The Apple ][ had color (NTSC) but I'm not sure about colour (PAL/SECAM). It used a NTSC trick to produce black, white and four colors on a TV. I'm not sure if the same trick works with the PAL/SECAM system. The earliest Apple ][ computers only had black, white, and two colors, but Woz later made a very simple modification that expanded that to six colors (technically eight if you count both shades of black and both shades of white). Television use required an after market RF modulator.
Re:What's changed in 30 years?
on
The Apple II At 30
·
· Score: 2, Funny
There can't have been many even among those who had the skills who would have willingly attempted do-it-yourself surgery on so expensive of piece of unfamiliar hardware.
I have. And I don't even have skills. But what I lack in skills I make up for in lack of money.
I don't think anyone would argue that the Apple II was technically inferior to the machines that came later from other companies. The Commodore 64 was released five years after the Apple II, that's ages in computer years and features several custom chips for its special features. Apple stuck to the same off-the shelf mentality for a long time, because that's what their customers wanted. The Apple/// was a complete flop, so was the Lisa. People liked their Apple IIs. The Apple IIGS was late to the party, if they had moved in that direction sooner, maybe it would have made a difference, but technical superiority isn't everything in mass marketing. Ask Sony.
While the Mac was buoyed by the desktop publishing revolution, the Amiga did manage to capture a niche: video and graphics. Amiga computers are still used today by many video professionals. There is a Video Toaster sitting eight feet from me (and its PC successor, the VT[4], in the box I'm using right now). Unfortunately for Commodore, the potent Amiga / Toaster combo were way too far ahead of their time; home video was nowhere near reaching the mass market revolution that is going on right now. In those days, printing out really, really nice documents was something people could get their heads around, especially in the ugly reality of dot matrix printers and fanfold paper. These days, thanks mostly to good timing and savvy purchases, Apple all but owns the video and graphics niche as well.
Commodore failed simply because of horrible management, just like Atari. Hell, the Amiga never even should have been a Commodore product, it was designed by Jay Miner, the Atari engineer behind the Atari VCS and the Atari 400/800. Atari was offered the Amiga and payed for some of its development, and for some reason decided not to see it to completion. No doubt the same kind of idiocy that lead Atari to pass on the rights to the Nintendo Entertainment System. When Commodore slipped in and sneakily purchased the Amiga out from under them, a livid Jack Tramiel, president of Atari, (who founded Commodore and introduced the PET/VIC/C64 series and eventually got all pissy and left Commodore to purchase a money hemorrhaging Atari) sued Commodore and scrambled to slap together the Atari ST as a competitor, practically out of spite. Engineered in something like 6 months, while the Amiga languished in legal limbo, the Atari ST (dubbed by some, "the Jackinstosh") actually wasn't too bad (if quirky) and featured a single-tasking OS from Digital Research, the guys who passed on the IBM PC operating system allowing Microsoft to step in to save the day. While slightly faster than, and sharing the same CPU as the Amiga and the Mac, the Atari ST was nothing compared to the much more complex and amazing multi-tasking Amiga. The ST would eventually sport an inexpensive laser printer (two years after Apple) and the ability to run Mac and PC software better than the real thing. Atari tried to compete in desktop publishing, and some big name publishing software got their start on Atari, but Atari couldn't shed its gaming stigma and refused to spend the marketing dollars to correct that. Commodore didn't fare much better in the image department and didn't even bother to make a laser printer or try to compete with Mac at all it seems, although the Amiga outsold the Atari by a substantial margin. Maybe that's all they cared about. They later tried to get into the game console business with a dumbed down Amiga with a CD-ROM, but it was too late for Commodore and the faded away in all but the video realm. Atari eventually did find their niche in music thanks to built in MIDI and sequencer software like Cubase, and it is still used by a few musicians, although nothing like it was in its heyday.
Apple made it out almost by default because Atari and Commodore were so inept... and because they developed an affordable laser printer before anyone else. Not unlike how Apple were the first to develop a fast and affordable floppy system -- engineered by who? W
Re:The first computer I owned
on
The Apple II At 30
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Great article. At first glance I thought I was looking in a mirror through a time tunnel, "Is that me?" Nice site, when I saw 68000 and MIDI experience, I thought, "Hmmmm, I bet this guy has an Atari ST lurking about". Loved my 1040STFM and spent an awful lot of time programming it. What kind of machine has a picture of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs in ROM? The awesome kind.
The first computer I owned
on
The Apple II At 30
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I got an Apple ][+ with 48k back in 1981. I had a chance to use a couple of computers before then, but this was the first one I spent any real time with. I taught myself to program on it and it sparked my life long interest in computer graphics and game development (which I attempt to do professionally today). I have the awesome manuals that came with it to thank. That's the way to do a computer right. And now it makes me feel very, very old. I wish I still had that particular computer, I should have never given it away. I still have an Apple IIe, two Apple//c's, and a Laser 128. What Woz did with Apple is the most inspiring and amazing thing. What an engineer!
As I understand it, Nintendo owns the rights to all of the binaries Rare created for their consoles. Not sure about the source code. The Bond license is the real issue.
That's assuming you don't have any shots longer than 10 minutes. And without knowing the latency of the card who can say if it is suitable for video editing or acquisition. And some of us like to work uncompressed which brings up even more issues. It's got the bandwidth for one, maybe two, streams of uncompressed SD, but not even close for a single stream of uncompressed HD. I'll stick to my RAID.
Beyond marketing hype, what exactly makes a Zelda game an RPG? I honestly don't get it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned having grown up on pen-and-paper RPGs, and CRPGs like Wizardry and Ultima. Every game in the Zelda series are almost completely linear, there is usually only one way to solve any problem, there is almost no way to customize the game or make your experience any different than another player's. There is only one player character, a character who is virtually identical across all games, with no customization, no leveling, no classes, no tactics, no way to influence the story, no characters that react meaningfully to the different ways you play, and not really any other RPG trappings except a Tolkien-esque universe. Yes, Zelda II had some leveling, making it the most RPG-like, but that represents one small feature in one aberration of a game out of something like fifteen in the series. I'm sorry, a handful of hearts does not an RPG make. Zelda is no more an RPG than the three lives of Pac-Man are a statement on reincarnation and corporate capitalism. As far as I can tell the Zelda series is a classic action adventure in almost every possible way, completely in the vein of the grand-daddy of them all "Adventure" for the Atari VCS. You collect specific objects, or perform specific tasks, to overcome a specific series of obstacles, while the game funnels you toward the end. Your options are extremely limited, and almost everything that can be done in the game is utterly compulsory in order to finish it. In other words, Zelda is a particularly inflexible adventure game with many exciting and varied real-time action elements -- and I love Zelda for it. Don't ever change, Zelda!
I don't mind trolls. But when they are so tragically retarded it's just sad and pitiable. This is Slashdot; better work on your chops, buddy, and next time bring your A-Game. A weak troll like that will only generate ridicule outside of whatever AOL chatroom you fell out of. And posting AC? Well, you pretty much modded yourself. Sorry, thanks for playing.
What? Talk about naive. Zelda has NEVER been an RPG and has ALWAYS been an action adventure. Each Zelda brings a new gameplay element to the table, usually in the form of a new item, than allows the creation of new kinds of puzzles. This new item or gameplay enhancement is almost always is in the title of the game, or is at least alluded to in the title. That said, I have not played Twilight Princess, so I can't speak to its innovations, if any. Perhaps the series is (momentarily) stuck in a rut of nostalgia.
Re:Spiderman has sucked plenty of times before
on
A Web-Head Retrospective
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I swear to God, he ACTUALLY says "I'LL GET YOU, SPIDERMAN!" and shakes his fist in the air at one point. Sad.
Yeah, you'd never see such hackneyed dialogue in a comic book.
For years, people have been braying about the effects that continually playing violent videogames has on children. How repeated exposure to fictional violence in videogames desensitizes children. An effect which makes real world violence more tolerable and less revolting, in effect training our children to be killers ready to kill for any reason at a moment's notice. Some might argue that that's the very point of these so called "murder simulators".
But did any one think for second what the effect of continually treating children like criminals is? How repeated persecution for fictional crimes desensitizes children. An effect which makes real world incarceration more tolerable and less revolting, in effect training our children to be inmates ready to submit to authority for any reason at a moment's notice. Some might argue that that's the very point of these so called "nanny states".
Hey, I agree with you. But we both know that fair use as a legal concept has been dead for the last 20 years or so. My point is that if actual broadcasters aren't covering these debates there is a much more serious problem than just MSNBC licensing. If it were up to me, broadcasters would not only be compelled to cover these events, but their coverage would be automatically placed into the public domain, since their coverage is indeed a public service mandated by a government of, by and for the people, using airtime which was bought and paid for in full by those very same people per FCC agreement. That would at least be in the proper spirit of covering public governmental discourse. Unfortunately the FCC is too busy censoring dirty words for a handful of prudes to be bothered enforcing rules which are at the very heart of the FCC's true duties to the population at large.
I would be inclined to agree with you if this were a broadcast network we are talking about. FCC regulations compel broadcasters to cover events like this as part of their licensing agreement. The must cover events that are of broad interest to the people, namely news, political debates, and election coverage. That in a sense makes the networks a proxy of the government and as such the information broadcast should be freely available since we all payed for it in the form of licensing the publicly owned airwaves to the networks. However, even such a broad interpretation falls apart because the only product of the government that must enter the public domain is that which is produced by a government agency. Stuff produced for the government by private contractors is not subject to being placed into the public domain automatically. Further, since MSNBC is a cable network not a broadcast network, the FCC rules don't even apply to them. So MSNBC clearly has the right to restrict their coverage how they see fit. The real problem is broadcast networks not covering these debates in the first place, if they are not. We must not allow them to shirk their responsibilities, that is the real crime here.
Having all the typefaces look *exactly* right is one of those things that only printers really care about. Don't get me wrong, it's worth the trouble, for the *printed page*.
Look at the Slashdot banner at the top of the page. What do you see? Kerning. And if it wasn't kerned, it would look like crap. All designers care about kerning, not just those in the print world.
Oh, so HP has a patent on printer efficiency now? What are you, a moron? Any legitimate company that is remotely capable of competing in the printer marketplace will have no problem successfully defending themselves in court over such a spurious and utterly unlikely lawsuit. I don't even know why I bother replying to such a brain dead AC-POST*.
Free Enterprise > Capitalism > Communism > You
* Anonymous Coward Piece Of Shit Troll, Patent Pending
It would be cool if thinkgeek or someone made cds that were 120mm wide, but they only used the 1st 80mm, like mini cds, and they had 20mm ninja star spikes or something.
These kinds of discs are available. Several years ago, DiscMakers was the first company I saw with them made to customer specs. I couldn't find them on their website but several other companies offer the service.
I can echo your observation of the punk scene, at least when I was growing up. I moved from being a dissatisfied music listener among sheep in the earliest days of MTV, through a brief flirtation with metal when Metallica came around, to finally jumping right out of the mainstream once I discovered punk and began immersing myself in the early NYHC scene. Many of the headbangers were smart but almost all of the punks I knew were damn near brilliant. How did we self assemble? We were friendly, decent people living on the fringe, in a world of acronyms, symbols, and knowing head nods, who were more than happy to educate and indoctrinate the willing using nothing more than a kick ass mix tape.
If you don't think there is an art to the persuasive argument, you're never going to make one.
I believe there is 'art' in the archaic sense of craft or workmanship. But I think the motivation is primarily practical, not aesthetic.
The motivation may be primarily practical, but the execution is purely aesthetic. If the given argument isn't expertly crafted to be appealing to an otherwise unwilling or ambivalent target, the target isn't going to accept it. If we were all computers, logic would be the only requirement, but because we are human we live in a world where policy, more often than not, is dictated by emotion.
Elitism is not against art. Art is inanimate. Elitism is against other people. Art experts aren't elitist because they exclude certain things from being art; quite the opposite. They're elitist because they believe only they can 'see' the art in things most people consider non-artistic. You're saying that the vast majority of cultured people are incapable of understanding what you do.
I don't feel that jibes at all with what I've said. I think perhaps your perception of elitism is much more narrow than mine. To my mind, elitists are elitist because they believe that only a narrow spectrum of art is 'true' art worth of being called such. That's what I mean by saying they have an exclusionary anti-art position. What I've actually said is perfectly easy for anyone to understand, it is a very simply stated position: It is art if the artist can intentionally provoke a specific emotion from the viewer. An elitist's position on art is so highly refined that they are incapable of defining it. What kind of position is that? It's no more refined than the proverbial Average Joe position of "I may not know art, but I know what I like." At least that position is honest and straight forward.
What I haven't made clear, but what I do believe, is that people have been conditioned by the art world to believe that they have no business thinking about art in simple, prosaic terms because the artists and gallery owners are financially motivated to have it that way. This is more simply stated by the exclusionary, if popular, definition of art that says that if anybody can do it, it is not art. That statement has dubious merit. Barring some extreme personal handicap, anybody can be an artist.
Even an accidental occurrence can be made into art if it is framed for the observer in an appropriate context. I accidentally hit my thumb with a hammer: not art. You observe that I have recently lectured my son on the importance of safety in construction: ironic humor. In this case, the observer is the artist. Now I take the same situation and write it into a script. Now it's not an accident and now I'm an artist. So how easy it is? It's just art. It doesn't have to be clever, it doesn't have to elevate us intellectually, it doesn't have to make us feel good, it doesn't even have to make obvious sense. It's just art.
Elitism Home Test Which of the following are not art: A. "Autumn Rhythm" painting by Jackson Pollock B. "The Pond--Moonlight" photograph by Edward Steichen. C. "The Fantastic Four" comic book by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby D. "Fear Of A Black Planet" rap album by Public Enemy E. "Doom" film directed by Andrzej Bartkowiak
Slashdot Mirror
The Apple ][ had color (NTSC) but I'm not sure about colour (PAL/SECAM). It used a NTSC trick to produce black, white and four colors on a TV. I'm not sure if the same trick works with the PAL/SECAM system. The earliest Apple ][ computers only had black, white, and two colors, but Woz later made a very simple modification that expanded that to six colors (technically eight if you count both shades of black and both shades of white). Television use required an after market RF modulator.
I have. And I don't even have skills. But what I lack in skills I make up for in lack of money.
I don't think anyone would argue that the Apple II was technically inferior to the machines that came later from other companies. The Commodore 64 was released five years after the Apple II, that's ages in computer years and features several custom chips for its special features. Apple stuck to the same off-the shelf mentality for a long time, because that's what their customers wanted. The Apple /// was a complete flop, so was the Lisa. People liked their Apple IIs. The Apple IIGS was late to the party, if they had moved in that direction sooner, maybe it would have made a difference, but technical superiority isn't everything in mass marketing. Ask Sony.
... and because they developed an affordable laser printer before anyone else. Not unlike how Apple were the first to develop a fast and affordable floppy system -- engineered by who? W
While the Mac was buoyed by the desktop publishing revolution, the Amiga did manage to capture a niche: video and graphics. Amiga computers are still used today by many video professionals. There is a Video Toaster sitting eight feet from me (and its PC successor, the VT[4], in the box I'm using right now). Unfortunately for Commodore, the potent Amiga / Toaster combo were way too far ahead of their time; home video was nowhere near reaching the mass market revolution that is going on right now. In those days, printing out really, really nice documents was something people could get their heads around, especially in the ugly reality of dot matrix printers and fanfold paper. These days, thanks mostly to good timing and savvy purchases, Apple all but owns the video and graphics niche as well.
Commodore failed simply because of horrible management, just like Atari. Hell, the Amiga never even should have been a Commodore product, it was designed by Jay Miner, the Atari engineer behind the Atari VCS and the Atari 400/800. Atari was offered the Amiga and payed for some of its development, and for some reason decided not to see it to completion. No doubt the same kind of idiocy that lead Atari to pass on the rights to the Nintendo Entertainment System. When Commodore slipped in and sneakily purchased the Amiga out from under them, a livid Jack Tramiel, president of Atari, (who founded Commodore and introduced the PET/VIC/C64 series and eventually got all pissy and left Commodore to purchase a money hemorrhaging Atari) sued Commodore and scrambled to slap together the Atari ST as a competitor, practically out of spite. Engineered in something like 6 months, while the Amiga languished in legal limbo, the Atari ST (dubbed by some, "the Jackinstosh") actually wasn't too bad (if quirky) and featured a single-tasking OS from Digital Research, the guys who passed on the IBM PC operating system allowing Microsoft to step in to save the day. While slightly faster than, and sharing the same CPU as the Amiga and the Mac, the Atari ST was nothing compared to the much more complex and amazing multi-tasking Amiga. The ST would eventually sport an inexpensive laser printer (two years after Apple) and the ability to run Mac and PC software better than the real thing. Atari tried to compete in desktop publishing, and some big name publishing software got their start on Atari, but Atari couldn't shed its gaming stigma and refused to spend the marketing dollars to correct that. Commodore didn't fare much better in the image department and didn't even bother to make a laser printer or try to compete with Mac at all it seems, although the Amiga outsold the Atari by a substantial margin. Maybe that's all they cared about. They later tried to get into the game console business with a dumbed down Amiga with a CD-ROM, but it was too late for Commodore and the faded away in all but the video realm. Atari eventually did find their niche in music thanks to built in MIDI and sequencer software like Cubase, and it is still used by a few musicians, although nothing like it was in its heyday.
Apple made it out almost by default because Atari and Commodore were so inept
Great article. At first glance I thought I was looking in a mirror through a time tunnel, "Is that me?" Nice site, when I saw 68000 and MIDI experience, I thought, "Hmmmm, I bet this guy has an Atari ST lurking about". Loved my 1040STFM and spent an awful lot of time programming it. What kind of machine has a picture of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs in ROM? The awesome kind.
I got an Apple ][+ with 48k back in 1981. I had a chance to use a couple of computers before then, but this was the first one I spent any real time with. I taught myself to program on it and it sparked my life long interest in computer graphics and game development (which I attempt to do professionally today). I have the awesome manuals that came with it to thank. That's the way to do a computer right. And now it makes me feel very, very old. I wish I still had that particular computer, I should have never given it away. I still have an Apple IIe, two Apple //c's, and a Laser 128. What Woz did with Apple is the most inspiring and amazing thing. What an engineer!
As I understand it, Nintendo owns the rights to all of the binaries Rare created for their consoles. Not sure about the source code. The Bond license is the real issue.
I always close the lid simply because everyone suffers that way. It's the only fair option.
That's assuming you don't have any shots longer than 10 minutes. And without knowing the latency of the card who can say if it is suitable for video editing or acquisition. And some of us like to work uncompressed which brings up even more issues. It's got the bandwidth for one, maybe two, streams of uncompressed SD, but not even close for a single stream of uncompressed HD. I'll stick to my RAID.
Beyond marketing hype, what exactly makes a Zelda game an RPG? I honestly don't get it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned having grown up on pen-and-paper RPGs, and CRPGs like Wizardry and Ultima. Every game in the Zelda series are almost completely linear, there is usually only one way to solve any problem, there is almost no way to customize the game or make your experience any different than another player's. There is only one player character, a character who is virtually identical across all games, with no customization, no leveling, no classes, no tactics, no way to influence the story, no characters that react meaningfully to the different ways you play, and not really any other RPG trappings except a Tolkien-esque universe. Yes, Zelda II had some leveling, making it the most RPG-like, but that represents one small feature in one aberration of a game out of something like fifteen in the series. I'm sorry, a handful of hearts does not an RPG make. Zelda is no more an RPG than the three lives of Pac-Man are a statement on reincarnation and corporate capitalism. As far as I can tell the Zelda series is a classic action adventure in almost every possible way, completely in the vein of the grand-daddy of them all "Adventure" for the Atari VCS. You collect specific objects, or perform specific tasks, to overcome a specific series of obstacles, while the game funnels you toward the end. Your options are extremely limited, and almost everything that can be done in the game is utterly compulsory in order to finish it. In other words, Zelda is a particularly inflexible adventure game with many exciting and varied real-time action elements -- and I love Zelda for it. Don't ever change, Zelda!
I don't mind trolls. But when they are so tragically retarded it's just sad and pitiable. This is Slashdot; better work on your chops, buddy, and next time bring your A-Game. A weak troll like that will only generate ridicule outside of whatever AOL chatroom you fell out of. And posting AC? Well, you pretty much modded yourself. Sorry, thanks for playing.
What? Talk about naive. Zelda has NEVER been an RPG and has ALWAYS been an action adventure. Each Zelda brings a new gameplay element to the table, usually in the form of a new item, than allows the creation of new kinds of puzzles. This new item or gameplay enhancement is almost always is in the title of the game, or is at least alluded to in the title. That said, I have not played Twilight Princess, so I can't speak to its innovations, if any. Perhaps the series is (momentarily) stuck in a rut of nostalgia.
Yeah, you'd never see such hackneyed dialogue in a comic book.
For years, people have been braying about the effects that continually playing violent videogames has on children. How repeated exposure to fictional violence in videogames desensitizes children. An effect which makes real world violence more tolerable and less revolting, in effect training our children to be killers ready to kill for any reason at a moment's notice. Some might argue that that's the very point of these so called "murder simulators".
But did any one think for second what the effect of continually treating children like criminals is? How repeated persecution for fictional crimes desensitizes children. An effect which makes real world incarceration more tolerable and less revolting, in effect training our children to be inmates ready to submit to authority for any reason at a moment's notice. Some might argue that that's the very point of these so called "nanny states".
Perhaps it was given a lot thought, indeed.
Dear America,
Stop sucking.
Your pals,
Voters
Hey, I agree with you. But we both know that fair use as a legal concept has been dead for the last 20 years or so. My point is that if actual broadcasters aren't covering these debates there is a much more serious problem than just MSNBC licensing. If it were up to me, broadcasters would not only be compelled to cover these events, but their coverage would be automatically placed into the public domain, since their coverage is indeed a public service mandated by a government of, by and for the people, using airtime which was bought and paid for in full by those very same people per FCC agreement. That would at least be in the proper spirit of covering public governmental discourse. Unfortunately the FCC is too busy censoring dirty words for a handful of prudes to be bothered enforcing rules which are at the very heart of the FCC's true duties to the population at large.
I would be inclined to agree with you if this were a broadcast network we are talking about. FCC regulations compel broadcasters to cover events like this as part of their licensing agreement. The must cover events that are of broad interest to the people, namely news, political debates, and election coverage. That in a sense makes the networks a proxy of the government and as such the information broadcast should be freely available since we all payed for it in the form of licensing the publicly owned airwaves to the networks. However, even such a broad interpretation falls apart because the only product of the government that must enter the public domain is that which is produced by a government agency. Stuff produced for the government by private contractors is not subject to being placed into the public domain automatically. Further, since MSNBC is a cable network not a broadcast network, the FCC rules don't even apply to them. So MSNBC clearly has the right to restrict their coverage how they see fit. The real problem is broadcast networks not covering these debates in the first place, if they are not. We must not allow them to shirk their responsibilities, that is the real crime here.
Look at the Slashdot banner at the top of the page. What do you see? Kerning. And if it wasn't kerned, it would look like crap. All designers care about kerning, not just those in the print world.
Oh, so HP has a patent on printer efficiency now? What are you, a moron? Any legitimate company that is remotely capable of competing in the printer marketplace will have no problem successfully defending themselves in court over such a spurious and utterly unlikely lawsuit. I don't even know why I bother replying to such a brain dead AC-POST*.
Free Enterprise > Capitalism > Communism > You
* Anonymous Coward Piece Of Shit Troll, Patent Pending
Want to help people? Public domain: give it away.
Want to make money? Proprietary license: sell binaries to end users.
No sense in being half-assed about this.
Why free enterprise DOES work:
Another company will come out with a similarly efficient printer that they WILL sell, and HP won't get squat.
I, for one, welcome our new floss plucking pygmy pony overlords. Too bad it won't last.
These kinds of discs are available. Several years ago, DiscMakers was the first company I saw with them made to customer specs. I couldn't find them on their website but several other companies offer the service.
http://www.answers.com/topic/shaped-cd
http://www.multishapecdrom.com/cd_showcase/?case=
http://www.newcyberian.com/shapedcd.html
http://www.cdrom-businesscard.co.uk/displayproduc
http://www.morphius.com/manufacturing/shapedcds.c
I can echo your observation of the punk scene, at least when I was growing up. I moved from being a dissatisfied music listener among sheep in the earliest days of MTV, through a brief flirtation with metal when Metallica came around, to finally jumping right out of the mainstream once I discovered punk and began immersing myself in the early NYHC scene. Many of the headbangers were smart but almost all of the punks I knew were damn near brilliant. How did we self assemble? We were friendly, decent people living on the fringe, in a world of acronyms, symbols, and knowing head nods, who were more than happy to educate and indoctrinate the willing using nothing more than a kick ass mix tape.
Retail transaction functionary?
... and don't forget the door spikes.
Burger assembly technician?
Life avoidance counselor?
Subterranean familial couch parasite?
Take your pick
The motivation may be primarily practical, but the execution is purely aesthetic. If the given argument isn't expertly crafted to be appealing to an otherwise unwilling or ambivalent target, the target isn't going to accept it. If we were all computers, logic would be the only requirement, but because we are human we live in a world where policy, more often than not, is dictated by emotion.
I don't feel that jibes at all with what I've said. I think perhaps your perception of elitism is much more narrow than mine. To my mind, elitists are elitist because they believe that only a narrow spectrum of art is 'true' art worth of being called such. That's what I mean by saying they have an exclusionary anti-art position. What I've actually said is perfectly easy for anyone to understand, it is a very simply stated position: It is art if the artist can intentionally provoke a specific emotion from the viewer. An elitist's position on art is so highly refined that they are incapable of defining it. What kind of position is that? It's no more refined than the proverbial Average Joe position of "I may not know art, but I know what I like." At least that position is honest and straight forward.
What I haven't made clear, but what I do believe, is that people have been conditioned by the art world to believe that they have no business thinking about art in simple, prosaic terms because the artists and gallery owners are financially motivated to have it that way. This is more simply stated by the exclusionary, if popular, definition of art that says that if anybody can do it, it is not art. That statement has dubious merit. Barring some extreme personal handicap, anybody can be an artist.
Even an accidental occurrence can be made into art if it is framed for the observer in an appropriate context. I accidentally hit my thumb with a hammer: not art. You observe that I have recently lectured my son on the importance of safety in construction: ironic humor. In this case, the observer is the artist. Now I take the same situation and write it into a script. Now it's not an accident and now I'm an artist. So how easy it is? It's just art. It doesn't have to be clever, it doesn't have to elevate us intellectually, it doesn't have to make us feel good, it doesn't even have to make obvious sense. It's just art.
Elitism Home Test
Which of the following are not art:
A. "Autumn Rhythm" painting by Jackson Pollock
B. "The Pond--Moonlight" photograph by Edward Steichen.
C. "The Fantastic Four" comic book by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby
D. "Fear Of A Black Planet" rap album by Public Enemy
E. "Doom" film directed by Andrzej Bartkowiak