|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 19, 2010 21:08:05 GMT 1, "But it's all subjective in the end"
Yes, I think that's where we're butting heads here, without reason... Let me try and clarify a bit more....
1. I am not saying that hand-painted text looks bad SUBJECTIVELY. I'm saying it looks bad OBJECTIVELY. In fact, as I pointed out, I did mention that it does look good in many different subjective situations. 2. Yet, some of you are calling me 'naive' and stating that hand-painted text looks good OBJECTIVELY, even though what you really mean is SUBjectively. A wavy letter CAN'T look good objectively - by definition! It can, however, look good subjectively...
Cheers,
Edit: spelling
"But it's all subjective in the end"
Yes, I think that's where we're butting heads here, without reason... Let me try and clarify a bit more....
1. I am not saying that hand-painted text looks bad SUBJECTIVELY. I'm saying it looks bad OBJECTIVELY. In fact, as I pointed out, I did mention that it does look good in many different subjective situations. 2. Yet, some of you are calling me 'naive' and stating that hand-painted text looks good OBJECTIVELY, even though what you really mean is SUBjectively. A wavy letter CAN'T look good objectively - by definition! It can, however, look good subjectively...
Cheers,
Edit: spelling
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 19, 2010 21:10:45 GMT 1, "I like the concept but you really should improve your PR !"
I don't sell my art, I only exhibit it, so I don't have to bite my tongue (especially when I'm right). ;o)
"I like the concept but you really should improve your PR !"
I don't sell my art, I only exhibit it, so I don't have to bite my tongue (especially when I'm right). ;o)
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
The Rules of Art..., by Deleted on May 19, 2010 21:17:13 GMT 1, Oh, I've never seen a Cuenca close-up in order to be sure, but I have an idea of how he did those paintings (it's a trade-secret that I've figured out, and have only seen the very best text-based artists use it, so I'm not going to say exactly how it's done and let the cat out of the bag). But, needless to say, the text was almost surely done by a computer - even though it was ultimately painted by hand... Without going into detail... Notice how all the text in all his different paintings is pretty much exactly the same size?... There's a reason for that... EDIT: This ISN'T how he's doing it, but to give you an idea: think letraset! You might lay down each letter by hand, but it's still a computer that created that letter...[/quote oh dear
Oh, I've never seen a Cuenca close-up in order to be sure, but I have an idea of how he did those paintings (it's a trade-secret that I've figured out, and have only seen the very best text-based artists use it, so I'm not going to say exactly how it's done and let the cat out of the bag). But, needless to say, the text was almost surely done by a computer - even though it was ultimately painted by hand... Without going into detail... Notice how all the text in all his different paintings is pretty much exactly the same size?... There's a reason for that... EDIT: This ISN'T how he's doing it, but to give you an idea: think letraset! You might lay down each letter by hand, but it's still a computer that created that letter...[/quote oh dear
|
|
rsj
New Member
Posts โข 492
Likes โข 34
January 2010
|
The Rules of Art..., by rsj on May 19, 2010 21:38:00 GMT 1, I think you might have confused the word "text" with "fonts". What you said only makes some sense if you meant "fonts", and more specifically the recreation of specific fonts. And only fonts with straight lines and sharp edges for that matter.
I think you might have confused the word "text" with "fonts". What you said only makes some sense if you meant "fonts", and more specifically the recreation of specific fonts. And only fonts with straight lines and sharp edges for that matter.
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 19, 2010 21:45:53 GMT 1, No, of course not. I'm not talking about non-homogenous fonts or fonts that mimick hand-writing or are designed to look rough. I'm just talking about text in general (as we see around us all day in advertisements, on the internet, in books, on tv, etc... - and 99% of that is done with homogenous, razor-sharp fonts that look odd when done by hand)... Just speaking in generalities, not specifics...
No, of course not. I'm not talking about non-homogenous fonts or fonts that mimick hand-writing or are designed to look rough. I'm just talking about text in general (as we see around us all day in advertisements, on the internet, in books, on tv, etc... - and 99% of that is done with homogenous, razor-sharp fonts that look odd when done by hand)... Just speaking in generalities, not specifics...
|
|
elwheel
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,912
Likes โข 232
September 2008
|
The Rules of Art..., by elwheel on May 19, 2010 21:48:56 GMT 1, Jesussssss
Jesussssss
|
|
|
CR
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 918
Likes โข 0
October 2006
|
The Rules of Art..., by CR on May 19, 2010 21:53:08 GMT 1, correct me if I am wrong but isn't this just a picture which you have typed words over?
Let me just respond.
First of all I wasn't putting down or slagging your work off, I was posting a question. Its not to my taste but each to their own.
In my opinion I would have had a better appreciation for it if you had created the picture, but JUST from text, not taking a picture and overlaying it with txt.
CR
correct me if I am wrong but isn't this just a picture which you have typed words over? Let me just respond. First of all I wasn't putting down or slagging your work off, I was posting a question. Its not to my taste but each to their own. In my opinion I would have had a better appreciation for it if you had created the picture, but JUST from text, not taking a picture and overlaying it with txt. CR
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 19, 2010 22:06:12 GMT 1, "First of all I wasn't putting down or slagging your work off..."
The use of the word 'just' implies different (although, perhaps unintentionally)...
EDIT: Aren't you JUST a negro? Isn't this car JUST a volkswagen? Aren't you JUST 18? Didn't you JUST go to the bathroom?...
"First of all I wasn't putting down or slagging your work off..."
The use of the word 'just' implies different (although, perhaps unintentionally)...
EDIT: Aren't you JUST a negro? Isn't this car JUST a volkswagen? Aren't you JUST 18? Didn't you JUST go to the bathroom?...
|
|
nah
New Member
Posts โข 822
Likes โข 34
April 2009
|
The Rules of Art..., by nah on May 19, 2010 22:08:25 GMT 1, wow you def know how to fight your corner
as others have said the concept is good, but imo the end result looks kinda dated/tacky... textured background is pretty gross
wow you def know how to fight your corner
as others have said the concept is good, but imo the end result looks kinda dated/tacky... textured background is pretty gross
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 19, 2010 22:32:10 GMT 1, 1. It's SUPPOSED to look dated (the image is of a famous actress from the middle of the 19th century after all). 2. The background is SUPPOSED to look cheap (that being the whole point of the piece) and 3. It's SUPPOSED to look tacky (again, being the whole point of the piece)
Edit: I didn't think I'd have to explain this piece, but here goes...
The whole point of the piece was that the art market values the artist or signature far more than the artwork. The art itself is entirely secondary (well, tertiary in fact, as the edition number is even more important than the art even).
So, conceptually, the piece would be utterly destroyed if the artwork was painstakingly created. It would be destroyed if the text was hand-painted. It would be destroyed if the background was fancy. It would be destroyed if it was anything other than a digital creation. The whole point of the piece is that, in todays world, the background isn't even the slightest bit important. The foreground isn't even the slightest bit important. The artwork itself isn't even the slightest bit important... And, here, you guys want me to make the artwork important!...
If I had done this piece the way you guys would have me create it - the whole point of the piece would be lost entirely. And, it would no longer be a decent piece of conceptual art, it would just be pointless (but, at least, it would be in the style you prefer)...
1. It's SUPPOSED to look dated (the image is of a famous actress from the middle of the 19th century after all). 2. The background is SUPPOSED to look cheap (that being the whole point of the piece) and 3. It's SUPPOSED to look tacky (again, being the whole point of the piece)
Edit: I didn't think I'd have to explain this piece, but here goes...
The whole point of the piece was that the art market values the artist or signature far more than the artwork. The art itself is entirely secondary (well, tertiary in fact, as the edition number is even more important than the art even).
So, conceptually, the piece would be utterly destroyed if the artwork was painstakingly created. It would be destroyed if the text was hand-painted. It would be destroyed if the background was fancy. It would be destroyed if it was anything other than a digital creation. The whole point of the piece is that, in todays world, the background isn't even the slightest bit important. The foreground isn't even the slightest bit important. The artwork itself isn't even the slightest bit important... And, here, you guys want me to make the artwork important!...
If I had done this piece the way you guys would have me create it - the whole point of the piece would be lost entirely. And, it would no longer be a decent piece of conceptual art, it would just be pointless (but, at least, it would be in the style you prefer)...
|
|
Pahnl
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 408
Likes โข 364
July 2009
|
The Rules of Art..., by Pahnl on May 19, 2010 23:16:13 GMT 1, If you disagree with the value placed on the 'artist', surely this piece perpetuates that belief and does nothing to combat it? If you feel dishevelled that 'artist' is being valued over 'art', why not create a piece that is technically and artistically impressive. Otherwise it's an easy piece of work that says nothing people don't already know.
And if the piece is meant to stimulate questions about the conceptions of art, it certainly has, but it seems you're unwilling to have a dialogue with people, instead opting for confrontation.
You say yourself "these two pieces were my first forrays into digital art", so is it not reasonable to think that there is room for improvement and development? Have you already hit the maximum potential of your work? Discussion, rather than defensiveness, leads to progress, which is something all artists should strive for.
Such a self perception of infallibility irks me. If I had taken up a new medium, I would humbly welcome criticism. These are your first attempts at digital work and there is no doubt the level of aptitude shows through...
If you disagree with the value placed on the 'artist', surely this piece perpetuates that belief and does nothing to combat it? If you feel dishevelled that 'artist' is being valued over 'art', why not create a piece that is technically and artistically impressive. Otherwise it's an easy piece of work that says nothing people don't already know.
And if the piece is meant to stimulate questions about the conceptions of art, it certainly has, but it seems you're unwilling to have a dialogue with people, instead opting for confrontation.
You say yourself "these two pieces were my first forrays into digital art", so is it not reasonable to think that there is room for improvement and development? Have you already hit the maximum potential of your work? Discussion, rather than defensiveness, leads to progress, which is something all artists should strive for.
Such a self perception of infallibility irks me. If I had taken up a new medium, I would humbly welcome criticism. These are your first attempts at digital work and there is no doubt the level of aptitude shows through...
|
|
dynamixx
New Member
Posts โข 650
Likes โข 1
August 2006
|
The Rules of Art..., by dynamixx on May 19, 2010 23:42:12 GMT 1, Just wanted to say CR great work, the F5 POW skull a harrowing reminder to the 2006-8 era, and I mean that in a good way. Have you done any more of these? Lots of promise - think big
Just wanted to say CR great work, the F5 POW skull a harrowing reminder to the 2006-8 era, and I mean that in a good way. Have you done any more of these? Lots of promise - think big
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 0:19:52 GMT 1, Well, I'm not saying I disagree with the art market here! I, personally, put HUGE value on the signature (I was an art collector for decades before becoming an artist). I would much rather have a crappy Picasso or Dali than a masterpiece by Dolk (who I quite like, actually). But, then again, I do put more value in the artwork than most collectors as well. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing here... I'm torn both ways really...
Oh, and I'm not infallible. I'm by no means a great artist (and I don't mean to be confrontational). In fact, of all the things on earth, I'm probably worst at art, so of course I can improve... I do, however, love to argue... And, I also have an IQ in the stratospheric range. So, I can often sound condescending, even though I'm not trying to be at all.
I'm not trying to stifle dialogue - the major argument here has been whether hand-drawn text looks as good (objectively) as computer-aided text. And, it just simply doesn't (in general, of course). Despite all the arguments to the contrary, there actually is a right and wrong answer here... I'm not stifiling dialogue, I'm just right in this case... If I were wrong, you'd be able to pick up a book and see non-homogenous text; movie credits would all look like Saul Bass's work; advertising banners would still be hand painted; etc... But, they aren't. And, they aren't because it doesn't look as good to the average person. The world - clearly - has a distinct preference for perfect text (it's easier to read since our brains don't get distracted by all the flaws). There's no argument there. It's open-and-shut. And, I'm not going to back down when I'm right...
I'm not shirking criticism, in fact I welcome criticism - I'm shirking criticism that shows not even the vaguest understanding of the specific piece in question (and exhibits a distinct prejudice against certain forms of art).
For instance, the major argument in this thread has been over my use of digital text (despite the fact that using anything else wasn't even possible, would have taken a thousand times longer, and would have completely ruined the piece, not just conceptually, but artistically as well). That's not criticism, that's just kind of insulting...
The whole implication is that digital art is somehow 'lesser' than other forms of art (which is pure crap, btw - as I pointed out, digital art is actually considerably harder to create properly - I should know, I've discovered some of the biggest talent in Hollywood). I'm actually fighting for all the digital artists out there who probably have to put up with this same old crap every day (as I mentioned, this was just me experimenting with their form of art, I'm not a digital artist myself).
10 years ago, it was the same debate - only, it was ACRYLICS that people didn't respect back then, not digital art. Just like today's debate, everyone used to think that REAL artists used nothing but oils. Acrylics were faster, just like computers, so they weren't legitimate. Using acrylics was cheating (just like using computers)... Think about that for a second, and maybe you'll realize the prejudice you've all been exhibiting against digital art.... Real artists use WHATEVER tools are available to them (and whichever tools work best for the specific piece they're creating). Saying that certain tools are more legitimate than others is ludicrous!...
That's the only reason I seem confrontational here: one specific group of artists (some of you guys here) are saying that their own form of art is somehow better or more legitimate than the newer way of doing things, even though the newer way is actually better in most objective respects... Then, you're framing it as if I am the close-minded one here! That's not right. And, I'm just the kind of person who will point that out to you...
Well, I'm not saying I disagree with the art market here! I, personally, put HUGE value on the signature (I was an art collector for decades before becoming an artist). I would much rather have a crappy Picasso or Dali than a masterpiece by Dolk (who I quite like, actually). But, then again, I do put more value in the artwork than most collectors as well. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing here... I'm torn both ways really...
Oh, and I'm not infallible. I'm by no means a great artist (and I don't mean to be confrontational). In fact, of all the things on earth, I'm probably worst at art, so of course I can improve... I do, however, love to argue... And, I also have an IQ in the stratospheric range. So, I can often sound condescending, even though I'm not trying to be at all.
I'm not trying to stifle dialogue - the major argument here has been whether hand-drawn text looks as good (objectively) as computer-aided text. And, it just simply doesn't (in general, of course). Despite all the arguments to the contrary, there actually is a right and wrong answer here... I'm not stifiling dialogue, I'm just right in this case... If I were wrong, you'd be able to pick up a book and see non-homogenous text; movie credits would all look like Saul Bass's work; advertising banners would still be hand painted; etc... But, they aren't. And, they aren't because it doesn't look as good to the average person. The world - clearly - has a distinct preference for perfect text (it's easier to read since our brains don't get distracted by all the flaws). There's no argument there. It's open-and-shut. And, I'm not going to back down when I'm right...
I'm not shirking criticism, in fact I welcome criticism - I'm shirking criticism that shows not even the vaguest understanding of the specific piece in question (and exhibits a distinct prejudice against certain forms of art).
For instance, the major argument in this thread has been over my use of digital text (despite the fact that using anything else wasn't even possible, would have taken a thousand times longer, and would have completely ruined the piece, not just conceptually, but artistically as well). That's not criticism, that's just kind of insulting...
The whole implication is that digital art is somehow 'lesser' than other forms of art (which is pure crap, btw - as I pointed out, digital art is actually considerably harder to create properly - I should know, I've discovered some of the biggest talent in Hollywood). I'm actually fighting for all the digital artists out there who probably have to put up with this same old crap every day (as I mentioned, this was just me experimenting with their form of art, I'm not a digital artist myself).
10 years ago, it was the same debate - only, it was ACRYLICS that people didn't respect back then, not digital art. Just like today's debate, everyone used to think that REAL artists used nothing but oils. Acrylics were faster, just like computers, so they weren't legitimate. Using acrylics was cheating (just like using computers)... Think about that for a second, and maybe you'll realize the prejudice you've all been exhibiting against digital art.... Real artists use WHATEVER tools are available to them (and whichever tools work best for the specific piece they're creating). Saying that certain tools are more legitimate than others is ludicrous!...
That's the only reason I seem confrontational here: one specific group of artists (some of you guys here) are saying that their own form of art is somehow better or more legitimate than the newer way of doing things, even though the newer way is actually better in most objective respects... Then, you're framing it as if I am the close-minded one here! That's not right. And, I'm just the kind of person who will point that out to you...
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by notworthit on May 20, 2010 0:23:38 GMT 1, Such a self perception of infallibility irks me.
Such a self perception of infallibility irks me.
|
|
|
spirit
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,956
Likes โข 516
August 2007
|
The Rules of Art..., by spirit on May 20, 2010 0:26:55 GMT 1, OK....
While the piece you have posted is not to my taste, I completely defend your right to make whatever art you like, in whatever way you like, using whatever methods you like. I have no problem with the idea of digital art at all.
However, I am going to take issue with some of the comments you have made on typography, that being what I do for a living and I like a good argument
"Text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer" "text DOES always look better when electronic - that wasn't a statement of subjectivity, it was a statement of fact"
This is just so wrong, It's hard to know where to begin...
So I'll start with a challenge as that's what you did. Please find me some computer generated text that "looks better" than this...
Should be a pretty easy one for you as text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer right?
"That's why EVERY artist that does text does massive 8 inch high text - because humans CAN'T do smaller text that looks right (well, not without going through a ridiculous amount of hastle anyways)."
Humans can do small text that looks right, but for the most part we've forgotten/lost the skills required to do it. Check out the work of Christopher Plantin for example who was working in Antwerp in the mid 16th century. This guy was cutting 5pt italic type, into steel punches, often by candle light and in reverse of course. Here's his famous Polyglot bible, in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, Syriac and Aramaic from 1572.
What you call hassle, type designers would call skill and patience. Sure it's easy to bash it out quick with a computer, and anyone can do it, but there's not necessarily any craft or skill involved. You do realise that all those computer fonts you use were initially hand drawn by type designers right?
"Oh, and how is the old way of typesetting NOT electronic??? Sure, they may not have used computers, but ALL the typesetting was done with the aid of machinery (kerning, spacing, fonts were all homogenous, spacers, the perfectly horizontal tracks the letters went into, etc...). Heck, hot metal involved making basically a stamp and using that over and over again in a printing press! That sounds a hell of a lot closer to a computer than to hand-painting...."
Well, put simply, it wasn't electronic, because it didn't use electricity. And you shouldn't confuse the industrial revolution with the electronic one. The technology level of printing with moveable metal type which was basically in use in one form or another from around 1450 to 1950, is far closer to printing with woodcuts than it is to computers.
The fact is,over the last 500 years, text has got faster and cheaper to produce, but that has generally been at the expense of it's beauty. Every technological development from Gutenburg's bible to electronic typesetting and digital printing has been about how can we print more, faster, and for less cost. Beauty and "look" has always played second fiddle to these economic factors.
It can be argued that desktop publishing was the worst thing to ever happen to the "look" of Typography. Before that, type setting was a highly skilled job carried out by master craftsmen. Now anyone with a copy of Creative suite can do it, and most do it very badly.
The development of lithographic printing has also meant that text has turned from a tactile 3d medium into a flat 2D medium. Previous methods of printing relied on pressure and created "impression" in the page. Beautifully letterpressed pages are wonderful to hold and touch - you don't get that with "modern" printing.
"And, despite what you think, text does look better when it's sharp! Otherwise, IT'S NOT A GOOD REPRESENTATION of what it's supposed to represent! Again, you might prefer wavy text - but, that's NOT PROPER TEXT! It's wrong. It might look good to you, but it's still wrong. It's not the way it's supposed to look (despite whatever you might think subjectively). It's wrong. "
I'm afraid this comment just has me shaking my head again in it's total wrongness. When you say "otherwise it's not a good representation of what it's supposed to represent", what exactly do you think it's supposed to represent? It's are supposed to represent writing!. Writing is the art of expressing language by letters or other marks. Letters are a system of representing language through graphic means. Letters were signs that were originally scratched on rocks, carved on shells, dug from wax and drawn in the sand with sticks. Any mark that successfully communicates a letter, and by extension writing and language and meaning to another person, has performed it's representational task.
It's arguable when humans first started writing, but It is thought that the first true alphabetic writing appeared around 2000 BC. But according to you, no text created before the invention of electronic typesetting was "proper text"?. It was all "wrong". It was "not the way it was supposed to look" And it is only in the last 50 years or so, of that 4000 year history of letters, that letters have started to look right. Rightโฆ
"Text has straight lines and perfect curves WHEN DRAWN PROPERLY. Text looks better when drawn properly (otherwise books, tv shows and newspapers would use hand-crafted type). It still may look good when drawn by hand - but it doesn't look RIGHTโฆ"
While the logical mind may love them, the human eye hates straight lines and perfect curves. With the exception of some fine geometric display faces, very few fonts tend to be made up of straight lines and curves. Geometric fonts designed "mathematically" like this tend to be unpleasant on the eye and difficult to read. The majority of fonts in use these days, both serif and sans serif faces, tend to have humanist roots - i.e. they are based on hand written letterforms with organic calligraphic shapes. It is these very human, hand drawn characteristics that make them look "right".
OK.... While the piece you have posted is not to my taste, I completely defend your right to make whatever art you like, in whatever way you like, using whatever methods you like. I have no problem with the idea of digital art at all. However, I am going to take issue with some of the comments you have made on typography, that being what I do for a living and I like a good argument "Text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer" "text DOES always look better when electronic - that wasn't a statement of subjectivity, it was a statement of fact" This is just so wrong, It's hard to know where to begin... So I'll start with a challenge as that's what you did. Please find me some computer generated text that "looks better" than this... Should be a pretty easy one for you as text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer right? "That's why EVERY artist that does text does massive 8 inch high text - because humans CAN'T do smaller text that looks right (well, not without going through a ridiculous amount of hastle anyways)." Humans can do small text that looks right, but for the most part we've forgotten/lost the skills required to do it. Check out the work of Christopher Plantin for example who was working in Antwerp in the mid 16th century. This guy was cutting 5pt italic type, into steel punches, often by candle light and in reverse of course. Here's his famous Polyglot bible, in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, Syriac and Aramaic from 1572. What you call hassle, type designers would call skill and patience. Sure it's easy to bash it out quick with a computer, and anyone can do it, but there's not necessarily any craft or skill involved. You do realise that all those computer fonts you use were initially hand drawn by type designers right? "Oh, and how is the old way of typesetting NOT electronic??? Sure, they may not have used computers, but ALL the typesetting was done with the aid of machinery (kerning, spacing, fonts were all homogenous, spacers, the perfectly horizontal tracks the letters went into, etc...). Heck, hot metal involved making basically a stamp and using that over and over again in a printing press! That sounds a hell of a lot closer to a computer than to hand-painting...." Well, put simply, it wasn't electronic, because it didn't use electricity. And you shouldn't confuse the industrial revolution with the electronic one. The technology level of printing with moveable metal type which was basically in use in one form or another from around 1450 to 1950, is far closer to printing with woodcuts than it is to computers. The fact is,over the last 500 years, text has got faster and cheaper to produce, but that has generally been at the expense of it's beauty. Every technological development from Gutenburg's bible to electronic typesetting and digital printing has been about how can we print more, faster, and for less cost. Beauty and "look" has always played second fiddle to these economic factors. It can be argued that desktop publishing was the worst thing to ever happen to the "look" of Typography. Before that, type setting was a highly skilled job carried out by master craftsmen. Now anyone with a copy of Creative suite can do it, and most do it very badly. The development of lithographic printing has also meant that text has turned from a tactile 3d medium into a flat 2D medium. Previous methods of printing relied on pressure and created "impression" in the page. Beautifully letterpressed pages are wonderful to hold and touch - you don't get that with "modern" printing. "And, despite what you think, text does look better when it's sharp! Otherwise, IT'S NOT A GOOD REPRESENTATION of what it's supposed to represent! Again, you might prefer wavy text - but, that's NOT PROPER TEXT! It's wrong. It might look good to you, but it's still wrong. It's not the way it's supposed to look (despite whatever you might think subjectively). It's wrong. " I'm afraid this comment just has me shaking my head again in it's total wrongness. When you say "otherwise it's not a good representation of what it's supposed to represent", what exactly do you think it's supposed to represent? It's are supposed to represent writing!. Writing is the art of expressing language by letters or other marks. Letters are a system of representing language through graphic means. Letters were signs that were originally scratched on rocks, carved on shells, dug from wax and drawn in the sand with sticks. Any mark that successfully communicates a letter, and by extension writing and language and meaning to another person, has performed it's representational task. It's arguable when humans first started writing, but It is thought that the first true alphabetic writing appeared around 2000 BC. But according to you, no text created before the invention of electronic typesetting was "proper text"?. It was all "wrong". It was "not the way it was supposed to look" And it is only in the last 50 years or so, of that 4000 year history of letters, that letters have started to look right. Rightโฆ "Text has straight lines and perfect curves WHEN DRAWN PROPERLY. Text looks better when drawn properly (otherwise books, tv shows and newspapers would use hand-crafted type). It still may look good when drawn by hand - but it doesn't look RIGHTโฆ" While the logical mind may love them, the human eye hates straight lines and perfect curves. With the exception of some fine geometric display faces, very few fonts tend to be made up of straight lines and curves. Geometric fonts designed "mathematically" like this tend to be unpleasant on the eye and difficult to read. The majority of fonts in use these days, both serif and sans serif faces, tend to have humanist roots - i.e. they are based on hand written letterforms with organic calligraphic shapes. It is these very human, hand drawn characteristics that make them look "right".
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by boaty on May 20, 2010 0:27:11 GMT 1, And, I also have an IQ in the stratospheric range. So, I can often sound condescending, even though I'm not trying to be at all.
This has to be the best line I've ever read here...not even the Goldman boys would dare....HOLLYWOODDDDDDDDDDDD!
And, I also have an IQ in the stratospheric range. So, I can often sound condescending, even though I'm not trying to be at all. This has to be the best line I've ever read here...not even the Goldman boys would dare....HOLLYWOODDDDDDDDDDDD!
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by Coach on May 20, 2010 0:34:20 GMT 1, Flippin 'ek Spirit - never thought I would see illuminated manuscripts posted on here. They are my other passion! And you are right, they are more beautiful than anything ever printed or digitally produced, without a doubt. And the pics you posted are of good ones, but certainly not the most exquisite. c
Flippin 'ek Spirit - never thought I would see illuminated manuscripts posted on here. They are my other passion! And you are right, they are more beautiful than anything ever printed or digitally produced, without a doubt. And the pics you posted are of good ones, but certainly not the most exquisite. c
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by notworthit on May 20, 2010 0:36:15 GMT 1, <--- Spirit... That is without doubt, THE best post I've ever seen on here!
<--- Spirit... That is without doubt, THE best post I've ever seen on here!
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by boaty on May 20, 2010 0:39:35 GMT 1, Well done Spirit!
Let's see what you got IQ man!
Well done Spirit!
Let's see what you got IQ man!
|
|
spirit
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,956
Likes โข 516
August 2007
|
The Rules of Art..., by spirit on May 20, 2010 0:39:36 GMT 1, they are more beautiful than anything ever printed or digitally produced, without a doubt. And the pics you posted are of good ones, but certainly not the most exquisite. c
very true mate - I was in a bit of a rush... please feel free to post some better ones.
they are more beautiful than anything ever printed or digitally produced, without a doubt. And the pics you posted are of good ones, but certainly not the most exquisite. c very true mate - I was in a bit of a rush... please feel free to post some better ones.
|
|
stenev
New Member
Posts โข 560
Likes โข 36
December 2009
|
The Rules of Art..., by stenev on May 20, 2010 0:40:56 GMT 1, Fantastic post Spirit, very interesting stuff.
Holywoodnorth - Whilst I find your posts comical ( I am still on the fence as to whether you're winding everyone up or genuinely believe the things you're writing) I look forward to more of your argumentative stratospheric IQ as it does seem to provoke a stimulating discussion.
Fantastic post Spirit, very interesting stuff.
Holywoodnorth - Whilst I find your posts comical ( I am still on the fence as to whether you're winding everyone up or genuinely believe the things you're writing) I look forward to more of your argumentative stratospheric IQ as it does seem to provoke a stimulating discussion.
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 1:08:49 GMT 1, Re: the illuminated manuscripts... Again, you're talking SUBjectively, not OBjectively. OBjectively, something rough CAN'T be as good as something smooth. Humans like smooth, they prefer it. They also like patterns. So, that manuscript LOOKS GREAT as it is, however, that's not to say that it wouldn't look slightly better if the text was slightly more homogenous.
In fact, the very reason WHY you think it looks so good - is PRECISELY because the text is so homogenous! Because it looks so much like a computer did it!...
Re: the illuminated manuscripts... Again, you're talking SUBjectively, not OBjectively. OBjectively, something rough CAN'T be as good as something smooth. Humans like smooth, they prefer it. They also like patterns. So, that manuscript LOOKS GREAT as it is, however, that's not to say that it wouldn't look slightly better if the text was slightly more homogenous.
In fact, the very reason WHY you think it looks so good - is PRECISELY because the text is so homogenous! Because it looks so much like a computer did it!...
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 1:25:11 GMT 1, Oh, and just how is a printing press doing anything by hand? Yes, it's not TECHNICALLY electronic - but it sure as heck is mechanical. It's using automated processes to overcome the weaknesses of the human body (isn't that the definition of a computer). The spacing isn't done by eye - the blocks are cut to the proper sizes, typically by machine. The engraving was once done by hand, not now. The only reason the text is in a straight line is because of extruded metal (even hundreds of years ago), not because the artist thought it was straight or tried to draw a straight line, but because a machine or lathe decided it was straight. That's not doing it by hand - that's using a machine to help. So, unless your printing press was nothing but unique letters, all hand-carved and mounted by hand, you can't claim it was truly hand-done... The whole process of type-setting is using machinery to help produce better looking type.
And, yes, fonts can be BASED on hand-written letters - but that doesn't mean that the fonts we use today are ANYTHING like something we can do by hand (ALL the major fonts have straight, fluid curves, down to the microscopic level, that's something the human hand can't do).
That 5pt font you speak so highly about... You're missing the point, in that he's not carving each letter, using it once and throwing it away - he's using the same letter he carved to print numerous different letters throughout the book. That's not doing something by hand! That's like saying using a stencil is hand-painting something (yes, a hand might have painted it, but that's not the same thing)! If he carved each letter individually, the book wouldn't look nearly as homogenous (or nearly as good).
You are actually making my points for me...
Oh, and just how is a printing press doing anything by hand? Yes, it's not TECHNICALLY electronic - but it sure as heck is mechanical. It's using automated processes to overcome the weaknesses of the human body (isn't that the definition of a computer). The spacing isn't done by eye - the blocks are cut to the proper sizes, typically by machine. The engraving was once done by hand, not now. The only reason the text is in a straight line is because of extruded metal (even hundreds of years ago), not because the artist thought it was straight or tried to draw a straight line, but because a machine or lathe decided it was straight. That's not doing it by hand - that's using a machine to help. So, unless your printing press was nothing but unique letters, all hand-carved and mounted by hand, you can't claim it was truly hand-done... The whole process of type-setting is using machinery to help produce better looking type. And, yes, fonts can be BASED on hand-written letters - but that doesn't mean that the fonts we use today are ANYTHING like something we can do by hand (ALL the major fonts have straight, fluid curves, down to the microscopic level, that's something the human hand can't do). That 5pt font you speak so highly about... You're missing the point, in that he's not carving each letter, using it once and throwing it away - he's using the same letter he carved to print numerous different letters throughout the book. That's not doing something by hand! That's like saying using a stencil is hand-painting something (yes, a hand might have painted it, but that's not the same thing)! If he carved each letter individually, the book wouldn't look nearly as homogenous (or nearly as good). You are actually making my points for me...
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by boaty on May 20, 2010 1:28:34 GMT 1, Humans like smooth, they prefer it. They also like patterns.
Another interesting line, not as good as the other one - but, gives insight into your perception of ??....keep going....interesting!
Humans like smooth, they prefer it. They also like patterns. Another interesting line, not as good as the other one - but, gives insight into your perception of ??....keep going....interesting!
|
|
rsj
New Member
Posts โข 492
Likes โข 34
January 2010
|
The Rules of Art..., by rsj on May 20, 2010 1:36:47 GMT 1, It's arguable when humans first started writing, but It is thought that the first true alphabetic writing appeared around 2000 BC. But according to you, no text created before the invention of electronic typesetting was "proper text"? I was going to mention that as well. How can text that existed since the beginning of writing considered not "proper", just because we now have computer-generated fonts?
Fantastic post Spirit, very interesting stuff. Holywoodnorth - ( I am still on the fence as to whether you're winding everyone up or genuinely believe the things you're writing) I sincerely hope it's the former...
OBjectively, something rough CAN'T be as good as something smooth. Humans like smooth, they prefer it. You should consider using the word "I" instead of "humans" when you voice your personal opinion.
* * * By keep saying all humans prefer sharp clean smooth homogeneous text, you are ignoring the important art form of calligraphy.
It's arguable when humans first started writing, but It is thought that the first true alphabetic writing appeared around 2000 BC. But according to you, no text created before the invention of electronic typesetting was "proper text"? I was going to mention that as well. How can text that existed since the beginning of writing considered not "proper", just because we now have computer-generated fonts? Fantastic post Spirit, very interesting stuff. Holywoodnorth - ( I am still on the fence as to whether you're winding everyone up or genuinely believe the things you're writing) I sincerely hope it's the former... OBjectively, something rough CAN'T be as good as something smooth. Humans like smooth, they prefer it. You should consider using the word "I" instead of "humans" when you voice your personal opinion. * * * By keep saying all humans prefer sharp clean smooth homogeneous text, you are ignoring the important art form of calligraphy.
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 1:41:34 GMT 1, Well, it's all evolution...
All animals are accutely aware of eyes watching them. They'll notice someone looking at them quite readily, even if the watcher is hidden. We're constantly scanning our surroundings for eye-like patterns (predators who want to kill us).
Also, homogenaity is a beneficial trait. Humans find people more attractive - if the left side of their face is a more perfect reflection of the right! It's because people with lop-sided (or non-homogenous) facial features tend to be less healthy than people who do. So, instinctively, we search out the most homogenous, the smoothest, the repeating pattern. Simply because non-perfect patters tend to have something wrong with them...
Well, it's all evolution...
All animals are accutely aware of eyes watching them. They'll notice someone looking at them quite readily, even if the watcher is hidden. We're constantly scanning our surroundings for eye-like patterns (predators who want to kill us).
Also, homogenaity is a beneficial trait. Humans find people more attractive - if the left side of their face is a more perfect reflection of the right! It's because people with lop-sided (or non-homogenous) facial features tend to be less healthy than people who do. So, instinctively, we search out the most homogenous, the smoothest, the repeating pattern. Simply because non-perfect patters tend to have something wrong with them...
|
|
spirit
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,956
Likes โข 516
August 2007
|
The Rules of Art..., by spirit on May 20, 2010 1:42:06 GMT 1, Re: the illuminated manuscripts... Again, you're talking SUBjectively, not OBjectively. OBjectively, something rough CAN'T be as good as something smooth. Humans like smooth, they prefer it. They also like patterns.
Well you failed the challenge...
And I'm not sure you really understand what subjectively and objectively mean.
How can either rough or smooth be "good"? They are just adjectives. Either can be preferable depending on the context - I think most people would prefer rough sand paper to smooth. Some girls like smooth men, and some like a bit of rough.
So, that manuscript LOOKS GREAT as it is, however, that's not to say that it wouldn't look slightly better if the text was slightly more homogenous. In fact, the very reason WHY you think it looks so good - is PRECISELY because the text is so homogenous! Because it looks so much like a computer did it!...
Now those statements really are subjective...
The reason it looks so good is because it is the result of many hours of work by a highly skilled craftsman. Do you really not see beauty of the hand in this work? You really think making it all straight and with perfect curves would improve it? You think it looks like it was done on a computer?
so much for the scale-breaking IQ.
Re: the illuminated manuscripts... Again, you're talking SUBjectively, not OBjectively. OBjectively, something rough CAN'T be as good as something smooth. Humans like smooth, they prefer it. They also like patterns. Well you failed the challenge... And I'm not sure you really understand what subjectively and objectively mean. How can either rough or smooth be "good"? They are just adjectives. Either can be preferable depending on the context - I think most people would prefer rough sand paper to smooth. Some girls like smooth men, and some like a bit of rough. So, that manuscript LOOKS GREAT as it is, however, that's not to say that it wouldn't look slightly better if the text was slightly more homogenous. In fact, the very reason WHY you think it looks so good - is PRECISELY because the text is so homogenous! Because it looks so much like a computer did it!... Now those statements really are subjective... The reason it looks so good is because it is the result of many hours of work by a highly skilled craftsman. Do you really not see beauty of the hand in this work? You really think making it all straight and with perfect curves would improve it? You think it looks like it was done on a computer? so much for the scale-breaking IQ.
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 1:45:06 GMT 1, "It's arguable when humans first started writing, but It is thought that the first true alphabetic writing appeared around 2000 BC. But according to you, no text created before the invention of electronic typesetting was "proper text"?"
OK, you guys STILL aren't understanding OBjective... A proper A doesn't have squiggly lines, even though it's just a symbol that someone dreamed up thousands of years ago (and may have once been squiggly). People all over the world have decided what a PROPER A should look like - and (depending on the font, of course) that typically has razor straight edges and a cross-bar that is EXACTLY horizontal (not 0.001 degree off).
"It's arguable when humans first started writing, but It is thought that the first true alphabetic writing appeared around 2000 BC. But according to you, no text created before the invention of electronic typesetting was "proper text"?"
OK, you guys STILL aren't understanding OBjective... A proper A doesn't have squiggly lines, even though it's just a symbol that someone dreamed up thousands of years ago (and may have once been squiggly). People all over the world have decided what a PROPER A should look like - and (depending on the font, of course) that typically has razor straight edges and a cross-bar that is EXACTLY horizontal (not 0.001 degree off).
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 1:46:32 GMT 1, "How can either rough or smooth be "good"? They are just adjectives. Either can be preferable depending on the context"
When you are trying to represent something that is SUPPOSED to be smooth - UN-smooth IS wrong...
Edit: Sorry, I shouldn't say 'wrong' - just not as good a representation. Objectively, smooth curves and edges are better than rough curves and edges. SUBjectively, that's another matter.
For instance, an O is supposed to be somewhat of a circle. It's not supposed to be a wavy line in the shape of a circle. So, even though a hand-written calligraphy O might look kind of like a perfect circle at first glance - it's still not one when you look closely. It might be the most stunning freaking O you've ever seen, but that doesn't stop the fact that a perfect, smooth outline would typically be better (depending on the font, of course). That's how smooth is better. An O comprised of a smooth curve - by definition - is 'better' than an O that has a rough outline. And, since human beings CAN'T really draw a perfect curve, if they want a perfect O, they need mechanical help...
"How can either rough or smooth be "good"? They are just adjectives. Either can be preferable depending on the context"
When you are trying to represent something that is SUPPOSED to be smooth - UN-smooth IS wrong...
Edit: Sorry, I shouldn't say 'wrong' - just not as good a representation. Objectively, smooth curves and edges are better than rough curves and edges. SUBjectively, that's another matter.
For instance, an O is supposed to be somewhat of a circle. It's not supposed to be a wavy line in the shape of a circle. So, even though a hand-written calligraphy O might look kind of like a perfect circle at first glance - it's still not one when you look closely. It might be the most stunning freaking O you've ever seen, but that doesn't stop the fact that a perfect, smooth outline would typically be better (depending on the font, of course). That's how smooth is better. An O comprised of a smooth curve - by definition - is 'better' than an O that has a rough outline. And, since human beings CAN'T really draw a perfect curve, if they want a perfect O, they need mechanical help...
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 2:01:26 GMT 1, > so much for the scale-breaking IQ.
OK, $20 a point then?...
> so much for the scale-breaking IQ.
OK, $20 a point then?...
|
|