4 ms·

Artists aren't limited to possible futures though, I'd encourage more of them to imagine the impossible, as well.

coldtea 4y ago
The impossible as opposed to the merely not plausible, isn't really alluring for art, as it's neither a depiction of what's there (art as mirror), nor a warning (artist as Cassandra or sensitive guard), and not even a call to arms (art as politics, utopia). In other words, it doesn't relate to the artist and us. It only relates when there's a thread that connects what's imagined to where we are, where we might be, or where we want to go.
- lostmsu 4y ago
  Obviously false statement, given the genre of fiction. Also, objective impossible is wildly different from any individual subjective one.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >Obviously false statement, given the genre of fiction. Obviously we are aware of the genre of fiction. Or science fiction for that matter. Or superhero comics, or supernatural stories, and so on. So my point wasn't that e.g. vampire fiction doesn't exist or isn't interesting to writers and reader. But nothing in the genre of fiction is really about the impossible. That is just metaphor and plot device for what was, is, or can be. If there's a superhero with laser eyes and super-strength, it's not about the superhero, but about the idea of heroism, the responsibility of power, the connections with people, the repercusions of actions, and so on. It's the connection with the existing and the possible that makes it interesting. The non-realistic part is just background.
    - lostmsu 4y ago
      Art is background. Without background Romeo and Juliet is just "love could be a strong feeling", and Back to the Future is "time travel has an unsolved grandfather paradox".
      - coldtea 4y ago
        You got it backwards here. The heart of the art is in the intra-personal conflicts and human aspect observations, and the skeleton is the plot. The background is just (literally) a backdrop. Which is why you can set Romeo and Juliet in 20th century America, or Antigone in space - as many have done, and the heart of the work is still there just fine.
        lostmsu 4y ago
        > The heart of the art is in the intra-personal conflicts and human aspect observations, and the skeleton is the plot. Precisely what makes it art is the background though. > The background is just (literally) a backdrop. Which is why you can set Romeo and Juliet in 20th century America, or Antigone in space - as many have done, and the heart of the work is still there just fine. Yeah, and I even told you what the heart is.
        coldtea 4y ago
        >Precisely what makes it art is the background though. No, that's just the decoration on the dish that is art. The nutritional value and the test is in the core. The artisty is in the expression and observation and relatedness, not in the the backdrop.

The impossible as opposed to the merely not plausible, isn't really alluring for art, as it's neither a depiction of what's there (art as mirror), nor a warning (artist as Cassandra or sensitive guard), and not even a call to arms (art as politics, utopia). In other words, it doesn't relate to the artist and us. It only relates when there's a thread that connects what's imagined to where we are, where we might be, or where we want to go.

lostmsu 4y ago
Obviously false statement, given the genre of fiction. Also, objective impossible is wildly different from any individual subjective one.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >Obviously false statement, given the genre of fiction. Obviously we are aware of the genre of fiction. Or science fiction for that matter. Or superhero comics, or supernatural stories, and so on. So my point wasn't that e.g. vampire fiction doesn't exist or isn't interesting to writers and reader. But nothing in the genre of fiction is really about the impossible. That is just metaphor and plot device for what was, is, or can be. If there's a superhero with laser eyes and super-strength, it's not about the superhero, but about the idea of heroism, the responsibility of power, the connections with people, the repercusions of actions, and so on. It's the connection with the existing and the possible that makes it interesting. The non-realistic part is just background.
  - lostmsu 4y ago
    Art is background. Without background Romeo and Juliet is just "love could be a strong feeling", and Back to the Future is "time travel has an unsolved grandfather paradox".
    - coldtea 4y ago
      You got it backwards here. The heart of the art is in the intra-personal conflicts and human aspect observations, and the skeleton is the plot. The background is just (literally) a backdrop. Which is why you can set Romeo and Juliet in 20th century America, or Antigone in space - as many have done, and the heart of the work is still there just fine.
      - lostmsu 4y ago
        > The heart of the art is in the intra-personal conflicts and human aspect observations, and the skeleton is the plot. Precisely what makes it art is the background though. > The background is just (literally) a backdrop. Which is why you can set Romeo and Juliet in 20th century America, or Antigone in space - as many have done, and the heart of the work is still there just fine. Yeah, and I even told you what the heart is.
        coldtea 4y ago
        >Precisely what makes it art is the background though. No, that's just the decoration on the dish that is art. The nutritional value and the test is in the core. The artisty is in the expression and observation and relatedness, not in the the backdrop.