pouët.net

I have no expectations here at all. I can quite comfortably live in the universe where art is just fugazi/woozi concept that cannot be captured by any definition.

While you really seem to want "art" to be a grounded phenomena, so I guess, it's easier for you to classify what is art and what is not art.



To me this is reducing art to those 3 terms that are seemingly vague.
So no, I cannot agree on this.

Okay, what else is there then?

I guess we can use a bit more modern ML-inspired explanation and say, every human has a trained binary classifier (in their brain) that categorizes artefacts as art or non-art.
(or maybe not just binary, but let's not overcomplicate)

Then, this would mean, it's all subjective, since every brain might have slightly different weights in this classifier.

But those classifiers must be trained somehow, usually by supervision via interaction with other humans, say in "art" schools, by reading art magazines or even discussing on pouet.

So there is some convergence going on over time and humans generally tend to agree what is art and what is not art, at least in "obvious" cases. Although, there is definitely a lot of grey area in-between that is unlikely to be resolved.



That's a good example of "grey area" artefact.

I would think (using my personal classifier) that that those L-beams can be art, even if the creator of those L-beams didn't want them to be - why the hell not.

The grey area is subjectivity. We should, after all, go by Aristotle's definition: art is creating along rules. However, if you get to define rules as you please, then art becomes whatever you want to call art. While the definition remains objective, you can say "ceci n'est pas une pipe" and dump a sack of trash on the floor as an "installation".

The classifier in people's head does not decide what art is, but whether an individual artifact passes for art or not. This decision boils down to their interpretation of rules. In the end of the day, it's about how well your art, and yourself, pay respect to something higher and divine.

tomcat: I suspected we have fundamentally different view of the world. I don't believe in anything higher or divine, which would naturally correlate with my view that there is no absolute truth to be discovered, especially not through art. But it's interesting to hear your perspective, thanks for the discussion!

Where are you running though? Did I accidentally sprinkle holy water on your favorite vampire cloak?

There is something higher and divine, and you know it. There is a reason why demos like Second Reality, Nexus 7 or Debris are remembered as classics, and not some compo filler from 1998. By definition, the latter also passes as art, so it should be equal to the former three. How come it is not?

It is because the compo filler isn't as good as the first three. What does "not as good" mean? It means most people, perhaps all, don't perceive it as something of a higher order. Only few people are able to create such art, but why is that? Talent, you might say. Sure, but what is talent then? What does talent tap into, and would this mean the creator of the compo filler does not have talent? But wait: creators of classic demos also made compo fillers, and even the best painters made doodles on their notebooks.

It is because my objective definition is correct. The compofiller lacks either meaning, quality or context, or both.

What about higher and divine? It's about the rules. If you go strictly by Aristotle, and only recognize classic art, then you have rules that you don't get to define. You're bound to bow down to a higher will, and your art must be a homage to creation's perfection. In exchange, everybody, except sick individuals, will understand your art and perceive you as a great artist.

If you claim you can't create within these boundaries, fine - but then, you're on your own, without guidance. You must create something that's not bound by the rules, yet still passes as art. Where does that take you? You will either still follow the same rules, and bow down to divine perfection, or abandon it, and create modern shit, an eyesore. You will be the guy who dumps steel junk on the main street and call it "art".

In Vaishnava philosophy (also known as Hindu) it's stipulated that humans' free will is actually pretty limited. You can only choose to follow God's path or not. You cannot choose where the path takes you. An artist has the same choice. Follow the rules or turn the word "artist" into a meaningful, nominal label.

*meaningless* sorry

You infuse your will and sophistication to communicate your inner worlds into your creation, and you can do this in a sloppy way (compofiller) or with a lot of time on your hands. Which sufficiently explains everything - nothing divine or higher needed. Talent is a different word for lifetime spent into some handicraft.
But is this on topic? What I want to see: More like en-tropy, which made me reassess that PCs might be useful for something, demo-wise.

And that sophistication comes from somewhere. It exists because you understood something higher, and learnt to mimic it. You're still paying homage to the thing some would call divine or outright God. You just refuse to call it that, and deny that it came from anywhere else but yourself. That would imply you're the original source of creation, and nothing inspired, let alone created you.

It certainly comes from somewhere. I'd suggest to thank the ancestors for enduring gruesome experiments on survival and culture - millions, thousands of years, draw the line where you see fit. The end result is that it provided us with a wealth of genetic and cultural preconditions for our upbringing and background in technology, mathematics, cartoon series, and not the least: free time and leisure.

Yup, what bifat said, pretty much.



I'm running away, because I now know where this is going. I think we had pretty good and reasonable conversation so far, but when we will start touching on religion it's all gonna get messy.



And that would be like the end of civilization?

I realized something thanks to this discussion - that indeed some people treat art as a religion. I'm not saying it's wrong or I don't like it. I just never think of it this way, so it's pretty interesting to understand this kind of perspective to me. Actually, it's gives some great clues what are expectations of this type of audience - one can use this knowledge to increase number of viewers, the same way catholic church gets their followers.

HAHAHA straight to God.

so, are you boys finally done? fantastic! only took 4 pages of pseudophilopsychological drivel that no one cares about!

I just ran into this in Frankfurt. Funny.



Apart from that, if you think you can defeat humankind's most firmly grounded philosophical understanding by pretentious protest, you indeed better walk away - this conversation yields nothing from here. Also, yes, dumping trash and calling it art is indeed the end of society. One of the signs of it.

The “what would you like to see in demos” escalating to pages upon pages of “what is art” further escalating to “is there a god?” progression is ridiculous. What I find even more ridiculous is the fact that there are people at this point in our timeline who still use the Keanu “I ain’t reading all that” meme / still think it’s funny or cool.

4gentE: I hoped you will be at least a bit entertained. If not, then we failed indeed ;)



Believe it or not, but my personal artistic attempts are not extreme at all. I was indoctrinated by classical aesthetics quite a bit in childhood and until this day I enjoy it very much - say I would rather listen to Chopin than Stockhausen.
But I also enjoy modern art - the more pretentious the better. It's not a protest. It's an acquired taste, you should try it.

Nobody asked whether there is a God. Scroll back and read again. It's just some insecure people went hysterical over the word "divine". As for "what is art", it was discussed in the context of demos, but it's inevitably connected to a broader context. I'm sorry if you were unable to follow it - maybe read sometimes something else than coding manuals.

I'm not against modern art. I weren't here if I was. I am against audiovisual pollution with no substance being called "art".

@tomcat:
No, don’t get me wrong, it’s all cool, I just find the preposterous theme hijack with zero looks around yourself somewhat socially awkward. The substance was so-so. Easy enough to follow if a little cringey. Much easier to follow than coding manuals. Perhaps if your own understanding was a tad sharper you’d noticed I actually stood up for your right to blabber shit nobody agrees with like there’s no tomorrow, stinging the anti-intellectual meme slinger above. Or maybe, in all this excitement, more of your blood went somewhere down there and less of it into the brain…

Yeah, but that's the thing about subjective classification. I'm saying something very trivial, but for someone else this pollution can be still art. And then we go in circles, because I know you will insist your definition is objective (via your objective judgment, which IMHO is an oxymoron, but to you it's not), and I disagree, but then there is Arthur Danto who redefines objectivity etc...etc..

"What you expect and want to see in a modern 2025 and forward high end demo?"

Hmm. Maybe the above whatever by the Toms but in cool demo form?

More columns than eye can see?

@tomcatmwi: A suitable German phrase is "Ist das Kunst oder kann das weg?"
Or "Kunst kommt von Können, nicht von Wollen, sonst würde es 'Wunst' heißen".

Back to topic: Even more scrollers, in VR 3D and full 8k resolution. What else?
Text can be LLM generated, it doesn´t matter as it is supposed to be unreadable and irrelevant anyway.

Exactly how much amphetamines keep you going Tomcat? :)