 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 5:07 PM, nemesis wrote:
>
> better tools made us dumber. We have a remote in our hands and no desire
> other than zapping mindlessly...
>
That may be the case for you but better tools make me get more out of them.
> Sometimes I wonder about a modern digital sound studio in the hands of
> Bach or Degas in the possession of photoshop...
>
You could always ask David Hockney.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen escreveu:
> On 28/02/2011 5:07 PM, nemesis wrote:
>
>>
>> better tools made us dumber. We have a remote in our hands and no desire
>> other than zapping mindlessly...
>>
>
> That may be the case for you but better tools make me get more out of them.
That's not what I see in general: compare our angular, plain and boring
architecture engineered with the help of CAD software with that from the
baroque period; Mozart symphonies to trance music made with computers;
Dickens manuscripts to Dan Brown writing in Word with spell checker and
still getting it wrong...
You may be a renascentist living nowadays and making the most out of
your superior tools, but most are not. ;)
>> Sometimes I wonder about a modern digital sound studio in the hands of
>> Bach or Degas in the possession of photoshop...
>
> You could always ask David Hockney.
ah, I read that argument of his before. He seems to believe it
impossible for someone to paint photorealistic paintings akin to those
of the old masters, even in the face of plenty of evidence by any
competent arts student to the contrary. I can understand him feeling
that way for not knowing how to paint, though. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> You may be a renascentist living nowadays and making the most out of
> your superior tools, but most are not. ;)
The problem with this kind of analysis is that you are disregarding the
factor of time selecting the best.
Could you name 15 classical composers? Could you name 15 contemporary
composers?
Could you name 15 authors that lived during Shakespeare's lifetime? Could
you name 15 authors that lived during your lifetime?
When you take the 1000 playwrights that lived in England along with
Shakespeare and pick the best, it's not going to be comparable to the
average writer today.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/03/2011 08:33 PM, Darren New wrote:
> The problem with this kind of analysis is that you are disregarding the
> factor of time selecting the best.
For example, I bought a truckload of music from the 1950s. Listening to
this stuff, you'd think that it was an entire decade of astonishingly
good music.
In reality, you're listening to the 24 best tracks produced in 10 years
of popular music. Out of the countless millions of recordings produced,
these are the best 24 that anybody could find. No wonder they sound good...
Hell, if you took the music of 2000 until 2010, you could probably find
24 good tracks even in there. (Amongst all the utter **** that most
people seem to be producing these days.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/03/2011 8:22 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Stephen escreveu:
>
> That's not what I see in general: compare our angular, plain and boring
> architecture engineered with the help of CAD software with that from the
> baroque period;
I've yet to see a baroque building that was built quicker, safer or
cheaper than modern buildings. If you want beauty in modern buildings
what about St Mary Axe, London, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, the Pompidou
Centre Paris? I could go on.
But I sympathise with your feelings.
> Mozart symphonies to trance music made with computers;
No arguments there but then I like few modern composers.
> Dickens manuscripts to Dan Brown writing in Word with spell checker and
> still getting it wrong...
>
Dickens is full of mistakes, characters and sub plots disappearing
without reason. Trollop was the same and as for Mrs Hendry Wood, enough
said.
Actually what you are seeing in modern authors is intellectual laziness.
> You may be a renascentist living nowadays and making the most out of
> your superior tools, but most are not. ;)
>
You got me there, what is a renascentist?
>>
>> You could always ask David Hockney.
>
> ah, I read that argument of his before. He seems to believe it
> impossible for someone to paint photorealistic paintings akin to those
> of the old masters, even in the face of plenty of evidence by any
> competent arts student to the contrary. I can understand him feeling
> that way for not knowing how to paint, though. :)
>
I've never heard of Hockney being accused of photorealism. But he is
considered by many to be a great artist and he, in his old age, has been
using electronic media.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen escreveu:
> On 01/03/2011 8:22 PM, nemesis wrote:
>> Stephen escreveu:
>> That's not what I see in general: compare our angular, plain and boring
>> architecture engineered with the help of CAD software with that from the
>> baroque period;
>
> I've yet to see a baroque building that was built quicker, safer or
> cheaper than modern buildings.
ah, it is a certain kind of art and beauty in itself to witness a neat
technical solution, isn't it?
They are built faster not only because of CAD, better engineering
practices, standardized materials and whatnot, but because they lack all
those artsy arabesques and filigrans that adorn all nooks and cranies of
old buildings. Today it is all about practical, safety and ergonamical
concerns, any art or attempt at beauty is bare.
> If you want beauty in modern buildings
> what about St Mary Axe, London, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, the Pompidou
> Centre Paris? I could go on.
all mirrors, glass and metal tubes covering some gigantic basic
geometric figure. I guess most people can emulate these in povray SDL
quite comfortably. Try doing that with old buildings, palaces and
cathedrals... :D
> But I sympathise with your feelings.
a true renascentist, that is, a man from the Renaissance. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> You may be a renascentist living nowadays and making the most out of
>> your superior tools, but most are not. ;)
>
> The problem with this kind of analysis is that you are disregarding the
> factor of time selecting the best.
>
> Could you name 15 classical composers? Could you name 15 contemporary
> composers?
>
> Could you name 15 authors that lived during Shakespeare's lifetime?
> Could you name 15 authors that lived during your lifetime?
>
> When you take the 1000 playwrights that lived in England along with
> Shakespeare and pick the best, it's not going to be comparable to the
> average writer today.
that is feasible. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> They are built faster not only because of CAD, better engineering
> practices, standardized materials and whatnot, but because they lack all
> those artsy arabesques and filigrans that adorn all nooks and cranies of
> old buildings. Today it is all about practical, safety and ergonamical
> concerns, any art or attempt at beauty is bare.
Or perhaps it's that, you know, fashions change?
(Plus, building a simple cube is probably vastly cheaper than building
something beautiful. How many people can afford the extra cost?)
> all mirrors, glass and metal tubes covering some gigantic basic
> geometric figure. I guess most people can emulate these in povray SDL
> quite comfortably. Try doing that with old buildings, palaces and
> cathedrals... :D
Oh hell, have you *seen* the geometry that goes into some cathedrals?
It's like a mathematician's dream... or nightmare... I'm not sure which.
I could look at those spandrels all day...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 05:07 PM, nemesis wrote:
> better tools made us dumber. We have a remote in our hands and no desire
> other than zapping mindlessly...
Speak for yourself. :-P
I doubt I'd have learned about the Laplace transform, waveguide
synthesis, numerical integration, fractal geometry, or a dozen other
things if I lived way back in the days when "computer" was a valid human
occupation.
> Sometimes I wonder about a modern digital sound studio in the hands of
> Bach or Degas in the possession of photoshop...
Bach + DAW = the world is no longer safe. O_O
My god, the fugal possibilities are terrifying...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That may be the case for you but better tools make me get more out of
>> them.
>
> That's not what I see in general: compare our angular, plain and boring
> architecture engineered with the help of CAD software with that from the
> baroque period;
Styles change. These days, if you build an intricate piece of
architecture like that, everyone would go "eh, that's very old and out
of date isn't it?"
> Mozart symphonies to trance music made with computers;
I happen to *like* trance. :-P
(Which is more than I can say about Mozart symphonies... mostly because
I don't remember any of them.)
I will grant you though that we are currently flooded with cheap
mass-produced music that isn't very good. I guess we have simple
economics to blame, rather than computers. I suspect people are still
out there making good music; it's just harder to find now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
