rsj
New Member
Posts โข 492
Likes โข 34
January 2010
|
The Rules of Art..., by rsj on May 22, 2010 0:03:30 GMT 1, Average height of men and women can be compared, objectively, based on numbers and data.
"Good-lookingness" of text can not be compared objectively. There is no measurable average of how good looking hand written text and computer generated text, because there is no way to measure it. There is no standard to measure it against.
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!
Average height of men and women can be compared, objectively, based on numbers and data. "Good-lookingness" of text can not be compared objectively. There is no measurable average of how good looking hand written text and computer generated text, because there is no way to measure it. There is no standard to measure it against. 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!
|
|
rsj
New Member
Posts โข 492
Likes โข 34
January 2010
|
The Rules of Art..., by rsj on May 22, 2010 0:06:37 GMT 1, Well said. I also picked that one up. He initially said he wanted it to look professional. And went on about how more difficult and skilled it is to do his computer art. Then, suddenly, he used it because he wanted everything to look tacky, cheap and dated. Hmm...
Good luck to you I say, with your art, and your ability to reason.
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
Well said. I also picked that one up. He initially said he wanted it to look professional. And went on about how more difficult and skilled it is to do his computer art. Then, suddenly, he used it because he wanted everything to look tacky, cheap and dated. Hmm... Good luck to you I say, with your art, and your ability to reason. 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
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 22, 2010 0:25:49 GMT 1, Really??? I have to explain this one now??? Seriously?...
Text can look 'professional' or not. And, by professional, I mean as fine as possible. Perfect text as opposed to im-perfect text.
Now, you can USE that perfect text to make many different things. Some of those things will look professional (sleek), some will not. Some will look tacky. Some will look ultra-professional and conservative. Some will look like children's books. Some will look like newspapers. Some will look like cheap garage-sale posters.
You can use 'professional' looking text to make something that looks un-professional (it would look even less professional if you used even less-professional-looking text, such as hand-writing)...
In this case, I needed perfect-looking text in order to make something that looked like a cheap (but professionally designed) poster.
You think you've discovered a big hole in my argument, but (like the rest of this thread), you aren't even close to ACTUALLY comprehending the argument at hand...
I can't believe I had to explain that...
Really??? I have to explain this one now??? Seriously?...
Text can look 'professional' or not. And, by professional, I mean as fine as possible. Perfect text as opposed to im-perfect text.
Now, you can USE that perfect text to make many different things. Some of those things will look professional (sleek), some will not. Some will look tacky. Some will look ultra-professional and conservative. Some will look like children's books. Some will look like newspapers. Some will look like cheap garage-sale posters.
You can use 'professional' looking text to make something that looks un-professional (it would look even less professional if you used even less-professional-looking text, such as hand-writing)...
In this case, I needed perfect-looking text in order to make something that looked like a cheap (but professionally designed) poster.
You think you've discovered a big hole in my argument, but (like the rest of this thread), you aren't even close to ACTUALLY comprehending the argument at hand...
I can't believe I had to explain that...
|
|
spirit
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,956
Likes โข 516
August 2007
|
The Rules of Art..., by spirit on May 22, 2010 1:41:26 GMT 1, It's SUPPOSED to look dated...cheap...tacky.
Nice to see you aiming high...
Anyway, everyone knows that text ALWAYS looks better when you cut it out of paper...
Source: www.artyulia.com/
It's SUPPOSED to look dated...cheap...tacky. Nice to see you aiming high... Anyway, everyone knows that text ALWAYS looks better when you cut it out of paper... Source: www.artyulia.com/
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 22, 2010 3:19:59 GMT 1, I will leave you with one final word... Well, 2 final pictures, actually... And, this goes out to all of you who are claiming that art has to be handmade by the artist (ie. no computers, machines, etc...) or it isn't as legitimate art...
The first image is, arguably, the most influential piece of art in the history of the world:
And, you could probably even make an argument for this one being number 2:
If Picasso and Duchamp were here today, your advice would be for them to sculpt these pieces by hand and ruin them...
Actually, let me dumb down the argument a little...
What's the highest level of detail a human is capable of doing?...
The equivalent of what, 50dpi? 100? Typically far less.
I'll even let you cheat and use microscopes and mechanical arms. That gets you what? Using a grain of rice or a human hair as a canvas?...
That's pretty small. That's pretty fine. But no matter how small - A COMPUTER CAN DO BETTER. And, not just a little bit better, orders of magnitude better. If you can do 100dpi, a computer can do a hundred thousand (more even).
Whatever you can draw by hand, you can do exactly the same on a computer - AND MAKE FINER. The computer's lines will be straighter (if that's a requirement, of course). The computer's text will be finer. The outlines will be crisper. There will be less bleeding. The gradients will be perfect. Etc... You could paint the best you can possibly do by hand (if you're arguing that hand-painted look better subjectively), then fix all the minor imperfections (and if you say that the minor imperfections make it look better SUBjectively, well you can keep those and fix any imperfections IN the imperfections, if you wish). The best the most talented human being can do - can be made finer with the help of a computer.
YOU can't improve on the the best computer's work, can you?
But, the best computer CAN improve on your work.
THEREFORE, by any objective measure, the computer wins! You can say the human brush stroke looks better (that's subjective), but it doesn't matter - as the computer could do the same thing - EXACTLY the same thing - AND IMPROVE ON IT...
No matter what, the computer wins.
Computer text IS better.
IN ALL OCCASIONS.
By definition...
Because, no matter what your best is, the computer can make it better. It can copy you - and output EXACTLY what you created OR it can fix it and output something better.
You can't argue that the human is better. BY DEFINITION. Because exactly the same PLUS BETTER equals better.
Always...
I will leave you with one final word... Well, 2 final pictures, actually... And, this goes out to all of you who are claiming that art has to be handmade by the artist (ie. no computers, machines, etc...) or it isn't as legitimate art... The first image is, arguably, the most influential piece of art in the history of the world: And, you could probably even make an argument for this one being number 2: If Picasso and Duchamp were here today, your advice would be for them to sculpt these pieces by hand and ruin them... Actually, let me dumb down the argument a little... What's the highest level of detail a human is capable of doing?... The equivalent of what, 50dpi? 100? Typically far less. I'll even let you cheat and use microscopes and mechanical arms. That gets you what? Using a grain of rice or a human hair as a canvas?... That's pretty small. That's pretty fine. But no matter how small - A COMPUTER CAN DO BETTER. And, not just a little bit better, orders of magnitude better. If you can do 100dpi, a computer can do a hundred thousand (more even). Whatever you can draw by hand, you can do exactly the same on a computer - AND MAKE FINER. The computer's lines will be straighter (if that's a requirement, of course). The computer's text will be finer. The outlines will be crisper. There will be less bleeding. The gradients will be perfect. Etc... You could paint the best you can possibly do by hand (if you're arguing that hand-painted look better subjectively), then fix all the minor imperfections (and if you say that the minor imperfections make it look better SUBjectively, well you can keep those and fix any imperfections IN the imperfections, if you wish). The best the most talented human being can do - can be made finer with the help of a computer. YOU can't improve on the the best computer's work, can you? But, the best computer CAN improve on your work. THEREFORE, by any objective measure, the computer wins! You can say the human brush stroke looks better (that's subjective), but it doesn't matter - as the computer could do the same thing - EXACTLY the same thing - AND IMPROVE ON IT... No matter what, the computer wins. Computer text IS better. IN ALL OCCASIONS. By definition... Because, no matter what your best is, the computer can make it better. It can copy you - and output EXACTLY what you created OR it can fix it and output something better. You can't argue that the human is better. BY DEFINITION. Because exactly the same PLUS BETTER equals better. Always...
|
|
CR
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 918
Likes โข 0
October 2006
|
The Rules of Art..., by CR on May 23, 2010 11:14:56 GMT 1, Let me just reiterate my point again as you have ignored it the whole time, I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with creating the picture on the computer using straight lined text, but that you hadn't created a picture using the words and had merely taken a picture and overlayed some text
Below is an example of what I was getting at, these are created purely using computer text (because they have been converted to JPEG to show here its not the clearest I am afraid but the originals show crisp lines but no backing picture!)
Let me just reiterate my point again as you have ignored it the whole time, I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with creating the picture on the computer using straight lined text, but that you hadn't created a picture using the words and had merely taken a picture and overlayed some text Below is an example of what I was getting at, these are created purely using computer text (because they have been converted to JPEG to show here its not the clearest I am afraid but the originals show crisp lines but no backing picture!)
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 23, 2010 18:11:51 GMT 1, Ignored your point???
WHAT point??? Well, obviously there's several ways of doing this style (making the foreground using the words, making the toning using the words, making the background using the words, etc...).
Whichever you prefer IS SUBJECTIVE! Here, you're saying I should have used the text to form the foreground - and that would be better OBjectively - instead of the shading or the background! That's ludicrous!... I can use the text for whichever parts I want: and I chose shading and background INSTEAD OF foreground. You chose foreground INSTEAD of background or shading. NEITHER is better than the other. It's just an OBjective preference. To say one is better is, well, the height of hubris.
And, if you look at mine, THE SHADING is also created using the words (I tried to keep it less-noticeable, but there are varying levels of transparency in the smaller type, depending on whether they're overtop a shaded area or an unshaded one - for instance, the type overtop an area that should be in shadow IS DARKER than the type right next to it that's supposed to be IN LIGHT).
It's NOT just words layered on top like you posted. Not by a long shot. But, then again, I wouldn't expect you do actually do your homework...
Once again, you guys don't even get it (and aren't even trying)...
EDIT:
I bet you feel pretty stupid right about now:
Ignored your point??? WHAT point??? Well, obviously there's several ways of doing this style (making the foreground using the words, making the toning using the words, making the background using the words, etc...). Whichever you prefer IS SUBJECTIVE! Here, you're saying I should have used the text to form the foreground - and that would be better OBjectively - instead of the shading or the background! That's ludicrous!... I can use the text for whichever parts I want: and I chose shading and background INSTEAD OF foreground. You chose foreground INSTEAD of background or shading. NEITHER is better than the other. It's just an OBjective preference. To say one is better is, well, the height of hubris. And, if you look at mine, THE SHADING is also created using the words (I tried to keep it less-noticeable, but there are varying levels of transparency in the smaller type, depending on whether they're overtop a shaded area or an unshaded one - for instance, the type overtop an area that should be in shadow IS DARKER than the type right next to it that's supposed to be IN LIGHT). It's NOT just words layered on top like you posted. Not by a long shot. But, then again, I wouldn't expect you do actually do your homework... Once again, you guys don't even get it (and aren't even trying)... EDIT: I bet you feel pretty stupid right about now:
|
|
CR
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 918
Likes โข 0
October 2006
|
The Rules of Art..., by CR on May 23, 2010 18:50:26 GMT 1, EDIT: I bet you feel pretty stupid right about now:
Personally I like this one better, but thats my OBjective opinion
EDIT: I bet you feel pretty stupid right about now: Personally I like this one better, but thats my OBjective opinion
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 23, 2010 19:27:26 GMT 1, Oh right, that would require comprehension and humility... Sorry...
Oh right, that would require comprehension and humility... Sorry...
|
|
etched
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,302
Likes โข 72
February 2008
|
The Rules of Art..., by etched on Aug 8, 2010 2:48:28 GMT 1, 'Text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer. Human beings can't physically paint sharp text (as you can easily see in your pictures). So, tell me, what exactly is the point of doing it all by hand - if the final product takes 10 times as long AND doesn't look even half as good??? Seems kinda pointless to me...' E I N E
'Text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer. Human beings can't physically paint sharp text (as you can easily see in your pictures). So, tell me, what exactly is the point of doing it all by hand - if the final product takes 10 times as long AND doesn't look even half as good??? Seems kinda pointless to me...' E I N E
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
The Rules of Art..., by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 15:48:20 GMT 1, I will leave you with one final word... Well, 2 final pictures, actually... And, this goes out to all of you who are claiming that art has to be handmade by the artist (ie. no computers, machines, etc...) or it isn't as legitimate art... The first image is, arguably, the most influential piece of art in the history of the world: And, you could probably even make an argument for this one being number 2: If Picasso and Duchamp were here today, your advice would be for them to sculpt these pieces by hand and ruin them... Actually, let me dumb down the argument a little... What's the highest level of detail a human is capable of doing?... The equivalent of what, 50dpi? 100? Typically far less. I'll even let you cheat and use microscopes and mechanical arms. That gets you what? Using a grain of rice or a human hair as a canvas?... That's pretty small. That's pretty fine. But no matter how small - A COMPUTER CAN DO BETTER. And, not just a little bit better, orders of magnitude better. If you can do 100dpi, a computer can do a hundred thousand (more even). Whatever you can draw by hand, you can do exactly the same on a computer - AND MAKE FINER. The computer's lines will be straighter (if that's a requirement, of course). The computer's text will be finer. The outlines will be crisper. There will be less bleeding. The gradients will be perfect. Etc... You could paint the best you can possibly do by hand (if you're arguing that hand-painted look better subjectively), then fix all the minor imperfections (and if you say that the minor imperfections make it look better SUBjectively, well you can keep those and fix any imperfections IN the imperfections, if you wish). The best the most talented human being can do - can be made finer with the help of a computer. YOU can't improve on the the best computer's work, can you? But, the best computer CAN improve on your work. THEREFORE, by any objective measure, the computer wins! You can say the human brush stroke looks better (that's subjective), but it doesn't matter - as the computer could do the same thing - EXACTLY the same thing - AND IMPROVE ON IT... No matter what, the computer wins. Computer text IS better. IN ALL OCCASIONS. By definition... Because, no matter what your best is, the computer can make it better. It can copy you - and output EXACTLY what you created OR it can fix it and output something better. You can't argue that the human is better. BY DEFINITION. Because exactly the same PLUS BETTER equals better. Always... Duchamp did not come up with the idea of the urinal.
If the wiki quote is factual.
" Duchamp himself credits a female friend with the idea, as he writes to Suzanne Duchamp: "One of my female friends who had adopted the pseudonym Richard Mutt sent me a porcelain urinal as a sculpture"
Duchamp submitted the urinal to provoke and cause controversy.
Picasso at least made the found objects into sculptures with his own hands.
I will leave you with one final word... Well, 2 final pictures, actually... And, this goes out to all of you who are claiming that art has to be handmade by the artist (ie. no computers, machines, etc...) or it isn't as legitimate art... The first image is, arguably, the most influential piece of art in the history of the world: And, you could probably even make an argument for this one being number 2: If Picasso and Duchamp were here today, your advice would be for them to sculpt these pieces by hand and ruin them... Actually, let me dumb down the argument a little... What's the highest level of detail a human is capable of doing?... The equivalent of what, 50dpi? 100? Typically far less. I'll even let you cheat and use microscopes and mechanical arms. That gets you what? Using a grain of rice or a human hair as a canvas?... That's pretty small. That's pretty fine. But no matter how small - A COMPUTER CAN DO BETTER. And, not just a little bit better, orders of magnitude better. If you can do 100dpi, a computer can do a hundred thousand (more even). Whatever you can draw by hand, you can do exactly the same on a computer - AND MAKE FINER. The computer's lines will be straighter (if that's a requirement, of course). The computer's text will be finer. The outlines will be crisper. There will be less bleeding. The gradients will be perfect. Etc... You could paint the best you can possibly do by hand (if you're arguing that hand-painted look better subjectively), then fix all the minor imperfections (and if you say that the minor imperfections make it look better SUBjectively, well you can keep those and fix any imperfections IN the imperfections, if you wish). The best the most talented human being can do - can be made finer with the help of a computer. YOU can't improve on the the best computer's work, can you? But, the best computer CAN improve on your work. THEREFORE, by any objective measure, the computer wins! You can say the human brush stroke looks better (that's subjective), but it doesn't matter - as the computer could do the same thing - EXACTLY the same thing - AND IMPROVE ON IT... No matter what, the computer wins. Computer text IS better. IN ALL OCCASIONS. By definition... Because, no matter what your best is, the computer can make it better. It can copy you - and output EXACTLY what you created OR it can fix it and output something better. You can't argue that the human is better. BY DEFINITION. Because exactly the same PLUS BETTER equals better. Always... Duchamp did not come up with the idea of the urinal.
If the wiki quote is factual.
" Duchamp himself credits a female friend with the idea, as he writes to Suzanne Duchamp: "One of my female friends who had adopted the pseudonym Richard Mutt sent me a porcelain urinal as a sculpture"
Duchamp submitted the urinal to provoke and cause controversy.
Picasso at least made the found objects into sculptures with his own hands.
|
|