You say that because people are capable of choosing from a variety of many sources, they are more likely to ignore sources that contradict their point of view. I'm not sure that's how it works. If someone is set in their way of thinking to the point that they will click the back button, I think they'd be just as likely to put down the paper or turn the tv to another channel.
The good thing about having many sources is that if people are actually searching for the truth, they will be closer to finding it, simply by seeing many perspectives over one to a few.
If the mainstream media is being deceitful or otherwise incompetent, I'd hardly see that being useful for a common reference point.
the difference is that the brilliant are brilliant because they are capable of analyzing a situation/new information, and then using that data to re-evaluate their opinion. Someone who ignores any information aside from what they currently believe will not change their opinion, from either those who are stupid or brilliant.
Yea, I agree that the majority of the before pictures look better than the after. The 9th altered picture in the slide changed the woman's smile to a frown...that doesn't exactly strike me as "prettier"
Regardless, it's pretty amazing technology, but too much emphasis seems to be focused on the mainstream ideal of beauty. The whole concept of making a person more beautiful is highly subjective, while the real gem of the research is pretty much being ignored. Something like this could be highly useful for simply editing portraits. Instead of paint/value/smudge tools in digital imaging programs, something more user oriented could be created. Want a bigger chin? Just click the *scale chin* button. Maybe you want to (for artistic purposes) make a person look more haggard? Easily done.
That I can understand. I myself do not play many videos games (pretty much anything after snes I have stayed away from) but from an artistic stance I defend them as an art form. Video games as a whole have introduced something new to the world of media, and that is the ability for the audience to participate within the creation (This is also something seen within street performances, i.e. improv everywhere. The thing is, we must not judge the genre based on the current titles that are out so far. The ability to interact with a work is something amazing in itself, and if not already, I'm confident there will be video games that truly exemplify that ability.
If anything by comparison, have you ever watched a movie and wondered what would happen if....? The interactivity allows for this depth, and yes, it is up to the artist to create that. That is what will allow for that specific game to be considered as a true art form. But from what I've watched (and I have watched a decent amount of video games versus playing them) I am hesitant to say that video games have reached their full potential. But that does not mean that someone will come out with something that will truly make you think "woah".
It would have probably been insane for Leonardo da Vinci to compare his Mona Lisa to something like the Spear Bearer. Yet we still consider it all within the realm of art.
Art is something that is remembered as a few pieces within a cultural period. The amount of art created during the time is huge, while the amount of art studied today is minimal. The attempt to find better art only can exemplify what the majority of the society found important. If everyone loves a certain video game to the extent that it basically created a new genre of video games for some odd years, why not remember it?
Rules are created after the artform has been around long enough to be studied and compared to a large amount of works. Picasso did not define Cubism as a set of rules and then create his paintings, he worked from his ideas which were later defined as Cubism, using him and a few others artists to cite. The same works for music, most emerging forms of music were created in order to make a sound that was different, strange, new, interesting, etc. They were not created because someone followed some set of guidelines. All art forms are a result of someone finding an appealing and interesting idea, a new way of doing things. Would you design a better software algorithm or car engine by following a guide book?
Video games can be considered as art. It is a form of media, which means that the medium allows itself to be judged as an artistic form. Video games are also an emerging form of media.
How long did it take society, and even more so the high and mighty art critics, to judge someone like Monet or Picasso and consider it art? At the time it was viewed as rebellious and demeaning to concept of "art".
Every medium has its problems. Photography for instance, introduced the concept of "the original" and what people most often saw, the copies. The original was the negative, whereas what most people saw was the photo produced from the negative. The fact that the copies were what most people judged disturbed the idea of considering photography an art. Yet today, photography is studied and is most definately considered a form of art. Video as well has had its problems, on whether to consider video as simply a mashup of sounds and a series of photos, or to consider the elements as a whole and judge the final product as a separate art form.
Video games introduce a new element. There's interactivity. That's where the art comes in. The audience participates within the performance, and that demonstrates the true art form.
There are no rules for art. A study of art demonstrates that the artists that leave the "rules" of what is currently considered art will be looked upon as progress. All art attempts to accomplish is to show further insight into our nature. Video games demonstrate this exceptionally well, as they utilize both performer and the audience, instead of directing a one way message.
Slashdot Mirror
You say that because people are capable of choosing from a variety of many sources, they are more likely to ignore sources that contradict their point of view. I'm not sure that's how it works. If someone is set in their way of thinking to the point that they will click the back button, I think they'd be just as likely to put down the paper or turn the tv to another channel.
The good thing about having many sources is that if people are actually searching for the truth, they will be closer to finding it, simply by seeing many perspectives over one to a few.
If the mainstream media is being deceitful or otherwise incompetent, I'd hardly see that being useful for a common reference point.
The hallucinations actually occur during Hypnagogia , which refers to the transition between sleep and wakefulness.
the difference is that the brilliant are brilliant because they are capable of analyzing a situation/new information, and then using that data to re-evaluate their opinion. Someone who ignores any information aside from what they currently believe will not change their opinion, from either those who are stupid or brilliant.
this is nothing new, research to mass production always takes quite a bit of time.
I give it an A minus....minus! - prof. wernstrom
Yea, I agree that the majority of the before pictures look better than the after. The 9th altered picture in the slide changed the woman's smile to a frown...that doesn't exactly strike me as "prettier"
Regardless, it's pretty amazing technology, but too much emphasis seems to be focused on the mainstream ideal of beauty. The whole concept of making a person more beautiful is highly subjective, while the real gem of the research is pretty much being ignored. Something like this could be highly useful for simply editing portraits. Instead of paint/value/smudge tools in digital imaging programs, something more user oriented could be created. Want a bigger chin? Just click the *scale chin* button. Maybe you want to (for artistic purposes) make a person look more haggard? Easily done.
That I can understand. I myself do not play many videos games (pretty much anything after snes I have stayed away from) but from an artistic stance I defend them as an art form. Video games as a whole have introduced something new to the world of media, and that is the ability for the audience to participate within the creation (This is also something seen within street performances, i.e. improv everywhere. The thing is, we must not judge the genre based on the current titles that are out so far. The ability to interact with a work is something amazing in itself, and if not already, I'm confident there will be video games that truly exemplify that ability.
If anything by comparison, have you ever watched a movie and wondered what would happen if....? The interactivity allows for this depth, and yes, it is up to the artist to create that. That is what will allow for that specific game to be considered as a true art form. But from what I've watched (and I have watched a decent amount of video games versus playing them) I am hesitant to say that video games have reached their full potential. But that does not mean that someone will come out with something that will truly make you think "woah".
It would have probably been insane for Leonardo da Vinci to compare his Mona Lisa to something like the Spear Bearer. Yet we still consider it all within the realm of art.
Art is something that is remembered as a few pieces within a cultural period. The amount of art created during the time is huge, while the amount of art studied today is minimal. The attempt to find better art only can exemplify what the majority of the society found important. If everyone loves a certain video game to the extent that it basically created a new genre of video games for some odd years, why not remember it?
Rules are created after the artform has been around long enough to be studied and compared to a large amount of works. Picasso did not define Cubism as a set of rules and then create his paintings, he worked from his ideas which were later defined as Cubism, using him and a few others artists to cite. The same works for music, most emerging forms of music were created in order to make a sound that was different, strange, new, interesting, etc. They were not created because someone followed some set of guidelines. All art forms are a result of someone finding an appealing and interesting idea, a new way of doing things. Would you design a better software algorithm or car engine by following a guide book?
Video games can be considered as art. It is a form of media, which means that the medium allows itself to be judged as an artistic form. Video games are also an emerging form of media.
How long did it take society, and even more so the high and mighty art critics, to judge someone like Monet or Picasso and consider it art? At the time it was viewed as rebellious and demeaning to concept of "art".
Every medium has its problems. Photography for instance, introduced the concept of "the original" and what people most often saw, the copies. The original was the negative, whereas what most people saw was the photo produced from the negative. The fact that the copies were what most people judged disturbed the idea of considering photography an art. Yet today, photography is studied and is most definately considered a form of art. Video as well has had its problems, on whether to consider video as simply a mashup of sounds and a series of photos, or to consider the elements as a whole and judge the final product as a separate art form.
Video games introduce a new element. There's interactivity. That's where the art comes in. The audience participates within the performance, and that demonstrates the true art form.
There are no rules for art. A study of art demonstrates that the artists that leave the "rules" of what is currently considered art will be looked upon as progress. All art attempts to accomplish is to show further insight into our nature. Video games demonstrate this exceptionally well, as they utilize both performer and the audience, instead of directing a one way message.
And in other news, it appears Palin has made an appearance on a piece of toast...
We should additionally rate all conversations on their level of truth. Kids gossiping in highschool? Not anymore!
I would believe more so with experience comes wisdom, not with age. I've known many people who experience more in 2 years than others have in 20.