I am not enough of either to consider myself one or the other, however it's obvious that the answer is entirely subjective.
People can appreciate code for its elegance, efficiency, and brilliance: attributes which are considered "beauty" to a particular group of people.
People can appreciate art for its sound, texture, and underlying social or person message: attributes which are considered "beauty" to another particular group of people.
If people do things which require both ("traditional") artistic and technical skill, then they should consider themselves whatever they want. Different fields require different skills. Computer animators, modelers, and gaffers must be artists first and then learn the technical crap. Not everyone can do this. I think the same would be true for people who must tackle the technical end first, and then the artistic.
I think a more important consideration in looking at both art and code is "does it convey emotion?". Does it convey that there was emotion in the production process? Does it convey that there is emotion in the viewing/listening/feeling/code execution process? This is a question which I think has already been established for "traditional" art, but not for code.
Can you pour your heart and soul into an a piece or installation? Damn straight you can. Can you pour your heart and soul into an algorithm or function? Damn straight you can.
Perhaps the one distinguishing factor is that "traditional " art is typically born because of emotion/feelings and as a "natural" expression of them.
So here's the more important question: can code be written because of emotions/feelings as an expression of them? Can code invoke feelings of agreement and unification ("By looking at this, I can completely relate to the artist's feelings when s/he made this piece.")? Can it spur imagination ("this piece makes me think of...")?
There's been a lot of comparison between FF and films from Pixar such as Toy Story (1 and 2), and it seems as though practically everyone is scoffing "yea, 'dat Toy Story shit ain't nothin' ta' 'dis FF shit, bitch!" But I think that we need to realize that the two are _not_ the same film, and that they are two _completely_ different genres. This is important when it comes not only to storyline, but also to technical aspects as well (modeling, lighting, and rendering).
I have no idea what FF is going to be rated, but you can bet your monkey that it's not going to be "G". Square is not targeting the film to the interests of 6 year-olds who are gonna yell to mom and dad to buy them film-related merchandise for their birthday. Instead, they're targeting the _mid-teen to adult crowd_ who are going to yell to their boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives to buy them film-related merchandise for their birthday;)
What's FF about? Future, war, intrigue..._technical_ stuff (machines, weapons, spaceships). What are the majority of Pixar's films about? Almost everything _BUT_ the future, war, intrigue, and technical stuff!
This is what makes Pixar such an unbelievably talented and ground-breaking studio--they produce work based on things in _human life_, and are able to pull are the funny and ironic things out if it and show them to us.
I'm not saying that FF won't do this as well. I just bought FF8 a couple of months ago (hey, I've been busy;), and was blown away by how great the story line if it is considering it's a game. But it's important to understand that each genre intrinsically lends itself to certain cinematic aspects which are going to make the film lean towards certain technical and artistic displays.
Has anyone else noticed how many metal-type objects have been showing up in the "props" section of the web site? Metal, particularly _corroded/dirty metal_ is extremely awe-inspiring, and is often times far quicker to impress the viewer than a shader such as the light reflection and refraction with in Flick's eye's in A Bugs Life, although both have their subtleties. Just look at the techno-inspired invasion occurring at web sites all over the internet. Sharp objects make for sharp reactions.
It was mentioned that Square's got some proprietary algorithms to deal with stuff like hair movements, etc... Which kicks ass, 'cause the look of Maya's Paint Effects just isn't cutting it for me anymore:) The FF trailer _DOES_ look amazing, don't get me wrong. But have you noticed the shots Pixar placed in the opening of A Bug's Life or during the credit roll? There were the swaying movements of the grass and dandelion fluff. This practically made me pee my pants when I saw it--my jaw dropped right to the floor. What about the depth shading and focal properties used in Geri's Game?
_Both_ studios have, and are currently producing some truly _amazing_ work, without a doubt. Each film, due to its genre, contains it's own strengths, and also its own weaknesses. Pixar has the rare ability to produce films which can make not only kids, but also adults laugh and think. This is what makes Pixar revolutionary. At the same time, I've never seen so much attention to modeling, animating, and shading detail as is being done by Square on FF.
Regardless of who wins, I'll just be psyched if NTT brings over the crazy commercials featuring that insane "DoCoMo Girl" from a year ago. Those ads were _awesome_ (if not annoying)!! Nothing US TV neads more than her screaming out "DOCOMO!!" at all of us:)
Slashdot Mirror
People can appreciate code for its elegance, efficiency, and brilliance: attributes which are considered "beauty" to a particular group of people.
People can appreciate art for its sound, texture, and underlying social or person message: attributes which are considered "beauty" to another particular group of people.
If people do things which require both ("traditional") artistic and technical skill, then they should consider themselves whatever they want. Different fields require different skills. Computer animators, modelers, and gaffers must be artists first and then learn the technical crap. Not everyone can do this. I think the same would be true for people who must tackle the technical end first, and then the artistic.
I think a more important consideration in looking at both art and code is "does it convey emotion?". Does it convey that there was emotion in the production process? Does it convey that there is emotion in the viewing/listening/feeling/code execution process? This is a question which I think has already been established for "traditional" art, but not for code.
Can you pour your heart and soul into an a piece or installation? Damn straight you can. Can you pour your heart and soul into an algorithm or function? Damn straight you can.
Perhaps the one distinguishing factor is that "traditional " art is typically born because of emotion/feelings and as a "natural" expression of them.
So here's the more important question: can code be written because of emotions/feelings as an expression of them? Can code invoke feelings of agreement and unification ("By looking at this, I can completely relate to the artist's feelings when s/he made this piece.")? Can it spur imagination ("this piece makes me think of...")?
What do you think? Discuss...
you know, if this story came out last holiday season, it would have reported that Saddam is making a beowulf cluster out of Furbys :)
There's been a lot of comparison between FF and films from Pixar such as Toy Story (1 and 2), and it seems as though practically everyone is scoffing "yea, 'dat Toy Story shit ain't nothin' ta' 'dis FF shit, bitch!" But I think that we need to realize that the two are _not_ the same film, and that they are two _completely_ different genres. This is important when it comes not only to storyline, but also to technical aspects as well (modeling, lighting, and rendering).
;)
;), and was blown away by how great the story line if it is considering it's a game. But it's important to understand that each genre intrinsically lends itself to certain cinematic aspects which are going to make the film lean towards certain technical and artistic displays.
:) The FF trailer _DOES_ look amazing, don't get me wrong. But have you noticed the shots Pixar placed in the opening of A Bug's Life or during the credit roll? There were the swaying movements of the grass and dandelion fluff. This practically made me pee my pants when I saw it--my jaw dropped right to the floor. What about the depth shading and focal properties used in Geri's Game?
I have no idea what FF is going to be rated, but you can bet your monkey that it's not going to be "G". Square is not targeting the film to the interests of 6 year-olds who are gonna yell to mom and dad to buy them film-related merchandise for their birthday. Instead, they're targeting the _mid-teen to adult crowd_ who are going to yell to their boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives to buy them film-related merchandise for their birthday
What's FF about? Future, war, intrigue..._technical_ stuff (machines, weapons, spaceships). What are the majority of Pixar's films about? Almost everything _BUT_ the future, war, intrigue, and technical stuff!
This is what makes Pixar such an unbelievably talented and ground-breaking studio--they produce work based on things in _human life_, and are able to pull are the funny and ironic things out if it and show them to us.
I'm not saying that FF won't do this as well. I just bought FF8 a couple of months ago (hey, I've been busy
Has anyone else noticed how many metal-type objects have been showing up in the "props" section of the web site? Metal, particularly _corroded/dirty metal_ is extremely awe-inspiring, and is often times far quicker to impress the viewer than a shader such as the light reflection and refraction with in Flick's eye's in A Bugs Life, although both have their subtleties. Just look at the techno-inspired invasion occurring at web sites all over the internet. Sharp objects make for sharp reactions.
It was mentioned that Square's got some proprietary algorithms to deal with stuff like hair movements, etc... Which kicks ass, 'cause the look of Maya's Paint Effects just isn't cutting it for me anymore
_Both_ studios have, and are currently producing some truly _amazing_ work, without a doubt. Each film, due to its genre, contains it's own strengths, and also its own weaknesses. Pixar has the rare ability to produce films which can make not only kids, but also adults laugh and think. This is what makes Pixar revolutionary. At the same time, I've never seen so much attention to modeling, animating, and shading detail as is being done by Square on FF.
Here's to both studios!
Regardless of who wins, I'll just be psyched if NTT brings over the crazy commercials featuring that insane "DoCoMo Girl" from a year ago. Those ads were _awesome_ (if not annoying)!! Nothing US TV neads more than her screaming out "DOCOMO!!" at all of us :)