 |
Author |
Topic: significance (Read 1277 times) |
|
Martin
    
 
|
significance
« on: Mar 1st, 2004, 2:58pm » |
|
hi. everyday, we see a lot of things (pieces) being produced/crafted. i'm wondering, how do these make the world a better place?
|
|
|
|
|
Martin
|
Re: significance
« Reply #2 on: Mar 1st, 2004, 6:14pm » |
|
why not?
|
|
|
|
|
Allen
|
Re: significance
« Reply #3 on: Mar 1st, 2004, 9:03pm » |
|
Perhaps a guideline on how to make things better is in order?
ha ha
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 1st, 2004, 11:14pm by Allen » |
|
|
|
|
mKoser
|
Re: significance
« Reply #4 on: Mar 1st, 2004, 10:04pm » |
|
no rules ... just play.
i am here to learn, explore and share - not to save the world or do work within a set of rules.
|
mikkel crone koser | www.beyondthree.com | http://processing.beyondthree.com
|
|
|
elout
|
Re: significance
« Reply #5 on: Mar 1st, 2004, 10:08pm » |
|
well if I see a great work, it makes my day better.
But for me, if you want to change the world, change your self first.. and that`s hard enough for me already.
|
|
|
|
|
Allen
|
Re: significance
« Reply #6 on: Mar 1st, 2004, 11:18pm » |
|
on Mar 1st, 2004, 10:04pm, mKoser wrote:
Do think, everyone, or at least more people should take up this mantra I hear this a lot from people who are working within newer mediums, I've always wondered why.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 1st, 2004, 11:18pm by Allen » |
|
|
|
|
ashtonium
|
Re: significance
« Reply #7 on: Mar 2nd, 2004, 2:47am » |
|
on Mar 1st, 2004, 11:18pm, Allen wrote:no rules ... just play.
I hear this a lot from people who are working within newer mediums, I've always wondered why. |
|
new mediums are largely uncharted expances that seem to require the exploration and experimentation of play in order to figure out the medium. I remember in my freshman foundation classes, all we basicly did for the entire year was play with materials. It can be incredably liberating to let go of meaning and just play. Then, when one wanders back to meaning, there is an increased vocabularity with which to express it.
-kevin
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 2nd, 2004, 2:49am by ashtonium » |
|
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: significance
« Reply #8 on: Mar 2nd, 2004, 3:02am » |
|
Isn't being part of (and contributing to) a great developmental project/movement enough? See the "what is art" thread for how art fits into a growing society 
Besides all that about art, don't forget that the initial - and as far as I know continual - aim of this project is educational. Creativity is fostered.
It takes all kinds.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin
|
Re: significance
« Reply #9 on: Mar 2nd, 2004, 2:51pm » |
|
perhaps the question is... when is a piece, 'good'?
|
|
|
|
|
Koenie
|
Re: significance
« Reply #10 on: Mar 2nd, 2004, 8:02pm » |
|
I think that's different for everyone. For me a piece is 'good' when it does what it's supposed to do, I guess.
Koenie
|
http://koeniedesign.com
|
|
|
swannodette
|
significance
« Reply #11 on: Mar 2nd, 2004, 11:52pm » |
|
I like this questioning about how does a work qualify as "good." I think pieces can succeed on multiple levels. However, a lot of the work one sees posted here, especially my own, though interesting from the perspective of information design, automated systems, etc. doesn't necessary qualify as amazing work as much as it represents more or less "good" sketches, exactly what processing is designed for. It's an environment to rapidly prototype an idea, and hopefully develop them to a point where they are worthy of a more sophisticated implementation. I feel like this web board represents a fertile community of people who coming to an understanding of something that is still very new, so new in fact that we're not really interested in poetry as much as understanding how to manipulate the material, and I have little doubt that ten years from now the techniques developed here will produce truly profound, rich work, much in the sense that early cinema struggled to understand the medium, and it took a good two decades before powerful sophisticated films that understood cinema's possibilities developed.
plus the language to decipher what is going on here is weak at best. So it makes it difficult for people external and internal to this community understand what is "good." i.e. people can appeciate a beautifully crafted sentence after experiencing reading since a young age. What is being done here is not something people are aware of in any widespread way, at least I don't think so.
much of the reason I left cinema behind (temporarily I hope) was that the work here represents new ways of thinking, and express a mode of communication not as well formed as film- in fact a type of thinking that appears in the only more radical fim and video work.
couter-arguments welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
mKoser
|
Re: significance
« Reply #12 on: Mar 3rd, 2004, 1:03pm » |
|
as it is too easy to say "I AGREE" to swannodette's post, i'll add a bit to it:
Michael Golembewski is a fellow student of mine at the RCA, and he writes in his statement (almost manifest-like):
Quote:
To me, the highest form of artwork is the artwork that moves the viewer; the work that draws pure emotion from a few objects, the air, and the minds of the creator and the viewer. Work which does this approaches perfection; and to create work like this is to approach perfection yourself.
I've been deeply moved, in the past, by the sight of a perfect photograph. By an image captured, in a split-second, by a photographer an understanding of what will make me feel something, not just see it.
And I've been deeply moved, in the past, by stepping into the perfect building. By walking into a space that has been painstakingly designed by an architect in order to instill me with a sense of grandeur, or majesty, or hope.
And I've also been deeply moved, in the past, by watching the perfect film. By losing myself in a fictional world created by a filmmaker, and empathizing with characters which don't really exist outside of a few lines of dialogue and a few hundred yards of celluloid ribbon.
I have not, to date, been moved by a web site.
And I have not, to date, been moved by a piece of technofetishistic gadgetry.
And I have also not, to date, been moved by a multimedia software application.
|
|
----
as processing is a new tool (not even an official tool yet) i think it is important to remember that what we are doing while working with this, is very much of an exploratory nature - we explore this new tool, we help develop it, we help to debug and to provide context for understanding the flaws and strengths of this tool.
a discussion of what is good (and bad?) is not fit (in my oppinion). Everything goes, this tool is for sketching ideas, it is for exploring the nature of computation.. and maybe most importantly it is a tool for learning.
+ mikkel
|
mikkel crone koser | www.beyondthree.com | http://processing.beyondthree.com
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: significance
« Reply #13 on: Mar 3rd, 2004, 11:06pm » |
|
I have, on occassion, been deeply moved by friends and family, by life and by the way people live. Maybe we're focussing too much on the produce. There is perfection outside of finished art.
|
|
|
|
|
skloopy
|
Re: significance
« Reply #14 on: Mar 4th, 2004, 4:33am » |
|
I think that something is good if it means something to you. If you like it, if you liked making it.. Did you have fun? If you like having fun and you had fun then it's good. If you like to help people and you helped someone, then it's good. It's pretty impossible to judge if someone else will like something, and pretty pointless too, so why not just make it for yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
