Message Board | Rules

Thread: Hobbit in 3D

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Hobbit in 3D   << [1] [2] [3] >>
I think your bed and brick examples are interesting, tyrant. As I was reading it, I glanced over to [i:1lr1xefs]my[/i:1lr1xefs] unmade bed and found to actually be quite....beautiful. In an art-ish way, haha. I think that when these people put these normal things into art galleries, they opened up the viewers' eyes so that they could see the art that is there. My bed, at the moment, looks like art. It's not in a gallery. Ermine's bed, she thought, was art, and thus she placed it in a gallery for others to see. That's how I see it anyways.
It almost looks as if this debate is attracting towards the "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" saying. Perhaps art is in the eyes of the beholder? (Of course, according to my religious beliefs, this statement is not true, but for the sake of the debate, it looks like we're heading that way.)
You're the one who made the ridiculous statement about Renaissance Art Petty. You can't weasel out of it after making it. Do want me to highlight the offending sentences again?.

"Patrons of the Arts"??? Are you talking about the Few Gentry who built the Galleries, commissioned the Artwork, and patronized the Galleries that redefined Art, or are you talking about about the General Public who made Avatar the number one film in history, or Calvin and Hobbes one of the most popular comic strips ever.

Art is Art wherever it resides--a Cave Wall, a Sketch Book, a Comic Book, a Limoge China pattern, a mass produced Lady GaGa CD, a B movie, and yes--even a Gallery Wall. Some of it is "High" or Fine Art (THIS is what you find in Galleries), some of it is "Low" Art (also Crap definitions defined by Art snobs--but at least they acknowledge it's still Art), and some of it is Skillfully done and some of it Poorly done, but it's ALL Art. Until you're willing to admit that "Fine Art" is not the ONLY form of Art, your arguments lack credibility.

[quote:36q1mxb3] [b:36q1mxb3]Merriam Webster:[/b:36q1mxb3]
Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: ?’rt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars ’ more at arm
Date: 13th century
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
[b:36q1mxb3]4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the [u:36q1mxb3]production of aesthetic objects[/u:36q1mxb3]; also : [u:36q1mxb3]works so produced[/u:36q1mxb3] b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art[/b:36q1mxb3]
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
[b:36q1mxb3]6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter[/b:36q1mxb3]

[quote:36q1mxb3][b:36q1mxb3]Oxford English Dictionary (online):[/b:36q1mxb3]
’ noun 1 [b:36q1mxb3]the expression of creative skill[/b:36q1mxb3] through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture. 2 [b:36q1mxb3]the product of such a process[/b:36q1mxb3]; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively. 3 (the arts) [b:36q1mxb3]the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, and drama[/b:36q1mxb3]. 4 (arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with human culture (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects). 5 a skill: the art of conversation.

’ ORIGIN Latin ars.

You will note that the two biggest and most widely accepted dictionaries make no mention of Renaissance Art as defining Art, nor do they mention Art as ONLY residing in Galleries. Just for giggles, here's your offensive quote again:

According to him [b:36q1mxb3]art was only defined during the reanssaince[/b:36q1mxb3] and in the subsequent decades following it and was originally very narrowly defined as [b:36q1mxb3]works which had appeared in a select number of galleries[/b:36q1mxb3]. [u:36q1mxb3]If you hadn't got your work in one of those what you did was [b:36q1mxb3]not art[/b:36q1mxb3][/u:36q1mxb3].[/quote:36q1mxb3]

And I have already posted some of my Artwork on the Art thread. And NO, I don't think you can judge if it's Art or not. Apparently you can't even define the word Art properly. So whether you like my work or not, your judgment is suspect.


PS: It has occurred to me that you are confusing Philosophical Definitions of Art with the General Definition of Art. But Philosophical Definitions are merely the subjective opinions of Philosophers, NOT the OBJECTIVE Definition of the word Art.

PPS: The reason I am NOT engaged in the Oxymoron "Reverse Snobbery" is that I am engaged in the opposite of ANY form of Snobbery. The objective definition of Art which I employ INCLUDES Fine Art. Snobbery is all about EXCLUSION.
I am weaselling out of nothing GB. It is historic fact that during that time period what was and what was not considered art was defined not by the many but by the few (the "Few Gentry who built the Galleries, commissioned the Artwork, and patronized the Galleries" )You might not like it but it is what happened.

It was the, eventual, breakthroughs in getting works into galleries of the other, later art movements, which led to their success. By popular demand I might add. The "General People" liked what they saw so galleries commissioned more of it. (However if you were to ask such a member of the public they would have told you to find art you had to go to a gallery. Its where they thought you found art. What I am saying is this thinking, right or wrong, has permeated down to the present day) To deny it is foolish when examples (such as the Unmade Bed) can be seen. Something being regarded as art [i:2v3ok1ty]because[/i:2v3ok1ty] it is in a gallery.

The fact that a cartoon strip such as Calvin and Hobbes can poke fun at this very subject shows that it exists. You obviously would rather it did not happen this way and would prefer not to acknowledge it does. But it is still a large part of defining what is art today (granted not so much as in the renaissance where there were no other outlets for art). And few modern artists go through their career without ever trying to get shown in galleries and most would give their hind teeth to be shown in selected galleries because it gives them the position of recognised art and therefore makes their work worth more money.

"Just for giggles, here's your offensive quote again" - really GB I would have thought we could disagree like gentleman and not resort to this sort of tone. And you a mod too. You should be ashamed. :cry: This is the worst sort of snobbery you display here.

As for the dictionary definitions they are describing art in the broad sense and are therefore perfectly accurate and valid. I am talking about reality. How things actually work. You can do your own paintings and drawings all your life and call them art. But you will have a hard job getting large numbers of people to come round just to see them or selling them for large profits. However if you were to get them in a gallery, particularly a well renowned gallery, and got the right people to say it was art people would suddenly queue to see it and its worth would increase vastly. Your work will not be any different, it'll be the same stuff you did before you got it in the gallery, but now its recognised as art because its in a gallery and its subsequently worth more. You can be as blinkered as you wish about this but it's how the world actually works regardless of how a dictionary defines the word itself.
Petty, you're still ignoring the REALITY that ART as OBJECTIVELY defined [b:3lm60nt8]IS[/b:3lm60nt8] a BROAD Category. I am ignoring nothing, I never claimed that "Fine Art" never happened. I grant you that Art Snobs determine what makes money in GALLERIES. But that is not an Objective definition of Art. And YOU did claim that because "Fine Art" lovers decided what was Art that their subjective opinions therefore defined Art.

I even GAVE you an out--the correct appellation "Fine Art", and the distinction between SUBJECTIVE philosophical OPINIONS of Art versus the ACTUAL definition of the word Art. All you have to do is accept the OBJECTIVE (i.e. REAL) definition of the words.

And YES! I take offense and feel insulted when people use a circular argument and then won't cop to it :x . You made the statement and then you pretended it didn't mean that, except that it really did because you keep repeating the same argument <img src='/images/smileys/vevil.gif' border='0' alt='Very Evil Smilie' /> . It's a dishonest debate tactic, along with the Straw Men you create with terms like "Reverse Snobbery". And it's insulting. You have to think people are really stupid to not catch it, and it is not snobbery to register my offense at being thought stupid.

Finally, you throw out a lot of rubbishy stuff about the General Public's "acceptance" of the Art Snobs definition of Art and their high demand for Gallery Art without providing any polls, Museum Attendance records etc. My Proof is in the WIDE distribution and HUGE sums of money Popular Art makes (Posters of pin-up girls often make far more money than prints of museum Art, as films like Star Wars and Avatar make far more money than so-called Art-films), and the FACT that DICTIONARIES record the CURRENT POPULAR USAGE of the words. The fact is most Galleries are still heavily subsidized by Wealthy Benefactors. A VERY few, such as the Louvre ALSO make a ton of money from Tourists who flock to see some of Histories most well known Fine Artists.

But the Fact remains, more people today recognize images like Mickey Mouse than the Mona Lisa. This is evidenced by the fact that Mickey Mouse is even recognized in third world countries the world over. Fine Art is a Niche that I never denied existing, and it pisses me off that you try to say I did.


PS: Calvin and Hobbes was being IRONIC, poking FUN at people who think that just because it's in a Museum it must be "Fine Art".
"You made the statement and then you pretended it didn't mean that"
You've lost me here GB. I said during the Renaissance what was and what was not art was defined (by galleries, patrons and owners) and that to get considered to be art you had to be shown in one of the galleries. That was true then and is largely true now. I am not in anyway pretending otherwise.
Andy Warhol was arguably the founder of pop-art and he put his stuff on mugs, t-shirts, posters, anything he ccould. But he also fought to have it shown in galleries in order to have it officially recognised as an art movement. Why would he do this if everything and anything was considered art anyway? He would not have felt the need to if all it took was lots of people liking and buying his stuff (which they were doing anyway).
As to mickey mouse being recognised in third world countries, that is the power of branding not art. Coca-cola is also well known all over the world it does not make it art. It makes it a brand. Although I am sure you would argue coca-cola is art seeing as you seem to be saying that anything is art, thus making the word itself redundant.
It makes no odds if a million people know mickey mouse and ten the mona lisa or vice versa numbers are irrelevant. Art, you seem to be saying, is a popularity contest and I simply don't agree with you on that.
I didn't say Art was a popularity contest (and you know it), I said Art is Art no matter how popular or unpopular, I cited sources for OBJECTIVE definitions which you deny as some sort of Abstraction. The only Abstraction is when Renaissance Artists, lovers of a particular style of Art, or Philosophers try to deny that anything else could possibly be Art. They also set Arbitrary Standards for what could be considered Art. They did not, however; change the definition of the word Art.

You know Petty, what it all comes down to is this: You just can't stand admitting that Avatar is a work of Art. :P So you have to conjure up an obscure definition that really only applies to "Fine Art", and then use dubious debate tactics to justify it. :roll: Meanwhile insulting everyone that actually enjoys Popular Art forms--and THAT is the definition of an Art Snob.

I think what we have here GB is simply a fundamental difference of what the word art means. To you it is a word which covers a broad field. And I have no problem with that. I can see even spoons as being art in that definition! All I am saying is that broadly the modern interpretation in practice of what is art is still determined by a select few. Would we think any less of the contribution to the visual mediums if Warhol had never bothered getting his stuff in a gallery? I happen to think not, nor would it have changed the importance, popularity and influence of his work. But he clearly thought it did. And indeed artists themselves are a large part of the problem as they seem to go out of their way to get the seal of officialdom on their works by getting it recognized by an institute as art. Thus perpetuating the problem of art is what is in a gallery.
Why do they do this? Because it all goes back to the mindset established by all those Renaissance galleries and it's a lasting influence. Which is all I am saying. (Actually |I'm saying none of this at all, all I've being doing for far too long now is defending my poor uncle against your hostile- and in my view unwarranted- attack on him for informing me of how this defining of art began- something which is a matter of historical record not an opinion on his part). Artists seem to crave that seal of approval still and because of this they give a select few a great deal of power in deciding what is art. (I note its Turner Prize time again, a perfect example of this in practice). Because of this simply getting something into a gallery does make it art, even if its just a pile of old bricks or an unmade bed.
Incidentally I sent him the link for here to read to your comments and besides being slightly offended at the tone of some your comments he in fact broadly agrees with you in theory, but says that sadly it's not how it turns out in practice if you're an artist who makes their living by their work. Where getting into galleries is still the sole preoccupation if you want to be able to afford a nice life. Being officially recognised as art is good for the bank balance.
You are right to say the Renaissance artists and institutes did not change the definition of art, not in the dictionary sense, but they did change it in the minds of people which I would argue was a far more powerful thing to do.
I have used no dubious debating tactics and only one of us has reduced themselves to being patronizing and using thinly veiled insults. There is such a thing as intellectual snobbery GB be wary of it.
[quote:lpsv92wm][b:lpsv92wm]Petty--The Art Snob insults that started this current debate:[/b:lpsv92wm]
Afraid I can't agree with Beren that Cameron is an artist- he's a bums on seats director (and nothing wrong with that) [b:lpsv92wm]but its not art.[/b:lpsv92wm] Titanic is not art,[b:lpsv92wm] its a popularist, not very well written, spectacle.[/b:lpsv92wm] Alien was arguably art (especially given the genius of Gieger on the art direction amongst other real artists) Aliens however is not, its bums on seats stuff again. [b:lpsv92wm]Not subtle and not meaningful, just entertaining[/b:lpsv92wm] That's what Cameron does.
Art is a means to reflect back aspects of existence and society in a new light that leads the viewer to a new understanding. Cameron does not do this. [b:lpsv92wm]The social commentary in Avator is almost childish in the way it is portrayed and about as deep as a shallow puddle on a hot day.[/b:lpsv92wm] Frankly if your the sort of person whose social or political views would be influenced or altered by a Cameron film then you should probarbly not be allowed to vote!
That Cameron would be at the forefront of new 3d technology is no surpise, its a tool for even greater spectacle, which is fine, but you could have given someone like picasso a couple of rocks and he'd have scrapped you out a masterpiece without the need for the latest technological breakthrough in brushes and paints!
[b:lpsv92wm]There is nothing wrong with pure entertaining nonsense but[u:lpsv92wm] lets not go around calling it art.[/u:lpsv92wm] A spades a spade[/b:lpsv92wm].[/quote:lpsv92wm]

This is the last post I'm making on this subject.

The whole discussion has been as vivid as 3D to me. I can even now see the blood flowing! Bravo chaps! There's not nearly enough intellectual violence on this forum!!! ( think I must be one of those bums-on-seats people I've heard tell of! :? )
"insulting everyone that actually enjoys Popular Art forms--and THAT is the definition of an Art Snob"
This I feel gets to the heart of the matter GB. I do not consider Avatar art. And that ones my opinion now no longer defending a statement. I stand by all my earlier comments about Avatar. However I have shelves of dvd, comics and books and very few of them I would consider to be art. But to suggest because I don't think of them as art that I am somehow a snob insulting everyone who enjoys them is frankly stupid. I would be insulting myself or why else would I have purchased them? You can enjoy something without having to demand it be called art.
You're argument boils down to "I say its art and if you don't agree your insulting everyone who likes it!" That sort of thinking is a step towards totalitarianism and uniformity of thought. And I don't like that.
I'm the Totalitarian????????? :? :? :?

Talk about semantic Word Games and Sophistry!!!! You really take the cake on this one Petty :roll:

Petty: It's only Art if its in a Gallery approved by the Art Approval Squad, and I'm one of the Squad judges (sounds suspiciously like "demanding uniformity of thought" <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> )

GB: Anything Expressively Created with Aesthetic Purposes is Art--whether its High or Low, Fine or Common, Genius or Crap, in a Gallery or Not (Not just according to me, but the ACTUAL OBJECTIVE definition of the word Art, and quite an EGALITARIAN view in fact).

Uhhhh....really? Who's the Totalitarian again??? :P


PS: Hmmm...could it be...Petty [b:36fwqgha]Tyrant[/b:36fwqgha]? :mrgreen:

PPS: I'll give you this much Petty, I had chilled out a bit and was going to drop it, but that piece of sophistry got my blood boiling enough to post again :roll: .
I can but assume GB that it is willfulness on your part to insist on confusing my own opinion on art- most clearly stated in my previous post- with the statement my uncle made on how art was defined (redefined if you prefer) during the renassiance. Now that is word play of a most cynical kind.
As to my user name, well the clue is in there. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
And to insist whether someone agrees with you or not that you are definitively right and what you say is art is art is a narrowing of freedom of thought in my opinion. I prefer the freedom to decide for myself what I consider to be art. And for me Avatar ain't it.
Of course you have the freedom to define Art any way you want. 8-) But that doesn't make it true. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> And I have the freedom to call you on your incorrectness. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />

Anyway, you kept parroting your "Uncle's" phrase so often, it seemed to form the basis for your argument. You haven't come up with anything else to support your view.

And your previous post doesn't really say anything different, you still posit a view that is entirely subjective, which you seem to portray as objective. You still can't distinguish between the Subjective Philosophical definitions of Art (Opinions) and the Actual Objective definition of the WORD Art (Facts).

I don't have a problem with you saying Avatar is crappy Art. That's just an opinion (which I happen to disagree with--but to each his own). But to say it's NOT Art is factually and objectively incorrect. Unless of course you are willing to concede that your view is merely an Opinion based on an esoteric and highly subjective standard. In which case, have at it. :mrgreen:

I would say our dispute here is largely perceptional GB. I have already said in a previous post there is nothing wrong with the dictionary definition of art. The problem is what Odo might refer to as 'book-learning". The real world stomps all over truth. In the real world what is art and what is not is still decided by institutes and the select few. That's just how it is. Regardless of definitions of the word itself.
You say I have offered no evidence for this yet you have ignored the unmade bed and the bricks which are only considered art because they are in an art gallery. Or Warhol's exhibits which (as I already said) I do not think were necessary for his work to be important and influential, yet he wanted that seal of approval that it was indeed art so he fought to get his work in galleries. These are evidence of how art works in the real world not in books or in mere theory. You have run into the same problem science did for a log time- just because you could prove something was true on paper it did not actually make it true in the real world. And that's the problem with relying on book knowledge. I'm old enough and cynical enough to have seen how things actually work maybe. I consider your stance to be a noble ideal, but wishful thinking. Its a view of art that exists only in thought and theory not in actuality.
Bravo! GB and Mr Tyrant! Bare knuckle forum fist fighting is a wonderful Art form, I feel. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />

What I fear is that you two are softening up (or perhaps you've softened each other up? :? )

anyhow... I preferred your brawling when it seemed unabashed and spiralling into a flaming session. Now your attitude to each other would barely roast marshmellows! <img src='/images/smileys/sad.gif' border='0' alt='Sad Smilie' />

What happened to your earlier unadulterated bitchiness?! :x

Btw Art is not a comic book or a Mona Lisa - Art is the fearless articulation of the will... or, to simplify, the deliberate flight into the heart darkness, or into the bowels of the sun! (What [i:2oz6fzpa]do [/i:2oz6fzpa]they teach people in schools nowadays?)
You should have been born in Roman times Odo, I can see you as Emperor at the gladaitor games giving the thumbs up for the kill. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> (And I can't imagine you settling for less than being Emperor- with Wise Odo plotting your demise from the shadows!)
In the real world what is art and what is not is still decided by institutes and the select few. That's just how it is. Regardless of definitions of the word itself.[/quote:2kp3jc0w]

Unbelievable! YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN!!! :roll: This your refrain, your only back-up to "support" your opinion as if it were fact (and after you just got done accusing me of speciously suggesting your Uncle's views were your own :x [wonder how I got THAT idea?], that unmitigated gall my friend is sheer sophistry). And yet this view is entirely UNSUPPORTED by fact. Art is Art the instant it is created.

There are many kinds of institutes, museums, schools, movements, philosophies of Art etc that display and enshrine all kinds of Art-forms. Some even make a point of displaying Popular Art, Underground Art, Graffiti Art etc. But the fact they display it is NOT the deciding factor in calling it Art. They display it because they ACKNOWLEDGE it as Art. How could they not? They simply choose the works they like best.

And to sneer at the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of Art as "Book-Learning" just shows to what depths you will crawl to justify your weak argument. I suppose ALL those Gallery owners and Artists, and Art Benefactors, and Art Critics, and Art "Patrons" just gleaned their Art Knowledge through Osmosis :roll: .

Of course they didn't. They went to Universities and studied. They started with dictionaries and encyclopedias. Then moved on to study Greek Platonic ideals of Art, then the Latin, then up through the ages. And...GASP :o ...some even study Art of other cultures. Years of BOOK LEARNIN' :shock: ...Oh my God...NO NOT THAT! But for all the Movements and Philosophies, the basis for Art is THE AESTHETIC CREATIVE PROCESS.

In other words The ART COMES FIRST. THAT is the REALITY.

Anyone can spout Subjective nonsense that Art is only this or that. But again that's purely an OPINION as opposed to a FACT.

When I doodle on a scrap of paper I have Instant Art. THAT is REALITY unmediated and UNJUDGED by overeducated "book-learners" who have decided which movement should be currently displayed in their institutions based on "MERE THEORY" and "a view of art that exists only in thought and theory not in actuality". Seal of Approval? Doesn't make it Art. Noble Ideal my Ass! :x (we need a mooning smilie :P )


PS: I ignored the Unmade Bed and the Bricks because somebody obviously had to think they were Artful enough to put in a Gallery to begin with. I.E. someone decided they were Art BEFORE it even got to the Gallery.
Actually people still don't like the idea they are consiodered art at all. And wouldnt it be terrible for you if it turned out your doodle was just that, a doodle?
Here's what I think of that Petty:


[b:1kjms1i9]GB[/b:1kjms1i9] :mrgreen:
I saw you poke your head in here Petty. What's the matter? Cat got your tongue?


[b:3cdy8uyi]GB[/b:3cdy8uyi] :lol:

PS: I forgive you <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> .
Wow, a flame war! :shock: Have we had any of those here before? Normally we're so peaceful...
Oh! I'm just having fun now Eldo. :mrgreen:

As far as I'm concerned the war is over. I hope you like the kitty.


PS: As far as Flame Wars go this one was pretty tame <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> . No-one resorted to foul language or ad-hominem attacks; any frustrations were largely vented rhetorically. We pretty much stuck to the issues. :ugeek:

Some of our FAKE Flame Wars have seemed more scurrilous .:lol:
Yes, yes - this is the kind of stuff required, GB! Give Mr Tyrant what for! I love the way you're now pretending to be ever so nice while patronizing the poor Scot.

Now Eldo, we don't need you coming here rabble rousing! (And btw I'm NOT suggesting GB and Mr Tyrant are rabble, for one must draw one's own conclusions in these things. :geek: )

(Btw GB, I fear Mr Tyrant is actually somewhat like a barnacle - crabbity* on the outside and soft and gooey on the inside! I'm merely making an observation here - not trying to cause further trouble. :ugeek: ... it's just between you and me, GB. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> )

(* The [i:2hjlpxf4]crabbity-shelled [/i:2hjlpxf4]barnacle, of course!)
Yes, well now I am officially extending the Olive Branch of Peace to Petty <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> , Odo.

Now we can get back to dueling with Tolkien Quotes. :lol:


PS: I tried finding a sighing smilie for you Odo, but the only image I've found so far is a Japanese Anime dude. I'll keep searching though.
I would just die for a [i:1by4qs0k]sighing[/i:1by4qs0k] smilee! (If it's in 3D it will be even better! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> )
I did indeed stick my head in as it were earlier- sadly life was in the way (the real world sort- you know the real world GB where art is in what rich people say it is <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ) and I only nipped in to see if I had a pm. Now of course I am back and fully ready to take offence at your arse waving graphic (very scots by the way and no doubt its art too). But I'm not sure I've not achieved my main aim which was to see if I could make GB's head pop. This bum waggling reply may be as close I get though. Although I have enjoyed the cut and thrust and sheer bloody mindedness of it all.
I did note with some amusement a picasso painintg being sold for the sort of money that usually keeps small countries running for a year and I realised that if your right GB then your doodle is equaly art- so I'd get it to auction quick smart if I were you where they are sure to immediately recognize it as art of equal value and you'll be instantly rich! No worries for you about not being recognised as an artist by crummy institutes, I'm sure if you take your dictionary with you and point out them what art is they will immediatley see the error of their ways. :lol:
I couldn't find an actual smilie, but I found an image that could fit the bill.


I sent you an email Odo, with a direct link and instructions on how to insert the image.

For the sake of some sanity on this thread can I just mention I still think the hobbit in 3d would be a mistake. I'd much rather they got the script in order this time rather than worried about flash in the pan gimmicks. Don't want it turning out like avatar. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
Incidentally GB where did you find the cat-tongue pic? Made me laugh regardless of wether we disagree on some matters. I missed it when I posted the last message, my connection is playing silly buggers and didnt load it.
Indeed Odo crabbity on the outside nice on the inside, this post is from the inside, the outside is working out where GB lives. Be afraid, be very afraid! :twisted:
Well you'll no doubt hate the script anyway <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . So they might as film it in 3D :mrgreen: . But they should do it right off the bat, instead of retrofitting a 2D film into 3D like Clash of the Titans--which REALLY was gimmiky.

I did a google image search and found that. If you want it, I can send you the link in a PM. I really laughed my butt off when I found those images :lol: . I've got a few more saved for use as needed.

Lol a few more saved at need. Well I have been warned.
I will love the hobbit script if its even 80% like the book (a far higher percentage than they achieved with LoTR). That leaves them 20% squirming room to put in the White Council and no doubt Legolas saving the day by single handly skate boarding down Smaugs neck and stabbing him in the eyes!
I havn't seen clash, heard it was failry awful and I loved those old ray harryhausen (think thats wrong spelling!) films. But from what I understand the 3d after thought is particularly poor and one review I read said it was so bad at one point pegasus appeared to have 6 legs!! If that problem happens in the hobbit with 13 dwarfs and 1 hobbit thats a lot of extra legs!
Indeed pm me the cat- sure I can find someone to use it on somewhere.
Well a lot of reviewers liked Clash well enough (above average but not great). It was the post-production 3D process that caused the "ghosting" and double image problems. Avatar didn't have those issues because it was filmed entirely in 3D from the beginning. As long as The Hobbit takes that approach, the 3D will be fine.

I am still not convinced of the need for the 3d. Being old enough to remember the last time this fad came around I can see people getting just as bored with it again as they did last time. I think until they work out some clever way of getting the effect without the need for the glasses it will remain a short term fad.
If you try to watch any of the films from the last time this happened (Jaws 3d is a good example) they are awful. Everything designed to come at the camera, ok avatar wasn't quite so blatant (most of the time) but the temptation is there for film makers with little self control (that'd be you I'm looking at PJ) at least del boy is on the directing which might save it from being one long gimmick.
3D is here to stay this time. The technology is much better now that the red/blue glasses are mostly a thing of the past. The Real D 3D polarization process is the most reliable format to date and has proven that there is a strong market for a reliable product. TV screens and Monitors are going on sale this year that are Real D ready. This really is the point of no-return.

It's not the point of no return if only hardcore tech nerds buy the new screens. :P Frankly, I doubt that many people will buy them , at least not for the ridiculous prices they're going for. I think this because:

[list:2pqmd5to][*:2pqmd5to]There's still a global recession.[/*:m:2pqmd5to]
[*:2pqmd5to]A lot of people have recently upgraded to HDTV and want to get their money's worth of that.[/*:m:2pqmd5to]
[*:2pqmd5to]They also have to buy expensive glasses, and the glasses are synced to a specific TV and can't be used with any other screen.[/*:m:2pqmd5to][/list:u:2pqmd5to]
Still not sure. There was a market for it last time too. It just didn't last once people got over it and got annoyed at having to wear the glasses. I see this being a larger problem in the home with monitors and tv. Whilst I love the idea of gaming in 3d I'm not convinced people will sit around in their living rooms wearing them. And what happens when people come over? Everyone will have to bring a pair of glasses with them or the host will need to have spares just in case. It just doesn't seem likely to me. People in general like things that are convenient, as soon as they are inconvenienced they loose interest. Also there is a good chance by the time the prices of 3d tv's and monitors fall sufficiently to make them affordable and common place the technology will have moved on yet again. Indeed I was watching a program on BBC news which was displaying several other forms of 3d that are in the pipeline. The technology currently is too expensive for there to be another vhs betamax style fight.
And I agree with Eldo's points too. I'm in no rush to trade my expensive enough HDTV for an untried new system that might or might not last. And if enough people are as wary as me it'll fall flat on its face.
Awesome Odo :mrgreen: . I'm glad you're having so much fun with it <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . Almost looks 3D.

3D in decades past always was basically a gimmick with a niche audience due to it's drawbacks (poor colour and picture quality). Once the novelty wore off, most people did indeed desert the format. This is different. The glasses are cheap, and the picture quality is generally excellent. And the current format is a proven money maker with a large target audience for repeat business. Once the screens go into mass production, expect prices to drop dramatically. And if industry spokespeople are correct, this will be happening by next summer, with prices on the current systems dropping in time for this upcoming holiday season.

Now that Digital TV is the standard, the process is simple enough that the biggest TV manufacturers are already modifying the production process so that most of the major models will be Real D capable.


And this article also has an analysis of the industry forecast:


[quote="Gandalfs Beard":2cycdij8]Here's what I think of that Petty:


[b:2cycdij8]GB[/b:2cycdij8] :mrgreen:[/quote:2cycdij8]

What are you exactly saying to Mr Tyrant, GB? :? :?

(This teaches me for ever visiting the Vulgar Threads! :shock: Things seem a bit Gayer than I remember... :? )
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":3axjzotw]Here's what I think of that Petty:


[b:3axjzotw]GB[/b:3axjzotw] :mrgreen:[/quote:3axjzotw]

I'm loathe to agree with Wise Odo on anything, GB, but there is really something not at all respectable in your behaviour on this occasion. Is this some kind of mating ritual? :? Perhaps, you might leave this stuff in future for PM's. What you and Mr Tyrant do there is your own business. Remember, children visit this forum! :shock:

Odo Banks
(Old Fashioned Gentleman)
I think Eldo hit the nail on the head with comment about people only just having got HDTV. In Britain at least a good HDTV with all the features is ’500 and upwards. Yes you can get cheaper ones but the quality is often not as good and they are still ’300-’500. I'm just not convinced people will want to trade in such a newly acquired TV for 3D. Especially as to start with most TV will not be broadcast in 3D and most games will not be made in 3D. It's a leap of faith the support will be there for it after you by it.
I notice the article claims that the 3D market is growing, but the chart seems to show 2010 as barely pulling back up to the level of 2008. As it stands 3D is a luxury that most people simply cannot afford, even if they wanted it.
I don't disagree that most people are not going to switch out newly acquired high def TVs for a 3D one. But as all TVs are going high def in the US, and as people switch out old TVs and analog TVs, more and more people will be likely to choose ones with added features including 3D, particularly as prices begin dropping next year and beyond.

In the end though, these trends merely confirm my point that this time 3D is here to stay.

That's an interesting point: could a 3D TV show 2D movies/broadcasts? I honestly don't know. If it could then I suppose more people would choose it, though it would still be a quite expensive luxury item.

As for trends: [b:394jihc5]my[/b:394jihc5] point was there aren't any trends yet. All of the growth on that chart is in forecast: so far the 3D industry is more or less flatlining. I'm not saying it won't grow, but we don't know how much or how fast it will yet. All we have is guesses, albeit (presumably) educated ones.
Of COURSE TVs fitted with a 3D filter will also be able to display 2D images :roll: . The technology doesn't inhibit the displaying of 2D images, it simply adds the capability of displaying 3D images.

The trends in 3D popularity have been established in the medium of film. The forecast for TV trends is based on the fact that manufacturing agreements have been established, and that Supply often dictates Demand in a consumer based society. It's possible that the trends will reverse, but very improbable.

I apologize for not knowing much about how the technology of 3DTV works. Thank you for enlightening me.
There are other 3D technologies besides RealD's polarization process (which only needs a special filter in the TVs), including a format which requires the glasses themselves to be powered with LCD filters that rapidly "blink" sequentially timed with the image projection frame rate. But RealD has signed the most contracts with most of the TV industries biggest manufacturers, and it is expected to rapidly become the industry standard. The inexpensiveness and the simplicity of the glasses themselves will likely play a defining role in the acceptance of RealD as the industry standard, as well as people's familiarity with it through recent Films.

There is a process called Lenticular Display which requires no glasses, but quality is apparently inconsistent and the technology is extremely expensive.

There is a cheap way for people to experience pseudo-3D from 2D colour images by purchasing Chromadepth glasses. It's my favourite "fake" 3D format currently, and works best with colourful images which have blues in the background and reds in the foreground.

[b:1mjkkfxj]GB[/b:1mjkkfxj] ... bit-no-3d/
Good link Chris <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> . Well, at least SOME of you will be pleased at the report in Chris's link :mrgreen: .

  << [1] [2] [3] >>