Pie Serendipity

Madelaine McMasters wrote: I've never understood why people like you, upon finding they've dug themselves into a hole, grab a bigger shovel. Still haven't recovered your sense of humour, I see. Still, I can understand how my sarcasm might be difficult for the homeschooled product of apparently semi-literate teachers to comprehend. Madelaine McMasters wrote: Bringing Loos, a modernist, to your defense in criticising art (ornamentation), then denigrating the modernist century is the kind of self contradiction you are not learning not to do better than almost anyone I've seen. Once again, it must be difficult for someone brought up without the normal social intercourse to comprehend the joy I find in self-referentially ambiguous paradoxes; that Loos was a self-serving hypocritical attention whore whose commercial work contradicted his avowed principles is obvious and delightful to me, but seemingly of concern to you. Try harder.

Madeline Blackbart wrote: I don't have to be afraid because I don't treat people like crap for no reason. You on the other hand do. One day that may get you into trouble. Not my problem though. Have fun with you little attitude problem. You've misunderstood again. Why does that not surprise me? And I always have excellent reasons for the way I treat people. And not once has my attitude got me into trouble in rl, maybe because I am bigger and nastier in rl than the delicacy of my words here might suggest.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: one of best known architects of the 20th century That's a little like being one of the world's tallest dwarves, isn't it? ETA: I deliberately changed Adolf's first name because I didn't want to be accused of Godwinning the thread.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Huh? According to which argument by me is everyone an artist? My point is that architects are part artist, part engineer. There are great ones and rubbish ones, like in any profession. The carpets in the pictures are functional btw, unlike the cornices for example, or at least the shape of them. Even Mister Functionality realised you can't build a house purely functional. You completely missed the point there. Functionality doesn't build a house. Ah, my mistake, initially I didn't realise that your arguments were a load of rubbish because you aren't an EFLer. I just thought they were a load of rubbish.

Kuregi Mistwood wrote: make it more realistic Perhaps you could arrange to have some participants die, screaming.

I nominate this as the most boring opening post of the year - and possibly ever - in the General Discussion subforum. ETA: Do you think he realises that most avatars wouldn't fit inside the planes anyway, as the cockpits weren't made for eight foot giants?

Phil Deakins wrote: Pie Serendipity wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I was under the impression that Google became so large because it returned the most relevant results. Good to know it was because they have an empty page. It wasn't a great search engine to begin with - there were lots of better portals which had a massive head start and failed because they confused the user, and are actually still doing so - but people used it because it was simple. The rest is history. ETA: Even Microsoft has eventually realised the need for simplicity, not a multi-purpose portal, but Bing is too little, too late. ETAF: Google Doodles are the art world's equivalent of kids' toys; I don't see them, because on my desktop I have the single essential element of the Google home page - a box to type my search terms in. Google became a successful search engine because of two things:- (1) It returned much better results than any of the other major engines and (2) because it wasn't cluttered with ads and such. #1 was THE main reason. Because of its superior results Google became a major engine through word of mouth, especially from those who were in the search engine business at the time. So contrary to what you wrote, Google WAS a great search engine to begin with. Its results were so superior that other major engines copied it, specifically its majoring on links. They didn't copy it immediately, of course, because there was no money in search engines back then. When Google later started to make huge amounts of money by becoming an advertising agency with an excellent engine, the other copied. And if you are interested in how they knew what to copy, when they were developing Google (called 'Backrub' at the time) at Stanford University, Google's creators published how the engine worked, and it's still online for all to see. Incidentally, the portals you mentioned - the major engines at the time - failed because they never found a way to make money. By the time that Google showed the way, it was too late. Some of them had already gone to the wall by then. Yeah, I just said that. In a less prolix manner.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: modernism is not just an architectural movement, but also one in painting for example Do you mean house painting? Like the other Adolf did? Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: architects are at the very least partially artists. Ever cared to look at some of Loos' interiors btw? Even Adolf (not Wolfgang) himself knew very well that people can't live in a purely functional factorylike building. A beautiful example on this page. As I pointed out earlier, according to your argument everybody is an artist. Are you suggesting that architects are not very good ones? Or perhaps half-hearted ones, that want to be seen to be functional on the outside but have rugs on the floor inside that look nice, but that you can trip over and break your neck - as per the Living Room in the example you offer.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: maybe it took a while before that translated into good results, And that's the period during which the plug would have been pulled (as it was on other, more established search engines) if it had not proved so popular because of its simplicity in providing good, bad and middling results. Remember, Google's business success has little to do with the efficacy of its search algorithm (note the correct spelling to improve the credibility of your arguments in future) and everything to do with its innovative and effective advertising sales model.

Drakeo wrote: rabbits being skinned What's your problem? Are you a rabid vegan or something? Or do you like cooking your rabbit in its skin until it gets crispy?

Ashy Calcutt wrote: I'll have to agree its the first time i heard of a LL employee disgruntled or not to Grief Residents.. It happens to me all the time. In the forums.

Keli Kyrie wrote: Pie Serendipity wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Google maintains a team of illustrators to do it's popular Google Doodles. There may be no other company so famous for the use of art on its homepage. They employ a TEAM of illustrators to produce the occasional kitsch doodle? Presumably they are cheap labour. ETA: It's its not it's. I think you will be surprised how crazy this whole doodle thing is: http://9to5google.com/2013/03/08/meet-googles-doodle-team-a-group-of-artists-and-technologists-who-create-10-seconds-of-homepage-happiness-video/ Wow! They pay actual real money to a baker's dozen of tyro apprentices to commemorate the 107th anniversary of a culturally insignificant comic strip (Little Nemo in Slumberland? When does the box office smash movie premier?) to embellish a website with the intent - doomed to failure of course - of making "everybody on earth happier for ten seconds"? Crazy understates it. ETA: Yeah, they use Macs. It figures. They probably have to be reminded on a daily basis how to spell Google.

Studio09 wrote: Pie Serendipity wrote: ... What is the most successful web property: Google. How did they gain prominence? By eliminating all the redundant "portal" design that their competitors thought necessary, and stripping their page to a query box and lots of empty space. That wasn't art, that was pure functionality. That is where you show your ignorance of what art is. That white space is a design decision, an artistic decision. Art is not only the presence of color, forms, lines but about the absence of them too. Just as music is not about filling every measure with notes, sounds but also about the absence of them. One of the main principles of art is "form follows function". Edit: change to correct synonym On the side of my bed I have two books, which - by YOUR argument - must contain all the amassed knowledge of civilisation. One is "What they don't teach you at Harvard Business School" by Mark H McCormack, and the other is "What they teach you at Harvard Business School" by Philip Delves Broughton. If art is things, and the absence of things, then we are all artists; however, there is then actually no such thing as art, because art is universal and infinite, and, it not being possible to distinguish art from non-art, art is therefore an indiscriminate concept which can not be identified and therefore not discussed. Therefore, by your definition of art, you are wasting your time. ETA: "form follows function" is not a generic tenet of art. It originates from architecture, Wolfgang Loos proclaiming that ornamentation was criminal, with the whole Modernist School jumping on board his bandwagon. If anything, "form follows function" is a denial of the necessity for the involvement of the artist in the design process. Try not arguing against yourself, eh?

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Google maintains a team of illustrators to do it's popular Google Doodles. There may be no other company so famous for the use of art on its homepage. They employ a TEAM of illustrators to produce the occasional kitsch doodle? Presumably they are cheap labour. ETA: It's its not it's.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I was under the impression that Google became so large because it returned the most relevant results. Good to know it was because they have an empty page. It wasn't a great search engine to begin with - there were lots of better portals which had a massive head start and failed because they confused the user, and are actually still doing so - but people used it because it was simple. The rest is history. ETA: Even Microsoft has eventually realised the need for simplicity, not a multi-purpose portal, but Bing is too little, too late. ETAF: Google Doodles are the art world's equivalent of kids' toys; I don't see them, because on my desktop I have the single essential element of the Google home page - a box to type my search terms in.

Madeline Blackbart wrote: IRL you'd be afraid to try and start the **bleep** you start here. I know I would be. I'm not. I do. You should be.

Madeline Blackbart wrote: Yet you look down on art of which writing is a part of? No, just visual art. And I think you are mixing art up with aesthetics, a mistake made by many putative artists, particularly those who claim that websites are works of art. Get real; if they are not hobby-sites, then they are commercial vehicles, in one way or another, and art just gets in the way. What is the most successful web property: Google. How did they gain prominence? By eliminating all the redundant "portal" design that their competitors thought necessary, and stripping their page to a query box and lots of empty space. That wasn't art, that was pure functionality.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Many artists do indeed design for their own pleasure, and their ability to get at some emotional truth Sorry, I didn't read your post any further than this absolute bollocks.

AveryGriffin wrote: I think you're confusing form vs function. Let's take a simple chair, for example! This chair was created more for comfort than anything and has a simple yet pleasing shape. This chair is functional for its created purpose. However, it was still designed by someone, and design is an art. I am most definitely NOT confusing form with function; the former is what has been generated by historical forces, and is associated with the resources which can be brought to bear upon provision of functionality; it tends to be the area where unthinking engineers fail, because they are unwilling to reappraise a design using new materials, technology or other resources. Artists largely ignore utility and function for effect. If you really want to take the chair shown as an exmple, I would point out that it is an abysmal example of how an unintelligent engineering-influenced designer has interpreted the sort of chair that Chippendal carved. My parents have one, and it has been consigned to the spare bedroom because * it is uncomfortable to sit in * it is too low for the standard modern male body, making it difficult to get out of * the seat cushion deflates on impact * it has no lower back support * it is too thin for the standard modern male body * the arms are thin and bony, which make them uncomfortable to rest on * you can't balance a can of beer with any confidence on those arms * people sitting by your side can not see your face when you are sittig back, stifling conversation * the back legs protrude slightly from the frame. causing stubbed toes * the legs are wood, scratching wood floors or making permanent indentations in carpets I could go on, but I think my point has been made. I am not going to deign to give a response to your questions about who produces sketches for car designs. Five year olds could - and do - copy existing designs - usually badly - in the same way that car designers "invent" new basic shapes. Technologists put those shapes into wind tunnels and revise the design. No artists involved any more, and cars have improved immeasurably (actually measurably) since they threw out the amateurs. ETA: What a waste of good wood that extended bench is. You could have made another useful bench instead, or even burned it and kept a homeless person warm for a night while sleeping on the useful bench.

Once upon a time I was watching a big sports game on a TV in a communal student lounge, with a six-pack of cold beer to wash down a giant pack of chips. The idiot sitting in front of me turned around and said "Gissa beer", to which I politely responded that he should have thought ahead and made his own arrangements for refreshments. He suggested, like you, that I had an "attitude problem", to which I gave the same response as I am offering to you: "I have an attitude; it is YOU that has the problem."

Maybe the owner actually wanted a DJ who wasn't semi-literate (I know, very unlikely) and used the excuse about you being a club owner to let you down more gently.

Aislin Ceawlin wrote: WOW, I was under the impression that this was the General Discussion forum where people can post pretty much anything. So what have you got against me posting my opinion? If you don't care for it, don't look at it. Kind of like the t.v. or radio....not your taste, change the channel! Hmm, is there an echo in here?

Of course I know the difference between Broken English and Miss Spelling

Artists design stuff so that it looks good to them; engineers design stuff so it's functional. Very rarely is the former usable. I'd prefer a car that starts and stops when I ask it to than one that looks good, rolls when confronted by a deer in its tracks, and rusts to bits in one winter, which is what happened when supposedly good engineering companies allowed artists a say in developing a car. The "art" object I hated most in my childhood home was a supposedly wonderful tea set. The bloody teapot dribbled hot liquid all over the table, the floor and bare flesh. An artist must have designed it. As for doors that you have to push to open which have handles, because the designer artist likes handles . . . And don't get me started on unintuitive user interfaces emanating from Cupertino that think the whole world is illiterate! To say nothing of the Microsoft Start button which is actually how you stop the machine. ETA: I had a fight with the guy that curated The Design Museum in London because he put a 3B1 (The Olivetti/AT&T Unix PC) on display to exemplify information technology design - Olivetti didn't actually sell a single ONE of these in the UK, because, although they looked good in profile, they offered absolutely nothing that the customer wanted.

Keli Kyrie wrote: Pie Serendipity wrote: Ads? What ads? Which blocker do you use? Just some software I saw in an ad.