5 ms·

For much art, the beauty is in the skillful use of a medium to say something that one wouldn't have expected to be able to say in that medium. Art is all about

by pcmonk 12y ago

For much art, the beauty is in the skillful use of a medium to say something that one wouldn't have expected to be able to say in that medium. Art is all about limitations. Photorealistic paintings are impressive because they aren't photographs. A well-written poem may be beautiful because it conjures up vivid images in the mind. In my opinion, text adventures can have a certain beauty because they tell a story in simple words (for a great example, see Photopia). Of course, good art uses the limitations to its advantage. Most paintings aren't photorealistic because they're not trying to be photos -- they're trying to say something through their limitations. A good book or a good text adventure allows each reader to create their own images in their mind. So, is there 'cheating' in art? Of course not. It's simply a change of medium. If you want to cross photographs with painting, go right ahead. That's a new medium, capable of saying new things. Don't pretend it's the old medium, and don't try to compare it directly to works in the old medium. But also don't dismiss it as 'cheating'. Take everything for what it is, not for how it compares to what you were expecting.

lambda 12y ago
In my opinion, text adventures can have a certain beauty because they tell a story in simple words (for a great example, see Photopia). I never managed to get the appeal of Photopia. It just grated on me. Never could get the hang of Adam Cadre's style; always preferred Emily Short or Andrew Plotkin.
- pcmonk 12y ago
  When I discovered it, I hadn't done much interactive fiction for a while, and for some reasons it really got to me. I had no idea what to expect going in, and the experience of exploring it, even if it's essentially non-interactive, was enlightening. I loved when it occurred to me to type "fly". It was liberating. Like all good art, the experience it gave me is essentially incommunicable.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  > always preferred Emily Short or Andrew Plotkin. Likewise, as well as Nick Montfort; Ad Verbum is exceptional.
mistercow 12y ago
>Photorealistic paintings are impressive because they aren't photographs. I think this is the fundamental difference of opinion between people who think you can "cheat" in art, and people who don't. I would argue that judging the quality of art based on the difficulty of producing it betrays a shallow appreciation of art. A person who says that is basically saying "I have no basis on which to judge this other than whether or not I could have produced it myself." This is why you'll see a lot of overlap between people who sneer at "cheating" and people who dismiss things like modern art and found art as "not art". In other words, the two groups are essentially using different definitions for the word "art".
- vacri 12y ago
  The definition of 'art' is always fun, because there's a corner case for everything. To date, the most robust definition I've seen in those debates are "does someone call it art? Then it's art". Not necessarily good or insightful art, but art nevertheless. And if you use that definition, you can't 'cheat' at art.
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    > To date, the most robust definition I've seen in those debates are "does someone call it art? Then it's art". Agreed. I've seen debates over whether various forms of "abstract" paintings are art, but that's not a particularly interesting debate. Of course they're art; the simpler and more useful question is whether they're good art.
  - mc32 12y ago
    >"does someone call it art? Then it's art" I think that's the easy answer... but if you went to the curator of the art institute of Chicago, of the MoMA, or any other art institute of renown, they would have more strict interpretations of what's art, I would think. That is there is "Art" and there is "art".
    - TheZenPsycho 12y ago
      having worked with some curators at similarly large (though not necessarily quite as well known) galleries, I'm pretty sure they use the >"does someone call it art? Then it's art" definition and have a poor opinion of anyone that attempts to be any stricter than that. This comes from a painful history of curators dismissing lots of "modern" art in the 1960's, and thus missing out on lots of extremely lucrative investment opportunities.
moron4hire 12y ago
I think you're missing the point of the story. Even the "old masters" used construction aids of some kind. It wasn't all free-hand on canvas. Often, nowhere near. Using a camera obscura or other such device is how you make photorealistic paintings.
- NAFV_P 12y ago
  > Using a camera obscura or other such device is how you make photorealistic paintings. Photorealism refers to a specific period and set of artists, post Pop-Art. They used photographs very extensively, Richard Estes is one of the better known ones. http://sayforward.com/ext/images/bus-reflections-flatiron-building-1967 http://sayforward.com/ext/images/bus-reflections-flatiron-bu...
cturner 12y ago
Art is all about limitations Great philosophy. Maybe the digital revolution will foster a reaction against perfect industry, and we'll see an emphasis on doing confined things, for their own sake.
- moron4hire 12y ago
  That has always and will continue to always go on. The nature of it is such that it won't ever be mainstream. But if you know where to look, it's out there. Carpenters who use hand tools. Photographers who mix their own collodion. Musicians who build their own instruments. It's out there.
bjterry 12y ago
I agree with your premise that art comes from your medium and limitations, but wanted to elaborate a bit on a part that you and him are not explicit about (although I suspect you may feel similarly based on "Don't pretend it's the old medium"). The value of art is inextricably linked with the process used to create it. People will have a very different emotional reaction to a painting which is created by hand than a painting which is programmed into a computer and painted by a painting machine (this generalizes all sorts of ways, this is just an example). His examples were specifically of people who were deceptive about the process they used, first in the camera obscura, second in Frank Frazetta. Of course, the term "art" is so imprecise that you can essentially import anything you want into it, including, if you so choose, the notion that part of the art is the practice of deceiving patrons about the way it's created in order to enrich yourself. I will allow that you can be an artist and lie about your methods to make your art more emotionally impactful, but I will not allow that doing so is the right thing to do or makes you a good person deserving of praise. If I'm creating art by painting by hand on tiny grains of sand and the world becomes enamored with it, but it turns out I'm actually using a computer-driven process to paint them (in order to become rich and not to later reveal my actions as some sort of castigation of modern art or some other such thing; basically, take a charitable view of my example here), I think one of the following is the case no matter what your definition of art: 1. It's still art, but it's not art in the way I'm trying to suggest that it is, or 2. It's a performance art where the deception is part of the art, but I'm still a bad person for doing it. Now, I'm not certain that the author would disagree with me (or that you would agree with me), because he doesn't directly address it in these terms. But he does say "I don't care how it's created: I only care about the results." and he also says that Frank Frazetta lying about how he created his art "does not diminish Frank Frazetta's art in the slightest." Perhaps he's saying that the art is still good taking into account the methods which he knows of and keeping mum on Frank Frazetta's deception. Maybe he doesn't think very thoroughly about ethics and so he's inconsistent, or maybe he has a system of ethics where deceiving people in this instance is okay. Of course, presumably many artists are not specific about their methodology, or they could say that they want it judged by the results, not the methods, in which case I agree with the author that it should be judged as it is as an artifact. But I reserve the right to change my emotional reaction to the piece if I later learn that their method is to hire 10,000 third world artists to paint as well as they can and they select the best to portray as the result of their artistic process.

by pcmonk 12y ago

lambda 12y ago

In my opinion, text adventures can have a certain beauty because they tell a story in simple words (for a great example, see Photopia). I never managed to get the appeal of Photopia. It just grated on me. Never could get the hang of Adam Cadre's style; always preferred Emily Short or Andrew Plotkin.

pcmonk 12y ago
When I discovered it, I hadn't done much interactive fiction for a while, and for some reasons it really got to me. I had no idea what to expect going in, and the experience of exploring it, even if it's essentially non-interactive, was enlightening. I loved when it occurred to me to type "fly". It was liberating. Like all good art, the experience it gave me is essentially incommunicable.
JoshTriplett 12y ago
> always preferred Emily Short or Andrew Plotkin. Likewise, as well as Nick Montfort; Ad Verbum is exceptional.

mistercow 12y ago

>Photorealistic paintings are impressive because they aren't photographs. I think this is the fundamental difference of opinion between people who think you can "cheat" in art, and people who don't. I would argue that judging the quality of art based on the difficulty of producing it betrays a shallow appreciation of art. A person who says that is basically saying "I have no basis on which to judge this other than whether or not I could have produced it myself." This is why you'll see a lot of overlap between people who sneer at "cheating" and people who dismiss things like modern art and found art as "not art". In other words, the two groups are essentially using different definitions for the word "art".

vacri 12y ago
The definition of 'art' is always fun, because there's a corner case for everything. To date, the most robust definition I've seen in those debates are "does someone call it art? Then it's art". Not necessarily good or insightful art, but art nevertheless. And if you use that definition, you can't 'cheat' at art.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  > To date, the most robust definition I've seen in those debates are "does someone call it art? Then it's art". Agreed. I've seen debates over whether various forms of "abstract" paintings are art, but that's not a particularly interesting debate. Of course they're art; the simpler and more useful question is whether they're good art.
- mc32 12y ago
  >"does someone call it art? Then it's art" I think that's the easy answer... but if you went to the curator of the art institute of Chicago, of the MoMA, or any other art institute of renown, they would have more strict interpretations of what's art, I would think. That is there is "Art" and there is "art".
  - TheZenPsycho 12y ago
    having worked with some curators at similarly large (though not necessarily quite as well known) galleries, I'm pretty sure they use the >"does someone call it art? Then it's art" definition and have a poor opinion of anyone that attempts to be any stricter than that. This comes from a painful history of curators dismissing lots of "modern" art in the 1960's, and thus missing out on lots of extremely lucrative investment opportunities.

moron4hire 12y ago

I think you're missing the point of the story. Even the "old masters" used construction aids of some kind. It wasn't all free-hand on canvas. Often, nowhere near. Using a camera obscura or other such device is how you make photorealistic paintings.

NAFV_P 12y ago
> Using a camera obscura or other such device is how you make photorealistic paintings. Photorealism refers to a specific period and set of artists, post Pop-Art. They used photographs very extensively, Richard Estes is one of the better known ones. http://sayforward.com/ext/images/bus-reflections-flatiron-building-1967 http://sayforward.com/ext/images/bus-reflections-flatiron-bu...

cturner 12y ago

Art is all about limitations Great philosophy. Maybe the digital revolution will foster a reaction against perfect industry, and we'll see an emphasis on doing confined things, for their own sake.

moron4hire 12y ago
That has always and will continue to always go on. The nature of it is such that it won't ever be mainstream. But if you know where to look, it's out there. Carpenters who use hand tools. Photographers who mix their own collodion. Musicians who build their own instruments. It's out there.

bjterry 12y ago

I agree with your premise that art comes from your medium and limitations, but wanted to elaborate a bit on a part that you and him are not explicit about (although I suspect you may feel similarly based on "Don't pretend it's the old medium"). The value of art is inextricably linked with the process used to create it. People will have a very different emotional reaction to a painting which is created by hand than a painting which is programmed into a computer and painted by a painting machine (this generalizes all sorts of ways, this is just an example). His examples were specifically of people who were deceptive about the process they used, first in the camera obscura, second in Frank Frazetta. Of course, the term "art" is so imprecise that you can essentially import anything you want into it, including, if you so choose, the notion that part of the art is the practice of deceiving patrons about the way it's created in order to enrich yourself. I will allow that you can be an artist and lie about your methods to make your art more emotionally impactful, but I will not allow that doing so is the right thing to do or makes you a good person deserving of praise. If I'm creating art by painting by hand on tiny grains of sand and the world becomes enamored with it, but it turns out I'm actually using a computer-driven process to paint them (in order to become rich and not to later reveal my actions as some sort of castigation of modern art or some other such thing; basically, take a charitable view of my example here), I think one of the following is the case no matter what your definition of art: 1. It's still art, but it's not art in the way I'm trying to suggest that it is, or 2. It's a performance art where the deception is part of the art, but I'm still a bad person for doing it. Now, I'm not certain that the author would disagree with me (or that you would agree with me), because he doesn't directly address it in these terms. But he does say "I don't care how it's created: I only care about the results." and he also says that Frank Frazetta lying about how he created his art "does not diminish Frank Frazetta's art in the slightest." Perhaps he's saying that the art is still good taking into account the methods which he knows of and keeping mum on Frank Frazetta's deception. Maybe he doesn't think very thoroughly about ethics and so he's inconsistent, or maybe he has a system of ethics where deceiving people in this instance is okay. Of course, presumably many artists are not specific about their methodology, or they could say that they want it judged by the results, not the methods, in which case I agree with the author that it should be judged as it is as an artifact. But I reserve the right to change my emotional reaction to the piece if I later learn that their method is to hire 10,000 third world artists to paint as well as they can and they select the best to portray as the result of their artistic process.