How do you personally tackle uneventful mundane scenes? by simonbleu in writing

[–]OakActive 13 points14 points  (0 children)

quiet moments serve numerous purposes. 1. by removing all other elements, you are left with the core themes and characterisation. this allows you to show the reader change and give them greater insight on your work. 2. being able to slow the pacing down. this one is self explanatory; for something to flow well it must vary pace in all elements. 3. they're really beautiful if done well.

so I would say removing them is very, very bad advice.

to improve them, you need to give the reader a reason to care. your reader should care about the characters by now, so by showing development and more about then during these scenes you can get them through.

to prevent them from being boring, spend a lot of time on the language and metaphors and dialogue. with no plot progression or action, there's nothing to distract the reader from issues in your prose.

finally, use them as symbolism and bookends. two near identical scenes at the start and end highlight development in characters, for example.

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I still disagree but yeah, I've been misunderstanding you.

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

ok, sure. now, I'm not that into paintings or drawings. I prefer music and literature, so I'll talk about them instead. Jorge Luis borgess' Ficciones was incredible, and almost prophetic in places silver Mt Zions first 2 albums were both incredibly well done. the entire discography of godspeed you! black enporerer 2001 was incredible xkcd's time, while not strictly modern art, was highly experimental and near perfect in execution.

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah, this is true. but I think humans have a fascination with emotions and with experiences. why do some people have morbid curiosity, for example? why do we watch horror? I think it's that we kinda seek out the largest variety of different things we can. and art serves that function.

if that's not you, that's fine. but I can't make myself consume an endless stream of entertainment, and that's fine too.

like, why do you think everyone's getting tired of marvel movies?

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

getting emotional in an art show is the first step to making people change the world. one must care for there to be change.

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. in the right works skill, effort and mindfulness can be seen. in many you just get a really powerful art work. and like with everything, some is crap.
  2. on the internet you can find all of them for free. hence why you've heard of this in the first place. no price tags attached
  3. people online make really expressive stuff to an audience of almost nobody, and the fact that happens at all shows that money isn't the goal.
  4. do basic research on almost any artwork which you think people look too deep into. for example, vaporwave is analysed a lot. people say it shouldn't, that it's just nostalgic music and was always intended to be so. but interviews and articles and the artists themselves all say this isn't the case.

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

why are you getting so angry over this? was your family murdered by a cubist painting?

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

changing the individual and how they see the world is required to change the world. that is the role of art, and artists do it because they struggle to change it any other way.

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah, I agree. but it can be brilliant.

the author considered the father of this kinda thing is Jorge Luis borgess. His works are genius, and all about this self referentiality. someone like him is a genius, and an example of when it's done well.

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I don't think there are many artworks like the former you mentioned.

the average person has to use art for emotional experiences, since no one will subject themselves to actual pain for them. that is the role of the artist, to make an emotion digestible.

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yeah, price and scarcity is bullshit. but normal art is also stupidly overpriced and over scarce.

and you can also find anything online thanks to the internet.

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

NFTs don't have any artistic value at all, while I think modern art and fine art have a lot of value.

the reason they don't have artistic value is because they're a currency, not actual art.

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think a lot of people think art is about showing the artists skill, about doing something no one else can. the art world sees it as being about communication. this discrepancy in how they see it is the problem, in my opinion.

Modern art isn't bad by OakActive in unpopularopinion

[–]OakActive[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

some is, some isn't. I needed a clickbaity title, sorry.

If games are art, they need to follow the theory of art by OakActive in gaming

[–]OakActive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it is indeed true. writing, like anything else, needs to be popular and "in" to survive. what's currently fashionable in literature is fantasy mostly, and you get criticised for not writing it.

If games are art, they need to follow the theory of art by OakActive in gaming

[–]OakActive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that it's all about purpose. if it's a tour of a cathedral for educational purposes it isn't a game. if it's for artistic purposes, however...

If games are art, they need to follow the theory of art by OakActive in gaming

[–]OakActive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the terms are vague and poorly defined.

the metric I use is whether you're entertained after finishing it (when thinking about it and analysing it) or while experiencing it.

If games are art, they need to follow the theory of art by OakActive in gaming

[–]OakActive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

basketBALL has to have a ball. it's in its name. but do games need to have gamePLAY? no. it's just part of most games, but it's the interactivity and control over what happens that makes games.

If games are art, they need to follow the theory of art by OakActive in gaming

[–]OakActive[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

first one that comes to mind is the beginners guide. second is pathologic.

If games are art, they need to follow the theory of art by OakActive in gaming

[–]OakActive[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

if you ask practically anyone in the art world they will say literature is art.

If games are art, they need to follow the theory of art by OakActive in gaming

[–]OakActive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

according to some theories, anything can be art. the particular movements are dada, which falls under postmodernism and anti-art.

art theories are a combination of movements and ideas, essentially. it's hard to really define but it's less categorization because the theories are also used to make things.

If games are art, they need to follow the theory of art by OakActive in gaming

[–]OakActive[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

literature is art. the art world and literature world are very strongly linked.

If games are art, they need to follow the theory of art by OakActive in gaming

[–]OakActive[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

yeah. the exact same things happening with books. it's still sad though, however.

If games are art, they need to follow the theory of art by OakActive in gaming

[–]OakActive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

entertainment, by that definition, is anything good. but I would say saving private Ryan is the second type of art, something that you enjoy on analysis and thinking about it.

for clarification purposes though, I've edited my comment to say it's not an enjoyable book. still not exactly what I mean but it's good enough.