cpt-plaid In reply to ??? [2012-08-01 20:32:33 +0000 UTC]

Is it the paradox that atheists say they have no religion, or that their religion is not to believe in god?

If one tries to establish a hierarchy of thought tracing the causality of ideas, where would it end? I've been trying to concieve of a model other than Konig's Infinity Lemma, which would produce a singular proto-idea as an origin for all modern consciousness.

I have a tendancy to treat any notion as an absolute and try to understand its logical extreems. If a model fails in its extremes, then how can one state it succeeds at all?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loona-Cry In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-08-02 09:38:28 +0000 UTC]

The paradox is that they have to acknowledge the construct of religion in order to reject religion (god), and the acknowledgement of religion reinforces the existence of the construct. So by rejecting the construct they're only reinforcing its validity by making it worthy of acknowledgement.

It ends wherever it's practical to end for the individual, but academics don't really have that luxury. Some academic approaches or individuals avoid long trails of tracing ideas by applying a general reason across all of the hierachies. Karl Marx used finance to explain hierachies and Foucalt again stripped it back using power relations in general to explain the hierachies. For academics tracing back to a singular idea or theme seems to be preferable as it provides a common ground for understanding when it comes to interpretation and they don't have to spend an infinite amount of books justifying their interpretation with concept tracing. It's easier for other academics to analyse their ideas by using these approaches.

If a model fails a new one is created to correct these perceived failings or people adapt aspects of different models to compensate. Understand that these "failings" are determined by the context of the existing academics and so "failings" generally refer to whatever kind of thought has fallen out of fashion in the academic world. Models are far too subjective to provide any definite guidelines for interpretations which is why we've gone through so many of them. Pick whatever works for you, seems to be the general rule for following a model.

Just out of curiosity, is this type of discussion a hobby for you or course work? It's great revision for me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to Loona-Cry [2012-08-03 04:34:58 +0000 UTC]

The problem I have with the atheist example is it only works if a relegion is dependant upon a god. Religion exist because people follow it, but that doesn't dictate a god exists. If we take religion as a social construct, then the athiest's religion is to have no god. They may not gather to observe practices, but observing religious practices is not necessary for someone to be religious or to have faith.

This is a hobby for me. I am a chemistry student who functions on first order logic and prefers dealing in absolutes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loona-Cry In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-08-03 12:49:44 +0000 UTC]

No, it still applies to atheism; any form of rejection based on resistance of the dominant ideology in the hierachy reinforces the validity of the opposed. Religion is the dominant ideology and atheism the marginalised ideology in this particular system of opposites. It's not about the rejection of the construct of "god" itself but "god" as an extension of the constructed ideology of "religion" itself if that makes more sense. Practices or a lack of practices count as a feature of the construct.

Ah, at least you have the option of it being a hobby, I'm not that lucky. Absolutes would be great in life, but they just don't work because the interpretation process we use as humans is too subjective and it rubs off onto the objective material. Even empirical data isn't completely objective because it undergoes interpretation in order to be understood, thus is becomes subjective. :/

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to Loona-Cry [2012-08-08 02:40:17 +0000 UTC]

So, because atheism would not exist without the presence of religion, atheism perpetuates the perception of a god.

Would this causality extend into polytheism and monotheism? All major religions are currently monotheistic (including Hinduism), but structures such as Judeo-Christian-Muslim came from polytheistic societies.

I'd make the statement that modern jail also fall into these paradoxes, since they generate a criminal culture which they try to prevent.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loona-Cry In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-08-08 05:28:00 +0000 UTC]

Bingo! *thumbs up*

It extends to any kind of binary opposition relationship so black vs white, male vs female, written vs spoken (less obvious), good vs evil. As to the different shades of religion, I'm not sure, but it's a possibility if you frame the discussion in terms of defining the dominant ideology by what it lacks in the form of the marginalised ideology. My studies are based around the philosophy of literature more than anything else.

Yes, jail is perfect day to day example we can actually see. A petty thief can go in relatively minor then come out a fully blown monster. I don't think there's really a way to fix it either... well, not one the politicians will accept.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to Loona-Cry [2012-08-08 06:29:03 +0000 UTC]

As a fix for jail, I'd vote military service. It restructures a person's lifestyle and teaches them how to act in a responsible unit. This would also be teaching combat skills to felons and giving them access to weapons, but that might be the stigma caused by the current punishment system talking. Punishment only works for those who expect to get caught and doesn't address the cause of the crime (was the person a jerk or desperate).

I think I'm trying to connect this topic to some other philosophies. When talking about dichotomies, one usually thinks of the yin and yang from the I Ching. It starts out as the singular chi force (etherial energy), which is then divided into yin yang, then into eight trigrams, then the 64 hexagrams and they continue to divide until you get all the competing forces in this corporeal world. Would it be fair to say that Derrida was attempting to establish a heirarchy within a gradation system similar to this system described in the I Ching?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loona-Cry In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-08-12 01:43:34 +0000 UTC]

Probably wouldn't work for everyone though, but no system does. The prison system overflowing is a clear indication that something fundamental in society isn't working if that many people are ending up there.

Well, you can definitely see the similaries between yin and yang and Derrida's ideas (lack of self contained identities etc). As for what he was trying to do with the hierarchies, well, I'm honestly not sure how deep he intended to follow that particular logic strain. Derrida applies uses his ideas as an approach to texts so I think he'd get to a point and stop for pragmatic purposes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to Loona-Cry [2012-08-13 03:35:48 +0000 UTC]

So Derrida more adjusts and adapts a new system for each problem instead of trying to come up with a singular unifying approach?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loona-Cry In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-08-13 11:18:03 +0000 UTC]

Well, the same base idea is applied to each system then I guess it mutates based on the individual.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KCKinny In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 05:33:56 +0000 UTC]

1. Of course there's room for political or not-political art. Even if there wasn't room, the room would be made.
2. Fan art is the only movement I see. It's taken a life of it's own. I view that as negative, as it's not so much a personal creation but simply escapism added onto an established fantasy.
3. I hate "figuring" out an artist's intent. If the art intrigues me, of course I will think about it and wish to know more. If the art is just some weird ass thing without any communication that I have to stare at to even figure out if it was supposed to mean anything, then screw it.
4. Always. What's art without a message? If there's no intent behind the art, why are you doing it? Who's it for?

Honestly, I don't see anything in Suggestivism that isn't covered in Surrealism...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to KCKinny [2012-07-27 06:30:48 +0000 UTC]

2. Fan art is the only movement I see. It's taken a life of it's own. I view that as negative, as it's not so much a personal creation but simply escapism added onto an established fantasy.

Wait, what? You are aware that fanart and fanfic are older than print, right? One of the oldest Mary-Sues/Marty Stues goes by the name of "Lancelot" (yes indeed, he's the invention of Crétien de Troyes)...
So in that short statement you dismiss half of the artistic output humanity produced over the centuries. Every non-commissioned illustration to a story or a poem, almost every painting Dante Rossetti ever painted. Every single picture illustrating Homer's "Ilias" or "Ulysses" is fanart, as is every picture ever drawn or painted illustrating "The Lord of the Rings". Come to think of it, there are those three (soon to be four) movies by Peter Jackson... wait, any movie adaptation ever - fanart!

The only thing that changed recently is the copyright law. Artists producing fanart aren't generally allowed to use their stuff commercially. That's it. Oh, and the internet. People have always drawn crappy stuff, but the internet makes it visible.

Ah, you picked up on the Surrealism thing too. I'm sort of relieved that I'm not the only one to think so.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KCKinny In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-27 07:18:56 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, but fanart/fic has never had it's own crowd specifically (and sometimes solely) geared toward the creation of fantasies within the guidelines of established popular stories/games/movies/what-have-you. It's a movement of a massive amount of people dedicated to creating their own alterations or add-ons to pop culture. THAT'S what's different.
Hell, even World of Warcraft fan art is being displayed in reputable galleries now. I'd call it a movement.
That's having been said, I simply find fan fic's, fan comics and so on largely uninspired. That's probably just because of the massive amount of boring stereotypical stuff that I see, but whatever. Grump.

Yeah, it's totally surrealism. Surrealism that's pulling an Oscar Wilde, making "art for art's sake" with no particular intention to actually communicate anything.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

sleepyowlet In reply to KCKinny [2012-07-27 12:18:33 +0000 UTC]

No? Sherlock Holmes had an avid and productive fandom back in the day. Just an example. Sure, the communities are bigger now, but that's only because people have different means of communication than, say, a hundred years ago. There are also only very few artists who produce only fanart - some only produce it because their original stuff gets no attention. It's also a good way to start - if you have to practice your craft, you might as well do something that's fun, instead of drawing boring stuff (besides there's the whole motivation thing - praise motivates people, and choosing a subject the viewers like is conductive to getting it). It's also a good way to relax and get the creative juices flowing again - I know quite a few professional, published writers who write fanfiction.

And WoW fanart in galleries? Why not? As long as it's good and people like it... I'd take that over Beuys any day. Or an exhibition by just another Dalí/Picasso/Kandinsky/Heisig-clone (innovative "original" art is the exception too, not the rule). Plus, I really don't see the difference between a painting of a Bloodelf and a painting of King Arthur. Illustrations are illustrations.

And it's usually the rule - whatever you look at - fanfic, published books, fanart, free art, commissioned art, music... there's always thirty percent decent to brilliant stuff (roughly), and seventy percent crap. I've read fanfics that hurt my brain after half a page, and I've read fanfic superior to many published novels. Roughly the same goes for fanart.

And it's always been that way - the only reason why past art seems to be better is that most of the crap didn't survive to our days.

That's my take ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KCKinny In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-28 05:26:52 +0000 UTC]

I got all that on your defense of fanfic/art.
I've got a negative opinion, you've got a positive one.
But do you agree on it being a movement?
Or am I blowing it out of proportion? I think it's big enough and popular enough to be called a movement.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to KCKinny [2012-07-28 06:34:45 +0000 UTC]

Well, my point was that it's always been there - it's just very much out in the open now. So maybe yes, it might be a movement, but not so much artistically, more socially.

It just goes against my grain, when people belittle what fanartists do and insult their creativity. Because, you know, sometimes, if their stuff is really good, fanartists are getting promoted to official designer/illustrator/staff-artist/whatever (there was a girl here on dA who drew a fancomic for Dragon Age. The head writer of the games liked it so much, that he invited her to draw it officially, for the series. Just an example). The boundaries between official art, fanart, and free art have nothing to do with quality or imagination, just with money.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KCKinny In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-28 07:03:18 +0000 UTC]

Hm. Good point. It's certainly more socially driven than stylistically or by subject matter.

Well, hell, I'm not saying that a fan artist isn't a good artist. But as a genre, I'm not for it. I know of good fan artists and fan works and have heard of fan works getting official recognition. It's just an easy rut of escapism that few seem to climb out of and really make something of it.
Same as anything I suppose, though fan works are quite a bit more obvious. Perhaps the insider nature of fan art irks me, as (for instance) Sherlock or Doctor Who fan works are completely meaningless to me due to having not seen the shows. Thus, without good technique and a communication (besides what only a fan would understand), fan works don't mean much to those not in that little loop.
Aaaaaanyway. This actually has been a rather invigorating conversation! It's nice to have an honest exchange of opinions.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Ludjia In reply to KCKinny [2012-07-28 10:10:53 +0000 UTC]

Perhaps your irk is not with "fan art" but with "bad fanart" If I drew an image of my cat because I wished to capture the "essence" of that cat it would not be fanart, but if I wanted to capture the essence of somethign that was made by another human it would be fan art. Fan art just means the source material was already created, does it not? If you look at actually good fan art (good by your definition) of a topic that you are interested in, then maybe your irk will not be there? I'm bothered by sonic fan character inserts etc here on DA, the young inexperienced fanartists are just following their passion but there is more of them than there is professional experienced practitioners here in DA (makes sence, experience takes a long time) but the word "fan art" itself I belive is not the issue for you. What about someone who brings something new to an old character, what about a representation that changes your preceptions of the source material? that I would consider good fanart, it is not a copy but an interpretation. (other factors may define "good" but i'm not here to dicuss that today) I percieve browsing for fanart on DA a difficult challenge similar to my own difficulty browsing and accepting art in the medium of Photomanipulation. I cannot say that "photomanipulation" is not art, but I have only once in many hundreds of DA artworks seen a well made photomanipulation. It is a new medium where not a lot is explored yet, and many inexperienced practioners drown out the (opinally) good ones. You see what i'm saying?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KCKinny In reply to Ludjia [2012-07-29 06:33:22 +0000 UTC]

Yes, I see what you're saying. I'm aware of the exceptions to the rule. I freakin' love the new "Pluto" manga, which is a modern spin-off of Astro Boy. I've never read or seen Astro Boy.
But I'm speaking of what I perceive to be the rule.
When a fan work is good, it is good in it's own right, without awareness of the source work being necessary for the work to have an impact on the viewer/reader. THAT is what I'm talking about. I have a negative view of the vast majority of fan works that require insider knowledge for their impact on the viewer. They have to use the original work's popularity to make themselves visible or for their work to mean anything to the viewer.
You see my side of it? I speak not of the exceptions, I speak of what I see to be the rule. Low quality work haunts every part of the art field, but drive to create a world of one's own is dampened by focusing on worlds created by others.
My opinion is based on this: I want everyone to make their own worlds and not live in the worlds made by others.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ludjia In reply to KCKinny [2012-07-29 19:13:10 +0000 UTC]

I agree that we should focus on living in our own worlds rather than others for the most part, but I feel that a lot of artists learn to appreciate these worlds through a fandom in the first place, baby steps. Using myself as an example, I didn't realize I could create my own world until after I had tried self insertion into other fandoms and making characters in it or altering those stories, (though such were never posted on the internet thankfully) I think fanart is still important and though there are many who ride on the popularity of fandoms, I don't see that as a rule but a subcategory of people using it to their benefit only rather than working out passion. To me there is no difference between drawing from nature or drawing from a digitally rendered videogame environment, as long as the artist still works out of passion or whatever drives them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KCKinny In reply to Ludjia [2012-07-30 07:20:32 +0000 UTC]

Eh. I tire of this conversation as I've already had it with another Deviant and I feel the points have been explored.
I write from my own experience. In my experience, fan fic got the least response from my audience (live readings in show-and-tell at school) and the least interest. When I asked them to vote on which stories they wanted me to finish, they all voted for my original stories. They weren't interested in re-works of familiar cartoons and books.
You'll always find that category of people who want to hear even more of what they already love and they'll take it from others who share their interests.
I retain my opinion that people should focus on making their own worlds - even when heavily inspired from others' works.
But I have already said this and no longer wish to continue the discussion. We have our different opinions. But it is good to have both sides of it thoroughly examined.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ludjia In reply to KCKinny [2012-07-30 09:17:12 +0000 UTC]

Allright, that is understandable. Good to chat with you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sleepyowlet In reply to KCKinny [2012-07-28 07:27:26 +0000 UTC]

I've had fun too It's nice to have a discussion once in a while with someone who holds a different opinion and doesn't scream "Troll!"

As for the insider-nature; it has happened a lot to me too. But that's how I learn about interesting books/movies/TV-shows/etc. a lot - I read an intriguing fanfic, or a fanfic-writer I enjoyed also wrote for a fandom I don't know, so I check out the source material (e.g. that's how I started watching "Sanctuary"), because, if the fanfic is that good, the source material can't be that bad. Sometimes I'm disappointed, because the fanfic is actually better

You haven't seen "Dr. Who" and "Sherlock Holmes"? They are brilliant. Maybe you can rent them somewhere? I think you'd enjoy both. They are very well put together and quite deep. Also funny as hell

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KCKinny In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-29 04:21:58 +0000 UTC]

Well, this is the end of our discussion, but you have given me a new opinion to view fan works from (though I still have mine, grouch that I am.)
I admit fan art and a number of reviews led me to check out two sci-fi shows. But I don't watch TV or movies very much - I get impatient really really fast. I'll spend 7 hours reading a book before I spend 1/2 an hour watching a show.
Thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

gorgonbreath In reply to KCKinny [2012-07-27 09:46:56 +0000 UTC]

I'm so happy that there's someone else who thinks that fanfic and fan art are really uninspired as a "genre". The reason i like a thing is because of they way the creator intended it to be,i'm not in the least bit interested in someone else's shipping or altering a character's personality to suit themselves.

People who only write fanfic or draw fan art will say that everything is fanfic/art because it makes them feel better about their own innability to create something of their own.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

KCKinny In reply to gorgonbreath [2012-07-28 05:30:49 +0000 UTC]

Agreed.
Although there are valid fan works in the world... (Alice in Wonderland had been remade a bajillion times, which is what keeps the book relevant.)
But overall, as a genre, I find it pretty weak and the audience is informed cliques. The cliques love it (insider appeal, I guess) and no one else does.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

gorgonbreath In reply to KCKinny [2012-07-28 18:00:31 +0000 UTC]

Yes, anything in the Public Domain, like Alice is fine,although i do feel that Alice in Wonderland has been done to death now.

I have recently found that if you insult fanfic, even a little bit, the fans of it go insane.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sleepyowlet In reply to KCKinny [2012-07-28 06:48:01 +0000 UTC]

But overall, as a genre, I find it pretty weak and the audience is informed cliques. The cliques love it (insider appeal, I guess) and no one else does.

It just occurred to me that this also goes for modern (abstract) art...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KCKinny In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-28 06:54:28 +0000 UTC]

I agree 100%.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sleepyowlet In reply to gorgonbreath [2012-07-27 18:16:49 +0000 UTC]

Hm. Then what would you call Crétien de Troyes creating an author avatar (also known as a Mary-Sue/Marty-Stue) and shipping him with the female lead of a pre-existing story, even though the lady in question is married to somebody else? I'd call that fanfic. Illustrating that stuff? Fanart. Marion Zimmer-Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon"? She did everything you said, she altered the characters of a pre-existing story to suit her own purposes. Fanfic much? The entire Expanded Universe of Star Wars? I could go on. These are just examples. Humanity has been doing this for millennia. It's part of who we are.

The only difference between original art and fanart is that you are allowed to sell/make money with original stuff. And I don't see the difference between portraying a fictional character and drawing, say, my brother. I didn't create him either. A portrait is a portrait.

And I'm not saying this to feel better about myself (I do plenty of original artwork, btw., I just don't put it on the internet where it can be stolen), I'm saying this because it's a fact.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gorgonbreath In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-27 20:20:00 +0000 UTC]

Okay then the Greek Myths become the Greek fanfic, Mormonism is fanfic, The Bible that's fanfic too...where will it end?

The Star Wars expanded universe isn't fanfic exactly because a great majority of it is licensed by Lucas Arts,so it it's a licensed product. Fans may make their own characters of course, those would be fanfic or fanart. Any commissioned art works that appear in Star Wars expanded universe books or games are owned by Lucas Arts,they were paid commissions,not fanart.
Commissioned illustrations for books are merely illustrating the story so the reader may get a better understanding of events,these are not fan art.

There was never and will never be copyright on Mythology, a person may use it anyway they wish,so it doesn't have to fall under the fanfic banner.

The only difference between fanfic and original stuff is that with fanfic you stole the idea and characters and setting and everything else (except maybe your fanchars) from another person. True fact.

Fan art is just a drawing of something you like,nothin' wrong with that.

I put all my original art on DA where it can be stolen,but also hopefully it will appreciated by like-minded people. I prefer to do that than add to the ever increasing pile of fan art where it would most likely drown in a sea of sameness and blandness.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to gorgonbreath [2012-07-27 21:11:53 +0000 UTC]

First thing: I never meant to include religion in this discussion. I'm only talking art and literature. Which the three written versions (I mentioned) of the Arthurian legend are. Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote the oldest version we have, and he didn't intend it as a religious text. The closest genre I can think of is non-fiction (it's part of a history book about the Kings of England). De Troyes read it, liked it, and wrote his thing, adding the Grail stuff and the knights (like Lancelot). Marion Zimmer-Bradley took de Troyes' novel and based her own novel on it. Chain of fanfic. Pure literature.

And what about illustrations that aren't commissioned? They do exist, always have. At least illustrations that were not commissioned by the author or a publisher. The Ancient Greek painted Ulysses and his adventures on pottery long after Homer's death. Many other artists were inspired by the story (it's literature, we know Homer wrote it) and created art without paying royalties... what does the age of the source material matter? Only when it comes to money.

So it does come down to money, which says absolutely nothing about the quality of the art. So reusing existing stories that aren't copyrighted = okay, but doing the same with copyrighted material (without making profit, so it isn't really stealing, I'm not hurting the profits of anyone) = bad? And not only bad but artistically inferior? What does copyright have to do with the quality of art? What kind of reasoning is that? The only good art is art you are allowed to sell?

I really don't see the difference between creating fanfic and writing a real-person fanfic in the form of a historical novel, for example. Marion Zimmer-Bradley reworking a novel written by Crétien de Troyes and adding her own spin on things = good, me reworking a game like Dragon Age into stories containing my personal interpretation = bad? Not to mention that Bioware supports fan-creations (as long as they are not used commercially), so stealing really isn't an issue.

That's... I don't even... Double standard much?

Well, if I'd put my original stuff online I'd just add to the ever increasing pile of original art that nobody gives a flying fig about (I do have some very old stuff here that's been sitting in my gallery for aaaages - without one single comment). Or it might get stolen. Both options are not desirable. If someone steals my fanart, I'm not losing anything. And yes, it has happened.

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

CoolCurry In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-27 22:25:28 +0000 UTC]

* I meant literature, not mythology.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to CoolCurry [2012-07-28 06:41:27 +0000 UTC]

Got it!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CoolCurry In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-27 22:24:40 +0000 UTC]

To the ancient Greeks, Homer's works would be history not mythology. So any paintings thereof wouldn't be fan fiction.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to CoolCurry [2012-07-28 05:53:12 +0000 UTC]

So... real-person fanfic/fanart? It does exist (there were unlicensed fanarticles of Enrico Caruso, for example, like little handbags in the shape of his face)...

To those who came later, Homer's works were literature, and many transformative works were created. Drawings, paintings, retellings, films... the list goes on. Nothing in these is original, everything was written by Homer. My point is, that the argument was, "Fanfic is bad because it's unimaginative, because it uses characters that aren't original." I just wanted to show the double standard.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

CoolCurry In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-28 14:41:52 +0000 UTC]

I see what you are saying about Fanfic, but I don't think Greek pots illustrating Homer's work are fanfic. It would be equivalent to how people have photographs and posters of important political and cultural leaders today.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to CoolCurry [2012-07-28 14:56:20 +0000 UTC]

Not fanfic, but fanart. The drawing of a fictional character or real person that one likes. If an artist did it as a commission, it's commissioned fanart. The point is that the artist didn't create that character. Homer did. Ulysses is a fictional character (at least the way Homer wrote him - even if there was a minor king by that name, he certainly isn't identical to the one in the epos), and the Ancient Greeks knew it. Besides, if I draw, say, Marilyn Manson (who actually exists) on a cup, it would still be fanart.

So no, I don't think that it would be like a portrait of an important political figure - Ulysses is on the pottery because people liked him. It's not political at all. Say, would you like the face of your favourite politician on your coffee-mug? Would you have a poster of them in your bedroom?

Maybe Ulysses is an unfortunate example, Lancelot is a much better one.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

gorgonbreath In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-27 22:13:08 +0000 UTC]

Art of stories appears on pottery and as mosaic and mural as part of oral tradition,to tell a story to those who cannot read,it's not fan art as such.

The Arthurian legends are partially based on on history and a lot of supposition and myth,they open to interpretation,i don't consider historical works as fanfic,they are part of my country's cultural identity,like Saint George and the Dragon.

Myths and legends are in the public domain, anyone may tell their stories, but works that are copyrighted belong only to the author or artist,technically fanfic is in violation of copyright, but generally authors don't like to sue their fans,but they could if they chose to. Publishing a fanfic on the internet is still publishing, whether money changes hands or not.

Unlike your original art, my origianl stuff has fans, gets faved and is downloaded. There is no difference between me putting my own characters and stories here on DA and someone else publishing a free web comic, there are plenty of popular,original webcomics.

No one probaly cares about what you think of Dragon Age, they only care about what they think of Dragon Age. Fanfic fans get too involved in shipping wars and often feel that because they are true fans they're interpretation is somehow better or equal the source material. All fanfic fans feel this way about their fanfic,that's why they get into arguments about it.

You can keep your fanfic, and i will carry on with own projects,i am driven to create my own mythologies whether they are popular or not,popularity doesn't really matter,it is the creative process of starting a work completely from scratch that is my passion. Since i'm only a very amateur artist and am not bothered about selling my works people can steal them if they think it will do them any good,it probably won't.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to gorgonbreath [2012-07-28 06:24:59 +0000 UTC]

To help the illiterate? Sure, especially when in the private homes of the rich (as wall/floor decorations and on the dishes), where the illiterate would never see it. This is, by the way where most of these things were found. The literacy quota in Antiquity was very high, actually. Besides, one pic of Ulysses and the Sirens on a plate is hardly enough to tell a story. And it's, well, on a plate (or a cup/goblet whatever I don't remember).

Crétien de Troyes wrote a novel. It was meant for entertainment purposes only. Lancelot is his creation. Where is the difference between me using his Lancelot, and me using, say, Harry Potter? Both are characters invented by writers in a novel. the only differences are the age of the source material, and the copyright. What would both have to do with the quality or originality of the resulting art?

And no, fanfic is not a violation of copyright - because the profits of the company holding it are not hurt by it. And it's the profits that are the main concern here. It was decided by courts of law a while ago (there are no cease and desist orders any more, and places like AO3 are very concerned with the legal aspect of what they are doing). Today many companies/writers actually support fanfic, because they noticed that it's actually adding to their profit. Because it's a kind of advertisement (and it's a quite effective one) they don't need to pay for.

Good for you, if you've got fans for your original art. I've got them for my fanart. My fanart has been stolen already, I really, really don't want that to happen to my original stuff, because I do sell that occasionally. I don't make a living on it, but still. The thought of someone stealing it and making money... ouch.

The shipping wars are instigated by immature twits. Not all fanfic writers are immature twits. To each their own, that's my opinion, and I've always stood by it. I got attacked a lot for liking the particular character I like, but I've never attacked anyone for liking another character. Sure, I've had heated discussions about character interpretation, but I had those at university too, when I was still studying English Literature.

Oh, I write and create my own mythologies. I just write fanfic because it's fun, relaxing, and good practice for my English skills. But you do your thing, I do mine - it's just not very nice to belittle other people's creative process for being different from your own. Because that's what you were doing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

randomaxes In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 05:04:42 +0000 UTC]

a person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself.
art is freedom.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AnotherOddity In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 04:46:40 +0000 UTC]

This is a very interesting and gripping new 'ism'.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tabatafattori In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 04:38:17 +0000 UTC]

1 - Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there's room enough for Both?

I think the space for everyone, because the art world is like dreams you trying to accomplish, we strive to always have a space.

2 - Do you sense there any current being wellness "movement" in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?

In the art world has its good side and its bad side, but I believe with the technology and the Internet become easier and more beautiful to convey to the world resources.

3 - Do you try to "figure out" an artist's intent or Message When looking at art, or do you simply decide Whether you like or dislike each piece of art?

All art that I like is because I identify with them, it is as if the artist had me drawing, I live all the arts that I bookmark. When I describe is an art like I dreamed of that beautiful place and dream about the person I would like to have near me. I think fairy tales always live, so I identify with each art that I like and I also see that the artist is very important that people know how he wants his art to be recognized. I'm afraid of offending any artist with my comments, it was never my intention, so I leave the criticism to those who really are professional.

4 - In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?

In my art I try to show my feelings, and put all the emotions I feel on the day that I do, it stands to reason that we preoculpar with the technical and aesthetic as we spend our emotions to others and each one plays good or bad. My art is not very good, I'm learning, are important to the criticism that we can always improve and convey good things for all people.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Yamitora1 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 04:37:33 +0000 UTC]

Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?

There is room for both. Art has always walked fine lines, taken sides or created sides of their own. Its always been that way; it will stay that way for the most part. However, with most of the world in economic crisis, more and more political art will rise as a result of these times.

Your average artist is typically one canvas or computer crash away from going totally bankrupt. Most artist turn their monetary woes into art. The same goes for artist who wish to voice their opinions on war, hunger and standard everyday political turbulence .

Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?

Due to the condition of the global economy, I sense that the art world is going to come to a screeching halt. The only movement will be to the poor house or the welfare office. While this will be momentary in the grand scheme of thing, the repercussions will be felt for generations to come.

As I stated earlier, most artist are just one canvas or computer crash away from economic disaster. No one wants to pay for art when they can barely afford food or pay the bills.

Plus with our world becoming increasingly dependent and/or addicted to technology, many people have additional bills that are more or less a necessity now. Only 5 years ago, cellphones, internet and especially cellphones with internet access were luxuries. The latter two were even somewhat nonessential entertainment expenses.

By 2006 Cellphones had already staked a claim of importance in day to day life. However, having home internet access or was not as important. Even having an E-mail address was optional much like a cellphone was still somewhat considered to be. However in today's world its a necessity to have a cell phone if you want to get a job, internet access at home and even on your phone. Many businesses and utility companies even require you to submit a E-mail address in order to apply for a job or open up an account. I had to give my electric, gas and phone companies a e-mail when I signed up.

There was a study that showed people get more stressed out and scared when they lose a electronic device like a cellphone, MP3 Player or laptop than they do even their own purse or wallet. We are dependent and addicted to technology, and when it comes down to paying for art or getting the latest gadget, the latter typically wins out.

All artist are especially being affected by all this. We have to buy supplies which are expensive as hell. Most of the time they're of no more quality as a box of Crayola. Then we have to pay internet/phone bills to keep in touch with each others, customers, viewers and employers.

We also typically have to make, maintain and/or pay for websites. Or, if we are cheap, we still have to make/ maintain accounts on online social media platforms like Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter and other things of that nature. Then we have to keep an active online life to network with other artist, show off our work, gather a fan base and get customers.

Plus we digital artist have to make sure to buy CDs, DVD, Flash drives and external hard drives for storing and backing up work. Then these expensive software to create our art, or at least expensive hardware to make it like tablets.

With everyone so submerged in the digital age, many mediums of art are being ignored, lost and forgotten.

Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?

It depends on the artist, the medium and the subject of the art.

In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?

It depends on what the client wants.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to Yamitora1 [2012-07-27 23:44:19 +0000 UTC]

Does an artist have to be defined as 'making a living from the sales of art' instead of 'someone who produces art?'

Isn't also said that great art is made in times of strife (war, tragedy, economic downfall). Would a Picasso have evolved outside of the tourmoil of the Spanish Revolution (having a blue movement because he bought blue paint)?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Yamitora1 In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-07-28 00:43:01 +0000 UTC]

An artist is defined in many ways, however if a artist's only source of income is their art, then yes.

Also economic woes go hand in hand with war and tragedy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to Yamitora1 [2012-07-28 01:33:50 +0000 UTC]

You're giving me both answers simultaneously. Your text mentions an artist surviving from sale to sale and being one 'canvas or computer crash away from disaster' which would only apply to people living off their art in a community and implies an artist is defined by sales of art. So, if an artist is not defined by their income, then they wouldn't be on the border of finacial crisis and art would not hault due to economic turmoil.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

makepictures In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 04:10:42 +0000 UTC]

Thanks so much for including the wonderful work of [link] Linda Herzog. Whether she considers herself suggestivist or not, her work clearly forces memory and association to merge into a new present which necessarily means each viewer will remove something of difference. More importantly, while much of the work that falls into this bucket is assaultive and jarring, her work always amuses and always takes me someplace I want to go - - very much.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to makepictures [2012-07-29 00:51:41 +0000 UTC]

why not use the :dev:tag?

Also, very well put. I think many artists inadvertantly end up a part of this movement or that just based on what and how they create, whether or not they intend to or consider themselvs a part of that movement.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Morag-I In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 03:48:40 +0000 UTC]

I can't find anything in here that I much like. If it's art that isn't supposed to say anything, what's the point? That's like a book or a song about nothing. Communication lost in transmition through the muddled mind of indeciciveness.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1