RL Replica Regions

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

What is art?
How is good vs bad art presently defined?
Can we say an exact replica of something is art?

I ain't gonna tell you, those are best answered for one's self! There's always "art for art's sake", which dodges all questions.

[Love Zhaoying]

23 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Look at this unusual house in Oslo!

Looks more like a "stave church" to me..

[archangel969]

7 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Lots of interesting ideas to ponder about the nature of art, reality, and consciousness. It's fun to consider them. Much has been researched and all sorts of theories in transition exist. While some claim definitive answers for the most part the ideas continue to evolve as we understand human consciousness better.
Some questions that come to mind:

How is creating and appreciating the art of another both similar and different?
What is imagination?
How are emotions and logical processes connected to imagination?
What occurs in the creative process?
What part does the unconscious and subconscious aspects of consciousness play in creativity?
What exactly is subjective consciousness and how does it connect with the creation and appreciation of art?
Mystical experiences and/or creative highs during the creative process

What is art?
How is good vs bad art presently defined?
Can we say an exact replica of something is art?

These are very interesting and challenging topics. But when you ask questions like what art is, it appeals very much to the feelings of each individual. And that feeling can be different for everyone. In other words, it is so subjective. And that's not bad, it's just beautiful. You can talk about it endlessly. But you can't get a 'standard' out of it. The only thing there are standards about is quality. Of course you can argue about quality, but people do manage to set certain standards about what is good quality or not. But a life only filled with things you can calculate and standardise is incredibly boring. So I certainly don't reject endless discussions about what art is, etc., especially over a good glass of wine, as long as you realise that they are just opinions. And opinions can be woth a great deal (what would the world be whitout them?) but must be seen as such.

[Lindal Kidd]

On 4/8/2022 at 2:48 PM, Luna Bliss said:

Look at this unusual house in Oslo!

Should we call that a two car garage, or two garages?

[Luna Bliss]

21 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

23 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

What is art?
How is good vs bad art presently defined?
Can we say an exact replica of something is art?

I ain't gonna tell you, those are best answered for one's self! There's always "art for art's sake", which dodges all questions.

But, Love, those malformed fjords!!! lol

[Luna Bliss]

14 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

On 4/8/2022 at 1:48 PM, Luna Bliss said:

Look at this unusual house in Oslo!

Expand  

Should we call that a two car garage, or two garages?

lol talk about a focus on divisions. The structure was appealing to me at first because of its novelty, and then it started to look like a more angular version of the house from The Old Woman & The Shoe. And too heavy. Now knowing these are churches, I cringe to think what hidden abuse went on in those Medieval excessively enclosed churches.

[Luna Bliss]

15 hours ago, archangel969 said:

23 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Lots of interesting ideas to ponder about the nature of art, reality, and consciousness. It's fun to consider them. Much has been researched and all sorts of theories in transition exist. While some claim definitive answers for the most part the ideas continue to evolve as we understand human consciousness better.
Some questions that come to mind:

How is creating and appreciating the art of another both similar and different?
What is imagination?
How are emotions and logical processes connected to imagination?
What occurs in the creative process?
What part does the unconscious and subconscious aspects of consciousness play in creativity?
What exactly is subjective consciousness and how does it connect with the creation and appreciation of art?
Mystical experiences and/or creative highs during the creative process

What is art?
How is good vs bad art presently defined?
Can we say an exact replica of something is art?

Expand  

These are very interesting and challenging topics. But when you ask questions like what art is, it appeals very much to the feelings of each individual. And that feeling can be different for everyone. In other words, it is so subjective. And that's not bad, it's just beautiful. You can talk about it endlessly. But you can't get a 'standard' out of it. The only thing there are standards about is quality. Of course you can argue about quality, but people do manage to set certain standards about what is good quality or not. But a life only filled with things you can calculate and standardise is incredibly boring. So I certainly don't reject endless discussions about what art is, etc., especially over a good glass of wine, as long as you realise that they are just opinions. And opinions can be woth a great deal (what would the world be whitout them?) but must be seen as such.

Well it all goes around and around a bit doesn't it, whether good art is subjective and in the eyes of the beholder vs whether there are art standards. It's hard to conceive of both being true at the same time and so difficult to sort out, but I think that is the truth of the matter -- both are, or can be, true at the same time.

It's a bit funny that I find myself arguing for the "standards" side, as I'm usually feeling sympathy for the other side -- that art should be free as an expression of one's soul and not be evaluated or judged by outsiders. For example, the scribbles of my grandson truly are just as great as Monet painting, when taken into account his age and capabilities and justified freedom to express who he is at any particular point in time.
Perhaps the malformed fjords were just too much for me to bear, and so I found myself switching to ChinRey's higher standards vs Prokofy's lower standards, as well as a desire to focus more on standards in art in general.  Also, I'm avoiding going to the next level with some Concept art I'm doing (digital painting) and so I want to affirm the 'standards' argument, even if that brings some judgement of myself and the resultant pain.
I could do well, at this point in my life, with a @ChinRey by my side whipping me into shape, telling me to work harder and do better -- to strive for excellence.

Arguing for the "art standards side", what if a friend of mine drew at the level of a child (children's art is usually recognizable, being limited in scope as there's so much they usually aren't seeing yet). I would not exclaim to my friend their art was wondrous and they should definitely contact our local art organization to raise funds for an art opening to display their talent. 
Or, what if a friend wanted a recommendation to a region in SL that was reflective of the New England coast. I wouldn't advise them to visit a lighthouse on a coast surrounded by jungle plantings, even if their sim had a New England sounding name.
In a similar vein, I wouldn't recommend someone visit a SL region in order to get a feel for Holland simply because a windmill existed there.
Nor would I expect a company to hire a graphic designer who didn't follow certain standards.
So judging art isn't always bad.

There actually are principles of art, although I haven't studied them much.
https://www.thoughtco.com/principles-of-art-and-design-2578740
I felt they might ruin my free expression and so avoided them. The same with music -- I've done a lot with music but avoided for the most part how to read the notes and understand the rules for composition. When finding the right colors for a 3D landscape painting I want to sort it out by feeling, something emerging from my depths -- I want to get that 'oooohhh, ahhhh YES!' feeling that comes from deep inside me when I discover the right blend that evokes a sense of balance and beauty -- I don't want to mathematically arrive at the beauty by taking a color chart into my 3D painting as my method is less abstract and so feels more real to me.

The human brain is hardwired to find certain arrangements in physical space more pleasing -- our brain seeks balance in color and form (think of the color wheel where colors are deemed as balanced or fitting together better, or the golden ratio that our mind evaluates as a pleasing arrangement in form). I think this is where a lot of our standards come from when we evaluate what we deem as beauty in art -- how well does the art expression adhere to what our minds naturally prefer.

Our brains seem to prefer what is novel when we view art too -- seeing ordinary things in new ways is appealing -- we like surprises. I'm reminded of a trip to a San Francisco where an enormous safety pin is on display. It certainly did cause a sense of surprise in me, and I laughed when initially viewing it. Personally I wouldn't say it was beautiful, but perhaps some judged it so. It did evoke surprise and a new way of seeing something, so I felt it was representative of what we call 'art'.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[archangel969]

46 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well it all goes around and around a bit doesn't it, whether good art is subjective and in the eyes of the beholder vs whether there are art standards. It's hard to conceive of both being true at the same time and so difficult to sort out, but I think that is the truth of the matter -- both are, or can be, true at the same time

 

 

This is very true to my opinion. There ARE standards of quality and standards of what good art must be. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some great piece of art can be not your cup of tea, while work that is seen as being of lower quality may appeal to you more personally.

There is also the difference between artistry and craftsmanship.

With the former, originality is almost inseparable; with the latter, it is not necessary and usually not the case. It just has to be made with great quality.

I often come across this distinction in my work in RL as a novelist. My work is counted as literature (similar to 'art').' Many books by writers in the thriller genre, however, are not counted as literature. But I have enormous admiration for the craftsmanship of many thriller writers. I also learn a lot from them, for example how they build up tension.

In short, I admire both: good craftsmanship and artistry. But they are often of a different order.

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by archangel969

[Luna Bliss]

21 hours ago, archangel969 said:

There is also the difference between artistry and craftsmanship.

With the former, originality is almost inseparable; with the latter, it is not necessary and usually not the case. It just has to be made with great quality.

I often come across this distinction in my work in RL as a novelist. My work is counted as literature (similar to 'art').' Many books by writers in the thriller genre, however, are not counted as literature. But I have enormous admiration for the craftsmanship of many thriller writers. I also learn a lot from them, for example how they build up tension.

In short, I admire both: good craftsmanship and artistry. But they are often of a different order.

That's interesting...this distinction between craftsmanship and artistry in writing. I hadn't thought of it, but it makes sense. I remember the discussion here where some said mesh was not in the artistry category but instead only craftsmanship, but I insisted that it can indeed can be art.

When you are creating, is it conscious in your mind that you are, for example, "building tension"...or do your just write without much consciousness and return to the text to imbue the writing with tension?

*I may have just answered my question...I bet its both    

[Theresa Tennyson]

23 hours ago, archangel969 said:

This is very true to my opinion. There ARE standards of quality and standards of what good art must be. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some great piece of art can be not your cup of tea, while work that is seen as being of lower quality may appeal to you more personally.

There is also the difference between artistry and craftsmanship.

With the former, originality is almost inseparable; with the latter, it is not necessary and usually not the case. It just has to be made with great quality.

I often come across this distinction in my work in RL as a novelist. My work is counted as literature (similar to 'art').' Many books by writers in the thriller genre, however, are not counted as literature. But I have enormous admiration for the craftsmanship of many thriller writers. I also learn a lot from them, for example how they build up tension.

In short, I admire both: good craftsmanship and artistry. But they are often of a different order.

 

Hmhmhmhmmmhhhh....

I'll suggest that the passage of time tends to elevate "craftsmanship" to "artistry" and a lot of historic "artistry" tends to end up on the "whatever" pile. Part of that may be that the surviving works of "craftsmanship" transcends the contemporary works of that genre which are less memorable, while things that were "original" once end up becoming the new standard, which may well end up being done more memorably by "craftsmen" following in that vein.

The creation of an infrastructure of criticism around an artcraftness also doesn't necessarily do it any favors - critics can either complain about something truly unique not being "done right" or alternatively overpraise something "original" simply because it hasn't been done that way before, when there may have been a good reason why it hasn't been done that way.

[Silent Mistwalker]

Back on topic.

Where is Aimee Weber when you need her?

https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Your-World-Official-Advanced/dp/0470171146

[archangel969]

4 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Hmhmhmhmmmhhhh....

I'll suggest that the passage of time tends to elevate "craftsmanship" to "artistry" and a lot of historic "artistry" tends to end up on the "whatever" pile. Part of that may be that the surviving works of "craftsmanship" transcends the contemporary works of that genre which are less memorable, while things that were "original" once end up becoming the new standard, which may well end up being done more memorably by "craftsmen" following in that vein.

The creation of an infrastructure of criticism around an artcraftness also doesn't necessarily do it any favors - critics can either complain about something truly unique not being "done right" or alternatively overpraise something "original" simply because it hasn't been done that way before, when there may have been a good reason why it hasn't been done that way.

That's very true, but over the centuries, opinions about what is beautiful, or what is artistically good, have often changed. If you judge something, you can only do so in the light of its own time. You can never know what will remain of that a century later. And who knows what will have become of Second Life by then? 😉

 

[Rat Luv]

I think the person who designed New Brighton did a good job 🙂 They say it's 'loosely based' on Brighton but some bits are accurate...like the pink house for rent on the sim...there's one IRL too, it's a guest house which I've stayed at 😎  

https://secondlife.com/destination/new-brighton

I once found a sim called Brixton...which had a beach and palm trees  

[archangel969]

1 hour ago, Rat Luv said:

I once found a sim called Brixton...which had a beach and palm trees  

Well, that's what you would call a 'very original' interpretation 😄

Maybe we could have a contest: which sim is the most completely wrong as a duplicate of an RL place? Oops I mean, is the most original interpretation of a RL place?