Leviathan, equal to God (and therefore why in all scriptures Leviathan, in the final battle, must be faced and fought by God himself and not the heavenly host).

So in the begining you have a, like, tridimensionally infinite sea of pure chaos, named Humid Nature by alchemists, that comes into contact with an agent of the Fiery Name, which would be the emanation (as in, the verb or word) of the thing in Ain itself, and corrupts it, as the very nature of this chaotic sea is that of corruption and change. And thus the Demiurge is born, a force of complete order oposed to the same force of seeming chaos that spawned him by corrupting the very essence from which he flowed. Being an emanation of the Fiery Name, though, it is impeled to order the chaotic ever raging storm of Binah, and thus, inside of it a place of order sprouts, most of it's inhabitants being either entities of the primordial darkness that were left behind and trapped or the helpers (each among the Elohim, the lesser Lords and Ladies that serve under the thing in Ain having their own hosts and legions) that fell along Him.

So the Demiurge creates a place of order, Creation, in this storm of ever changing forms and concepts. Some among the outer beings (and even one or two among the Elohim, including the Demiurge's own mother) decide he went way beyond his office and start trying to bring down creation to anihilate him and his followers in one final epic battle, blah blah blah, while the others wait and watch, because they somehow believe this entire thing to be indeed acording to the will of the thing in Ain. The Demiurge is only one but his creation is small, so as long as he can keep the juices flowing (and he has millions of souls imprisoned with himself to use as production facilities for the energy he needs to keep the universe solid) he can resist. Meanwhile, some inside Creation have either made pacts with the Demiurge's enemies, the outer beings, or recalled part of their own natures as beings of chaos and are trying to sabotage reality and harm it bad enought the Demiurge can't compensate and the entire of creation comes crashing down, the outer beings invade, kill everyone that is still loyal to the Architect, and go back swiming in the infinite oceans of chaos and stuffies.

That's basicaly it. Now change Demiurge for The Builder, the Archons for the Hammerites and the Techguys, Creation for The City, the formless chaos by The Wilderness, the agents of the outer beings for The Pagans, and the outer beings themselves by The Trickster and it's supernatural friends, and you have it all done over again. Add the Keepers as the enlightened ones that see the will of the thing in Ain in this battle and dedicate themselves to contemplation, observation, and subtle unseen actions to keep the balance of power balanced, and there you go. The basic and outer layer of sacred mysteries in a bottle. Or in a Thief.

Ooops, I almost forgot. The Archons are the agents of the Demiurge, think The Agents in Matrix or, well, as i said, the Hammerites in Thief. And to make it easier to understand think of it in Lord of the Rings terms: You have that big god guy whose name i don't remember, then you have all the little Gods beneath him, and then you have that Morgoth guy who went rogue.

And so it ends this, our first Kuroneko explains The Mysteries using videogames, nya! segment! Hope you had fun.

@ Orgasm

You mean the picture showing i'm an eighty years old pedophile retired exorcist? I'm sorry, but being an exorcist to the holy see means i'm part of the vatican's secret service and can't reveal my true face out of fear for my security, and being a ceremonial pedophile makes my face being known quite dangerous, as I may kick demon ass like there's no tomorrow but the police has guns and kevlar vests and the power of christ does not compel that much. Sorry. D:



Edity Edit: @ Radisshu

Was that BLAME! or am i becoming rusty? If so we are best friends forever now, just so you know. :3

 

[roll-a-die]

Huhwha, Manga as an art form started mainly around the time Disney did, but there's evidence it's existed FAR FAR longer than that, up to the Meiji era, one of the first uses of the actual word manga goes back to 1819. MODERN MANGA, however came about by Osamu Tezuka, in the 1940s and 50s, which still characterizes some of the modern styles, large eyes, childish figures, whimsical B&W line-art, etc.

Manga came about via Disney and Kwa soldiers in WW2, anime came about via Manga's successes.

I'm not saying most manga or anime, isn't crap, though.

Also 1eyedpauper, there's a difference between art and GOOD art, you don't seen to be distinguishing well between it. A child's scrawling, art, da Vinci, Good art, manga, art, comics, art, Andrew Jones, Arguably good art.


As to good art in anime, I'm partial to Howls Moving Castle, I just which they could have spread the watercolor aesthetic of the background to the characters themselves.

EDIT: God Damn it I had to walk away from my comp for 30 mins as I wrote this.

 

[denizsi]

We do have Miyazaki works which can only be described as art - in quality, inventivness, superb design... whatevere you can come up with.

Art. Please excuse me while I snort.

Mocking the artistic value of a series of moving images with story, dialogue and music using a single frame = WIN. Right?

So tell us, 1eyedking, is this art or not:

 

[yaster]

Mocking the artistic value of a series of moving images with story, dialogue and music using a single frame = WIN. Right?

So tell us, 1eyedking, is this art or not:

WIN,


so full of it

 

[yaster]

(except for Fallout 2, but still everything fits in its own special way).

In fallout 2 nothing fits anything outside of single location. Overall the world design is horrible and it's clearly seen that nobody was responsible for it. It's just random shit.

Wait. When you meant Fallout you also included FO2? lolwut?

About StarCraft: thanks for posting concept art for StarCraft II, Blizzard's new upcoming fail.

Nope it's not SC2. But fuck, I did rush it. It's SC ghost (wtf mang). FAIL.

So I've got to redeem myself:

ohh wait, that last is something else... or is it?

Bonus: tyranids were copied from Giger's Alien designs.

You don't say? Liek for reelz? It's from the film, I wanted specific game example. So it stays closer.

I thought of putting Alien RPG concept art for a moment there instead of glorious WH40k

Full circle, huh?

 

[Kron]

So tell us, 1eyedking, is this art or not:

Is this seriously a comparison between anime and Michellangelo regarding art?

David's dick is a key part of the human anatomy. It belongs to a greater whole which is beautiful, which could be called art, but also by itself it conveys certain perfection.

A single frame of an anime movie or series does not only not give an impression by itself of a studied creation, but the whole can not even approach the craftmanship that a sculpture like that of Michellangelo achieves.
We do not observe an element which achieves synthesis, beauty through the simple, but more like a wild tossing around of elements that doubtfully bellong together; like that of a child not understanding which things fit with which.

Anime is generally one of two: a chaotic WTF ensemble, or a pretentious dull and depthless piece of shit such as Ghost in the shell, which in the end, tells us absolutely nothing.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

So tell us, 1eyedking, is this art or not:

Is this seriously a comparison between anime and Michellangelo regarding art?

David's dick is a key part of the human anatomy. It belongs to a greater whole which is beautiful, which could be called art, but also by itself it conveys certain perfection.

The dick itself looks ridiculous, though.

Anyway, just to remind everyone of 1EK's good taste:

Why The Witcher is an intelligent game.

 

[DraQ]

The Witcher as a game is pretty intelligent, 1EK as a poster, however decreasingly so

Not that Raghar is any better, mind you - unlike 1EK he never even appeared to be in the first place.

 

[1eyedking]

Lulz, I detect lots of butthurt. This thread is so full of faggots who would've condoned Rococo, one of the most tasteless and pretentious artistic movements in history, it's not even funny.

Yes - art, poetry.

Why? Why is all of that art, or poetry? Those screencaps scream overdesign and lack of respect for geometric simplicity and purity of form.

ALSO:
It's not all bad, and it's not really a single artform.

Same as above, explain why that piece of crap is artistic. Next time link the images or I won't even bother.

[...]

OK, what a load of crap. Even if we were to extremely bend it and somehow make it fit (completely ignoring the cosmogony part) I still don't know how it would tarnish Thief's lore, particularly when none of those examples you mentioned adopted the Observers = Thieves, Archons = Metalcrafting Clerics, Pagans = Druids stuff Thief did. Moreover, how does Karras fit in all of this? It completely buttfucks your assumption that The Archons are agents, since Karras works for himself and against.

I just think that Thief needed some zealous believers, some pagan guys, and some old dudes floating around teaching Garrett how steal and scolding him every now and then. Then they worked around that. Furthermore, this game's got some poetry in it's take of religious beliefs, something that is completely missing nowadays (and completely devoid of in Japanese culture).

I don't know Black Cat. Sounds like typical standard-fare RPG stuff to me, except it's done right.

Also 1eyedpauper, there's a difference between art and GOOD art, you don't seen to be distinguishing well between it. A child's scrawling, art, da Vinci, Good art, manga, art, comics, art, Andrew Jones, Arguably good art.

Haha, how old are you? Let's try again.

A child's scrawling = Not art
Da Vinci = Art
Michelangelo = Passable art
Manga = Not art
Comics = Not art
Andrew Jones = Not art

A drawing is not art. It's just a drawing. Art transcends the image and form (which in itself must be good - anime's isn't, sorry - falls prey to too many gimmicks). Think of the fingers almost touching in Michelangelo's Creation of Adam for an example already cited here.

(David's penis)

I see what you did there. Except from seeing only the penis of a sculpture you can't know if the rest is good, while looking at some generically designed character & setting from a motion picture screencap you can already tell the rest is bad.

Also, way to fail by comparing some random anime to Michelangelo's sculpture. That was of the dumbest posts I've read in a while.

[...]

Fallout 2 had "crazy" stuff in it because it was a jab at the comic book design it drew its inspiration from. If you can't understand how anime is generic and bad, then understanding why FO2's design is fitting is above you, sorry.

As for the zergling: who fucking cares it's inspired/copied from WH40K. StarCraft's strength lies in the races and their design fitting the theme and world perfectly, as well as the structures; there's no stupid wax seals like in WH40K that reek overdesign all over. Plus the music in StarCraft is one of the few that manages to convey all the characteristics of the respective factions in a very accurate way.

Keep failing, it proves my points all the stronger.

[...]

Says the man who likes fat butts

I consider The Witcher smart because of the observation I made in my signature's post, not because of that ass. But damn, weren't those cards a nice addition...

The Witcher as a game is pretty intelligent, 1EK as a poster, however decreasingly so

Why? Because I've said anime is bad? Explain.

 

[denizsi]

So tell us, 1eyedking, is this art or not:

Is this seriously a comparison between anime and Michellangelo regarding art?

No. It is a serious comparison of critique or judgement of a work using incomplete parts. What you think about anime in general is irrelevant.

It's pathetic that I had to explain this.

 

[1eyedking]

No. It is a serious comparison of critique or judgement of a work using incomplete parts. What you think about anime in general is irrelevant.

It's pathetic that I had to explain this.

Read below of that.

A single frame of an anime movie or series does not only not give an impression by itself of a studied creation, but the whole can not even approach the craftmanship that a sculpture like that of Michellangelo achieves.

It's pathetic that I had to explain this.

 

[denizsi]

Also, way to fail by comparing some random anime to Michelangelo's sculpture.

You are just so thick.

No. It is a serious comparison of critique or judgement of a work using incomplete parts. What you think about anime in general is irrelevant.

It's pathetic that I had to explain this.

Read below of that.

A single frame of an anime movie or series does not only not give an impression by itself of a studied creation, but the whole can not even approach the craftmanship that a sculpture like that of Michellangelo achieves.

It's pathetic that I had to explain this.

Again, what you think about anime is irrelevant. They are clearly widely different mediums and any direct comparison of worth and value between any form of contemporary arts and traditional fine arts is an extreme stupidity to begin with. The only thing that matters is that passing judgement on a complete work of animation based on a single frame makes as much sense to pass judgement on a complete work based on an isolated detail.

Now, you are really pathetic. You will probably come with an even more pathetic reply.

 

[roll-a-die]

Haha, how old are you? Let's try again.

A child's scrawling = Not art
Da Vinci = Art
Michelangelo = Good art
Manga = Not art
Comics = Not art
Andrew Jones = Not art

A drawing is not art. It's just a drawing. Art transcends the image and form (which in itself must be good - anime's isn't, sorry - falls prey to too many gimmicks). Think of the fingers almost touching in Michelangelo's Creation of Adam for an example already cited here.

quoth wikipedia
"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings."

Further quotation from wikipedia, "Drawing is a visual art"

Andrew Jones is art, a childs scrawling are art, in the same way a cavemans paintings are art. Art is technically anything that is arranged so as to have meaning. Arguing that something is or isn't art is nearly impossible. It doesn't have to transcend , meaning to be art, it simply had to be.

Can you argue that that is not art?

What about this

Or,

If you do, explain why, WHY aren't they art?

To further extrapolate on my post above, Art in the original sense was simply what you did, The Art of masonry or carpentry or construction or medicine, it wasn't until the Renaissance that art became simply what was made by an artist.

Now you can argue that Comics and Andrew Jones and Manga are not HIGH art, but to deny them the phrase "art" is stupid and unjustified. To argue that all art must be high art is ignorant.

 

[denizsi]

"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings."

Further quotation from wikipedia, "Drawing is a visual art"

Andrew Jones is art, a childs scrawling are art, in the same way a cavemans paintings are art. Art is technically anything that is arranged so as to have meaning. Arguing that something is or isn't art is nearly impossible. It doesn't have to transcend , meaning to be art, it simply had to be.

Oh please For Fuck's Sake (tm)! Semanticist liberaltard revisionist bullshit is the last thing we need in this discussion.

 

[roll-a-die]

"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings."

Further quotation from wikipedia, "Drawing is a visual art"

Andrew Jones is art, a childs scrawling are art, in the same way a cavemans paintings are art. Art is technically anything that is arranged so as to have meaning. Arguing that something is or isn't art is nearly impossible. It doesn't have to transcend , meaning to be art, it simply had to be.

Oh please For Fuck's Sake (tm)! Semanticist liberaltard revisionist bullshit is the last thing we need in this discussion.

Great way to troll without addressing any of my real points. SUPER GOOD JOB! /special ed teacher voice.

Now read it and attempt to address my points logically. Without a blanket puerile remark in an attempt to discredit me.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Haha, how old are you? Let's try again.

A child's scrawling = Not art
Da Vinci = Art
Michelangelo = Good art
Manga = Not art
Comics = Not art
Andrew Jones = Not art

A drawing is not art. It's just a drawing.

The next person that says "this is/isn't art" when they actually mean "ME LIEK / HAET" will get a swift kick on the prostate.

 

[Kron]

This shit screams overdesign in such a way that words cannot convey.
Thus, it is a drawing.

By the way, cavemen did not have an aesthetic intention when they proyected their hands on the stone, and drew themselves hunting. The desire to obtain something led them to "draw" it in a confusion between reality and mystical achievement. It did not have artististic aspirations, so it is not art. In a smiliar way, we could say that the tools and ornamentation of primitive tribes nowadays in africa are art. But again, the creation of such things does not follow an artistic calling, but a series of traditions linked with religious beliefs and practices. They have a use, thus they can not be art.

Children little understand when they scribble. They are not conscious of the creation of something artistic, they are not conscious of an intention.

Intention is key in the process of art. A work of art cannot be accidental or aleatory. That is, a work of art, or anything else. The thing to be created must be done consciously, with an intention in mind. Of course intentions are usually not enough.

 

[denizsi]

Oh please For Fuck's Sake (tm)! Semanticist liberaltard revisionist bullshit is the last thing we need in this discussion.

Great way to troll without addressing any of my real points. SUPER GOOD JOB! /special ed teacher voice.

Now read it and attempt to address my points logically. Without a blanket puerile remark in an attempt to discredit me.

Not trolling. The notion that expressive doodlings of a child or ritualistic paintings of cavemen is art is just ridiculous and is a revisionist construct of liberal morons.

You addressed the point but inaccurately. Even well into and some time after Renaissance, "art" didn't come to mean anything we today understand from the word. Humanist and liberal currents of Renaissance only made the pursuit of artistic disciplines a more open, socially acceptable, individually affordable and ultimately a profitable one as the range of subject matters expanded considerably as did the artistic techniques; it didn't suddenly make simple primitive expressions on paper or somewhere else to be considered "art".

That the term art came to mean emotional expression doesn't mean that every piece of shit anyone does simply is. You don't say that your kid is "artistic" when she projects her feelings to words or pictures; you say she is "expressive", another beautiful word with a purpose. She or her stuff becomes artistic when she starts to seek a goal with a purpose in her expressions and turns it into a discipline.

 

[roll-a-die]

This shit screams overdesign in such a way that words cannot convey.
Thus, it is a drawing.

By the way, cavemen did not have an aesthetic intention when they proyected their hands on the stone, and drew themselves hunting. The desire to obtain something led them to "draw" it in a confusion between reality and mystical achievement. It did not have artististic aspirations, so it is not art. In a smiliar way, we could say that the tools and ornamentation of primitive tribes nowadays in africa are art. But again, the creation of such things does not follow an artistic calling, but a series of traditions linked with religious beliefs and practices. They have a use, thus they can not be art.

Children little understand when they scribble. They are not conscious of the creation of something artistic, they are not conscious of an intention.

Intention is key in the process of art. A work of art cannot be accidental or aleatory. That is, a work of art, or anything else. The thing to be created must be done consciously, with an intention in mind. Of course intentions are usually not enough.

Art is not aesthetics, aesthetics is the practice of finding or creating meaning in art based on the content, not the practice of making the art itself. Two totally different things. Art is a learned skill and capacity for creative thought, aesthetics are the general meaning in the elements of a piece.The two may be intertwined in some cases but are not at all the same.

Art is always intended, how you perceive the intentions is a matter of your own allocations. Kid's I've talked to intend to make almost everything they draw, it's simply a matter of the skill to make it look good. Most kids get disheartened at their own lack of skill to make something that lives up to what they intend, that they give up on art entirely.

With the religious reference, would you say that Tikal wasn't art? What about the inside of giza or any egyptian temple/tomb? What of the Sphinx?

After all these were just religious works intended to satisfy tradition and had a use to the people of the time.

Also how does having a use relegate it away from being a piece of art? Two words to counter that, Big Ben. Three more, Lighthouse of Alexandria.

 

[roll-a-die]

Oh please For Fuck's Sake (tm)! Semanticist liberaltard revisionist bullshit is the last thing we need in this discussion.

Great way to troll without addressing any of my real points. SUPER GOOD JOB! /special ed teacher voice.

Now read it and attempt to address my points logically. Without a blanket puerile remark in an attempt to discredit me.

Not trolling. The notion that expressive doodlings of a child or ritualistic paintings of cavemen is art is just ridiculous and is a revisionist construct of liberal morons.

You addressed the point but inaccurately. Even well into and some time after Renaissance, "art" didn't come to mean anything we today understand from the word. Humanist and liberal currents of Renaissance only made the pursuit of artistic disciplines a more open, socially acceptable, individually affordable and ultimately a profitable one as the range of subject matters expanded considerably as did the artistic techniques; it didn't suddenly make simple primitive expressions on paper or somewhere else to be considered "art".

That the term art came to mean emotional expression doesn't mean that every piece of shit anyone does simply is. You don't say that your kid is "artistic" when she projects her feelings to words or pictures; you say she is "expressive", another beautiful word with a purpose. She or her stuff becomes artistic when she starts to seek a goal with a purpose in her expressions and turns it into a discipline.

Not quite, there's a reason they're called ART classes, not EXPRESSION classes. As I've said Art is a learned skill and capacity for creative thought. Why should early sketches and paintings by someone like rothko be considered art, while something like Andrew Jones' work be considered drawing?

Again as I've said above almost all art has intention and purpose, what disheartens children from art is both lack of skill and bitches like you attempting to remove merit from what little success they do have.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

This shit screams overdesign in such a way that words cannot convey.
Thus, it is a drawing.

The next person that says "this is/isn't art" when they actually mean "ME LIEK / HAET" will get a swift kick on the prostate.

 

[denizsi]

Not quite, there's a reason they're called ART classes, not EXPRESSION classes. As I've said Art is a learned skill and capacity for creative thought. Why should early sketches and paintings by someone like rothko be considered art, while something like Andrew Jones' work be considered drawing?

Again as I've said above almost all art has intention and purpose, what disheartens children from art is both lack of skill and bitches like you attempting to remove merit from what little success they do have.

It's a matter of intelligence, capacity and intuition. People aren't born equal or the same. Neither in manual dexterity or in intellectual capacity. When some are born with higher degrees of either or both, enough to guide herself with a conscious higher purpose where the form of her expression isn't just a passing hobby brought about under the particular circumstances (duress, boredom etc.), circumstances can easily be discriminative and whether you like it or not, there's a threshold to that line.

When you oppose this, you condone treating everyone as equals on their abilities' worth and to console them for nothing and do I need to say how this is tell-tale of the general mindset behind the western politics ie. the decline of the west?