there is no separation between a piece as it is, how it is in the world, and how other people interpret it, the only thing an artist can control is how to pick and choose parts of these.
that all metatext, paratext, metadiscussion, paradiscussion, is less relevant to the actual work because it will functionally lead nowhere, there will always be more meta to pick apart and youll get further and further away from material.
i think that every step you take around the piece itself is just as important as looking at it.
its fundamental to being a human this form of communication, knowing that the artist knows who i am and that they know that i know all the way down the chain, that if youre looking at a piece of art without thinking in this model of communication youre missing so much.
[] ask Telephone for clarification: is this an attempt to restate my position, before presenting your opposing position?
there is, i think, something beautiful still about the clouds, but i can also see this other interpretation, you should tell me your thoughts if you have any
i'm not sure how you feel about the trees in `open field` but i really love them, personally, and i think i could go harder on their 'realism'
fear... i'm afraid of trying hard to show something real within these limitations, and i fall back into more abstract constructions, as in `the tower (30)`, which walks a middle ground and fails at both - it is neither abstract beauty nor a representational achievement. it's just "bad clouds"
i would like to achieve sublimely beautiful real objects within my restrictions, to make worlds that are more lush with impossible abstract detail, that suggest things that seem impossible, to push so hard at the bounds of what i think i can do.
"how dare i make & enjoy something so abstract, so meaning-free? i should draw a cloud instead, a tree, _a real object._"
but i guess someones gotta do it first, and that's the scary bit. someday someone will not respond well, and it'll definitely hurt.
pain is life!!! i'm gonna do the scary thing!!!
**droqen takeaway - reviews are, or can be, vulnerable work. everything put out by a person is a kind of art, to be treated with respect and seriousness. everyone just wants to be heard & seen, but everyone is also scared, too.**
this takeaway is pretty bad. it needs revising.
it is really great to hear more detail on this theory!!! yes!!! i'm still not much of an art historian (even within games) but there's more here for me to understand, this makes me happy
also, i'm curious how it connects to the earlier thing about 'joking around'. at the moment, my gut-feel take is that joking around is desirable as an end goal, but it requires a little trust before we can joke around with one another. **we can joke around when trust has been established.**
joking is a signal that we trust one another, but we can't use it to force the impression of trust either.
there is no separation between a piece as it is, how it is in the world, and how other people interpret it, the only thing an artist can control is how to pick and choose parts of these.
that all metatext, paratext, metadiscussion, paradiscussion, is less relevant to the actual work because it will functionally lead nowhere, there will always be more meta to pick apart and youll get further and further away from material.
i think that every step you take around the piece itself is just as important as looking at it.
its fundamental to being a human this form of communication, knowing that the artist knows who i am and that they know that i know all the way down the chain, that if youre looking at a piece of art without thinking in this model of communication youre missing so much.
[] ask Telephone for clarification: is this an attempt to restate my position, before presenting your opposing position?
there is, i think, something beautiful still about the clouds, but i can also see this other interpretation, you should tell me your thoughts if you have any
i'm not sure how you feel about the trees in `open field` but i really love them, personally, and i think i could go harder on their 'realism'
fear... i'm afraid of trying hard to show something real within these limitations, and i fall back into more abstract constructions, as in `the tower (30)`, which walks a middle ground and fails at both - it is neither abstract beauty nor a representational achievement. it's just "bad clouds"
i would like to achieve sublimely beautiful real objects within my restrictions, to make worlds that are more lush with impossible abstract detail, that suggest things that seem impossible, to push so hard at the bounds of what i think i can do.
"how dare i make & enjoy something so abstract, so meaning-free? i should draw a cloud instead, a tree, _a real object._"
but i guess someones gotta do it first, and that's the scary bit. someday someone will not respond well, and it'll definitely hurt.
pain is life!!! i'm gonna do the scary thing!!!
**droqen takeaway - reviews are, or can be, vulnerable work. everything put out by a person is a kind of art, to be treated with respect and seriousness. everyone just wants to be heard & seen, but everyone is also scared, too.**
this takeaway is pretty bad. it needs revising.
it is really great to hear more detail on this theory!!! yes!!! i'm still not much of an art historian (even within games) but there's more here for me to understand, this makes me happy
also, i'm curious how it connects to the earlier thing about 'joking around'. at the moment, my gut-feel take is that joking around is desirable as an end goal, but it requires a little trust before we can joke around with one another. **we can joke around when trust has been established.**
joking is a signal that we trust one another, but we can't use it to force the impression of trust either.