[lbo-talk] Re: Art is Dead

Miike Quenling Ellis flagrant_sake at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 24 10:57:51 PDT 2003


--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Miike Quenling Ellis wrote:
> >
> > no the real problem is that CG affects are put in to make it look like
> > something it's not....real motion occuring in physical space. much
> more
> > will be lost than gained. i mean aesthetically alot can be said for
> > technical limitations
>
> Yes, wasn't it a pity when someone invented the pottery wheel and the
> art of hand-made pottery was lost. Almost no one any more knows the art
> of handmade stone axes.

since when does 'alot can be said for' mean 'applies to everything universally'? i could name just as many things if not more where certain tech advances ruined the aesthetic value of something. ....architecture? automobiles? hey...book binding? some things will radically alter the context of things some won't. CG happens to be one of the things that does. what was the neccesity that brougth about CG in film? the need for more realistic looking fakery? i give you the faux hardwood floor..... gothic cathedrals looked that way because of certain limitations. to use your example do plastic bowls look as good as ceramic pottery? what if you could make plastic bowls that looked exactly like ceramic pottery? what would be the point? CG in films is like putting a plastic handle on a ceramic pot. which might be interesting if one didn't try to make the handle look exactly like the rest of the pot...you know so you could hardly tell the difference.

~M.E.

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list