Baz Lurman

[Paul]

haha

[randall]

There is no clear definition of art.<br><br>I don't expect most people to understand art, any more than you should expect people to understand a line of code. Even simplistic samples.<br><br>To do the opposite of what is the norm is not art. Andy Worhol wasn't an artist, he was a Graphic Designer that happened to get lucky that people believed his hype. Pop Art...<br><br>Picasso and Van Gogh on the other hand have created some of the most beautiful images I have ever seen. If you want me to get into detail about that, I will.<br><br>Creative thought has been the driving force behind such intellectuals as Einstein, Stephen Hawking and even Linus Tvoralds. They didn't "try" to think outside the box, they lived there. You can justify all you want with your numbers and equations, but without original thought there are no theories, no experimentation and no conclusions.<br><br>I am serious, go take a few "community college" art courses. You'd sure as hell become more enlightned than you do now. And I guarantee it will enhance your code.

[Luciano U. Werner]

I don't really know if this is related, but this happened when I was a little kid.<br>I was about 6 or 7 and my family was visiting   the Museaum of Modern Art in NY. I was quite excited, because just that day was the first day of a major exposition of famous artists like Picasso. I was eager to see his painting "Harlequim", wich I had an imitation hanging on my bedroom wall.<br>The museum was packed, and like everybody else I was in line, walking a 0,5mph in front of the paintings. Remember, this was a modern art exibit and I was 7.<br>After painting after painting of what to me seemed incomprehensive blots of paint on paper, I asked really loud to my parents "We're standing in this huge line to see THIS? I can paint better." The whole section of the museum started laughing at this stupid little kid who stated the obvious.<br>So please, don't mistaken art for "artistically expressing your soul".

[Paul]

hahaha... seriously though, i'm insulted that randall has the nerve to call us all uncreative simply because we arent at art college. its that holier-than-thou attitude again... nevermind.<br><br>OT: stephen hawking is just a media whore. most of his stuff gets proved wrong, he latches on to the best minds to create theories that do work out and hes only in the spotlight so much because of his 'disabilities'... man, i hate that guy.

[RICoder]

Precisely my thinking.  Holier-than-though.<br><br>Randall, I am a bit bummed by your assumptions that we are all neandrathals, and don't 'grasp' art.  Wuite the contrary, indeed, as I think Paul, Luci, Digby and myself realize.  I don't want to justify, but I will.<br><br>1) I consider coding an art form.  There is an elegance and purity that can be created that allows for this.  Very similar to art.  2 people can draw a picture of me, but one could be art and the other could be crap.<br>2) I am a photographer, and quite good, as is my gf, though she is significantly better.  So, do not suppose that I know nothing of what goes into the process, or that I should take some class, or, for that matter, that I have not already.<br>3) Whilst you are fighting, you went ahead and agreed with paul and I.  Andy Warhol EMBODIES what we are talking about.  THAT'S WHAT WE MEAN!  He is a wanker, but people thought he was SOOOO COOL, that he got the artist acclaim.   I happen to put Baz's R&J in that category...now on that we can disagree, but still be on equal footing.  eh?<br>4) Paul: Steven Hawking is not a complete hack...his black hole theories are impresive, but he does get an awful lot of attention considering that his contemporaries are smahish quarks into each other and untangling string theory.  He might be a tad overrated.

[randall]

Exactly why I used Worhal as an example. Alot of people will disagree with me and that is fine. His work is crap, and useless to me.<br><br>As far as the little obnoxious kid stating "even I could paint that"... that is the point of Picassos paintings. Simplicity can still get the point across.<br><br>Although I doubt a child could paint like Picasso, because he had an eye for composition, line and color. Picasso was actually a very good artist that could render a absolutley realistic portrait or scene.<br><br>Now look at the work done by Jaybot. Simplistic lines with total disregard for any kind of scale, proportion, line weight, color, composition. Is it art? Certainly. Is it a masterpiece? No.<br><br>But his work always makes me smile, because it is so primitive. His sketches are always welcome in my mailbox, although if I had received the same pic from someone else I would probably discard it.<br><br>My point is, that art is highly personal.<br><br>Certainly code is an artform. And that is another point I was making. 99.9% of all coders are just rehashing the same shit that someone else pioneered. Just like 99.9% of all artists are just rehashing the same shit that someone else pioneered.<br><br>Yes, my artwork fits into that 99.9% category. At least the stuff on my website is. Wouldn't we all like to be in that 0.1% for just a moment?<br><br>I am 31 years old, for those that care. I am not any more elite than anyone else, and I don't care to be. But my assumptions are correct that I am a little more aware of art than the average person. I should be, that is what I do for a living. So don't even pretend for a minute that you are in the same league as me in that regard.<br><br>Just deal with it and move on. I don't tell you what shitty code is, you don't tell me what shitty art is. deal?

[James]

[RICoder]

There is one major difference though, randall.<br><br>Art is meant to be appreciated.  Now, don't go off on some abstract rant about creation being the point.  If I posted a big chunk of code on this site, intending people to see it, I would expect a response.  The difference though, is that code is not meant to be appreciated, it is intended to perform a function.  Much the same way as an automobile is.<br><br>Art, on the other hand, is purely intended for consumption by the public at large, and thus, we can all be critics of it.  Such is the nature of the beast.  Now, I may not be capable of competing with you in descriptions of proportion and imagry, but I can certainly criticize art, and do so intelligently.  Again, let us not forget that not only am I an artist in my own way (photography), but I also have several artists in my employ, including Digital, sculpture and music.  If I couldn't intelligently discuss what they are working on I would be in deep doo-doo.<br><br>[disclaimer:I mean no disrespect for randall] I hope you understand this is just a debate.  I do not question your talent, what little work I have seen of yours is impressive.  I will concede that your academic knowledge of art surpasses mine, as I am sure that you would concede the same of me in computer science and quantum mechanics.

[Digby]

Art appreciation is a very subjective process, so I think it totally fine if someone thumbs their nose at Monet and yet has a velvet painting of some dogs playing foosball with Elvis in their living room.<br><br>Bad code on the otherhand can be judged quite easily by using a known set of rules.  As with mathematical proofs, it is an objective process and there are known methods available to measure this.  If the code faults or doesn't do what it was designed to do, anyone can say "that's crappy code".  You don't need to be a computer scientist to make this statement.<br><br>Randall, I think it's totally fine for RIC or anyone else to say they don't like a particular piece of artwork.  What they should not say is that YOU shouldn't like the piece either.  Or you are a cretan for appreciating it.  Conversely, you shouldn't tell people that they SHOULD like a particular piece, I don't care how many art classes you've taken.  It's fine to call out features in the work missed by the untrained eye, but the holier than thou, condescending attitude by the artsy crowd isn't helping the situation any.  The same thing holds true for music and literature.  It's totally subjective.<br><br>And as far as improving code by taking art classes at a community college goes, I feel that's nonsense.  Writing code is a form of engineering. Science and mathematics courses would help more than an art class.  I'd like to hear the reasoning behind your opinion on this.<br><br>

[randall]

And by shitty code, I didn't mean whether it "works or not". I meant the most efficient and best solution. Even under the tight restrains of the target, it can be debatable that "this engine is the best it can be, and nothing can be done to make it better."<br><br>So it is all just a matter of settling for what works for the time being, until a pioneer comes up with a truly ingenious solution.

[randall]

I didn't try to indicate that art classes would IMPOROVE code. I stated that it enhances the ability to percieve solutions from a different viewpoint, which is a common and known fact. The more you use your creative thought processes, the more it spills over into every aspect of your life.<br><br>And no, creative thought does not necessarily generate the most logical or best solution. That isn't at issue here. The abilty to innovate could be the springboard that launches you into something entirely new.<br><br>The alternative to creative thought is to continue churning out the same monotony we see every day. Which is okay, confortable, and a money making market.<br><br>Now I will step into YOUR arena. I think John Carmacks conception of the BSP tree is a brilliant solution to identifying visible polygons from a particular POV. Maybe he wasn't the first to think of it. Maybe he wasn't even the first to execute it. But to my knowledge it was the first time it had been used in a consumer game to render a 3D world in realtime.<br><br>That kind of shit doesn't just sprout out your ass. I don't see anyone around here making any ground-breaking engines or graphics.<br><br>Am I wasting my time with this discussion? I thought so.

[Digby]

Yes, you are wasting time with this discussion.  We at least agree on something.<br><br>

[James]

[James]

[randall]