All these major tornado's we've been having in places that shouldn't get tornados...why do some people I know seem more willing to attribute them to someone's interpretation that the end date a calendar of a long-dead civilization corresponds to the end of the world (and not just the end of the calendar - a calendar that experts have said we don't even understand how it correlates to modern dates anyway), than to climate change even though severe storms are exactly what the experts in the field predicted would happen?
Maybe people just prefer the option that doesn't suggest they're responsible. Or maybe people just forgot what "experts" means since they're ignored in both scenarios.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Unnecessary God?
It seems that some people feel our society is making God unnecessary and obsolete and, if they are religious, are understandably bothered by this prospect. But then, should they be?
Hawkings claiming God is unnecessary to explain the universe probably got the most attention, but atheists have felt this way for decades or more; that Hawkings said it...well, famous people, especially authorities in their fields, get attention, even if they have nothing new to say. In fact, I'm surprised he never said this sooner. But there are other examples, such as an opinion piece in the NYTs months ago in which the author expressed his saddness that people don't have to struggle with their beliefs because they have access to all sorts of religious ideas, making religion "easy". Or the Pope saying that evolution isn't enough to explain our origins, that God is necessary for that (even though the Catholic Church does recognize evolution as fact). Or aquaintences I've come across who say science or non-religion based ethics, or any other number of non-religious ideas are making it possible for people to not "need" God.
But I have to wonder, is this really a bad thing for people who do believe? Yes, it opens the possibility (and likelyhood) that less people will believe the same things as those with faith. And I guess that can be a scary prospect. But if someone believe in God because they don't see any other possibilities or because they don't see that they have choices, is that really faith or belief? Should belief be based on ignorance? And if people believe even though they know they have other possibilities, does that mean there's something special about their belief? I don't know. What I do know is that I would rather think and learn and truly believe (or not believe) something and be wrong, than believe the "right" thing because I never thought about it.
Hawkings claiming God is unnecessary to explain the universe probably got the most attention, but atheists have felt this way for decades or more; that Hawkings said it...well, famous people, especially authorities in their fields, get attention, even if they have nothing new to say. In fact, I'm surprised he never said this sooner. But there are other examples, such as an opinion piece in the NYTs months ago in which the author expressed his saddness that people don't have to struggle with their beliefs because they have access to all sorts of religious ideas, making religion "easy". Or the Pope saying that evolution isn't enough to explain our origins, that God is necessary for that (even though the Catholic Church does recognize evolution as fact). Or aquaintences I've come across who say science or non-religion based ethics, or any other number of non-religious ideas are making it possible for people to not "need" God.
But I have to wonder, is this really a bad thing for people who do believe? Yes, it opens the possibility (and likelyhood) that less people will believe the same things as those with faith. And I guess that can be a scary prospect. But if someone believe in God because they don't see any other possibilities or because they don't see that they have choices, is that really faith or belief? Should belief be based on ignorance? And if people believe even though they know they have other possibilities, does that mean there's something special about their belief? I don't know. What I do know is that I would rather think and learn and truly believe (or not believe) something and be wrong, than believe the "right" thing because I never thought about it.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Religious Fanart and Uncreative Originality
Reposted from my deviantArt gallery, with additional thoughts
I had a though a few weeks ago: what's so original about "original art"?
I've generally regarded original art as better or "more real" than fanart because fanart involves characters, images, and ideas that aren't yours. Not that I look down on fanart; I do plenty myself, have lots of friends who do too, favorite plenty of fanart here on dA (although I rarely search it out). And I'm not surprised or disappointed that fanart often gets more attention than original art; it uses ideas and images that lots of people are already familiar with - part of the meaning of the art is automatically conveyed without any effort on the part of the artist. Original art is supposed to be "better": more creative, more representative of the artist's own unique ideas and feelings. And I suppose the artist has to work harder to get their message across, assuming there is a message.
A while ago, though, I started to wonder if fanart can be compared to the religious imagery that is such a huge part of art's history. OK, obviously a lot of religious art is meant to teach something about the religion and culture, and fanart isn't exactly known for being informative or nor are fanart's sources usually as broadly meaningful as religion. But a lot of religious art isn't meant to be educational, but is an expression of the artist's devotion and emotions, and the *personal* significance and meaning. The artists didn't create the religious figures or stories, but did present their interpretation of it, focusing on what mattered most to them. So you get art that's peaceful and beautiful, art that's violent, art that's exciting, art that's sexually explicit, art that's morbid or strange, art that's emotionally moving, happy or sad. In a sense, the religious imagery, which doesn't directly belong to the artist, becomes a tool for the artist to simultaneously express something about both himself and his subject. Sound familiar? And like fanart, part of that meaning is already there, inherent in the subject.
Is it wrong to compare cartoons to holy texts? I don't think so; at face value, they're the same: a story about people doing things that the reader may or may not be able to relate to their own lives. The difference obviously is whether you believe the story is true or not. No one believes Sonic the Hedgehog is true (I hope). As many as 2 billion people in the world believe the Bible is true on some level, and of course, believing in the truth of something is going to make it more meaningful to the individual. But believing something is fiction doesn't make it devoid of all meaning either. People can still relate to and become attached to characters they like, find some important message in a work of fiction, be inspired, or just simply enjoy it. Those things are often the *sign* of a good piece of fiction. So if something generally accepted as fiction and something generally accepted as truth both can have meaning, why is an artist expressing themselves through one considered legitimate art and through the other considered unoriginal and immature? Yes, legally, someone else owns the characters in fanart while no one legally owns a religion (though I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion out there with an owner), but laws and ownership can't prevent a person from finding something personally significant.
So back to my original question, what's so original about "original art"? An artist I was following disappeared a few years ago because he was tired of all his fanart getting attention while his original stuff was ignored. Both were excellent; he was clearly skilled and talented. But his "original" art was very generic-fantasy: dragons, female warriors in impractical, revealing armor, big armored guys with axes and swords. All excellently drawn in his own appealing style, but I'd seen it a million time. His original art was unoriginal! His fanart, however, was, in my opinion, very creative interpretations of the characters and their environments, yet they still retained what made them distinctive. I've not really seen other fanart quite like it, and I'm sorry he felt the need to remove it all from pretty much everywhere.
But still, I personally valued "original art" more than fanart. Two weeks ago, in the middle of a conversation about predicting what people like, I realized it's not just him who's art was "unoriginal". As everyone knows (I hope) no one's pulling ideas out of nowhere; ideas build on previous ideas. Is my Cyborg [link] original? Not really, I knew that from the start. No one's drawn this picture or this character before, but who hasn't seen the mis-proportioned female in skin-tight clothing with robotic parts before? So maybe there's a gradient of originality. Are Kaikaku's root-girls [link] original? Certainly moreso than the cyborg, and a lot of other "original art" I think. Sure, there are plant-themed female sprite-like characters out there, but I would say these are a unique take on that idea. I've not seen anything quite like them.
So can I say that some original art is more creative than your average fanart, and some is less creative? Then perhaps, on average, original art is no more original than fanart? There's a lot of blah fanart out there. Doesn't seem to be THAT much unoriginal original art. But maybe because fanart is "half-way there" to getting people attention because fans already connect to it without effort, maybe it gets elevated in visibility, while original art simply disappears because no one's looking for it. I think it's fair to say there are talented and untalented fan-artist and non-fan-artists, and no real reason to think one subject attracts "good" artists and one attracts "bad" artists. Or, to put it another way, I certainly wouldn't say that people who find x meaningful are mostly good artists and people who find y meaningful are mostly bad artists. I don't see any logical connection in the abstract.
So, my views on fanart and original art are evolving. I'll continue to do both, I'll continue to be a little disappointed when my original art stops getting views after a month or doesn't sell on Etsy, and I'll continue to have my ego unhealthily fed when I see things like one of my pictures as most popular of all time on a dA search for Super Sally, (How exactly is that calculated anyway?). But maybe I'll forgive myself for using my good-quality art supplies on fanart or drawing yet another custom My Little Pony when I could draw something else...no, I can't draw something else. It makes me happy and has some sort of meaning to me, and I see no reason to question it.
Bit of an Update: I recently got back from a trip to Italy, and all the religious art made me wonder when we started valuing "original" art. I saw very little non-religious art, other than portaits or figures of famous people, and I certainly wouldn't call pictures of the Biblical creation story, Venus, Mary, Hercules, etc, "original" after seeing 10, 20, 50 or more of essentially the same thing. Even the famous Rennaissance artists were celebrated for their technique, skill, and somewhat their creative interpretations, rather than their originality. The Vatican has lots of sculptures of animals, which was a nice break from all the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Christian, etc. religious imagery, but those were all collected/commissioned by one Pope, so I would consider that more of a personal interest than a culture expression of artistic value. And there was plenty of original practical pieces everywhere, like oil lamps decorated with animals, people, patterns, etc., but not much original non-purpose art. So, did people start valuing originality as we define it during the Rennaissance? After? Before, but only the religious stuff survived (seems unlikely that even in the ancient ruins, only religious artifacts would be found if other things were there)? Or maybe it's part of a more modern perspective where we can value things that have no real function or value; maybe valuing originality is part of a larger cultural idea or ability that allows us that luxury; that not everything we do or enjoy has a practical side.
I had a though a few weeks ago: what's so original about "original art"?
I've generally regarded original art as better or "more real" than fanart because fanart involves characters, images, and ideas that aren't yours. Not that I look down on fanart; I do plenty myself, have lots of friends who do too, favorite plenty of fanart here on dA (although I rarely search it out). And I'm not surprised or disappointed that fanart often gets more attention than original art; it uses ideas and images that lots of people are already familiar with - part of the meaning of the art is automatically conveyed without any effort on the part of the artist. Original art is supposed to be "better": more creative, more representative of the artist's own unique ideas and feelings. And I suppose the artist has to work harder to get their message across, assuming there is a message.
A while ago, though, I started to wonder if fanart can be compared to the religious imagery that is such a huge part of art's history. OK, obviously a lot of religious art is meant to teach something about the religion and culture, and fanart isn't exactly known for being informative or nor are fanart's sources usually as broadly meaningful as religion. But a lot of religious art isn't meant to be educational, but is an expression of the artist's devotion and emotions, and the *personal* significance and meaning. The artists didn't create the religious figures or stories, but did present their interpretation of it, focusing on what mattered most to them. So you get art that's peaceful and beautiful, art that's violent, art that's exciting, art that's sexually explicit, art that's morbid or strange, art that's emotionally moving, happy or sad. In a sense, the religious imagery, which doesn't directly belong to the artist, becomes a tool for the artist to simultaneously express something about both himself and his subject. Sound familiar? And like fanart, part of that meaning is already there, inherent in the subject.
Is it wrong to compare cartoons to holy texts? I don't think so; at face value, they're the same: a story about people doing things that the reader may or may not be able to relate to their own lives. The difference obviously is whether you believe the story is true or not. No one believes Sonic the Hedgehog is true (I hope). As many as 2 billion people in the world believe the Bible is true on some level, and of course, believing in the truth of something is going to make it more meaningful to the individual. But believing something is fiction doesn't make it devoid of all meaning either. People can still relate to and become attached to characters they like, find some important message in a work of fiction, be inspired, or just simply enjoy it. Those things are often the *sign* of a good piece of fiction. So if something generally accepted as fiction and something generally accepted as truth both can have meaning, why is an artist expressing themselves through one considered legitimate art and through the other considered unoriginal and immature? Yes, legally, someone else owns the characters in fanart while no one legally owns a religion (though I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion out there with an owner), but laws and ownership can't prevent a person from finding something personally significant.
So back to my original question, what's so original about "original art"? An artist I was following disappeared a few years ago because he was tired of all his fanart getting attention while his original stuff was ignored. Both were excellent; he was clearly skilled and talented. But his "original" art was very generic-fantasy: dragons, female warriors in impractical, revealing armor, big armored guys with axes and swords. All excellently drawn in his own appealing style, but I'd seen it a million time. His original art was unoriginal! His fanart, however, was, in my opinion, very creative interpretations of the characters and their environments, yet they still retained what made them distinctive. I've not really seen other fanart quite like it, and I'm sorry he felt the need to remove it all from pretty much everywhere.
But still, I personally valued "original art" more than fanart. Two weeks ago, in the middle of a conversation about predicting what people like, I realized it's not just him who's art was "unoriginal". As everyone knows (I hope) no one's pulling ideas out of nowhere; ideas build on previous ideas. Is my Cyborg [link] original? Not really, I knew that from the start. No one's drawn this picture or this character before, but who hasn't seen the mis-proportioned female in skin-tight clothing with robotic parts before? So maybe there's a gradient of originality. Are Kaikaku's root-girls [link] original? Certainly moreso than the cyborg, and a lot of other "original art" I think. Sure, there are plant-themed female sprite-like characters out there, but I would say these are a unique take on that idea. I've not seen anything quite like them.
So can I say that some original art is more creative than your average fanart, and some is less creative? Then perhaps, on average, original art is no more original than fanart? There's a lot of blah fanart out there. Doesn't seem to be THAT much unoriginal original art. But maybe because fanart is "half-way there" to getting people attention because fans already connect to it without effort, maybe it gets elevated in visibility, while original art simply disappears because no one's looking for it. I think it's fair to say there are talented and untalented fan-artist and non-fan-artists, and no real reason to think one subject attracts "good" artists and one attracts "bad" artists. Or, to put it another way, I certainly wouldn't say that people who find x meaningful are mostly good artists and people who find y meaningful are mostly bad artists. I don't see any logical connection in the abstract.
So, my views on fanart and original art are evolving. I'll continue to do both, I'll continue to be a little disappointed when my original art stops getting views after a month or doesn't sell on Etsy, and I'll continue to have my ego unhealthily fed when I see things like one of my pictures as most popular of all time on a dA search for Super Sally, (How exactly is that calculated anyway?). But maybe I'll forgive myself for using my good-quality art supplies on fanart or drawing yet another custom My Little Pony when I could draw something else...no, I can't draw something else. It makes me happy and has some sort of meaning to me, and I see no reason to question it.
Bit of an Update: I recently got back from a trip to Italy, and all the religious art made me wonder when we started valuing "original" art. I saw very little non-religious art, other than portaits or figures of famous people, and I certainly wouldn't call pictures of the Biblical creation story, Venus, Mary, Hercules, etc, "original" after seeing 10, 20, 50 or more of essentially the same thing. Even the famous Rennaissance artists were celebrated for their technique, skill, and somewhat their creative interpretations, rather than their originality. The Vatican has lots of sculptures of animals, which was a nice break from all the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Christian, etc. religious imagery, but those were all collected/commissioned by one Pope, so I would consider that more of a personal interest than a culture expression of artistic value. And there was plenty of original practical pieces everywhere, like oil lamps decorated with animals, people, patterns, etc., but not much original non-purpose art. So, did people start valuing originality as we define it during the Rennaissance? After? Before, but only the religious stuff survived (seems unlikely that even in the ancient ruins, only religious artifacts would be found if other things were there)? Or maybe it's part of a more modern perspective where we can value things that have no real function or value; maybe valuing originality is part of a larger cultural idea or ability that allows us that luxury; that not everything we do or enjoy has a practical side.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Too many thoughts
I've always thought about a lot of things, tried to figure out why something is the way it is, why someone sees something a certain way... I've now graduated with a Masters in Entomology, but my thoughts and interests go beyond that and I'm not really sure what to do about it. So I'm writing this blog.
I don't know if anyone will read it or care what I have to say, but for me, at this point it time, it seems like the best way to explore and develop my thoughts and maybe even get feedback. Ultimately, I want to focus on science as part of our larger culture, but I expect I'll be writing about whatever feels important to me at the moment.
I guess all there is now is to see how it goes.
I don't know if anyone will read it or care what I have to say, but for me, at this point it time, it seems like the best way to explore and develop my thoughts and maybe even get feedback. Ultimately, I want to focus on science as part of our larger culture, but I expect I'll be writing about whatever feels important to me at the moment.
I guess all there is now is to see how it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)