Why do people only notice the BAD points of your video?

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:04 pm

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:TIME does equate to quality though. Michelangelo took FOUR YEARS to paint the Sistine Chapel, not 4 days. Nearly every celebrated marvel of artistic achievement in human history took countless hours to produce. From the Notre Dame Cathedral, to the great Pyramids, to the Crazy Horse Memorial (a project which may take another FIFTY YEARS to complete). Even the anime series that so many of you rip apart to make your "art", some of it took DECADES of artistic creativity and work to produce the final results. TIME DOES EQUAL QUALITY. Anyone who thinks otherwise is most likely an ignorant fool or young and inexperienced.

Although this is often true, and I would generally agree with you, it doesn't mean that short time = poor quality. Inspiration is a strange beast that can lead to good things happening quickly.

Onideus_Mad_Hatter · Post by **Onideus_Mad_Hatter** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:07 pm

Savia wrote: Although this is often true, and I would generally agree with you, it doesn't mean that short time = poor quality. Inspiration is a strange beast that can lead to good things happening quickly.

Give me one single example of a piece of celebrated historical art which was produced in a matter of a couple days. Really, just one, see if you can do it.

Too many people equate "new" with "quality", that is why a true measure of artistic ability can normally only be seen over the course of history. Long after we're all dead, how many of these AMVs do you think will be remembered or celebrated by anyone? Hrmmm?

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:12 pm

My post didn't mention historically celebrated art, and if you want to move the topic of consideration to historically celebrated art, then you are no longer relevant to the original AMV discussion.

I'm confused what you're arguing

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:13 pm

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:Give me one single example of a piece of celebrated historical art which was produced in a matter of a couple days. Really, just one, see if you can do it.

Hows abouts a genre? Dadaism, ja.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:16 pm

jonmartensen wrote:
Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:Give me one single example of a piece of celebrated historical art which was produced in a matter of a couple days. Really, just one, see if you can do it.
Hows abouts a genre? Dadaism, ja.

x2

You're still as stubborn as ever, Hatter.

When will you learn that art isn't technique or effort or detail...

...well, whatever.

Dada4life

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:17 pm

jonmartensen wrote:Hows abouts a genre? Dadaism, ja.

Kai Stromler · Post by **Kai Stromler** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:18 pm

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote: Long after we're all dead, how many of these AMVs do you think will be remembered or celebrated by anyone? Hrmmm?

Statistically, NONE OF THEM.

How many "piece of ... historical art" have ever been produced? How many remain in the public memory? The proportion is next to zero, especially with forms as dependent on pop culture as AMV editing. How many Weird Tales covers are now hanging in museums?

Indeed, this drastically high rate of mnemonic depletion seems to indicate that sinking months and years into a single AMV, due to be all but forgotten within ten years of its creation, is a Giant Waste of Time.

And really, who would want to be immortal for cutting up cartoons to other people's music?

--K

Onideus_Mad_Hatter · Post by **Onideus_Mad_Hatter** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:27 pm

Savia wrote:My post didn't mention historically celebrated art, and if you want to move the topic of consideration to historically celebrated art, then you are no longer relevant to the original AMV discussion.

I'm confused what you're arguing

We're talking about the measure of artistic quality within a work, whether it's an AMV, or a painting, whatever. On the one side there are people arguing that time does not equate to quality. That you can slap some shit together in a couple days and it'll be forever remembered as the best thing since slice bread. I'm saying that time DOES equate to quality, but that it's hard to see that fact when you're looking at things from such a narrow perspective (an instance of a decade as opposed to that of a century). I've been using examples of long celebrated historical art as a means of comparison so that people can see my point more clearly.

I'm saying that too many people rate AMVs and make opinions about them based entirely on their "newness", rather than REALLY taking a look at the emotions and themes portrayed in the effects. Take my video "Forever", technically speaking it does things that no other AMV has ever done, but it also shows emotions and themes that have never been used before. BUT, the thing about "Forever", is that it's not perfect, despite that it took quite literarly months of effort just to make what I have, there are some things which I still could not do as far as being able to really convey the emotions as well as I had wanted to. Maybe one day I will, but I'll tell you what, it's not gonna be just an idle weekend project.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:34 pm

What about improvisation?

Narrow. Naaaarow.

Good art = quality

but

Quality does not = time.

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:42 pm

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:
Savia wrote:My post didn't mention historically celebrated art, and if you want to move the topic of consideration to historically celebrated art, then you are no longer relevant to the original AMV discussion.

I'm confused what you're arguing
We're talking about the measure of artistic quality within a work, whether it's an AMV, or a painting, whatever. On the one side there are people arguing that time does not equate to quality. That you can slap some shit together in a couple days and it'll be forever remembered as the best thing since slice bread. I'm saying that time DOES equate to quality, but that it's hard to see that fact when you're looking at things from such a narrow perspective (an instance of a decade as opposed to that of a century). I've been using examples of long celebrated historical art as a means of comparison so that people can see my point more clearly.

That seems to be largely fine, but the point I wanted to make is just that just because something was done relatively quickly doesn't mean it was done haphazardly or in a rushed manner. To folloy your lead, from a personal standpoint, the most 'artistically succesful' thing I've ever created was hammered out in an hour or less because I got a flash of inspiration. The same thing happens whenever I write my best work- I can barely keep my hand up to speed with my ideas. That's how inspiration is.

I'm certainly not saying that things don't improve with time; that's absurd as it is clearly not the case. I just think that it's a factor in the quality of something, even a major factor, but it's not the sole one.