do you try to do art in your demos?
category: general [glöplog]
Gargaj: we were kind of discussing whether people put art into their demos, not discussing particular demos in an artistic context :)
Personally, I think if the author tries to express a certain thing, they need to either make it pretty clear in the production, or not explain it at all. If you thought the song about south american amputees was about losing a girlfriend then the band plain failed to make it clear what they were on about, and explaining it afterwards is obviously going to piss people off. If they don't explain it, fine, people will come to their own conclusions. And I think discussing those conclusions is fine too, hearing what others felt about it can give you more insight, and you don't have to take their meaning to be the correct one if they aren't the author :)
Also, discussing this sort of stuff is as much fun as making stuff for me (others too i suspect), and it's pretty hard to spend the time I take writing some bullshit here making a demo when I'm sat in an office at work ;)
Wade: sounds like you were trying too hard ;) I think the best way of expressing anything is to draw people (which you do anyway), and use posture and eye position (posture tells you about what the person is feeling, eg. shoulders can tell you if they feel great or drepressed, and which way the eyes point tells you what they are thinking about). Colour is of course very important too. Style is much less important, unless you want to go for some kind of picasso-style modern art thing.
Personally, I think if the author tries to express a certain thing, they need to either make it pretty clear in the production, or not explain it at all. If you thought the song about south american amputees was about losing a girlfriend then the band plain failed to make it clear what they were on about, and explaining it afterwards is obviously going to piss people off. If they don't explain it, fine, people will come to their own conclusions. And I think discussing those conclusions is fine too, hearing what others felt about it can give you more insight, and you don't have to take their meaning to be the correct one if they aren't the author :)
Also, discussing this sort of stuff is as much fun as making stuff for me (others too i suspect), and it's pretty hard to spend the time I take writing some bullshit here making a demo when I'm sat in an office at work ;)
Wade: sounds like you were trying too hard ;) I think the best way of expressing anything is to draw people (which you do anyway), and use posture and eye position (posture tells you about what the person is feeling, eg. shoulders can tell you if they feel great or drepressed, and which way the eyes point tells you what they are thinking about). Colour is of course very important too. Style is much less important, unless you want to go for some kind of picasso-style modern art thing.
Gargaj: It’s true that art and appreciation of art is subjective, but by debating your personal views and listening to someone else’s, it gives you a greater appreciation for art, perhaps even a whole new (and objective) way of looking at it. I admit, since reading some of the views on this thread I realise that my enjoyment of the scene has changed a lot over the years. I’ve become very analytical of demos and I think it’s true that I do take a somewhat scientific view towards demos and art.
In fact, my appreciation of demos on a surface level stopped when I became part of the scene. I used to watch demos because they looked good, or because I liked the music or the atmosphere, but then I started to grow very curious and wanted to dissect them to find out how they were made. These days, when I see something that appeals to me (gfx & design mainly) I wonder if I’m capable of the same thing, and if so, how I would go about achieving it or improving on it. Surely I’m not the only scener who looks at demos this way.
Psonice: I think you are right, and it might be the key to injecting some originality and some personal significance into my artwork. I’m not particularly good at painting without reference, but if I can find somebody to pose for a sketch or a photograph then it may be quite possible, without compromising too much technical detail. I’ll keep it in mind.
In fact, my appreciation of demos on a surface level stopped when I became part of the scene. I used to watch demos because they looked good, or because I liked the music or the atmosphere, but then I started to grow very curious and wanted to dissect them to find out how they were made. These days, when I see something that appeals to me (gfx & design mainly) I wonder if I’m capable of the same thing, and if so, how I would go about achieving it or improving on it. Surely I’m not the only scener who looks at demos this way.
Psonice: I think you are right, and it might be the key to injecting some originality and some personal significance into my artwork. I’m not particularly good at painting without reference, but if I can find somebody to pose for a sketch or a photograph then it may be quite possible, without compromising too much technical detail. I’ll keep it in mind.
wade: You're skilled enough, with a bit more content I think you're artwork could go much further. I think a lot of people can't work purely from imagination (I can't do it, cause I change my mind about what I'm drawing faster than I can draw :) A lot of artists work from other pictures or photos if they can't get models, I think the key is to look for photos with people in the right position for what you want, cut the photos up + stick a few together where necessary, to give a rough idea of what you want from the final pic.
Then you can sketch it in rough, and change it to get more feeling (as I said, small changes in posture and eye positioning (eye position tells the most I think, there's a discription somewhere or what direction means what, I'll have a look for it)).
Then you can sketch it in rough, and change it to get more feeling (as I said, small changes in posture and eye positioning (eye position tells the most I think, there's a discription somewhere or what direction means what, I'll have a look for it)).
"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)."
i think the $ is a pretty fucking lousy example of quality... uhm... "minimal art". (by any standard of judgement) <g>
i think the $ is a pretty fucking lousy example of quality... uhm... "minimal art". (by any standard of judgement) <g>
+stuff
(but that's entirely subjective, of course =D)
Completely subjective :) I like the $ stuff personally. Somebody else you can put in from of an untuned tv and tell them it's an art piece and they love it :) And some will hate anything more that a still picture of a horse in a gold frame.
Actually, I think there's a big difference in attitude to art in different countries, and I think that extends to demos too. I find 95%+ of british art to be boring but skillful stuff (pictures of fields, portraits, pictures of dogs, stuff that looks nice and doesn't offend anyone, or some crap modern art - try to name a famous british artist that didn't paint fields every time, /rant), but some european art I find great. So perhaps this 'technique + skill vs. emotion + meaning' thing depends a bit on what country + culture you have?
Look at demos too... how many times have you heard about dutch style demos (or the famous dcs :) and russian goa demos, and how many times have you heard about 'great french style' in some comments? So perhaps the same thing is happening there too.
Look at demos too... how many times have you heard about dutch style demos (or the famous dcs :) and russian goa demos, and how many times have you heard about 'great french style' in some comments? So perhaps the same thing is happening there too.
Well, I'm often among the first to comment on the great French style when it comes to the scene. I've always admired French graphic artists (WAY too many to mention here) and their innovative styles.
I'd highly recommend looking back at some of the gfx competitions at French parties like GASP and LTP, and noting how radically different and advanced they are, even when compared to some of the biggest scene events of the time.
Even outside of the scene, I've always looked up to
the French as a very advanced nation when it comes to art. Originality seems to come quite naturally in French art, whereas British art seems either very traditional, as Psonice said, or it turns out to be a crude and pretentious imitation of French art.
I also see a lot of British artists (especially students) giving their work French titles, as though this somehow gives it more artistic credibility. :)
I'd highly recommend looking back at some of the gfx competitions at French parties like GASP and LTP, and noting how radically different and advanced they are, even when compared to some of the biggest scene events of the time.
Even outside of the scene, I've always looked up to
the French as a very advanced nation when it comes to art. Originality seems to come quite naturally in French art, whereas British art seems either very traditional, as Psonice said, or it turns out to be a crude and pretentious imitation of French art.
I also see a lot of British artists (especially students) giving their work French titles, as though this somehow gives it more artistic credibility. :)
"Somebody else you can put in from of an untuned tv and tell them it's an art piece and they love it :)"
hmm... or put them in front of '_' by $ and tell them it's art...
looks quite similar <g>.
hmm... or put them in front of '_' by $ and tell them it's art...
looks quite similar <g>.
(just couldn't resist)
and what's wrong with that?
Different works ask different things from their viewers. Some are such that it's mostly the viewer that does the creative work.
I enjoyed most of the abstract stuff by $ (by abstract i mean the ambient, less demo-looking stuff) .. Good aspects to me where:
- no reliance to the typical demo synchs.
- no bragging, no pushy in your face stuff: nuances.
- a "non linear" rhythm.
The realization was not perfect by any means, for example I wished the 3 pieces collage demo was a lot more advanced in the way the three pieces would interact.. but they were enjoyable and not as pretentious as you seem to think they are.
Where did you see that $ told you it was "Art" .. or whatever. Your knee jerk reactions makes me think like if you guys' ego were hurt by something.
Maybe it was satori's fault for using the "fuck demo let's art" slogan + halcyon's rather retarded remark on the asm jury.. but what does it has to do with anybody else. Do you really think people like $ started doing these type of things to copy satori?
.. {
Different works ask different things from their viewers. Some are such that it's mostly the viewer that does the creative work.
I enjoyed most of the abstract stuff by $ (by abstract i mean the ambient, less demo-looking stuff) .. Good aspects to me where:
- no reliance to the typical demo synchs.
- no bragging, no pushy in your face stuff: nuances.
- a "non linear" rhythm.
The realization was not perfect by any means, for example I wished the 3 pieces collage demo was a lot more advanced in the way the three pieces would interact.. but they were enjoyable and not as pretentious as you seem to think they are.
Where did you see that $ told you it was "Art" .. or whatever. Your knee jerk reactions makes me think like if you guys' ego were hurt by something.
Maybe it was satori's fault for using the "fuck demo let's art" slogan + halcyon's rather retarded remark on the asm jury.. but what does it has to do with anybody else. Do you really think people like $ started doing these type of things to copy satori?
.. {
{... now, _that_ is quality.
_: i feel better now. thx
ok.
haha
wasiliy : in answer to your primary question my answer is yes for major production,
but not all the time, sometimes the project evolves and your mood change the way you design the things,
but i try to gives feelings and emotions to the audience, as an art expression form can do.
And it is possible to gives emotions with a technical effect too, if you are the first to do in realtime (for example, the 1st rotozoom i saw gives me some emotions, because it opened the door to a new area, thank you Chaos :] )
but not all the time, sometimes the project evolves and your mood change the way you design the things,
but i try to gives feelings and emotions to the audience, as an art expression form can do.
And it is possible to gives emotions with a technical effect too, if you are the first to do in realtime (for example, the 1st rotozoom i saw gives me some emotions, because it opened the door to a new area, thank you Chaos :] )
I'll thumb that up, and add that a technical effect can give emotions in other ways too of course :)
I had read all the thread, and i think it's funny to see Knos and Wade (and people wich think like them) said the same things in differents mode.
In fact, Wade are simply a narative creator and admirator,
and Knos are an abstract admirator or creator.
I'll here only speak about graphical form of art, including animated visuals
You can not join/merge these two things,
- narative is how to express a feeling with realistic objects/forms, to help the viewer to understand quickly the scene and keep the feeling in him
- abstract is how to express a feeling with forms and colors you can not found in the original nature, and let the viewer flying in his imagination to understand the feeling
example of painting:
narative : you see a warrior, with a sword, he cut the head of a baby : result is you're affraid, it's horrible
abstract : you see a black square, with a red circle in it, and the painting is lot of little brown dots : result is you're affraid, it's horrible
all are art, because the goal to gives feelings to the viewer is done.
now, the second and important point is how to do it:
to do narative painting, you need gift and if you do not have a gift, you can learn some and some technicks to do it
to do abstract, you need luck and gift, no technik is used, so abstract can not be learned
the difference between Wade and Knos is
Wade have no gift (i'm like him, i understand his frustrations), so he learn how to do thing, tecknics, to gives emotions to his audience
Knos have gift, he do not understand why others must learn things that he can do himself as reflex, by nature
now about the time of work and the quality if the art form, it's more complex :
a narative form must be well done to gives some feelings
an abstract form can be very bad, you will allways find an human who had feelings whit it, because abstract ask your spirit, your memories and imagination, all of us can have feelings when seeing a stupid matchbox on a table, so it is more easy to gives feelings in abstract mode
the interesting way is, as the original author, how to gives the feeling you want exactly your audience receipt :
in narative it is more easy, if you want to express joy, with basic technics and skills you'll done it quickly
in abstract, it is very difficult, and it is, for me, the only way to judge if an abstract thing is good or not. is this abstract art can gives the same emotion to all the people watching it?
I dont speak about Gargaj who think dinking a beer, fucking a girl, doing a demo, are done for fun and nothing more ;'p
as my conclusion, my opinion is : if i have emotions when showing a demo, narative or abstract, i do not care, it's good and it's art
In fact, Wade are simply a narative creator and admirator,
and Knos are an abstract admirator or creator.
I'll here only speak about graphical form of art, including animated visuals
You can not join/merge these two things,
- narative is how to express a feeling with realistic objects/forms, to help the viewer to understand quickly the scene and keep the feeling in him
- abstract is how to express a feeling with forms and colors you can not found in the original nature, and let the viewer flying in his imagination to understand the feeling
example of painting:
narative : you see a warrior, with a sword, he cut the head of a baby : result is you're affraid, it's horrible
abstract : you see a black square, with a red circle in it, and the painting is lot of little brown dots : result is you're affraid, it's horrible
all are art, because the goal to gives feelings to the viewer is done.
now, the second and important point is how to do it:
to do narative painting, you need gift and if you do not have a gift, you can learn some and some technicks to do it
to do abstract, you need luck and gift, no technik is used, so abstract can not be learned
the difference between Wade and Knos is
Wade have no gift (i'm like him, i understand his frustrations), so he learn how to do thing, tecknics, to gives emotions to his audience
Knos have gift, he do not understand why others must learn things that he can do himself as reflex, by nature
now about the time of work and the quality if the art form, it's more complex :
a narative form must be well done to gives some feelings
an abstract form can be very bad, you will allways find an human who had feelings whit it, because abstract ask your spirit, your memories and imagination, all of us can have feelings when seeing a stupid matchbox on a table, so it is more easy to gives feelings in abstract mode
the interesting way is, as the original author, how to gives the feeling you want exactly your audience receipt :
in narative it is more easy, if you want to express joy, with basic technics and skills you'll done it quickly
in abstract, it is very difficult, and it is, for me, the only way to judge if an abstract thing is good or not. is this abstract art can gives the same emotion to all the people watching it?
I dont speak about Gargaj who think dinking a beer, fucking a girl, doing a demo, are done for fun and nothing more ;'p
as my conclusion, my opinion is : if i have emotions when showing a demo, narative or abstract, i do not care, it's good and it's art
Well, I only half agree with what zone said. Probably because I live somewhere halfway between narative and abstract.
I'd say that explaination was good, but a bit simple, like black and white. Take a look at van Gogh's pictures - most of them are technically a bit crap. Some look like they were done by a fairly talented 7-year old with crayons. But what he can't 'narrate' very well with his simple style, he gets across extremely well with colours, composition, even just the shape of his brush strokes. So it's superficially a narrative style, but the expression is kind of abstract...
Personally I like discussing these things because I hope I can make people who see things one way or the other to look from the other side. I think there are few things worse than taking an attitude that narrative rules, abstract sucks (or vice versa) because you are enjoying only half of what's out there. You could be enjoying the full 100%, and you deny yourself that just by your attitude. Opening your mind a little can give you many unexpected surprises :) Remember all those amiga zealots a few years back dissing pc (or atari) without ever really experiencing it? And the PC people saying the amiga was a pile of outdated shit, and not worth looking at... How much did they miss out on?
I'd say that explaination was good, but a bit simple, like black and white. Take a look at van Gogh's pictures - most of them are technically a bit crap. Some look like they were done by a fairly talented 7-year old with crayons. But what he can't 'narrate' very well with his simple style, he gets across extremely well with colours, composition, even just the shape of his brush strokes. So it's superficially a narrative style, but the expression is kind of abstract...
Personally I like discussing these things because I hope I can make people who see things one way or the other to look from the other side. I think there are few things worse than taking an attitude that narrative rules, abstract sucks (or vice versa) because you are enjoying only half of what's out there. You could be enjoying the full 100%, and you deny yourself that just by your attitude. Opening your mind a little can give you many unexpected surprises :) Remember all those amiga zealots a few years back dissing pc (or atari) without ever really experiencing it? And the PC people saying the amiga was a pile of outdated shit, and not worth looking at... How much did they miss out on?
Zone you should try not to describe people, your description (of myself)
is completly off. (I have no "gift" -- whatever that is -- as should be
pretty evident.. I'd prefer not to go into a justification of that
though)
is completly off. (I have no "gift" -- whatever that is -- as should be
pretty evident.. I'd prefer not to go into a justification of that
though)
Knos : i taked your nickname(invisible) to describe a population based on your comments here where you try to explain abstract to people wich see only narrative, it's not you personnaly ,)
you earned your glops with that explanation zone.
Well I admit that I don't have a gift for art, or at least not a natural gift. The only reason I can create graphics is because I've learned how to do it.
But, on the other hand, I don't actually believe that abstract/minimalist art requires a gift.
The only thing stopping me from making abstract art is pride. I'm as capable as Picasso at painting geometrical shapes. I can even try to interpret a personal trait, a philosophy or a dream when I do it. But I wouldn't get any sense of satisfaction from it because it would undermine the years of hard work and practice I've put into becoming a graphic artist.
If I was taking my first steps as an artist then I would probably think very differently because I would need something (a meaning) to distract from the poor quality and give the art some kind of purpose.
But, on the other hand, I don't actually believe that abstract/minimalist art requires a gift.
The only thing stopping me from making abstract art is pride. I'm as capable as Picasso at painting geometrical shapes. I can even try to interpret a personal trait, a philosophy or a dream when I do it. But I wouldn't get any sense of satisfaction from it because it would undermine the years of hard work and practice I've put into becoming a graphic artist.
If I was taking my first steps as an artist then I would probably think very differently because I would need something (a meaning) to distract from the poor quality and give the art some kind of purpose.
Zone, well you *did* attach gross generalizations to persons.