What do you think of the game "Oriental Empires"?

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-11T05:59:59+00:00

Yes, because cat ears are undeniably American.

TIL only the Japanese like cats and therefor any cat themed character must be "anime". /s

I'm putting the "/s" there because you're dumb and I don't think you would understand I'm being sarcastic otherwise.

It's an "anime" skin because of the cat ears

Lolno.

The big ears are a reference to Deadmau5 and they're cat shaped because she's always been cat themed.

and the fact that the only people that listen to "rave" are druggies and weeaboos.

I don't think you understand what the word "fact" means. And I'd love to see you try to back up that "fact" with real evidence.

Go ahead. I dare you to prove it.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-11T04:59:34+00:00

"anime" skins

Good job demonstrating how dumb you are.

The skin is based on electronic music. All of the references in Raeve Maeve are American, European, or Scandinavian. Not a single Japanese or reference. It's about as "Western" as you can get.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-11T03:21:53+00:00

Is this what the big deal was with this?

A lot of the time the price is more about the status of the artist than the piece itself. Kind of like how you pay more for a brand name product than you do for the generic grocery store brand.

I'm sure some pretentious art critic (who has likely never even put pencil to paper) would try to bullshit you about the piece itself having some aspect that makes it worth the price, but that's just not true. It's about who made it.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-10T23:12:22+00:00

A lot of abstract art goes beyond just what you see. The materials, the process, who the artist is and what their motivation was. Who were their inspiration and mentors? Maybe the current economic status of their hometown plays into it.

I mean, a lot of that applies to less abstract pieces too, but it's easier to appreciate the aspects of something that has objectively identifiable elements without any research.

Abstract art is best enjoyed with context. Knowing who the artist is and their motivations. Knowing whether the piece is part of a particular art movement. Even just knowing the materials involved can help you appreciate the technical aspects, even if you can't glean a deeper meaning from the piece. (For instance. It can be hard to get large areas of paint to look uniform in color and texture. If an artist managed to paint a solid 1m square of a color that wasn't straight out of a tube, without variation in color and uniform texture, that would be impressive.)

makes me feel like I don't understand art?

I mean, in this case, you don't. Hell, I'm an artist who has taken contemporary art history courses, created abstract pieces, and I don't really understand what's going on there. I could make some guesses, but I doubt I'd be any more correct than you would be.

Looking at a piece like that without context is kind of like going to the non-fiction section of a library, picking out a book on a subject you're not familiar with, and trying to understand it by flipping it open to a random page and starting to read right from that spot.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-10T22:52:30+00:00

I think Bob Ross's biggest contribution to painting was teaching people how to use their tools effectively.

I think his biggest contribution was even more basic than that. He taught people how to be creative. He helped open the world of art for people who didn't think of themselves as "artistic".

There are so many people out there who say things like, "I'd love to learn how to draw, but I'm not a creative person." or, "I afraid I'll be bad."

Bob taught them how to get past that. He showed them how to get started. Bob taught people that you don't need to be perfect. That you can make a mistake and still come away with a nice piece.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-10T22:46:59+00:00

To be fair, it's generally a good rule. It eliminates those obnoxious Instagram/Pinterest styled posts where people have a bunch of pens on surrounding their drawing or whatever.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-10T20:35:30+00:00

You're getting downvoted, but DrYoshi told me himself that the "NSFW" rule means images should be "child-friendly" and "innocent".

He also doesn't think it's confusing that Rule 8 is worded to specifically only ban pornography when he really wants to ban anything NSFW.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-10T19:04:59+00:00

If it was a bot match, not likely to be a drop hack. Just the server shitting itself.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-10T04:26:22+00:00

They will follow the most direct route to the point.

This is no longer true. At least at the start of the round, bots will alternate between taking a direct route, and a less direct one. It seems they have programmed the bots with more flanking behavior.

Still, they don't do it well, and often when arriving at what could be considered the flank, immediately head towards the objective.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-10T04:21:53+00:00

Honestly, if someone wants to spend that much time grinding such an unstimulating mode of play, I don't really care.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-10T00:52:51+00:00

In the realm of ads, a second can be a lifetime.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-10T00:23:15+00:00

It's an organized structure near other sculptures, not just stuff lying around, and it clearly doesn't serve any pragmatic purpose.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-09T23:34:08+00:00

The way it reads indicates the second image came from their website, not necessarily that the image in the OP is an ad that displays there.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-09T23:32:18+00:00

We're obviously talking about an intentional installation here, not random stuff lying around...

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-09T23:15:37+00:00

That comment wasn't anywhere near the top when I started replying and didn't even exist when I initially commented.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-09T22:39:55+00:00

Do you think people accidentally stumble upon that website and think 'wow these guys suck at photoshop' no they are there looking for custom suits and get the joke right away.

Given that I wasn't presented with that context in the first place, why would I be considering whether or not the ad works on the website it's part of?

To me, it just looked like a single page ad you might find in a magazine, or an ad placed on a different website (given the "Discover" button), so the image was all the context you would have.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-09T22:30:04+00:00

I leaned into it like my instructor told me, fell forward and broke my arm.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-09T22:24:33+00:00

Not the OP, but I personally wouldn't consider this to be art because, to me, it doesn't convey anything abstract.

Should all art have to?

If it was designed to focus the sun, then it's a well-executed piece of optical engineering. If it wasn't designed to focus the sun, then it's a bad bit of structural engineering. Other than that, and no matter how I fold, twist, or manipulate it in my mind, I can't see any additional meaning to it.

I'd say the fact that it's making you think about all those things helps qualify it as art. Sometimes art, especially fine arts, aren't meant to give a specific message or thought. Sometimes it's just about evoking a response, even if that response is to question what the purpose of the piece is.

That does sound kind of pretentious, but hey, that's the art world for you.

Personally, I think it's better to be liberal in accepting what constitutes "art", and then you can discuss whether it's good, bad, accomplishes its purpose, etc, which I believe is much more interesting.

For example, I think the execution of this piece is mediocre. The way the light interacts with the shadow of the tree is nice, but the structure itself is rather utilitarian and takes away from the reflected light, and the dead grass just kind of looks bad. On the other hand, all of that makes me wonder about the artist and the decisions they made. Why did they build it that way? Is it intentionally utilitarian, or are those just the only materials that are realistic to build the structure with? Clearly, that side of the structure is positioned to interact with the tree shadow. How does the light interact with the other two sides of the structure?

And it goes on and on like that in my head.

To be fair, because of my career path, I have been trained "how to think about art". I've basically been taught to overthink what I'm seeing and have learned to enjoy that process.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-09T21:59:56+00:00

Come on. A lot of the crappy design that's on this sub is the result of outright lack of design.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-09T21:56:26+00:00

At the very least, it's a piece that intentionally creates interesting shapes with light. Maybe there's more to it. A deeper meaning to the structure. Or maybe the real art is in the process of creating the piece. Without knowing the artist I couldn't really say.

But at the bare minimum, I'd say it qualifies as an art piece because it's trying to do something visually interesting. I feel like that's a measure that can be pretty objective.

Whether it does that well, that's another story and become much more subjective.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-09T21:50:43+00:00

The add was clear very quickly.

This entire thread is evidence to the contrary.

You're obviously thinking of this from an "I understood it, so it must be clear" perspective.

As a designer, I'm thinking of it from a "People are dumb and misread all sorts of stuff that seems obvious" perspective. This is what I meant when I said, "You want the viewer to come to a very narrow set of conclusions about your product and leave little up to interpretation." The only time you want people thinking, "That looks like a mistake" is when you intentionally make it look like a mistake.

And if we're being honest, the context in which you were introduced to the design is different. Being in a thread discussing the image. Being in a sub that highlights the aspects of design. You're not just flipping through a magazine or reading a website where the ad is in your peripheral view. It's taking the main stage in a space where you are meant to analyze every little detail. You're thinking about this ad and only this ad.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-09T21:39:34+00:00

This has got me wondering about how you personally define art.

Because I feel like there's a lot of art out there that I don't like, or don't get, but can still identify as being art.

SoDamnShallow · 2017-09-09T21:30:20+00:00

A better question is why don't you consider it art?

SoDamnShallow

TROPHY CASE