do you try to do art in your demos?
category: general [glöplog]
"The only thing that counts for me when it comes to art is whether I like the result."
When the revolution comes, consider yourself against the wall ;)
When the revolution comes, consider yourself against the wall ;)
Guess I'll throw my €0.02 in then...
I don't agree with wade's view of art at all... i think this was probably the way art was viewed before photography was around. Now, I think that creating a picture with great skill + technique is more of a craft than true art. Really, what's the difference between making a basket from reeds with great skill and technique and making such a picture? In both cases, you're effectively copying an established thing, and not really putting anything else into it.
Art on the other hand, is the process of giving a meaning or an emotion to such a thing, creating an object or an image that gives you something that would not otherwise be there...
I don't think that is in anyway a criticism of the work of wade, and those like him, I think craftmanship has as much value as artistry, although personally I perhaps prefer art slightly more than craft. i know plenty of people who think the opposite, probably they are a majority. My wife couldn't understand why I bought a print of a van Gogh, cause she thought it looked like a child's crayon picture :)
Also, I think a lot of people who make 'craft' instead of 'art' actually make art and don't realise it. Choice of colour, light and shadow, textures all give an impression, and often give a picture an emotional content even if it wasn't intended (or perhaps it was added subconsciously). Facial expression and posture also has a big impact. I think wade falls into this category :)
The best artists often also have great technique too, which is why art such as the sistine chapel has such significance for so many people.
Oh yes, and while 90% of modern art (damien hirst, pollock etc) is bullshit, theres 10% that is actually good. Sometimes I see one with a box of matches placed on a table or whatever, and see what it means without having the artist tell me :) It's just a shame that's so rare.
I don't agree with wade's view of art at all... i think this was probably the way art was viewed before photography was around. Now, I think that creating a picture with great skill + technique is more of a craft than true art. Really, what's the difference between making a basket from reeds with great skill and technique and making such a picture? In both cases, you're effectively copying an established thing, and not really putting anything else into it.
Art on the other hand, is the process of giving a meaning or an emotion to such a thing, creating an object or an image that gives you something that would not otherwise be there...
I don't think that is in anyway a criticism of the work of wade, and those like him, I think craftmanship has as much value as artistry, although personally I perhaps prefer art slightly more than craft. i know plenty of people who think the opposite, probably they are a majority. My wife couldn't understand why I bought a print of a van Gogh, cause she thought it looked like a child's crayon picture :)
Also, I think a lot of people who make 'craft' instead of 'art' actually make art and don't realise it. Choice of colour, light and shadow, textures all give an impression, and often give a picture an emotional content even if it wasn't intended (or perhaps it was added subconsciously). Facial expression and posture also has a big impact. I think wade falls into this category :)
The best artists often also have great technique too, which is why art such as the sistine chapel has such significance for so many people.
Oh yes, and while 90% of modern art (damien hirst, pollock etc) is bullshit, theres 10% that is actually good. Sometimes I see one with a box of matches placed on a table or whatever, and see what it means without having the artist tell me :) It's just a shame that's so rare.
hmmh... my 2 cents then thrown in the pile (if we'd start a fund and invest all the money on biotech companies the whole scene would be millionaires in 20 years. or not)
Without actually commenting anything said in this thread psonice's post made me 'realize' something about my own creative processes:
When i'm doing a demo, i usually tend to label it (in my own terms) as 'art', but when i raytrace some stills, i usually concider the end result as 'craft'.
Here a distinction should be made:
My demos as art:
not art in the 'bad' way (as some people use the word on pouet) but 'art' resulting from the creating process.. ie trying to convey a feeling using random tools rather than showing off the techniques or tools involved.
My pictures as craft:
trying to achieve a particular end result (usually photorealism) through the usage of a particular tool which i've mastered rather than trying to convey a deeper meaning in the end result.
Odd... or not. don't know if this made any sense.
Without actually commenting anything said in this thread psonice's post made me 'realize' something about my own creative processes:
When i'm doing a demo, i usually tend to label it (in my own terms) as 'art', but when i raytrace some stills, i usually concider the end result as 'craft'.
Here a distinction should be made:
My demos as art:
not art in the 'bad' way (as some people use the word on pouet) but 'art' resulting from the creating process.. ie trying to convey a feeling using random tools rather than showing off the techniques or tools involved.
My pictures as craft:
trying to achieve a particular end result (usually photorealism) through the usage of a particular tool which i've mastered rather than trying to convey a deeper meaning in the end result.
Odd... or not. don't know if this made any sense.
human creation versus mechanical craft
Art is like a belch. It comes naturally, everyone can do it when the conditions are right, but you feel like you have to explain yourself.
The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without work. Let your natural inclination be road sign that will take you to your destiny. As artists, we must learn to be self-nourishing. We must become alert enough to consciously replenish our creative resources as we draw on them.
while being too tired to come up with anything constructive to say right now, i must say i agree with wade's point. it's easier for me to appreciate something that has obviously required skill to produce, than something obscure that could mean anything and could be made by anyone, even if it was a showcase of someone's creativity.
btw, to any musicians around, how would you apply this to making music? is art something else than beeps and noise that don't make sense in the traditional meaning of the word? is pop art?
btw, to any musicians around, how would you apply this to making music? is art something else than beeps and noise that don't make sense in the traditional meaning of the word? is pop art?
pop is science ;)
Reed, now do you ever get touched or interested by creations made in a discipline you don't master the technical aspects of?
Without knowing what you are familiar with, let's take an example. Let's imagine you are not familiar with the technicalities of directing: does it mean you cannot appreciate any directing work or that you are going to draw your opinion about the skills needed from some personal "cues"? What could those cues be?
What about multidiscipline creations like movies?
Closer to us, if you were to judge a demo whose music and graphics were generated only by code.. which cues of skilfull production would you consider? In the case of a standard demo, which cues of which discipline would you tend to favour?
It seems clear to me that the technical "gesture" of coding here is not necessarly apparent in an obvious way in the resulting demo..
That's two of the main problems I see with the "technical" judgement : it gives the illusion of objectivity, of having an absolute value. But as more and more remote you are to original, technical "gesture" it appears to become a very arbitrary judgement.
Without knowing what you are familiar with, let's take an example. Let's imagine you are not familiar with the technicalities of directing: does it mean you cannot appreciate any directing work or that you are going to draw your opinion about the skills needed from some personal "cues"? What could those cues be?
What about multidiscipline creations like movies?
Closer to us, if you were to judge a demo whose music and graphics were generated only by code.. which cues of skilfull production would you consider? In the case of a standard demo, which cues of which discipline would you tend to favour?
It seems clear to me that the technical "gesture" of coding here is not necessarly apparent in an obvious way in the resulting demo..
That's two of the main problems I see with the "technical" judgement : it gives the illusion of objectivity, of having an absolute value. But as more and more remote you are to original, technical "gesture" it appears to become a very arbitrary judgement.
Reed: I've always thought of music as a type of art, just that your canvas is empty air and you fill it with patterns of sound rather than paint. The tools you shape that sound with don't particularly matter, just the end result is important.
But again, if you consider it more as 'crafting the sound' then the way the music is made, and the skill of the musician are just as important.
And pop can be art just as much as anything else can, although I think that it reaches that kind of level much less often because it's usually made commercially, with the intention of making something quick and superficially good so it sells fast. It's not always the case of course, ever heard of the beatles or the rolling stones or the 100's of similar 'classic' groups? :)
But again, if you consider it more as 'crafting the sound' then the way the music is made, and the skill of the musician are just as important.
And pop can be art just as much as anything else can, although I think that it reaches that kind of level much less often because it's usually made commercially, with the intention of making something quick and superficially good so it sells fast. It's not always the case of course, ever heard of the beatles or the rolling stones or the 100's of similar 'classic' groups? :)
knos, assuming that i don't master a certain craft technically, i'd believe i'd settle for what's sufficient - as in, if it doesn't bother me, it's fine. even if i couldn't tell what's good and what's not when it comes to directing, i can tell if something is clearly wrong while watching a movie for example. if nothing catches my eye in the negative sense, i might be ignorant, but i'd enjoy the movie. and perhaps begin to pay attention to clever directing, if there is any.
conclusion: mastering a craft and therefore exposing yourself to technical judgement is also about making your art enjoyable to the ordinary joe, but interesting enough to make joe want to find out more about it, and to attract audience from people who do know more about it.
furthermore, i don't see a conflict with your second example (demo with music and graphics generated by code) and the idea of technical judgement. i'd judge e.g. the music by the coder's skill of creating sounds and graphics. actually this is partly reality since softsynths and texture generators exist :)
i'm not sure of your line of thought, but i'd like to remind that the technical judgement of demos isn't restricted to just coding - wade already brought it up in terms of graphics, and the same goes for music. music can be done good or bad no matter which genre it belongs to, but people's personal tastes possibly play a bigger role in music than in graphics - at least i don't automatically have respect for a well crafted idm song ;)
ok, my thoughts are beginning to stray.
conclusion: mastering a craft and therefore exposing yourself to technical judgement is also about making your art enjoyable to the ordinary joe, but interesting enough to make joe want to find out more about it, and to attract audience from people who do know more about it.
furthermore, i don't see a conflict with your second example (demo with music and graphics generated by code) and the idea of technical judgement. i'd judge e.g. the music by the coder's skill of creating sounds and graphics. actually this is partly reality since softsynths and texture generators exist :)
i'm not sure of your line of thought, but i'd like to remind that the technical judgement of demos isn't restricted to just coding - wade already brought it up in terms of graphics, and the same goes for music. music can be done good or bad no matter which genre it belongs to, but people's personal tastes possibly play a bigger role in music than in graphics - at least i don't automatically have respect for a well crafted idm song ;)
ok, my thoughts are beginning to stray.
Clarifying my little question about demo with generated music or not, I
was trying to hint at how different level of technical skills are used
in a production even in what we normally think of one single discipline
only.
I see how the example is flawed because we tend to normally understand a
demo as a composition of (related but dissociated) music, visuals
and code.
My example was actually (and that's what i meant by generated)
of a demo where the code solely produces the visuals and music: that
is, the music and visuals are algorythmically generated. I thought this
example was interesting because contrary to graphics and music, code is
something we don't have any physical experience of: we only have access
here to stimuli which are quite remote to what the code looks like in
reality:
The code can be fast, or slow. It can be bloated or tight. It
can be sophisticated or very simple in design. Those objective technical
qualities of code are not directly related to how enjoyable the
stimuli (music + visuals) that it produces are.
And due to that, there is no other sane way to me to judge that
hypothetical demo's code than by reframing the technical judgement into
something more aesthetical, for example by judging the resulting
"beauty" of the visuals and music.
I'll add that I believe painting "suffers" from this aspect of the
technical gesture being remote to the resulting stimuli. And that just
about any human creation is subject to that.
This is something very trivial to say, as we all know it, but in my mind
it serves as an example that the "technical" judgement is just an
illusion for what still amounts to an aesthetical judgement. It does
feel technical because you know the pleasing stimuli sufficiently well
to extrapolate from them into how skillful the original creator was when
creating the work.. The hint here is that you associate:
skill <-> pleasing stimuli
The technicality being in how the creator produces those pleasing
stimuli, the illusion being in how universally pleasing or
interesting those stimulis are.
If I come out didactic it's not my intention, just wanted to clarify my
position on that matter.
was trying to hint at how different level of technical skills are used
in a production even in what we normally think of one single discipline
only.
I see how the example is flawed because we tend to normally understand a
demo as a composition of (related but dissociated) music, visuals
and code.
My example was actually (and that's what i meant by generated)
of a demo where the code solely produces the visuals and music: that
is, the music and visuals are algorythmically generated. I thought this
example was interesting because contrary to graphics and music, code is
something we don't have any physical experience of: we only have access
here to stimuli which are quite remote to what the code looks like in
reality:
The code can be fast, or slow. It can be bloated or tight. It
can be sophisticated or very simple in design. Those objective technical
qualities of code are not directly related to how enjoyable the
stimuli (music + visuals) that it produces are.
And due to that, there is no other sane way to me to judge that
hypothetical demo's code than by reframing the technical judgement into
something more aesthetical, for example by judging the resulting
"beauty" of the visuals and music.
I'll add that I believe painting "suffers" from this aspect of the
technical gesture being remote to the resulting stimuli. And that just
about any human creation is subject to that.
This is something very trivial to say, as we all know it, but in my mind
it serves as an example that the "technical" judgement is just an
illusion for what still amounts to an aesthetical judgement. It does
feel technical because you know the pleasing stimuli sufficiently well
to extrapolate from them into how skillful the original creator was when
creating the work.. The hint here is that you associate:
skill <-> pleasing stimuli
The technicality being in how the creator produces those pleasing
stimuli, the illusion being in how universally pleasing or
interesting those stimulis are.
If I come out didactic it's not my intention, just wanted to clarify my
position on that matter.
I have just one comment to that: 14,000 bobs :)
More seriously, I think code quality is pretty hard to judge, even for coders. There are some examples, where the effects are impressive and it runs fast and stable on slower machines, and you just have to respect the coder for that. on the other hand, there are examples that look amazing, but are pretty simple to actually do, and the coder gets praise for something average.
About generated demos, i think the quality of them depends greatly on the skill of the coder, not just in coding terms but in artistic/graphics/music skills too. Most of these demos are more 'art' style, due to the nature of them. I think the end result is probably 75% due to the original design of the code, and 25% luck. It's usually pretty clear when it's the design of the code ($ comes to mind - they usually manage to make such stuff work), but sometimes I think you can put a pile of shit together randomly, and it still seems to work.
More seriously, I think code quality is pretty hard to judge, even for coders. There are some examples, where the effects are impressive and it runs fast and stable on slower machines, and you just have to respect the coder for that. on the other hand, there are examples that look amazing, but are pretty simple to actually do, and the coder gets praise for something average.
About generated demos, i think the quality of them depends greatly on the skill of the coder, not just in coding terms but in artistic/graphics/music skills too. Most of these demos are more 'art' style, due to the nature of them. I think the end result is probably 75% due to the original design of the code, and 25% luck. It's usually pretty clear when it's the design of the code ($ comes to mind - they usually manage to make such stuff work), but sometimes I think you can put a pile of shit together randomly, and it still seems to work.
I agree with Reed, Psionice and also some of 
's points here.
Personally, if I am unfamiliar with the technicalities of art, or any craft, I tend to admire it more, because it baffles me and it's something that I'm not capable of doing. I have the deepest respect for coders, because coding is something I fail to comprehend and it's a skill that I don't have and don't have the patience to master.
Same goes for music, and even painting. Sometimes I hear or see something which leaves me wondering "how did they do that?" It's this kind of challenge that I enjoy most about any kind of artform or science (and also what intrigues me most about the scene).
But when I see a lot of simple/minimal or random art, everything about it is just too obvious to me, even the motive behind it.
I appreciate what has been said here about creativity and imagination, but I don't find anything creative or imaginative in random art. To me, a cliched Boris Vallejo picture shows so much more imagination, creativity and focus than any minimal art I've seen.
's points here.Personally, if I am unfamiliar with the technicalities of art, or any craft, I tend to admire it more, because it baffles me and it's something that I'm not capable of doing. I have the deepest respect for coders, because coding is something I fail to comprehend and it's a skill that I don't have and don't have the patience to master.
Same goes for music, and even painting. Sometimes I hear or see something which leaves me wondering "how did they do that?" It's this kind of challenge that I enjoy most about any kind of artform or science (and also what intrigues me most about the scene).
But when I see a lot of simple/minimal or random art, everything about it is just too obvious to me, even the motive behind it.
I appreciate what has been said here about creativity and imagination, but I don't find anything creative or imaginative in random art. To me, a cliched Boris Vallejo picture shows so much more imagination, creativity and focus than any minimal art I've seen.
Wade: have you considered that if you tried to put more 'art' into your pictures, you would probably end up with much better works, and wouldn't lose anything?
Even if you failed to add any artistic content at all, you would still have a great picture showing just the same amount of skill + technique.
And about random art: if it really is random, if it does work as art i think it's down to pure luck, but most of this stuff that IS good tends to look random, but actually has a well thought-out design + structure to it (like the $ stuff). Some of that stuff takes just as much imagination + skill as any painting does, it just doesn't look like it at a glance :)
Even if you failed to add any artistic content at all, you would still have a great picture showing just the same amount of skill + technique.
And about random art: if it really is random, if it does work as art i think it's down to pure luck, but most of this stuff that IS good tends to look random, but actually has a well thought-out design + structure to it (like the $ stuff). Some of that stuff takes just as much imagination + skill as any painting does, it just doesn't look like it at a glance :)
geez... if you guys would spend just half the time of bullshitting here about demos with actually making demos, we'd need 4-5 more scene.org's...
Your point being?
*sigh*
demos are MADE FOR FUN!
if art makes you happy, you make art demos, because it's fun for you.
if squeezing out zillions of polys makes you happy, you make coder demos, because it's fun for you.
if you like techno, you make boom-boom demos, because it's fun for you.
what's so un-understable about this?
demos are MADE FOR FUN!
if art makes you happy, you make art demos, because it's fun for you.
if squeezing out zillions of polys makes you happy, you make coder demos, because it's fun for you.
if you like techno, you make boom-boom demos, because it's fun for you.
what's so un-understable about this?
"un-understandable" even.
thank you
gargaj: do you have some kind of problems with people discussing things...? I mean, it's done in a pretty calm, civilized manner and that's pretty unusual for being pouet. Isn't that alone a reason for being happy? ;)
you have discussions because it's fun for you.
you have discussions because it's fun for you.
art is in the eye of the beholder. The rest is just the artist work. what ever that may be.
I agree with Sofokles. Although I don't agree with some of the views I'm reading here, I respect that there are some intelligent and enlightening points being made, and I find such debates engaging and, yes, even fun. :)
Psonice: I did spend quite a lot of time experimenting with arty motifs and trying to develop unique styles in the past, but nobody (including myself) really liked what I was producing.
But graphics started to become a secondary hobby when I began writing (prose, fiction, essays and articles etc). I found I was more suited to expressing myself with language than with art, so I started to approach graphics as more of a technical challenge than a means of expression.
In terms of art, I've never really aspired to be anything more than a scene gfxer and try to produce the same reaction I once got from gfxers like Facet, Danny, Louie, Ra...the list goes on forever. I guess I'm perfectly content with that. :)
Psonice: I did spend quite a lot of time experimenting with arty motifs and trying to develop unique styles in the past, but nobody (including myself) really liked what I was producing.
But graphics started to become a secondary hobby when I began writing (prose, fiction, essays and articles etc). I found I was more suited to expressing myself with language than with art, so I started to approach graphics as more of a technical challenge than a means of expression.
In terms of art, I've never really aspired to be anything more than a scene gfxer and try to produce the same reaction I once got from gfxers like Facet, Danny, Louie, Ra...the list goes on forever. I guess I'm perfectly content with that. :)
sofokles (and consequently wade):
my problem is not the fact that some people discuss something. that's good.
but for me this discussion seems kinda pointless, since "art" is simply a subjective thing, and judging a prod considering it's "artistic value" makes no sense, because that's different for every person who watches it. there are certainly demos that give some people a headache, while other people enjoy it. (this goes for both the "modern-art-movement"-demos and coder-stuff as well.)
my (prolly quite weak) point is that demos are meant to be written and enjoyed, not analyzed and debated over. it loses it's magic then.
I mean... just look at the latest CNS intro... some people watched the intro, found it cool, then read the infofile, and when they read zoom's explanations about what he thought when he made the intro, they became shackled because they didn't think the same, and the experience was ruined.
That's one of the reasons I _won't_ write or tell explanations or interpretations beside a demo even if i have one.
You may know about an animator called Don Hertzfeldt ("Billy's Balloon", "Rejected", etc.).
In an interview, he was asked whether his movies have "deeper meanings". Here's what he answered:
"let’s say you have a favorite band and you have a favorite song and you grew up with this band and you love this song and you’ve heard it all your life and you play it over and over. It means something to you. Maybe the lyrics are a little obscure and you’re not sure what it meant when it was written, but over time it’s grown on you in its own way. I hate it when you then read an interview with the writer of the song and he says, "That song was about the struggles of amputees in South America," and it completely invalidates the whole song for you. And all of a sudden the song that meant so much to you is just meaningless".
I think that pretty sums up what i wanted to say.
my problem is not the fact that some people discuss something. that's good.
but for me this discussion seems kinda pointless, since "art" is simply a subjective thing, and judging a prod considering it's "artistic value" makes no sense, because that's different for every person who watches it. there are certainly demos that give some people a headache, while other people enjoy it. (this goes for both the "modern-art-movement"-demos and coder-stuff as well.)
my (prolly quite weak) point is that demos are meant to be written and enjoyed, not analyzed and debated over. it loses it's magic then.
I mean... just look at the latest CNS intro... some people watched the intro, found it cool, then read the infofile, and when they read zoom's explanations about what he thought when he made the intro, they became shackled because they didn't think the same, and the experience was ruined.
That's one of the reasons I _won't_ write or tell explanations or interpretations beside a demo even if i have one.
You may know about an animator called Don Hertzfeldt ("Billy's Balloon", "Rejected", etc.).
In an interview, he was asked whether his movies have "deeper meanings". Here's what he answered:
"let’s say you have a favorite band and you have a favorite song and you grew up with this band and you love this song and you’ve heard it all your life and you play it over and over. It means something to you. Maybe the lyrics are a little obscure and you’re not sure what it meant when it was written, but over time it’s grown on you in its own way. I hate it when you then read an interview with the writer of the song and he says, "That song was about the struggles of amputees in South America," and it completely invalidates the whole song for you. And all of a sudden the song that meant so much to you is just meaningless".
I think that pretty sums up what i wanted to say.
And I've heard people calling for this non-analysation in the past, with the exact same arguments (loses the magic etc..) ... I don't quite get why the activity of analysing and commenting should impair *your* enjoyment of one work. It's two almost complete different activities to enjoy a piece with your guts and enjoy a piece intellectually.
I consider in general that the author of a work has no reason to "know" better than any other "spectator" what kind of statement his work makes. After all, he's a spectator like anybody else when confronted to his own work.. actually worse than a normal spectator since his experience has been tainted by the act of creation.
I personally enjoy a work that is rich in interpretations.. The act of interpreting the work is creative and fun too. It's kind of "closing the loop" on your end of the experience.
http://www.gsa.ac.uk/handc/Author_text5.html
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0226.html
http://www.goodreports.net/death.htm
I consider in general that the author of a work has no reason to "know" better than any other "spectator" what kind of statement his work makes. After all, he's a spectator like anybody else when confronted to his own work.. actually worse than a normal spectator since his experience has been tainted by the act of creation.
I personally enjoy a work that is rich in interpretations.. The act of interpreting the work is creative and fun too. It's kind of "closing the loop" on your end of the experience.
http://www.gsa.ac.uk/handc/Author_text5.html
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0226.html
http://www.goodreports.net/death.htm