Is Art Limited?

[Vllad]

Or maybe more importantly, why is uniqueness important for art?

Uniqueness isn't so important as new ideas/originality are. It was actually MMO's that got me thinking about it. I am constantly whinning about the lack of new ideas in the gaming world in general. The creation of boards games or computer games as they put out the same ole shit. That took me to movies, television, paintings, photography and pretty soon I was looking at it from a much bigger perspective. I started to question the entire idea of originality the older I got. All mediums of art are primarily just a re-hash of something else. Only in technology are things actually evolving.

As to WHY it is important that all forms of art have more originality that I can easily answer:

I don't have that many years left on this earth. I have lived a lot longer than any life that is a head of me. I want to cram as much in as I can but I am coming to the point where I am running out of new experiences. I will never again get those butterflies when you first meet a new love. I will never again see the 10 Commandments or Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen, I will never read the Similrillion or Inferno for the first time again, I will never see the likes of "The Coronation of Napoleon" by David, play EQ or discover Titan for the first time.

It is these experiences that make life wonderful and impactful. I want to discover more "first" and I desperately seek out new forms of these mediums that impacted me as much as some of the items I listed above. They are becoming more rare every year that passes.

I fully expected life to be completely revolutionary in its experiences every decade I have lived. I am finding out that it doesn't work that way.

[bonestomper]

I read the first page and skipped to the end. (mostly cuz i was sure it was derailed somewhere in there)

imho there is a medium that allows for expression and originality but sill uses modern tech (the web) to get it done. Web Comics. both written and visual appeal.

might I suggest,
sluggy.com start from the beginning, see you next year
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://somethingpositive.net/">http://somethingpositive.net/</a><!-- m --> start from the beginning, see you in a few months
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://questionablecontent.net/">http://questionablecontent.net/</a><!-- m --> a little on the light side but you will read it everyday
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.widdershinscomic.com/">http://www.widdershinscomic.com/</a><!-- m --> start from the beginning. this one is slow but slightly entertaining. bottom of the list
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20150724#.VbW98fm6fbg">http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.p ... bW98fm6fbg</a><!-- m --> if it wasn't for the filler art and time between comics it would be better.

Is Sluggy.com new? no. Is it original? maybe. Is it well done and connected to itself as it evolves. I sure think so.

[Vllad]

I read the first page and skipped to the end. (mostly cuz i was sure it was derailed somewhere in there)

Thanks Bone, I will check this out.

By the way, you should read the entire thread. This is one of the few that didn't get derailed and had many interesting points made by everyone.

[Vanraw]

....
I asked him "so you are saying if we don't live in a world where we aren't always worrying about starving, dying at age 28 from the pox and being oppressed, raped and always in fear of our overlord we can't be good artist? He said "no, you can still be a good artist but the one thing you can't do is appreciate art like someone who lived 1000 years ago. Basically the importance of a good meal is lost on someone who has never really been starving. The importance of all artistic mediums means less to society so the craving to create something unique dies with those cravings.

The more modern and civilized our society gets the less importance art has on society and the more sterile it becomes.

.....

This is a really good point. Sort of an "eye of the beholder" view of the question "what is art"?

Art moves people. The more you see a similar thing the less moved you are by it. I think perhaps that is what your saying original post, is there is nothing new that moves you as much as the first time you experienced the genra.genre. I would agree then.

The first time I saw Ansil Adams work,I was wowed. But now, it's been done. Many others have done similar work, some trevally better, but the wow factor belongs to Adams.

So here is a question. Were the people who followed Adams techniques copy cats? Cashing in... Or were they artist so moved by what they saw, they were motivated to explore deeper? Certainly Adams wasn't the first to publish black and white photos that used light the way he did. So he to was motivated by other muse.

I would say that Hitchcock presented some very original Art, but also built on other influences. You could probably say this of every artist dating back to a cave man painting on a cave wall or beating a stick on a hollow log.

So perhaps the success and originality of art, is defined not by the artist, but the viewer.

[Slamz]

So perhaps the success and originality of art, is defined not by the artist, but the viewer.

That's my angle. Art may not change but my appreciation of it does. If something speaks to me on some level, it's art that I like. If it doesn't then it's art I don't care about. I can go into any art gallery and find 100 pieces of art of all styles that mean nothing to me. I'm looking for the 1 that makes me stop, look and think.

And I'm more about content than style. I would never look at a work of art and be like "meh, that style is so played out". You would never get me to buy a painting of an apple on a table because regardless of the style or who painted it, I don't think I could bring myself to care about that content. But interesting content will still make me stop and look.

[Vllad]

Art moves people. The more you see a similar thing the less moved you are by it. I think perhaps that is what your saying original post, is there is nothing new that moves you as much as the first time you experienced the genra.genre. I would agree then.

Yes I am saying that. I have been moved multiple times by the same genre but that doesn't happen anymore since it is very possible I have seen it all already. That is exactly why I ask "Is Art Limited"?

If I can see it all in one lifetime then by default isn't it limited?

If it is true (and I think it is) man's ability to create and be original is far more limited than we ourselves believe it is. We think of ourselves as unlimited in the scope of our imaginations but I am starting to think that isn't true at all. We really do have a limited imagination and only the rarest among us spring us forward as a species. i.e., Newton, Einstein, Tolkien, David and Mozart.

Even technology is moving at a snail’s pace relatively speaking. When I was a kid people thought that by 2010 we would all own flying cars, have robot maids and would be living on Mars. Come to find out we are pretty much living the same as we did 50 years ago. I had this debate with Thudz once before regarding technology.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://thepurge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=10269&hilit=Combustion+Engine&start=50">viewtopic.php?f=43&t=10269&hilit=Combustion+Engine&start=50</a><!-- l -->

The future is always further off than people originally think because man's ability for original thought is limited. What my science friend lacked to understand that IF art is limited so is man's capabilities in other area's.

[Vanraw]

So yes, I agree limited, but only to you once you have experienced it. Someone new that has never read Lord of the rings or any fiction, would be awed by it. And then similarly awed by the next author writing a fantasy. Until it becomes predictable.

I'm a little pissed I don't have a flying car as well. Or at least roads that have everyone driving at 120 mph.

[Slamz]

I dunno, I feel like we need some zen up in here or something. Art and technology are limited only if you are looking at it from too high of a level. If you can appreciate the finer details, then there's a practically infinite amount of variety. Get 10 people to paint a picture of a deer and you get 10 totally different paintings, each with its own details and nuances. Is it limited because they are all in the same approximate style with the same materials? Or is it practically infinite because every brush stroke is a new one, applying something that's never been seen before in the universe, quite like that?

So I think the secret is the ability to appreciate particular implementations and small details.

Kinda like looking out on a field of flowers and saying "nature is limited" instead of being able to see that each one is unique and the subtle differences will add up from day to day until eventually it's a whole new scene, each moment of which will never be seen again anywhere else ever.


Technology is a different problem, since it's less about imagination and more about physical constraints and complexity. Imagining a robot maid is easy. Handling the level of complexity required to get it to do what you want is extraordinarily difficult.