The place for morality


I believe that the these effects are more based on the biochemestry of the eye than optics. There is also a stong fight between green and red.

I noticed the other day that the red writing on my bass speaker contrasts with the grey metal in such a way that it appears embossed.

Anyway, my point about the blue painting was that has a moral aspect because an artist can choose to effect people in ways that have a moral side to them - If an artist wants to adjitate then they might make a blue and red painting for example. I chose the example because it shows how there is a little bit of morality in everything we do and so saying that there is no moral side to your work seems naive to me.

Obviously there are some cultural differences between people and those have to be taken into account.


I guess the biggest moral you could learn at this level, is that art made me feel happy, art that makes me feel happy is good. Or, art made me feel angry, art that makes me feel angry is bad.


I’m hoping to find that out. In photographs you can see complementary colours calling eachother up. What if somehow two wavepatterns just conflict and create distortions in the final picture. I thought it was more biochemical, but I’m not really sure.


I’m pretty damn sure it is a biochemical thing. Becides, if it were an inteference phenomenon then complimentarity would have no intrinsic effect.

Hey, hang on! What happened to the thread topic? This is imoral and has to stop :stuck_out_tongue:


woohoo , you said phenomenon !


I edited an article just the other day about the different sorts of lenses found in different organisms and what each has done to overcome the problem of spherical abberation (when light rays hitting different parts of a spherical lens are refracted differently causing poor focusing and resolution).

To overcome the problem fish have a gradient of refractive index in their lenses (they have introduced biochemical anomolies to correct for the physical anomolies) and humans have a cornea with a dome-shaped (hyperbolic) profile. Corrections for chromatic abberations (blue light being focused closer than red) have also been observed in fish.

It’s all biochemical of course, given we are talking about the refraction of light through an organic substrate, though it’s possible that factors other than just light collection come into play such as filtering and image processing in the brain.

I also read an article on theories of how images are organised (such as by layers) and the effect this can have on colour perception but this post is already way OT. Fascinating stuff though :slight_smile:

Oh yeah,

It is immoral to impose your morals on others!
It is also immoral to impose your art on others! :stuck_out_tongue:


Hmm… really? What do you maen by ‘impose’?


ha. you have to admit, there’s a bit of irony in that statement.


I think he means presenting it through a medium which can replicate itself infinitely in an instant.

Ordibble P. Lop, indeed really interesting stuff. I’m just going to have to do some web searching.

John Keates, if you imagine light being a vibrating solid object in/just under water, you’ll see ripple patterns emerging, what if you put two vibrating elements right next to eachother, ie. 2 lightbeams, they will interact but not full deestroy or negat eaachothers patterns. I think the effect that I’m looking for would be very local, maybe even random colours appearing at the points of intersection. This is just an illustration mind you, it doesn’t parttake to reality. Just in case.:slight_smile:

Maybe we could copy paste the last bits to another new thread, before we get demoralised.:slight_smile:


Getting back on the subject of morals…It’s interesting to see where this post is leading, but I think the original idea was not to define or impose morals in art persay but rather a comment on the lack of depth in much of the art here. Art is a form of expression, much like music the strongest uses of this medium are those that contain a “peice” of their creator, even if it’s not moralistic in nature. But also like music this level of freedom of expression requires a certain level of skill, or at least comfort (I dont have much in the way of skill) with the instrument, or confidence in this expression. I think that those at CG talk you find guilty of the D&D style half naked woman with dragon art, are either lacking in the skills or comfort they feel they need to express themselves, or scared of such expression.

edit: or simply have nothing to express

As for myself (though I currently have no work on CGtalk…or any digital for that matter) my art shows has alot of emotion put into it, and if you look carefully there are religious and/or moral undertones to all of it (again sorry I’ve got nothing to show as an example, I dont have a scanner and am only just now working on my first digital painting) It’s simply who I am and what I beleive, be it offensive narrowminded or dogmatic (titles I actually enjoy receiving) I think thats an important step that makes the difference between art and simply drawing (painting, whatever), and given that this site generally nurtures the amateur artists it’s no suprise to see so much shallow “art.”



So, like you enjoy being called offensive, narrowminded etc…Was that before or after puberty?:surprised


funny…I dont mind titles like that because it shows I have convictions about something, say all you want about what they are, but in a culture where everyone would rather be ambiguous about everything just to get along, and relativism is king I dont mind standing for something.

Though before this goes any farther CGtalk is not the appropriate place to make such a stand…back to art


You did make a point I think, allthough tact seems to have abandoned yuo long ago.

It seems to me that there is a place for that in art, allthough I myself do not really want to do just that. If everybody else uses tact, than you have the opportunity to shake them up a bit, it’s up to you what about of-course.


Naaaaawww. If you mean here then I’d agree but in the fine art world at large there’s tons of moralizing. Some good, some bad. lol!

It seems to me you give with one hand and take with the other. You want moral art but you don’t like the moral art you’re getting. And by the way, the art world is deeply sexist and has been for a long time. That’s what the gorilla girls were protesting for heavens sake! shesh!

You should check out some old soviet propaganda art, there’s lots around, and be glad we don’t have state proscribed “moral art”, not yet anyway. Because if there is one good example of ‘moralistic art’, that’s it.

Besides, this place is for commercial illustration, not art. It’s ALL about the money here. Some of it’s beautifull but most of it is pretty bland and lifeless.

Brad Holland, now there’s some moral illustration for ya! But you don’t see challenging illustration like his, its all so corperate now.


Here’s an update for those looking for morality in the arts. The New York Times has an article on Botero’s recent works dealing with the torture of prisoners by America.

 Can't see it? Goto [ww]([]( and request a login



You make some good points noen, but I can’t help but feel that the drawing is a thirty minute scribble, something he got a meatloaf and a glass of milk for. About the same commitment as I have to waiting on a bus.


[QUOTE=Nathellion]I’ve never heard of this ‘authadox’ term, but you could say that I’m largely influenced by what Richard Dawkins has to say on the matter. Perhaps you are right, in that geniune moral goodness can evolve, but only as an evolutionary advantage, which, with humans living in societies together now for tens of thousands of years (although the early ones were of course very small), could definitely be possible. Being nice to other people promotes friendship and a good reputation, which can be very beneficial, and so I think I agree with you in that respect.

I thought I would reply to this although I left it a little late.

The ‘authadox’ science that I was refering to is partly Dawlkins himslef. The selfish Gene theory is not about genes for selfishness but rather the idea that genes themselves are selfish and it is they which are subject to evolution. Many people read the book as a sign that scientists think we are all evil and selfish but this is a tragic mis-reading of the book which is really a techical account about the fundamental aspects of evolution.

I thought I would make it clear where I am on that as the word “authadox” has connotations with which I would not like to associate myself.


I know that The Selfish Gene is not about a gene for selfishness. However, I base this opinion on the fact that throughout TSG, Dawkins argues against natural selection on a group level, contending that it operates on the gene level, and hence inadvertently the individual level (because the individual will stop at nothing to preserve it’s genes). Meaning that natural selection favors organisms who do the best to preserve themselves (really their genes), even if this be at the expense of the group, hence my opinion that humans are not inherently moral:

“Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.”

-Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
[font=Verdana]This pretty much sums up how I feel about morality


:thumbsup:Genes only facilitate, something not there before has to happen through them in the end. :wink:


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.