CGTalk > General Techniques > Art Techniques and Theories Forum
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-07-2005, 01:01 AM   #61
TorbjornO
Frequenter
portfolio
Tobbe Olsson
http://www.tobbeo.net
Bay Area, USA
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 144
Send a message via ICQ to TorbjornO Send a message via MSN to TorbjornO
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOT!
In light of the discussion, a rule is simply a tool. The best tool is the rule. If one doesn't want to use the tools then more power to them. As for me, I'll use all the tools I can discover, understand and wield with grace.


A rule is defined as a a generalized statement that describes what is true in most or all cases. To take this further in this case, a rule is something that we perceive to be true in most or all cases. Since we've agreed that beauty is defined more than just the obvious shape properties (like character traits etc.) and we all seem to agree it's subjective, how is it possible to make rules? You can make rules for yourself if you feel the need to, but it's quite condescending to say that if someone ignores the rules that you or someone else have set, they are chosing to ignore a tool.

We are speaking two different languages here though I think. You guys are looking at properties and categorizing it into what human senses seems to react to. You speak of science of beauty but how can you when it's all subjective? If it's your job to explore beauty (to sell it in whatever form, photography film or whatever) then explore it and take note of what most people around you tend to take to. But always be ready to reinvent everything you think you know about beauty. From where I stand I feel that's the only way you'll evolve as an artist.

Stahlberg, I love your stuff. You're a talented artist, and I say this with the outmost respect for your work, but the images of beauty I have seen you do are quite limited within a certain range. All your beauties look very similar. I can tell your vision of beauty is different from mine. My point is you can't say I am wrong, all you can claim is that I am the exception to the rules you or someone else have established.

I haven't meant any disrespect to anyone, I just believe generalisations are pointless. If something is subjective, let people explore it for themselves. Teach them techniques (like Enayla's great eye tutorial), guide them to find their own ways.
 
Old 04-07-2005, 01:20 AM   #62
TorbjornO
Frequenter
portfolio
Tobbe Olsson
http://www.tobbeo.net
Bay Area, USA
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 144
Send a message via ICQ to TorbjornO Send a message via MSN to TorbjornO
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorbjornO

Stahlberg, I love your stuff. You're a talented artist, and I say this with the outmost respect for your work, but the images of beauty I have seen you do are quite limited within a certain range. All your beauties look very similar. I can tell your vision of beauty is different from mine. My point is you can't say I am wrong, all you can claim is that I am the exception to the rules you or someone else have established.



Sorry I should clarify that, I didn't mean that you are limited as an artist. Your work just seems to embrace one kind of beauty, which I would imagine being the beauty that you take to and love. There are certain kinds of beauty that seem to appeal to me as well so I think it's very natural to go for what inspires you. All I meant is that your vision of beauty is not the kind of beauty that appeals to me. No matter how accomplished you are as an artist of "beauty" there's always going to be a few people who say "meh!".
 
Old 04-07-2005, 01:23 AM   #63
GOTgraphic
As Effective as Floss
 
GOTgraphic's Avatar
portfolio
Mark Spencer Reynolds
His Graphicness
GOT GRAPHIC™
NEBRASKA, USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 685
Send a message via ICQ to GOTgraphic Send a message via AIM to GOTgraphic Send a message via MSN to GOTgraphic Send a message via Yahoo to GOTgraphic
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorbjornO
A rule is defined as a a generalized statement that describes what is true in most or all cases. To take this further in this case, a rule is something that we perceive to be true in most or all cases. Since we've agreed that beauty is defined more than just the obvious shape properties (like character traits etc.) and we all seem to agree it's subjective, how is it possible to make rules? You can make rules for yourself if you feel the need to, but it's quite condescending to say that if someone ignores the rules that you or someone else have set, they are chosing to ignore a tool.

We are speaking two different languages here though I think. You guys are looking at properties and categorizing it into what human senses seems to react to. You speak of science of beauty but how can you when it's all subjective? If it's your job to explore beauty (to sell it in whatever form, photography film or whatever) then explore it and take note of what most people around you tend to take to. But always be ready to reinvent everything you think you know about beauty. From where I stand I feel that's the only way you'll evolve as an artist.

Stahlberg, I love your stuff. You're a talented artist, and I say this with the outmost respect for your work, but the images of beauty I have seen you do are quite limited within a certain range. All your beauties look very similar. I can tell your vision of beauty is different from mine. My point is you can't say I am wrong, all you can claim is that I am the exception to the rules you or someone else have established.

I haven't meant any disrespect to anyone, I just believe generalisations are pointless. If something is subjective, let people explore it for themselves. Teach them techniques (like Enayla's great eye tutorial), guide them to find their own ways.
As evident in my several posts, I respectfully disagree.
__________________
GOT GRAPHIC
NOTHING IS TOO BEAUTIFUL -Bugatti
UGLINESSS DOESN'T SELL -Loewy
 
Old 04-07-2005, 03:38 AM   #64
Stahlberg
Lord of the posts
 
Stahlberg's Avatar
CGSociety Member
portfolio
Steven Stahlberg
Lead Artist
Streamline Studios
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,601

Quote:
they even think the universe has the shape of a dodecahedron of phi!


Please take everything on that site with a huge bag of salt. They are Christian fanatics who try to equate the theory of the "Holy Trinity" with the Golden Mean. Very similar to those moslem fanatics who have been counting every letter in the Koran for centuries, in order to find relationships to the number 19 (which they think is "holier" than any other). Hm, wonder if numerology still works in binary, or any other base than 10...
This is NOT religion balanced with science, it's the direct opposite - religion perverting science to its own ends.

Torbjorn, I think you're right - we're talking 2 different languages. You're completely missing my point, no matter what I say. But I'll try one more time:
My essay does NOT concern what type of art I like, what method, style, media, technique, physiognomy, race, attitude, deeper meaning, message, symbols, psychology, etc etc etc etc was used to create a piece. It does NOT rate any works of art on these bases.

It ONLY concerns certain VERY BASIC phenomena that can be INDEPENDENTLY MEASURED AND CHECKED by anyone, that have been established and known by scientists for many years. I'm telling you we're used to blue sky and green ground, and if we look out a window and see green on top and blue at the bottom we'd be confused for a moment.

If that's the effect you WANT in your art, fine go ahead and use it! If not, don't!
But - please explain what's the harm in knowing it? If that makes an artist feel he can only paint blue on top and green at the bottom forever after, that makes HIM a frikkin simpleton, doesn't it? Nothing wrong with the facts, it's how you use them.
 
Old 04-07-2005, 04:12 AM   #65
ashakarc
timeTraveller
 
ashakarc's Avatar
Ali Shakarchi
Canada
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 711
"Those who see pastures blue, and sky green ought to be sterilized." Adolf Hitler on the Bauhaus movement.

Agree on your thesis Stahlberg: For beauty is a social phenomenon. And, it relates to the conscious perceptual subject, rather than the signified object. It's a long history of discourse on beauty since Plato, through Descartes, Kant, and Hegel, to Nietzsche, Ponti, and Derrida.

Artists seem to measure beauty by imagination, a synthetic approach to art appreciation, while art critics use judgement, an analytical method for appreciation. The rest of majority use "taste" with varying degrees.

best,
ashakarc
 
Old 04-07-2005, 05:20 AM   #66
TorbjornO
Frequenter
portfolio
Tobbe Olsson
http://www.tobbeo.net
Bay Area, USA
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 144
Send a message via ICQ to TorbjornO Send a message via MSN to TorbjornO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stahlberg
Please take everything on that site with a huge bag of salt. They are Christian fanatics who try to equate the theory of the "Holy Trinity" with the Golden Mean. Very similar to those moslem fanatics who have been counting every letter in the Koran for centuries, in order to find relationships to the number 19 (which they think is "holier" than any other). Hm, wonder if numerology still works in binary, or any other base than 10...
This is NOT religion balanced with science, it's the direct opposite - religion perverting science to its own ends.

Torbjorn, I think you're right - we're talking 2 different languages. You're completely missing my point, no matter what I say. But I'll try one more time:
My essay does NOT concern what type of art I like, what method, style, media, technique, physiognomy, race, attitude, deeper meaning, message, symbols, psychology, etc etc etc etc was used to create a piece. It does NOT rate any works of art on these bases.

It ONLY concerns certain VERY BASIC phenomena that can be INDEPENDENTLY MEASURED AND CHECKED by anyone, that have been established and known by scientists for many years. I'm telling you we're used to blue sky and green ground, and if we look out a window and see green on top and blue at the bottom we'd be confused for a moment.

If that's the effect you WANT in your art, fine go ahead and use it! If not, don't!
But - please explain what's the harm in knowing it? If that makes an artist feel he can only paint blue on top and green at the bottom forever after, that makes HIM a frikkin simpleton, doesn't it? Nothing wrong with the facts, it's how you use them.


Damn... ok then. What a shift in tone. Here are some examples based on your scientifically based article.

- There are black dots on white dresses that are considered by some to be beautiful (http://www.vintageous.com/v2941.htm). We talked about this already.

- Photographers play with irregularities AND smoothness. Some photographers love having completely smooth skin with almost no detail. Everything is told through subtle curves. I remember seeing a photograph a while ago with a bald woman and her skin didn't have a single dent in it because of the way it was lit. It was a beautiful photo.

- I prefer plain white/grey t-shirts over gradient ones.

- Your landscale image example. Minimalist artists play with this all time to with as few shapes and colors make impressive imagery.

- Composition. Right now Darren Aronofsky is shooting his movie where almost everything is shot from straight behind, straight in front or from the sides or straight above or straight below. I can bring up a number of photographers that have very evenly spaced and concentric line work going through their photos.

Why teach this "science" when it's flawed? That's why generalisations don't work because they are inherently flawed as soon as there are exceptions. I choose not to make rules for myself where I can immediately find a "but in this context it works". Your article was an interesting read, but I wouldn't teach it to art students as rules.

I go based on what I feel. If I feel it looks good in my minds eye, I explore it. As an artist you're not strifing to "break" the rules, you're just strifing to make something you find appealing or interesting.

I think I'll let it be at this stage but I'll keep reading, and think about the thoughts that are shared.
 
Old 04-07-2005, 05:45 AM   #67
Lystmaler
Veteran
 
Lystmaler's Avatar
Alexander D'Este
Norway
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmBoekestein
do you need hafl a page to explain that:
-not all humans are attracted to stereotypes
-you can't really define what beauty is and it's easier to denote that somethings ugly(in your eyes that is).
Oh I always talk way to mutch, old habit, I conclude my toughts as I type them and I say them as I think about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmBoekestein
If you see a nature documentary, and the narrator tells the audience that a certain animal will fancy a certain other animal because it has a big shiny red ass. Will you not call that science because it’s uncertain or because you can’t verify it? Or do you simply shrug and say that it’s ugly and they’re all wrong.

This goes back to why flesh is attractive. It’s not beauty, it’s just an instinct needed for reproduction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TorbjornO
Why teach this “science” when it’s flawed? That’s why generalisations because they are inherently flawed. I choose not to make rules for myself where I can immediately find a “but in this context it works”. Your article was an interesting read, but I wouldn’t teach it to art students as rules.
It’s a theory, not a law. And the examlpes mentioned by you earlier were all based on style, and not beauty.
I agree with you that there is no definition to beauty, however.
 
Old 04-07-2005, 08:47 AM   #68
Stahlberg
Lord of the posts
 
Stahlberg's Avatar
CGSociety Member
portfolio
Steven Stahlberg
Lead Artist
Streamline Studios
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,601

Quote:
Damn... ok then. What a shift in tone.

Perhaps not so surprising, considering you keep attacking my essay on the wrong grounds, because you've misunderstood it. I'm sure you'd feel frustrated too, especially if you worked as long on it as I have.

Quote:
- There are black dots on white dresses that are considered by some to be beautiful (http://www.vintageous.com/v2941.htm).

That dress, in any way you care to show and light it, will have almost none of the optical quality of the aggressive field I used in my example. Look at that image of the dress for 1 minute. Then go back to looking at the aggressive field (make sure you're not too far away from it), also for 1 minute. I guarantee you will feel the second one to be much more unpleasant than the first. Of course the dress is more aesthetically pleasing than my example - because of its folds, its shape, its environment, its shadows, the reduced contrast in the dots... it has a lot of variation.

Quote:
- Photographers play with irregularities AND smoothness.

Exactly what I'm saying. Variation.

Quote:
Some photographers love having completely smooth skin with almost no detail. Everything is told through subtle curves.

Exactly, we love to look at skin, even if it's black and white... and we love curves. Perhaps a closeup of 2 thighs, a smooth gradation then a sudden sharp edge where the second leg starts, a shallow curve then a sudden bend at the butt, a tiny amount of subtle pore texture... and that's all you need to create a great image.

Quote:
- I prefer plain white/grey t-shirts over gradient ones.

Of course. Again, as with the dress-example - t-shirts have folds, volume, shading, anatomy, movement (if someone's wearing it). A flat grey rectangle has none of these things.

Quote:
- Your landscale image example. Minimalist artists play with this all time to with as few shapes and colors make impressive imagery.

As I have stated several times already:
I'm not saying one is better "art" than the other. (Although in this case the one on the right does fail as minimalist art due to many other factors.)
I'm saying, the one on the left will be more 'interesting' - on a basic, subconscious level - to a very great majority of people, than the one on the right. Put them side by side in a public place, measure people's gazes as they pass by. If you don't want to concern yourself with this type of subconscious lingering of the gaze, then fine. Go minimalist. But this behavioural phenomenon still exists.

Maybe I should have called it something else. Subliminal interest?

Quote:
- Composition. Right now Darren Aronofsky is shooting his movie where almost everything is shot from straight behind, straight in front or from the sides or straight above or straight below.

The direction of shooting has very little to do with where the foci end up in the final composition.

Quote:
I can bring up a number of photographers that have very evenly spaced and concentric line work going through their photos.

Yes, I've seen lots of photographs like that too. Anything from picket-fences to brickwalls to phonelines... it's a favorite motif among pros and amateurs alike, because it's so easy to find in our industrialised modern world. Doesn't mean it's more interesting (in the basic sense) than the kind of motif we've evolved to exist within.

Quote:
Why teach this "science" when it's flawed? That's why generalisations don't work because they are inherently flawed as soon as there are exceptions.

You're not bringing up exceptions, you're comparing oranges to apples.

Quote:
I go based on what I feel. If I feel it looks good in my minds eye, I explore it.


I think that applies to all artists. I mean, do you really think I go "Hm, I just had the coolest idea... but I won't explore it because it would break some rule." lol

Oh well, I guess I need more examples in that essay, or something...
 
Old 04-07-2005, 09:55 AM   #69
jmBoekestein
likes a flower =)...
 
jmBoekestein's Avatar
portfolio
Jan Mark Boekestein
Netherlands
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,854
Send a message via ICQ to jmBoekestein Send a message via AIM to jmBoekestein Send a message via MSN to jmBoekestein
Well this has gotten interesting! I agree with Mr. Stahlberg on his "defense", and also on the religious fanatics stuff, bu still they found a way to work it into just about anything. I wouldn't discard it on those grounds.

And the big red shiny ass actually swell on chimps, it's sarcasm. You won't find it attractive, but the chimps will. The fact that you don't doesn't matter to anybody. [edit: with that I mean to say that you beter have a decent eyeopener for us if you want us to believe that beauty is an inconsistent variable derived from shear magic or luck. It aint happenin' is it?]

Good luck to you sir.
__________________
modelling practice #1

Last edited by jmBoekestein : 04-07-2005 at 10:12 AM.
 
Old 04-07-2005, 09:55 AM   #70
CGTalk Moderation
Lord of the posts
CGTalk Forum Leader
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,066,481
Thread automatically closed

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.