|
|
The Rules of Art..., by boaty on May 20, 2010 2:10:38 GMT 1, Ok Hollywood (actually, my good friend's name) - let's have fun before I hit the sack; define:
a) OBjective; and
b) SUBjective
Apart from and inclusive of art.
> so much for the scale-breaking IQ. OK, $20 a point then?...
Ok Hollywood (actually, my good friend's name) - let's have fun before I hit the sack; define: a) OBjective; and b) SUBjective Apart from and inclusive of art. > so much for the scale-breaking IQ. OK, $20 a point then?... |
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 2:18:14 GMT 1, OK, you guys all win. A un-straight line is just better all-around than a straight line. Even though a line (by definition) is supposed to be straight. We'll just forget about that part. How I dared try to argue the opposite in the first place, I'll never know... The sheer hubris of me! You win. Humans do better text than computers and machines, especially at detail work! Always! That's why we see hand-drawn text everywhere where text is really important, like on money, in contracts, on television, in the movies, books, newspapers, logos, ads, etc... All done by hand, because crooked, wavy lines (that only look straight at the macroscopic level) are OBJECTIVELY better than straight lines... How silly of me....
OK, you guys all win. A un-straight line is just better all-around than a straight line. Even though a line (by definition) is supposed to be straight. We'll just forget about that part. How I dared try to argue the opposite in the first place, I'll never know... The sheer hubris of me! You win. Humans do better text than computers and machines, especially at detail work! Always! That's why we see hand-drawn text everywhere where text is really important, like on money, in contracts, on television, in the movies, books, newspapers, logos, ads, etc... All done by hand, because crooked, wavy lines (that only look straight at the macroscopic level) are OBJECTIVELY better than straight lines... How silly of me....
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 2:19:09 GMT 1, SUBjectively is what looks good to you, based on your own criteria.
OBjectively is what looks right, based on outside criteria.
There, as simple as I can make it...
Objectivity is quantifiable, subjectivity is not.
Subjectivity says: 'This is beautiful, I like this.'
Objectivity says: 'This is supposed to have straight lines and a nice smooth curve, does the item in question look like this or not?'
SUBjectively is what looks good to you, based on your own criteria.
OBjectively is what looks right, based on outside criteria.
There, as simple as I can make it...
Objectivity is quantifiable, subjectivity is not.
Subjectivity says: 'This is beautiful, I like this.'
Objectivity says: 'This is supposed to have straight lines and a nice smooth curve, does the item in question look like this or not?'
|
|
spirit
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,956
Likes โข 516
August 2007
|
The Rules of Art..., by spirit on May 20, 2010 2:34:41 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).
No, it's more like the definition of a machine. You still don't seem to have fully grasped the difference between mechanical and electronic.
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.
The spacing was done by eye. It's called kerning and word spacing. When setting metal type you can't just put the letters in next to each other and expect them to look right. Letters require minute adjustments in the space either side of them depending on what letters come before and after. And how do you think they set justified type by hand?
I'm not going to go into details about kerning in letterpress here, this article gives you a good idea of the kind of work involved.
blog.typoretum.co.uk/2009/07/07/kerning-in-letterpress-typesetting/
The whole process of type-setting is using machinery to help produce better looking type.
No. It is to produce more text, faster and cheaper. The point is to disseminate information as quickly and efficiently as possible. The look always comes second to that. Look at the newest form of communication, the web for example - to this day there is still not a standard "built in" way of specifying fonts beyond the 10 or so that most people have installed on their computers. It's coming, but it's taken well over 15 years to get here.
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).
Again, all those fonts you refer to were originally drawn by hand. The human hand is capable of incredible things. Yes there will always be minute irregularities, but that's exactly where the beauty is. It's a shame you can't see that.
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..
I'm afraid it's you who's missing the point. Sure, he's carving a letter and making a mould in order to make multiple letters from it, but for reasons of efficiency, not beauty. Carving each indidual letter used would be a colossal and pointless waste of time. The point is the SHAPE of those letters are the result of the human hand. Making a mould does not suddenly make all the lines perfectly straight or curved. You may be surprised to learn than when Gutenburg printed his bible, he cut many different slight variations of every letter and used them randomly for the specific purpose of imitating the manuscripts that had come before. He spent a lot of time reproducing those human variations and inconsistencies because he wanted his bible to look like it had been written by a scribe.
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). No, it's more like the definition of a machine. You still don't seem to have fully grasped the difference between mechanical and electronic. 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. The spacing was done by eye. It's called kerning and word spacing. When setting metal type you can't just put the letters in next to each other and expect them to look right. Letters require minute adjustments in the space either side of them depending on what letters come before and after. And how do you think they set justified type by hand? I'm not going to go into details about kerning in letterpress here, this article gives you a good idea of the kind of work involved. blog.typoretum.co.uk/2009/07/07/kerning-in-letterpress-typesetting/The whole process of type-setting is using machinery to help produce better looking type. No. It is to produce more text, faster and cheaper. The point is to disseminate information as quickly and efficiently as possible. The look always comes second to that. Look at the newest form of communication, the web for example - to this day there is still not a standard "built in" way of specifying fonts beyond the 10 or so that most people have installed on their computers. It's coming, but it's taken well over 15 years to get here. 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). Again, all those fonts you refer to were originally drawn by hand. The human hand is capable of incredible things. Yes there will always be minute irregularities, but that's exactly where the beauty is. It's a shame you can't see that. 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.. I'm afraid it's you who's missing the point. Sure, he's carving a letter and making a mould in order to make multiple letters from it, but for reasons of efficiency, not beauty. Carving each indidual letter used would be a colossal and pointless waste of time. The point is the SHAPE of those letters are the result of the human hand. Making a mould does not suddenly make all the lines perfectly straight or curved. You may be surprised to learn than when Gutenburg printed his bible, he cut many different slight variations of every letter and used them randomly for the specific purpose of imitating the manuscripts that had come before. He spent a lot of time reproducing those human variations and inconsistencies because he wanted his bible to look like it had been written by a scribe. |
|
spirit
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,956
Likes โข 516
August 2007
|
The Rules of Art..., by spirit on May 20, 2010 2:41:55 GMT 1, Objectivity says: 'This is supposed to have straight lines and a nice smooth curve, does the item in question look like this or not?'
No, this is where you are going wrong. You have a preconception and you started your objective example with a subjective statement: "This is supposed to have nice straight lines and a nice smooth curve".
The idea that letters are supposed to have have straight lines and a nice smooth curves is your opinion only, nothing more. It is certainly not a fact. Many people, not too mention the entire calligraphic profession would disagree with you.
An objective statement would be something like "This item which I am putting on the table for you to examine is blue"
Objectivity says: 'This is supposed to have straight lines and a nice smooth curve, does the item in question look like this or not?' No, this is where you are going wrong. You have a preconception and you started your objective example with a subjective statement: "This is supposed to have nice straight lines and a nice smooth curve". The idea that letters are supposed to have have straight lines and a nice smooth curves is your opinion only, nothing more. It is certainly not a fact. Many people, not too mention the entire calligraphic profession would disagree with you. An objective statement would be something like "This item which I am putting on the table for you to examine is blue" |
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by boaty on May 20, 2010 2:43:59 GMT 1, SUBjectively is what looks good to you, based on your own criteria. OBjectively is what looks right, based on outside criteria. There, as simple as I can make it... Objectivity is quantifiable, subjectivity is not. Subjectivity says: 'This is beautiful, I like this.' Objectivity says: 'This is supposed to have straight lines and a nice smooth curve, does the item in question look like this or not?'
From your definitions (I read):
Objectivity appears to question - requiring a response or validation of sorts;
Subjectivity appears to define - has a solid viewpoint;
interesting....
SUBjectively is what looks good to you, based on your own criteria. OBjectively is what looks right, based on outside criteria. There, as simple as I can make it... Objectivity is quantifiable, subjectivity is not. Subjectivity says: 'This is beautiful, I like this.' Objectivity says: 'This is supposed to have straight lines and a nice smooth curve, does the item in question look like this or not?' From your definitions (I read): Objectivity appears to question - requiring a response or validation of sorts; Subjectivity appears to define - has a solid viewpoint; interesting.... |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 2:46:42 GMT 1, Rough, hand-written text MIGHT look great to you SUBjectively and it might (or might not) look great OBjectively. I'm not arguing the first part (to each his own opinion). I am however arguing the second part. BY DEFINITION, a straighter line would typically (all things being equal) be better OBjectively, than a less-straight line - because the outside criteria for a good line is that it's straight, above all else. It's not MY criteria. I didn't decide that lines should be straighter than not. The world did. Just like the world decided what the alphabet should look like. I'm not saying that text has to look razor sharp - the world is (and has since before computers even existed). However, that being said, IF a painting was painted entirely with rough lines, then, in that case, a straight line WOULDN'T be objectively better, now would it?... My point was that, in general, the objective criteria for text is that it's in a sharp, smooth font (for most intents and purposes). Business letters are typed and not hand-written for just this reason. The human mind associates sharper with professional, and computer-based text is sharper than hand-drawn, simply because we humans have drastic physical limitations...
Rough, hand-written text MIGHT look great to you SUBjectively and it might (or might not) look great OBjectively. I'm not arguing the first part (to each his own opinion). I am however arguing the second part. BY DEFINITION, a straighter line would typically (all things being equal) be better OBjectively, than a less-straight line - because the outside criteria for a good line is that it's straight, above all else. It's not MY criteria. I didn't decide that lines should be straighter than not. The world did. Just like the world decided what the alphabet should look like. I'm not saying that text has to look razor sharp - the world is (and has since before computers even existed). However, that being said, IF a painting was painted entirely with rough lines, then, in that case, a straight line WOULDN'T be objectively better, now would it?... My point was that, in general, the objective criteria for text is that it's in a sharp, smooth font (for most intents and purposes). Business letters are typed and not hand-written for just this reason. The human mind associates sharper with professional, and computer-based text is sharper than hand-drawn, simply because we humans have drastic physical limitations...
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by boaty on May 20, 2010 2:52:13 GMT 1, Rough, hand-written text MIGHT look great to you SUBjectively and it might (or might not) look great OBjectively. ... Business letters are typed and not hand-written for just this reason. The human mind associates sharper with professional, and computer-based text is sharper than hand-drawn, simply because we humans have drastic physical limitations...
Hollywood - what's the value of handwritten signatures on legal docs; credit card receipts etc.?
I actually appreciate your insights as it invokes questions for me...is all!
Rough, hand-written text MIGHT look great to you SUBjectively and it might (or might not) look great OBjectively. ... Business letters are typed and not hand-written for just this reason. The human mind associates sharper with professional, and computer-based text is sharper than hand-drawn, simply because we humans have drastic physical limitations... Hollywood - what's the value of handwritten signatures on legal docs; credit card receipts etc.? I actually appreciate your insights as it invokes questions for me...is all! |
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 2:57:58 GMT 1, "The idea that letters are supposed to have have straight lines and a nice smooth curves is your opinion only, nothing more."
That's what I'm saying: NO, IT'S NOT... Humanity has decided that letter look better when perfect, not me. They decided it millennia ago. I'm just following the herd.
You are arguing SPECIFICS, not GENERALITIES. We're speaking in general here (about all text as a whole).... Of course, there's going to be occassion where hand-drawn type looks great. But - in general - humanity prefers typesetting. Humanity, not me... OBjective, not SUBjective...
And, OF COURSE, type-setting is about speed and efficiency too. But, it ALSO exists in order to make the letters look better AND much more homogenous (otherwise, wouldn't all fonts be hand-written script fonts then - what point would there be in creating helvetica)...
"The idea that letters are supposed to have have straight lines and a nice smooth curves is your opinion only, nothing more."
That's what I'm saying: NO, IT'S NOT... Humanity has decided that letter look better when perfect, not me. They decided it millennia ago. I'm just following the herd.
You are arguing SPECIFICS, not GENERALITIES. We're speaking in general here (about all text as a whole).... Of course, there's going to be occassion where hand-drawn type looks great. But - in general - humanity prefers typesetting. Humanity, not me... OBjective, not SUBjective...
And, OF COURSE, type-setting is about speed and efficiency too. But, it ALSO exists in order to make the letters look better AND much more homogenous (otherwise, wouldn't all fonts be hand-written script fonts then - what point would there be in creating helvetica)...
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 3:00:20 GMT 1, "what's the value of handwritten signatures on credit card receipts etc.?"
What do you mean? Would I buy a credit card receipt from someone famous (or an artist I liked)? No. Do I like the idea that everyone has a personally-identifiable, often highly-artistic, mark that they use as their bond and seal? Sure....
Edit: Would I buy a credit card receipt from a long-dead artist I liked, who doodled a little something after his signature?... Hmmm...
I also don't like signatures on things that aren't supposed to be signed (like props or posters or packaging), and avoid those signatures like the plague (although, such huge amounts of signed items being fake plays into that as well)...
"what's the value of handwritten signatures on credit card receipts etc.?"
What do you mean? Would I buy a credit card receipt from someone famous (or an artist I liked)? No. Do I like the idea that everyone has a personally-identifiable, often highly-artistic, mark that they use as their bond and seal? Sure....
Edit: Would I buy a credit card receipt from a long-dead artist I liked, who doodled a little something after his signature?... Hmmm...
I also don't like signatures on things that aren't supposed to be signed (like props or posters or packaging), and avoid those signatures like the plague (although, such huge amounts of signed items being fake plays into that as well)...
|
|
spirit
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,956
Likes โข 516
August 2007
|
The Rules of Art..., by spirit on May 20, 2010 3:05:03 GMT 1, I am however arguing the second part. BY DEFINITION, a straighter line would typically (all things being equal) be better OBjectively, than a less-straight line - because the outside criteria for a good line is that it's straight, above all else. It's not MY criteria. I didn't decide that lines should be straighter than not. The world did.
This is just a ridiculous comment. Lines don't need to be straight. The only kind of line that needs to be straight is a straight line... Would Banksy's "This is where I draw the line" have looked better if it was straight?
Just like the world decided what the alphabet should look like. I'm not saying that text has to look razor sharp - the world is (and has since before computers even existed). However, that being said, IF a painting was painted entirely with rough lines, then, in that case, a straight line WOULDN'T be objectively better, now would it?... My point was that, in general, the objective criteria for text is that it's in a sharp, smooth font (for most intents and purposes). Business letters are typed and not hand-written for just this reason. The human mind associates sharper with professional, and computer-based text is sharper than hand-drawn, simply because we humans have drastic physical limitations...
So finally you seem to have seen some sense. You were wrong to say "Computer generated text is always better" whereas it is fair to say that in some circumstances, computer generated text is more appropriate (business letters for example).
Which brings us nicely back to what is more appropriate for the art...so I'll leave it there.
I reckon you owe me about $500.
I am however arguing the second part. BY DEFINITION, a straighter line would typically (all things being equal) be better OBjectively, than a less-straight line - because the outside criteria for a good line is that it's straight, above all else. It's not MY criteria. I didn't decide that lines should be straighter than not. The world did. This is just a ridiculous comment. Lines don't need to be straight. The only kind of line that needs to be straight is a straight line... Would Banksy's "This is where I draw the line" have looked better if it was straight? Just like the world decided what the alphabet should look like. I'm not saying that text has to look razor sharp - the world is (and has since before computers even existed). However, that being said, IF a painting was painted entirely with rough lines, then, in that case, a straight line WOULDN'T be objectively better, now would it?... My point was that, in general, the objective criteria for text is that it's in a sharp, smooth font (for most intents and purposes). Business letters are typed and not hand-written for just this reason. The human mind associates sharper with professional, and computer-based text is sharper than hand-drawn, simply because we humans have drastic physical limitations... So finally you seem to have seen some sense. You were wrong to say "Computer generated text is always better" whereas it is fair to say that in some circumstances, computer generated text is more appropriate (business letters for example). Which brings us nicely back to what is more appropriate for the art...so I'll leave it there. I reckon you owe me about $500. |
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 3:09:37 GMT 1, You're still not getting what I'm saying... If the criteria is that the letters should be as smooth as possible - OBJECTIVELY - then computer generated text IS always better, simply because a human being can't physically draw anything as smooth. It's about which is best at something extremely intricate - and humans can't hold a candle to computers. Computers can physically do it better. That's an objective fact. Whichever one looks better to your eye IS BESIDE THE POINT...
You're still not getting what I'm saying... If the criteria is that the letters should be as smooth as possible - OBJECTIVELY - then computer generated text IS always better, simply because a human being can't physically draw anything as smooth. It's about which is best at something extremely intricate - and humans can't hold a candle to computers. Computers can physically do it better. That's an objective fact. Whichever one looks better to your eye IS BESIDE THE POINT...
|
|
spirit
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,956
Likes โข 516
August 2007
|
The Rules of Art..., by spirit on May 20, 2010 3:13:40 GMT 1, "The idea that letters are supposed to have have straight lines and a nice smooth curves is your opinion only, nothing more." That's what I'm saying: NO, IT'S NOT... Humanity has decided that letter look better when perfect, not me. They decided it millennia ago.
Er....but letters have only been "perfect" (at least electronicall generated) for about the last 50 years, so how can humanity have decided that millennia ago? They were no mechanical or electronic means of producing text at all then...everything was done by hand.
Anyway, enough. I'm off to bed. Goodnight.
"The idea that letters are supposed to have have straight lines and a nice smooth curves is your opinion only, nothing more." That's what I'm saying: NO, IT'S NOT... Humanity has decided that letter look better when perfect, not me. They decided it millennia ago. Er....but letters have only been "perfect" (at least electronicall generated) for about the last 50 years, so how can humanity have decided that millennia ago? They were no mechanical or electronic means of producing text at all then...everything was done by hand. Anyway, enough. I'm off to bed. Goodnight. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 3:17:43 GMT 1, Let me phrase this better...:
1. Computer-generated text is OBJECTIVELY better than hand-drawn (you've all agreed on that, it's much smoother, much more homogenous, on much smaller scales - it's far closer to the ideal than a human could ever hope to create by hand). ALL your arguments have been about SUBjectivity.
2. Computer-generated text is NOT NECESSARILY better than hand-drawn text SUBJECTIVELY. That all depends on other (subjective) criteria. But, as you can see around you, it does tend to be...
If you are arguing either of those things: you are wrong...
Let me phrase this better...:
1. Computer-generated text is OBJECTIVELY better than hand-drawn (you've all agreed on that, it's much smoother, much more homogenous, on much smaller scales - it's far closer to the ideal than a human could ever hope to create by hand). ALL your arguments have been about SUBjectivity.
2. Computer-generated text is NOT NECESSARILY better than hand-drawn text SUBJECTIVELY. That all depends on other (subjective) criteria. But, as you can see around you, it does tend to be...
If you are arguing either of those things: you are wrong...
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 3:23:29 GMT 1, "Er....but letters have only been "perfect" (at least electronicall generated) for about the last 50 years, so how can humanity have decided that millennia ago?"
You're forgetting about heiroglyphics, etc... The South Americans all used homogenous pictographs. If it wasn't homogenous, people wouldn't know what exactly that picture meant. From the day they printed the Gutenberg Bible people have preferred homogenous type. Etc... Ever since text was invented, we've been trying to homogenize it (and we've finally almost done it, just a few hundred more languages to pick off and it'll be done, plus now that no one writes anything by hand anymore, it'll all end up being homogenous computer vector fonts eventually, I guess)...
"Er....but letters have only been "perfect" (at least electronicall generated) for about the last 50 years, so how can humanity have decided that millennia ago?"
You're forgetting about heiroglyphics, etc... The South Americans all used homogenous pictographs. If it wasn't homogenous, people wouldn't know what exactly that picture meant. From the day they printed the Gutenberg Bible people have preferred homogenous type. Etc... Ever since text was invented, we've been trying to homogenize it (and we've finally almost done it, just a few hundred more languages to pick off and it'll be done, plus now that no one writes anything by hand anymore, it'll all end up being homogenous computer vector fonts eventually, I guess)...
|
|
spirit
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,956
Likes โข 516
August 2007
|
The Rules of Art..., by spirit on May 20, 2010 3:33:26 GMT 1, Let me phrase this better...: 1. Computer-generated text is OBJECTIVELY better than hand-drawn (you've all agreed on that, it's much smoother, much more homogenous, on much smaller scales - it's far closer to the ideal than a human could ever hope to create by hand). ALL your arguments have been about SUBjectivity. 2. Computer-generated text is NOT NECESSARILY better than hand-drawn text SUBJECTIVELY. That all depends on other (subjective) criteria. But, as you can see around you, it does tend to be... If you are arguing either of those things: you are wrong...
OK - my last post on the matter really...
Again, you are trying to pass off your subjective opinion that "Computer-generated text is better than hand-drawn" as objective. That's a totally subjective statement that you cannot prove and I for one don't agree with. How exactly are you defining better? faster? cheaper? more aesthetically pleasing? If the latter then the existence of illuminated manuscripts like I posted at the beginning of our conversation (which you failed to counter with a better looking example of electronic text) not to mention the entire profession of calligraphy proves that your statement cannot be true. The truth is, different types of letterforms have their appropriate uses and any judgement about which is "better" is totally dependent on the context in which they are to be used.
It is usually better to type set a business letter.
It is usually better to hand write a love letter.
Thank you and good night.
Let me phrase this better...: 1. Computer-generated text is OBJECTIVELY better than hand-drawn (you've all agreed on that, it's much smoother, much more homogenous, on much smaller scales - it's far closer to the ideal than a human could ever hope to create by hand). ALL your arguments have been about SUBjectivity. 2. Computer-generated text is NOT NECESSARILY better than hand-drawn text SUBJECTIVELY. That all depends on other (subjective) criteria. But, as you can see around you, it does tend to be... If you are arguing either of those things: you are wrong... OK - my last post on the matter really... Again, you are trying to pass off your subjective opinion that "Computer-generated text is better than hand-drawn" as objective. That's a totally subjective statement that you cannot prove and I for one don't agree with. How exactly are you defining better? faster? cheaper? more aesthetically pleasing? If the latter then the existence of illuminated manuscripts like I posted at the beginning of our conversation (which you failed to counter with a better looking example of electronic text) not to mention the entire profession of calligraphy proves that your statement cannot be true. The truth is, different types of letterforms have their appropriate uses and any judgement about which is "better" is totally dependent on the context in which they are to be used. It is usually better to type set a business letter. It is usually better to hand write a love letter. Thank you and good night. |
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 3:36:35 GMT 1, "This is just a ridiculous comment. Lines don't need to be straight. The only kind of line that needs to be straight is a straight line..."
You are obviously unaware of the DEFINITION of a line (in the most basic sense):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_%28geometry%29
You'll notice that the very first sentence says it has to be straight...
"This is just a ridiculous comment. Lines don't need to be straight. The only kind of line that needs to be straight is a straight line..." You are obviously unaware of the DEFINITION of a line (in the most basic sense): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_%28geometry%29You'll notice that the very first sentence says it has to be straight... |
|
lifeonwalls
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,407
Likes โข 173
September 2007
|
The Rules of Art..., by lifeonwalls on May 20, 2010 3:42:32 GMT 1, Thank you spirit for that extremely insightful post.
Pahnl has some great points as well.
(great thread btw)
Thank you spirit for that extremely insightful post.
Pahnl has some great points as well.
(great thread btw)
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 3:57:23 GMT 1, "That's a totally subjective statement that you cannot prove and I for one don't agree with. How exactly are you defining better? faster? cheaper? more aesthetically pleasing?"
See, you're still not even close to understanding what I'm saying. If you were, you wouldn't have included 'aesthetically pleasing' in there - as that is as far from OBjective as possible. In fact, it's ENTIRELY subjective...
I'm defining better as which is closer to the ideal representation of what is trying to be represented! That's objective! Which looks closer to how it's supposed to look. Whatever I think looks better - is beside the point (that's NOT objective, that's SUBjective). When speaking objectively, all that matters are facts (opinions never enter into it, it's black and white).
Which one looks better is subjective. It's a matter of opinion. There's no right or wrong. However... Which one has smoother lines? Which one looks more like (whatever we currently believe to be) the ideal letter? Which one has a better curve on the parts that should be curved? Those are objective questions. Those all have right-and-wrong answers that can be answered. You CAN say a perfect circle is better than an imperfect one - OBjectively (you can't say that subjectively). The better circle is simply the one that's closest to being a circle when you're speaking objectively.
You're continually arguing that I can't say that - because hand-drawn text looks good SUBjectively. You're not understanding my point...
If a curve is supposed to be smooth (like on an O or a P), then you CAN say that one is better (OBjectively) than the other (if one is straighter and smoother than the other, like it's supposed to be). If you're drawing a circle, a perfect circle IS objectively better than an imperfect circle. It's not wrong to say that. It's just a fact...
Therefore, if you agree that computers can work to a higher level of detail than even the most talented human - then you HAVE to agree that computers are better objectively. By definition...
Let me put this another way...
1. All the fonts (that we currently use on a daily basis) are based on two things: straight lines and curves. Letters aren't supposed to have a jagged edge (you can argue that lots of great looking text does have a jagged edge, but that's beside the point). An A isn't created by crossing 3 jagged lines - it's made with three straight lines, at least in theory. The lines (typically) are supposed to be as straight as possible, and the curves as fluid.
but...
2. Human beings can't draw straight lines on the micro scale. We need mechanical help. We just can't physically do it. We can't draw perfectly parallel lines either (another extremely important characteristic of a 'perfect' letter).
3. Computers CAN do these things, and they can do them MUCH smaller and more detailed than we can. By any criteria, when examined closely, the computer text will be closer to what it's supposed to look like. Simple as that. That's an objective determination.
therefore...
You CAN say that computers are better at doing text than us - objectively - simply because it's true.... By ANY objective criteria you care to choose, the computers have us beat by a long shot! You have to revert to subjective arguments in order to argue otherwise.
Which line is straighter isn't a question you argue over - one will be straighter than the other. All you have to do is measure it. The line I think is straighter won't be different from the line you think is straighter. It's not a question of subjectivity, or opinion, it's just a question of looking to see...
For instance, draw a circle in photoshop, copy it and then make a version that's anti-aliased. Same circle, two versions. They look pretty much the same, but you will easily be able to say that the anti-aliased version is 'better' - objectively - because it's closer to what a circle is supposed to be. It has a smooth edge (like a circle's supposed to have) instead of a jagged one... BUT, that doesn't mean that you anti-alias every circle you ever draw! Just because it's better objectively, doesn't mean it's better for your purposes subjectively. You have to make a decision as to which is more important for your purposes (and for this piece in question, I decided that objective criteria were far more important to the piece conceptually)... But, that doesn't mean you can't still say that the anti-aliased circle is a better circle - because it IS a better circle (by whatever objective criteria you decide to use). All you have to do is look at them closely. One will be jagged and one will be smoother. The same in all other respects, but one will be smoother. How can that make it anything other than 'better' It's not a question of opinion, it's a question of fact. A circle's supposed to be perfectly smooth and round, so clearly the anti-aliased circle IS better (if only OBjectively)...
"That's a totally subjective statement that you cannot prove and I for one don't agree with. How exactly are you defining better? faster? cheaper? more aesthetically pleasing?" See, you're still not even close to understanding what I'm saying. If you were, you wouldn't have included 'aesthetically pleasing' in there - as that is as far from OBjective as possible. In fact, it's ENTIRELY subjective... I'm defining better as which is closer to the ideal representation of what is trying to be represented! That's objective! Which looks closer to how it's supposed to look. Whatever I think looks better - is beside the point (that's NOT objective, that's SUBjective). When speaking objectively, all that matters are facts (opinions never enter into it, it's black and white). Which one looks better is subjective. It's a matter of opinion. There's no right or wrong. However... Which one has smoother lines? Which one looks more like (whatever we currently believe to be) the ideal letter? Which one has a better curve on the parts that should be curved? Those are objective questions. Those all have right-and-wrong answers that can be answered. You CAN say a perfect circle is better than an imperfect one - OBjectively (you can't say that subjectively). The better circle is simply the one that's closest to being a circle when you're speaking objectively. You're continually arguing that I can't say that - because hand-drawn text looks good SUBjectively. You're not understanding my point... If a curve is supposed to be smooth (like on an O or a P), then you CAN say that one is better (OBjectively) than the other (if one is straighter and smoother than the other, like it's supposed to be). If you're drawing a circle, a perfect circle IS objectively better than an imperfect circle. It's not wrong to say that. It's just a fact... Therefore, if you agree that computers can work to a higher level of detail than even the most talented human - then you HAVE to agree that computers are better objectively. By definition... Let me put this another way... 1. All the fonts (that we currently use on a daily basis) are based on two things: straight lines and curves. Letters aren't supposed to have a jagged edge (you can argue that lots of great looking text does have a jagged edge, but that's beside the point). An A isn't created by crossing 3 jagged lines - it's made with three straight lines, at least in theory. The lines (typically) are supposed to be as straight as possible, and the curves as fluid. but... 2. Human beings can't draw straight lines on the micro scale. We need mechanical help. We just can't physically do it. We can't draw perfectly parallel lines either (another extremely important characteristic of a 'perfect' letter). 3. Computers CAN do these things, and they can do them MUCH smaller and more detailed than we can. By any criteria, when examined closely, the computer text will be closer to what it's supposed to look like. Simple as that. That's an objective determination. therefore... You CAN say that computers are better at doing text than us - objectively - simply because it's true.... By ANY objective criteria you care to choose, the computers have us beat by a long shot! You have to revert to subjective arguments in order to argue otherwise. Which line is straighter isn't a question you argue over - one will be straighter than the other. All you have to do is measure it. The line I think is straighter won't be different from the line you think is straighter. It's not a question of subjectivity, or opinion, it's just a question of looking to see... For instance, draw a circle in photoshop, copy it and then make a version that's anti-aliased. Same circle, two versions. They look pretty much the same, but you will easily be able to say that the anti-aliased version is 'better' - objectively - because it's closer to what a circle is supposed to be. It has a smooth edge (like a circle's supposed to have) instead of a jagged one... BUT, that doesn't mean that you anti-alias every circle you ever draw! Just because it's better objectively, doesn't mean it's better for your purposes subjectively. You have to make a decision as to which is more important for your purposes (and for this piece in question, I decided that objective criteria were far more important to the piece conceptually)... But, that doesn't mean you can't still say that the anti-aliased circle is a better circle - because it IS a better circle (by whatever objective criteria you decide to use). All you have to do is look at them closely. One will be jagged and one will be smoother. The same in all other respects, but one will be smoother. How can that make it anything other than 'better' It's not a question of opinion, it's a question of fact. A circle's supposed to be perfectly smooth and round, so clearly the anti-aliased circle IS better (if only OBjectively)... |
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 5:39:56 GMT 1, Oh yeah, Spirit forgot to mention a VERY important thing about how engravers work... For hundreds of years, they've had machines that miniaturize their designs. So, they don't actually make a small piece by hand, they actually simply make a much easier, much larger piece - and then the machine miniaturizes everything and carves the die...
Oh yeah, Spirit forgot to mention a VERY important thing about how engravers work... For hundreds of years, they've had machines that miniaturize their designs. So, they don't actually make a small piece by hand, they actually simply make a much easier, much larger piece - and then the machine miniaturizes everything and carves the die...
|
|
rsj
New Member
Posts โข 492
Likes โข 34
January 2010
|
The Rules of Art..., by rsj on May 20, 2010 6:05:02 GMT 1, "Text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer"
"looks better" is a personal opinion. All you can say is that certain computer-generated text is more accurate to the way alphabets are defined regarding straight lines etc, or closer to what you personally consider as the "ideal alphabets". However, whether they "look better" than other text created without computer is another matter, a personal subjective opinion.
And no, the world has NOT decided upon a fixed ideal set of alphabets. Alphabets are simple shapes consisting of combination of simple lines (straight and curved) but within those rules there are many possible variations. Since a printed/written line always has a width, that adds to the infinite amount of possibilities.
"Text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer"
"looks better" is a personal opinion. All you can say is that certain computer-generated text is more accurate to the way alphabets are defined regarding straight lines etc, or closer to what you personally consider as the "ideal alphabets". However, whether they "look better" than other text created without computer is another matter, a personal subjective opinion.
And no, the world has NOT decided upon a fixed ideal set of alphabets. Alphabets are simple shapes consisting of combination of simple lines (straight and curved) but within those rules there are many possible variations. Since a printed/written line always has a width, that adds to the infinite amount of possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
The Rules of Art..., by Deleted on May 20, 2010 7:38:52 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".
this post is one of the most convincing statements I've ever read.
now go back to the discussion..
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". this post is one of the most convincing statements I've ever read. now go back to the discussion.. |
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 20, 2010 8:20:30 GMT 1, Am I really the only person here that understands the actual meaning of the words subjective and objective??? Cause several of you clearly don't understand what the words mean... Signing off...
Am I really the only person here that understands the actual meaning of the words subjective and objective??? Cause several of you clearly don't understand what the words mean... Signing off...
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by schlomo on May 20, 2010 13:32:07 GMT 1, Oh yeah, Spirit forgot to mention a VERY important thing about how engravers work... For hundreds of years, they've had machines that miniaturize their designs. So, they don't actually make a small piece by hand, they actually simply make a much easier, much larger piece - and then the machine miniaturizes everything and carves the die...
Having worked very closely with the best engravers in London for the last 10 years of my life i can assure you thats wrong. Just as an aside when you see people engraving trophies, such as footy or golf trophies, the engraver always works by hand. They are skilled enough to do this and make it look level, and right. Infact watching the fa cup get engraved the other day i was really interested and slightly saddened that they used a template to do it, i know the guy who did it and had a word with him about it, but he said he had to do it that way cos of time constraints, not cos of it looking any better, and he would rather have done it by hand as he is a hand engraver.......
I've seen silverware from the 1600's with the most amazing coats of arms engraved on there. Heraldic engraving in the old days never ever used machines, and machine engraving was so poor until recently that any engraver worth his salt wouldn't be seen dead using one. I know people who have won prizes for their engraving and frankly dont think they'd be happy with people saying they use machines to do it. Brightcutting, which is a form of engraving which became popular around the 1780's, has to be done by hand for the best results, no dyes, no machines, just a guy sitting down with a tool and working for hours to get it right.
When you've studied for 8 or so years to become the best, you dont start using a machine to do things faster, its just not cricket.
(also thinking about it, every good engraver and silversmith i know has also made their own tools, interesting eh??)
I dont really know that much about type, computer based or not, but engraving and how its done i do know.
Anyways, interesting thread. As i said originally i really like the idea of the first piece, look forward to seeing how you progress matey.
Oh yeah, Spirit forgot to mention a VERY important thing about how engravers work... For hundreds of years, they've had machines that miniaturize their designs. So, they don't actually make a small piece by hand, they actually simply make a much easier, much larger piece - and then the machine miniaturizes everything and carves the die... Having worked very closely with the best engravers in London for the last 10 years of my life i can assure you thats wrong. Just as an aside when you see people engraving trophies, such as footy or golf trophies, the engraver always works by hand. They are skilled enough to do this and make it look level, and right. Infact watching the fa cup get engraved the other day i was really interested and slightly saddened that they used a template to do it, i know the guy who did it and had a word with him about it, but he said he had to do it that way cos of time constraints, not cos of it looking any better, and he would rather have done it by hand as he is a hand engraver....... I've seen silverware from the 1600's with the most amazing coats of arms engraved on there. Heraldic engraving in the old days never ever used machines, and machine engraving was so poor until recently that any engraver worth his salt wouldn't be seen dead using one. I know people who have won prizes for their engraving and frankly dont think they'd be happy with people saying they use machines to do it. Brightcutting, which is a form of engraving which became popular around the 1780's, has to be done by hand for the best results, no dyes, no machines, just a guy sitting down with a tool and working for hours to get it right. When you've studied for 8 or so years to become the best, you dont start using a machine to do things faster, its just not cricket. (also thinking about it, every good engraver and silversmith i know has also made their own tools, interesting eh??) I dont really know that much about type, computer based or not, but engraving and how its done i do know. Anyways, interesting thread. As i said originally i really like the idea of the first piece, look forward to seeing how you progress matey. |
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by schlomo on May 20, 2010 14:46:20 GMT 1, Am I really the only person here that understands the actual meaning of the words subjective and objective??? Cause several of you clearly don't understand what the words mean... Signing off...
Also, just thinking on the objective/subjective point. An objective opinion is one based on fact, without any bias. Maybe you can prove me wrong here, but i know of no scientific studies that show without a doubt that computer generated text is more aesthetically pleasing than hand written text. Therefore your view cannot be objective, it is subjective, because it is your personal view that it looks better, there are no facts that back this up. My personal view is that less linear text is more aesthetically pleasing, that doesnt mean i'm right and you're wrong, it means we both have different subjective opinions.
I do agree that you first piece wouldnt have worked as nicely if it was done by hand because of the subject matter, but then i havent seen it done by hand so again this is my subjective opinion (as there are no facts to back it up it cannot be an objective opinion).....
Edit- Sorry just re read your post where you say you're not talking about the aesthetics so ignore my comment above.
However, you do then say:
"I'm defining better as which is closer to the ideal representation of what is trying to be represented! That's objective! Which looks closer to how it's supposed to look"
I dont really get this. Surely an ideal representation of anything is a subjective thing, after all what looks ideal to you might not look ideal to me.
Am I really the only person here that understands the actual meaning of the words subjective and objective??? Cause several of you clearly don't understand what the words mean... Signing off... Also, just thinking on the objective/subjective point. An objective opinion is one based on fact, without any bias. Maybe you can prove me wrong here, but i know of no scientific studies that show without a doubt that computer generated text is more aesthetically pleasing than hand written text. Therefore your view cannot be objective, it is subjective, because it is your personal view that it looks better, there are no facts that back this up. My personal view is that less linear text is more aesthetically pleasing, that doesnt mean i'm right and you're wrong, it means we both have different subjective opinions. I do agree that you first piece wouldnt have worked as nicely if it was done by hand because of the subject matter, but then i havent seen it done by hand so again this is my subjective opinion (as there are no facts to back it up it cannot be an objective opinion)..... Edit- Sorry just re read your post where you say you're not talking about the aesthetics so ignore my comment above. However, you do then say: "I'm defining better as which is closer to the ideal representation of what is trying to be represented! That's objective! Which looks closer to how it's supposed to look" I dont really get this. Surely an ideal representation of anything is a subjective thing, after all what looks ideal to you might not look ideal to me. |
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 21, 2010 19:02:58 GMT 1, ME: Men are taller than women.
YOU GUYS: No they aren't! Lindsay Davenport is over 6'2"!
ME: So???
YOU GUYS: So, you're an idiot. Men aren't taller than women. Lindsay Davenport proves it!
ME: No, it doesn't. It proves nothing. We are speaking in general here, and in general, men are taller than women.
YOU GUYS: How naive! Brigitte Nielson is over 6 feet too! You're only 5'11". What an idiot! That proves you're wrong.
ME: No it doesn't. The average height of all men is X, the average height of women is Y. X is greater than Y. Therefore, men are taller than women IN GENERAL. You can mention specifics all day long, if you want. But, you're not counter-acting my argument like you think you are...
YOU GUYS: Idiot! Annie Liebowitz is six feet tall!
ME: It doesn't matter if the tallest woman on earth was ten feet taller than the tallest man - it still wouldn't change the fact that men are taller than women ON AVERAGE! And, when you are talking about ALL men and ALL women AS A WHOLE, you have to speak in generalities, not specifics...
YOU GUYS: What a stupid statement! Jerry Hall is 6' too!
YOU GUYS: You tell him!
YOU GUYS: Yeah, what a moron! You show him!
ME: Do you guys seriously not understand generalities and specifics???
YOU GUYS: In general, you're an idiot!
ME: But, you aren't even understanding my argument, let alone the syntax I'm using...
YOU GUYS: Saffron Burrows is six feet tall too! You're just soooooooo wrong!
ME: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!
ME: Men are taller than women.
YOU GUYS: No they aren't! Lindsay Davenport is over 6'2"!
ME: So???
YOU GUYS: So, you're an idiot. Men aren't taller than women. Lindsay Davenport proves it!
ME: No, it doesn't. It proves nothing. We are speaking in general here, and in general, men are taller than women.
YOU GUYS: How naive! Brigitte Nielson is over 6 feet too! You're only 5'11". What an idiot! That proves you're wrong.
ME: No it doesn't. The average height of all men is X, the average height of women is Y. X is greater than Y. Therefore, men are taller than women IN GENERAL. You can mention specifics all day long, if you want. But, you're not counter-acting my argument like you think you are...
YOU GUYS: Idiot! Annie Liebowitz is six feet tall!
ME: It doesn't matter if the tallest woman on earth was ten feet taller than the tallest man - it still wouldn't change the fact that men are taller than women ON AVERAGE! And, when you are talking about ALL men and ALL women AS A WHOLE, you have to speak in generalities, not specifics...
YOU GUYS: What a stupid statement! Jerry Hall is 6' too!
YOU GUYS: You tell him!
YOU GUYS: Yeah, what a moron! You show him!
ME: Do you guys seriously not understand generalities and specifics???
YOU GUYS: In general, you're an idiot!
ME: But, you aren't even understanding my argument, let alone the syntax I'm using...
YOU GUYS: Saffron Burrows is six feet tall too! You're just soooooooo wrong!
ME: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!
|
|
nah
New Member
Posts โข 822
Likes โข 34
April 2009
|
The Rules of Art..., by nah on May 21, 2010 19:26:55 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)
really? on page 1 you said you stated you wanted the piece to look sleek and professional
to be honest i think the problem here stemmed from you saying "text ALWAYS looks better when done on the computer" instead of "text always has straighter lines and less geometrical imperfections when done on the computer". whether or not its better depends on what the purpose is... legibility, charm, style etc
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) really? on page 1 you said you stated you wanted the piece to look sleek and professional to be honest i think the problem here stemmed from you saying "text ALWAYS looks better when done on the computer" instead of "text always has straighter lines and less geometrical imperfections when done on the computer". whether or not its better depends on what the purpose is... legibility, charm, style etc |
|
lifeonwalls
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,407
Likes โข 173
September 2007
|
The Rules of Art..., by lifeonwalls on May 21, 2010 20:18:56 GMT 1, 
|
|
etched
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,302
Likes โข 72
February 2008
|
The Rules of Art..., by etched on May 21, 2010 20:28:03 GMT 1,
excellent CR -
|
|
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). 
