iCE's Modern Version Of Old-Fashioned Quilting Bee

Ant writes "tiles.ice.org is a Web site with a cool art idea as a tribute to Salvador Dali. It is iCE (remember ANSI art, you old school computer users?)'s answer to the old-fashioned quilt party, minus the gathering of elderly women. It's a unique opportunity for collaborative artwork on the net. A huge image, composed of individual 'tiles' is created, one piece at a time. The goal when making a tile is to mesh your work as smoothly as possible with the surrounding tiles, while creating something cool, artistic, and if applicable, on-topic. Check out the finished sample. I love the ants in the quilt tiles!"

Comments

Progress made by one person or a group?

[Dancin_Santa]

In the history of the world, it has always been the power and vision of one single person that has created progress. This is another way to say that committees accomplish nothing.

Even with art, it's not the AIDS quilt we remember, it's Van Gogh's Starry Night. The individual is the creator of art. Art by committee is soulless.

Re:Progress made by one person or a group?

[oirtemed]

I dont think the purpose of this is to achieve any new leaps in artistic expression. There is more to working with a group than just "progress" and gains. There is a lot to be said for the fun involved and the ability to share and meld your ideas with the ideas of others. I assume you don't listen to any music, surely that art by committee has no soul. Or books illustrated by people other than the author, or even collaborative writings. Hell, researchers should stop working in teams and just go at it alone....how else will we progress? Now that I think of it, I can't believe I even bit at your flamebait. Oh well.

Re:Progress made by one person or a group?

[NitroWolf]

Even with art, it's not the AIDS quilt we remember, it's Van Gogh's Starry Night. The individual is the creator of art. Art by committee is soulless.

The only people who actually think that "art by comittee is soulless" are the pseudo-intellectuals who don't/can't really apprecaite art, so they critize it to beef up their ego/self-esteem.

Going by the logic here, a museum is also a "soulless" place, because it is, by definition, art by comittee. A comittee decides what's in the museum and the museum contains a hodge podge of different artists. Thus all art, except stand alone art in the middle of a field, with no one around to view is is "soulless."

Now how silly is that. Art is created by the artist for their own edification. Art is viewed/consumed by the viewer for their own enjoyment. That's what art is, there's nothing soulless or soulful about it... you get out of art what you put into it, whether you are the viewer or the creator.

Re:Progress made by one person or a group?

[jbrader]

Then by your definition since a movie is made by a team it's not art. I know the argument to this is that a movie has a strong director whos vision shapes the movie but anyone with input changes the final result. e.g. Kubrick made Dr Strnglove but would it have been the same without Peter Sellers or Slim Pickins?

Re:Progress made by one person or a group?

[Queer Boy]

Even with art, it's not the AIDS quilt we remember, it's Van Gogh's Starry Night.

Folk art is quite different than Fine art. Folk art has a distinct culture behind it whereas Fine art is typically an individual expression (sometimes a statement). Yes, you're right, people remember the individual in Fine art whereas Folk art is about a community.

Your assertion is that recognition is the inherent drive for art. I always thought it was expression. It's also not art by committee, it's art by community.

Re:Stop michael now!

[quantaman]

What a dweeb. Say, if you don't like /., how about you just go away?

Yeah, because when something good has problems you should just abandon it instead of trying to correct them. Those who post the stories and comments are the reason /. exists, they have a moral right to partake in its direction.

The main effect of your ranting is to make me rather like "michael", whoever he is. He's certainly an improvement on you.

Ahh, because the messenger defines the message? Just because the messenger isn't perfect does not change the fact that /. has some serious problems with the degree of professionalism demonstrated by some of the editors. There are times I'm surprised that /. hasn't been sued for libel for some of the inaccurate information they've posted in stories where even RTFA'ing would of informed them otherwise. Hundreds of thousands of geeks come here daily and many are inevitably going to give some degree of credence to what they see on the front page. I'm not asking for the New York Times here but at least some basic proofreading and making sure the facts are vaugly right before they post it for everyone to see would be nice.

Re:Stop michael now!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not related, the thing is that this forum lacks any ability to start any of your own threads. So if you want to reach the readers you have to post in an unrelated thread.

I don't think the orginal poster would have cared to post an unrelated post if it weren't for the influence this site have on the online world as a whole.

I agree on the problem, but do not think that it's neither possible nor good to do something about it by lowering the standards of slashdot. The sollution, I think, is to create an alternative. Start or find a site to replace slashdot and post insightfull comments there, making it an interesting alternative.

The alternative sites I've seen so far has been to dead or contentless to make me stay. You will have to change that, focus your activism on getting insightful people to post on other places instead. Why not send a message to those who make great posts on slashdot?

Sebastian, posting anonymously to save karma.