Test
Created on: September 11th, 2006
What should we talk about?
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| zer0hue | $0.02 | ||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.02 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (4.01) | 77 | 10 | 122 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,920 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 51 | https://www.bing.com |
| 5 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 3 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
| 2 | https://www.google.com/ |
| 1 | https://random-website.com |
I think it is very possible; however, i believe the main hurdle this site would face is the content itself. If users are willing to put THEMSELVES into their work (I included myself into this apprehensive group as well) then i think such an exhibition would be quite nice. Nevertheless, much of the content here is divorced from the person who made it. In my opinion, as it stands, the humor lacks human as does the art. Perhaps another question would be, if given the chance, what would you 'present'?
Since this has become a discussion of YTMND’s artistic potential, and since that was and remains my only interest here, I suppose I should toss in my two cents worth on the matter. While klasky’s heart is in the right place, I’m going to completely disagree with his reasoning. The problem is not in the lack of user-created content, but the lack of meaningful user-created content. I recall an adage that’s been passed around and far divorced from its original creator, but remains truthful nonetheless: Just because you’re unique doesn’t mean you’re special. I can bang two sticks together, call it a beat, and technically be “creative,” but unless I’m communicating something essential about the human experience I’m really just wasting everyone’s time.
In truth, all creative works are merely a composite of their influences. We all dip our brushes into the same, ever-sprawling canvas of the material universe; what’s vital is how we reconfigure and represent these elements so as to elucidate the essence of truth. The problem is that most people, and not just here mind you, are more concerned with reality (how “I” see the world) than truth (how the world actually is).
The actual reason YTMNDs won’t work in a gallery setting, at least not as they currently exist, is because they are by their very nature fiercely insular with little to no bearing whatsoever on the physical world we each inhabit with escalating infrequency. It would be akin to attending some snobbish c*cktail party where each anecdote ends with “...but, you really had to be there to find it funny,” and everyone scoffs and chuckles knowingly to themselves whenever some single mother from Queens doesn’t find “lol, internet” even remotely humorous.
I don't think our disagreement is as large as you believe it is, frankly. When i speak about an individual putting themselves into their work, i do mean that they technically MAKE it, but even moreso, i mean that abstractly they exist WITHIN IT. Their interests, nature, soul, or whatever you choose to call it is apparent within the piece. And by doing so, we intrinsically CONNECT with other human beings. Because everything that exists on the internet exists because it was TAKEN from the real world and put into this unreal world.
Now i do disagree that truth can be derived from 'how the world is' because i don't believe such a thing is quantifiable. I believe truth is inherently connected to the individual percieving the world. If that perception is narrow, then the truth is narrow, if the perception is broad, then the truth is broad. But that does not make other perceptions any less truthful. Where i think the distinction lies, is in the interpersonal communication of truth. To take your example, the man who beats two sticks together is expressing his truth; however, others PERCEPTION is that of simplicity or naiveté. Does that make his art impersonal? uninteresting? unessential? weak? I believe it makes it quite expressive, and quite truthful. So where you might see...
So to bring that back into the perspective of YTMND, what i still believe is vital to elevating a site, is some humanity. As it stands, the humanity in most sites here are so narrow, and the inherent impersonality of the internet so wide, that it almost destroys any meaning to the works beyond its 'pop-culture-reference'ability. And by increasing the humanity in the sites, we increase the perception, which increases the interpersonal truth, which creates a lasting piece of art.
I had just missed the subway train the other night, and as I waited for the next one to arrive I was treated to the sounds of a lonely street performer beating two sticks together. I mean, he was really just banging away on those things and belting out old Motown hits like there was no tomorrow. It’s was probably a good ten minutes I had to suffer through this guy’s terrible performance, and the whole time I was chuckling to myself at the thought of klasky’s primal truth.
There is no such thing as unessential creativity, just as there has never been an unessential experiment of any kind. Scientific discovery is predicated upon a series of systematic failures, all for the discovery of single unassailable truth. And while Jonas Salk did more for mankind than most will ever dream, that doesn’t make his every spoiled petri dish and broken test tube a work of scientific genius. Likewise, each creative whim, no matter how personal or well-intentioned, isn’t automatically a vessel of truth. Otherwise, you’ll soon find yourself sinking into the bog of relativist nonsense that’s infested and singularly invalidated artistic critique for the better part of a hundred years.
Your thoughts on solipsism, while genuine, are equally self-contradictory and curiously tangential to a discussion of aesthetics. If there is no absolute truth, if all that surrounds us is an unbroken bubble of sensory input, then communicating truth to others becomes pointless. If I am to assume that all I perceive is inwardly created, then it stands to reason that everyone else must simply be a manifestation of my subconscious. That, or you’re conceding absolute truth exists, but arguing that we are incapable of perceiving it. If that’s the case, then you still remain in a world where the truth might as well not even exist, and the necessity of communicating truth is yet again invalidated.
But, again, epistemological discussions are a rather lengthy hop, skip, and a jump away from aesthetics. So then, back to common ground. I think we’ve both been rather ardent supporters of this medium and the abundance of potential therein. It’s apparent to me that our creative interests and philosophies are sharply divergent. However, I believe our ultimate objective is a shared one that has been steadily blossoming into fruition as of late. Maybe, one day not too far from now, these funny little things will nestle their way into an empty gallery space and then all the self-important art whores of the world will be forced to give a damn. Now that’s something that makes me chuckle like nothing else on this site.
"And while Jonas Salk did more for mankind than
most will ever dream, that doesn’t make his every spoiled petri dish and
broken test tube a work of scientific genius." I hope this isn't to say that only great, or a better way to put it would be broadly accessible, successes are all that are important. Some people would pose the question: would you rather make a small impact on a large amount of people or a large impact on a small amount of people?
But that question is an empty question because that is obviously not a choice you make. And, in reality, not every attempt can be your best and your best attempt may not be as impactful on a particular person as a lesser effort. To say that this is merely a subjective matter I think is to miss the point. A petri dish may be more efficient with 50% of the optimum materials at the correct temperature than 100% of the initial materials at 50% of the correct temperature, but the first is years from optimization and the second a single variation away. So, really, success may not even be the correct measuring stick for "success". Success is distinctly different from the percieved value of whatever endeavor it is. This wohle communicating truth issue bothers me...
in the sense that the truth to be communicated and the truth communicated are two different measures. How much you appreciate art and how much value it contains are two different measures. Not all truth is enjoyable, some truths are trivial, some truths are outside of our frame of reference to understand, so what they say and what we understand are completely different. And what is this truth that we speak of? Artistic truths are rarely true, its meaning is really closer to perspective, as I see it. What you get across is not falsifiable, however what you get from a person may be a false representation of the message sent. Interpersonal communication isn't really about telling another person what they already know, but giving them a perspective...
that may widen their own. Sometimes the perspective is outside their taste, so far outside of their realm of understanding that it is nonsensical, their perspective could be nonsensical itself... The problem, though, is that people tend not to enjoy completely alien perspective... and that's how fads are born. 1% perspective and 98% familiarity with 1% creativity is a recipe for success here. Salk's experiments aren't appreciated by the majority of people unless they cure a disease, but the people who wish to understand the methodology by which you cure a disease, even if it is not completely effective (a failed petri dish) is extremely valueable information. Now if Salk made a small improvement on methodology with a huge improvement in results...
would be appreciated by the public because they are cured of their ails. His work would not be so well recieved in the scientific community, at least not as a groundbeaking improvement. To be successful in an art gallery situation, with unfamiliar viewers, the art must merely provide results. It doesn't have to be innovative or different from the pack, bacause the viewers aren't familiar with the pack. For a ytmnd to be well recieved here, at least among non-retarded viewers, it must have a unique perspective, and sometimes the effectiveness is less important.
First let me correct myself when I made the statement about ‘unessential creativity’ I had taken it from your statement about the stick beaters’ obvious creativity but lack of essential human experience. What I should have stated was that his expression could be considered ‘unessential human experience’, rather than creativity. Onward though, I believe that the sciences and arts represent the two fundamental halves of human experience so to consider them similar would be wise, but to consider them interchangeable would be a misrepresentation of the other.
I speak specifically about how you stated that each failure was not equal to the final affirming experiment, and how that also applies to art. I disagree wholeheartedly, if for no other reason than the state of mind one must be in to DISREGARD a piece (or something with obvious creativity, but unessential human experience). If it has been said that seeing is the act of forgetting the names of the things you see, then too would I believe that (for the viewer) experiencing human truth is the act of forgetting what truth is. This would mean that the act of approaching ‘unassailable truth’ is irrelevant, for at each broken test tube and spoiled Petri dish one re-analyzes what truth is. Which, in turn, creates new and singular pieces of art that don’t rely on...
Let us consider a piece of ‘unassailable’ truth to have 100 units of “truthiness”, that is to say it has ALL truth. This would mean that it would be possible to make a piece that contains 0 units of “truthiness”, that is to say NO truth. Is that a complete failure? What does that piece look like, what defines it? What does it state? What criteria do you base its truthiness on? From what I see, that criteria would be one’s initial perception of truth upon viewing the work. But by leaving your initial perception of truth behind, that quantity becomes irrelevant and therefore all pieces are created equal insofar as our prejudices and pretenses allow (obviously, ones ego is quite strong). Now one might say that by denying the concept of unassailable truth...
you strip the possible fallibility of pieces and treat all things with the same ignorant devotion that one might consider towards blind faith. However, I would state that its fallibility (which is inherent because we are human) ENHANCES its truth, rather than negates it, and therefore I allow it to exist as a form of truth. And this is where I believe truth in science and truth in art do not co-exist.
Furthermore, I deny the application of ‘relativism’ to such a state of mind because it does not believe that its point of view is the only worthwhile point of view, but rather allows ALL points of view to change its own. Relativism, in the sense that you describe, thrives in ignorance by selecting what it believes and does not believe; however, I hope I have shown this does not apply to my particular belief in truth.
I also disagree that it is a solipsistic point of view, for it does not consider all things as a creation of the self but rather considers all things to be an EXSTENSION of the self. For instance, when I think about moving my arm, a certain criteria is met. This criteria is the time it takes between my thought and the realization of my thought (or the action) and the quantity of systems involved in realizing my thought. In this case the time is short and the systems are the chemical/electrical/physical systems of my body. Furthermore, these systems will, over time, degrade to a point where my thought will no longer be able to control their action. Now I do not think one would argue that ones arm is a part of their self, so I can assume that these criteria...
represent things that are an extension of my self (amount of time and systems involved). Therefore, in a similar way, my desire to walk over to you and kiss you on the lips is realized by the complex systems between my mind and your lips as well as the time it takes for me to walk over there. They are just as complex and they too have the ability to go against my wishes (you could push me away, or the ground beneath my feet could collapse). So as we can see, it satisfies the same criteria that I hold the ‘self’ to and therefore can be included with the self.
Another way of saying it, I could state that I have direct control over all things insofar as I have direct control over my body to keep me alive forever, which is to say very little actual control.
Now I understand the tangential nature of my comments here, but this is a site about conversation, and I intend to stimulate it. I would hope that you do not consider these attacks on your philosophy in any way, and that all who read this see it as a conversation and allow the views expressed within them to exist not as a manifesto but an honest representation of ones’ opinions (opinions, might I add, which are subject to change upon sufficient rebuttal). Too often, I believe, the impersonality of the internet raises all written words to the level of a work of authority and thereby creates arguments where none were needed. I hope that by stating bluntly my intentions that I can quell any such thoughts of aggressiveness.
On to what Korf has stated, because I believe he touched on a subject that is very important to this site as a whole, and that is the issue of familiarity vs. creativity vs. perspective. I believe that as individual pieces, each fad site is very narrow, in both its audience and its humorous truth. However, one psychological aspect of fads that I believe is very fascinating is the sense one gets of a collective achievement when participating in fad sites. The NEDM stick together and encourage other NEDM, and generally, the more creative the person is in conveying the fad, the better received it is because then all members of the club are enhanced by proxy. Indeed, each site by itself may represent only 1% creativity, but as we continue to pile on site after..
site the creativity gets closer and closer to 100%. The same can be said with perspective. It just takes more than one person to make it that way. This is where I think YTMND can make an interesting artform. When one is motivated to put more perspective and creativity into a single site while still retaining that familiar fad, the possibilities become fantastic. Persons with the motivation to bring a familiar subject with an emphasis on creativity and perspective could really turn this site upside down in my opinion. This, I believe, also covers the issue of value and effectiveness, because in allowing the familiar subject (fad) to exist within the piece we cover effectiveness and in striving for creativity and perspective we cover value.
Change the title to "Let's have a conversation, you and you and you and you and you and you... and I." I'll pick back up... gotta flush out the philosophy with economics before I open the philosophical valves again. Also, I'll aim for coherency this time... although my brain tends to be quite muddled... see my last ytmnd... (not the jefferson one)... about 4 ytmnds stuffed into one, until it was too large for ytmnd and I had to rescale it and I still didn't get everything I wanted. The confines of the mind.
I think your conception of the self is a bit flawed, at least as I read it. Here's where I see the problem: You seem to say that your arm is not an extension of yourself because you do not have control over having control over it forever, and that the external world is a part of your self as well because you do not have control over it, but in both instances you are engaged in the world. The problem lies in that, at the moment, you do have control of your arm. Or, at least, you have a certain amount of control of your arm. You have no control over the external world, not now and not ever. To say that the atoms that make up the world will last longer than the cellular structure that makes up your arm is not to say that the dirt is more...
of an extension of yourself than your arm. Eventually you will lose control of your arm, and at that point your arm will no longer be a part of yourself. I don't know what your take is on conscioussness, and whether that is, to you, yourself or merely an extension of yourself, but in either the existence of yourself and the control of your arm must, in some sense to you, be related. The cells that make up your arm are constantly changing and will die and eventually not exist, but the physical structure and existence is never to be considered a part of your self, but a part of the body. Now, many people will say that when a person goes mad that they, themselves, go mad. I would say that, in your framework, this would not be the case, as...
in reality you lose control of your mind much as you would say you lose control of your body. A person with Parkinson's loses control of their hand for a period of time, but this is out of their control, and can't really be considered either a part of their self or an extension of their self, whichever you would classify it as. Thus, death, or insanity, is really a the death of the self because one loses control of... everything. Now, when you say "Another way of
saying it, I could state that I have direct control over all things insofar
as I have direct control over my body to keep me alive forever, which is to
say very little actual control." this seems to imply that if you cannot control the life or existence of an object you do not control the object..
But I really believe that the two conceptions of control are different. If I were to gain control over the fact of existence, that is, I could choose to live forever, this does not mean that everything that seemingly was out of control is now in control. It seems to me to mean that everything that is now in control will now stay in control forever (or, at least, a part of me). What I'm saying is that I don't think that the fact that you will or will not die allows your conception of control or extension of self to be transfered to the external world. Perhaps you'll see where I misunderstand your philosophy, but that is how I see it. I'll move on, then, to something that I thought of on our original question...
First off, I'd just like to say that "But by leaving your initial
perception of truth behind, that quantity becomes irrelevant and therefore all pieces are created equal insofar as our prejudices and pretenses allow" is a troubling statement, especially for the next topic I was about to get into, as it seems to hint that you not only have no objective basis, or at least no objective foundation on which to build a subjective valuation of truth or value, but that, ideally, there is no difference between any two objects and that, if we were able to put our egos aside, truth and value would be meaningless concepts. Now I might agree with this but only on the grounds that you throw away the assumption that knowledge and happiness are both desirable to the ego...
And that not only seems to follow rationally, if my conception of ego as the active self or consciousness or something of that nature. Thus, it would be very difficult to discuss the value of a particular piece of art if the conception of art is meaningless. At any rate, when were talking about the aggregate value of the NEDM fad, I would say that a wall full of every NEDM made with an acceptable amount of creativity would make for quite a wall. As one piece, however, it would be quite muddled. I know a lot about muddled pieces, as it's what my brain is best at producing. Now, I will operate under the assumption that art has value and that some pieces of art have more value than others. What, exactly, defines this value is inherently subjective but...
that doesn't mean that we can't reach a relative scale in which to judge art and differentiate between the good, the bad, the great, and the best and on into the infinitesimal (with standard errors, if you must). Creativity seems to be a no brainer, with my comments about muddled work I would hope that we could include clarity of vision/voice/body language etc. Now, other categories such as humor and dramatic effect and other things which are not required but can certainly enhance a piece of art can be considered as well, although they should be separated. A piece doesn't have to be funny, I would hope, to have value. YTMNDers could learn something. The interesting characteristic, I believe, is that of depth and focus. Must one piece of art convey one idea?
How much is too much? How much depth, how many layers of symbolism and imagery can you layer on before a piece just gets too murky and you can't see to the bottom? Or, is it a lake that you can dive into, and so long as the pieces don't tangle together into a hopeless mess, it doesn't matter how much you throw in the water because, if you just give enough time to it, you can see it all and each piece adds to the whole? I can see arguments for both, and perhaps it will all be a "it depends on the piece", but, then, is a piece that allows for much greater depth to be given a potential for greater value than the piece that, at its max potential, cannot offer as much depth? On breadth, can one piece of art convey multiple visions without taking away...
the only way that this can be done is in a gallary setting with people forced into viewing something together. the one becoming the many. you love it or hate it there is no clicking away. there is no truth perhaps but still there is thought. that is all i want. at least right now. though it seems that there are those who have much more to say than i.
the truth of art isn't that it is art or that it means something it is just that through its exsistance it is know to the masses and that through that knowledge the masses will come to understand art in their own way, even the indavidual will share the same views as someone else even though they claim it to be origanal, the fact that something is origanal is a lie initself. for it to exist it would need something that inspired it no matter what it is, a photograph is considered art at times and...
while the photographer took the origanal picture are they the one that created the origanal scene? as the photo clings to life it might inspire someone to make something based on it, as in the ytmnd site that max made in the begining, it was inspired by the line in finding forester and that picture of shawn connery was it not? but as time went on other people inspired by this made sites of there own such as the current 404 site for ytmnd, it was inspired by the "origanal" ytmnd, the 404 error, the...
failure sound from the price is right, snow field static and the idea that a standard 404 error site on ytmnd isn't good enough, though the actual art it's self is "origanal" the concept is not. even what i am typing, ehile it is in my own poorly spelled and badly grammered words, are not origanal, the concept is an eternal one. a man can say a flower is pretty, but if no one else sees the flower ever, is the flower still pretty? when people see nedm, some think "fads suck" while others will say that...
"lol, nedm that is hillarous" which veiw is the correct one? that awnser will never be true for the meer fact that to some it is others it isn't and others will never hear of it. thus it isn't funny for it wont exist and it is funny it exist, further more it is funny becuase it doesn't exist for other people know of it. saying it isn't good becuase it is unoriganal is to say that you have seen what it is based off of and thus can easily think of things simmilar, but to the cassual observer it will be....
for the fact they don't understand it, but it looks interesting. i have a saying that a joke never is funny, life is. i can tell a joke at an time but it wont be funny at some times, i.e. the joke "why did jesus jave so many followers?"..."becuase he was hung like this" and i hold my hands outstretched to my sides. if i were to say that to some one at school, which i have, some people will laugh, but if i were to tell it at a church i would get trown out, no this is my meaning, people that laugh at said...
joke also go to church, other know of the crusafiction story, though they laugh at it the also know that the joke is about a man the was severly beaten then hung on a cross for three day then stabbed to death. no that you know the angles of the joke is it still funny? if presented at the same time i seem like a unholy bastard for making the joke, but the fact is i am a very religous man, so in the joke is both funny and unfunny for the fact that it is a joke, but it is making fun of a myrter, and seeing...
that i am deeply religous should i be offended of the joke for that fact even though i told it? but that is not the point, that fact is art is a very abstract property that has become a strict faction, the mona lisa, it isn't of a particullarly attractive woman but becuase other people think it is a master peice that fact becomes the truth, i have heard people state that the mona lisa is a perfect painting, but at the same time look closer, she has no eyebrows? how many women do not have eyebrows? ...
is that perfect? further more just becuase it is old, and people like it, does that make it better then any of the other art from that time period? the agar in the patrie dish is what helps the culture grow, but when it makes something that was not sappose to grow is it truely flawed? it shows that there is a stronger presence in the culture, and the rest will die. klasky's ytmnd disposable matters is one of the most wonderful things i have seen in some time, but upon reading the comments there are tons...
of people that hate it, does my openion nul and void? the flower is still beautiful but not everyone sees it from my angle. so the truth of art is that art is not creativity bound for advancement it is bound to keep the masses happy and content, for it is meerly trase till people refer to it as art, for proof o this please see american beauty, or what ever it is calle dwhere some one records a plastic bag blowing in the wind.
I live in America. If what that last statement says goes for America, then I'd better move 'cause the ytmnd population is a perfect analogy for the American population. Somehow, we coexist. I'll tell you the secret for a dollar. Alright, I'll give it away for free. It's called a niche, or subculture, or cult among other things, and we have meetings in my parents' basement every Tuesday and Thursday.
"It seems to me like a separate site with a different user base would be better for the medium you desire." That's sort of a vague statement. Personally, I enjoy nothing more than having people look at my artwork, if you would call it so. This is a beautiful ytmnd. I've been listening to the same song, on repeat, in this very ytmnd in a seperate window for the past 2 hours. People have likely spent, accumulatively, many long hours of typing a snail's-pace discussion over (essentially) 3 words.
"what about art?" What about it? Ugh... the same 3 words have been ringing in my head for the duration of my time reading and insofar responding to the already-lengthly discussion. I'm not an art major; for me it's just a hobby. You can call me young and naiive for having my own opinions on art. You can call me young and naiive for thinking this very YTMND is beautiful. But the fact is that art, and everything that comes with the very word, has a different meaning to everyone. But I stray from my point.
Aren't we "artists" now? Isn't YTMND the place for un-ending combinations of pictures, text and sound? Die-hard YTMNDists might call people like klasky, zer0, lowcast, someone3 and korf the "artsy bunch". Whetstone pointed it out himself. I'm even guilty of it at times. Putting artistically YTMNDs into a different category than the rest, when infact, they're the same thing. You can call a song and a painting different because they're in a different medium. YTMNDs on the other hand, are all composed of some
combination of 3 things. NEDM is funny. lol. It gives you lols. It makes you lol. It makes me lol. But what went into them? Creativity. To me, it doesn't matter how much of it you put into something, the fact is that you had effort enough to put it there. Even if you don't have the technical ability to throw something together, you can try. That's the beauty of YTMND. It's family. It's encouragement. You don't have to be really really good at photoshop or FL studio to make beautiful imalgimations of picture
and sound. Whether we've all gone to some sort of media-based major for 4 years or not, we're all capable of making YTMNDs, and we all have the same audience. Audience. Audience? Audience. Who? Me, you, him, her. "Audience" is a term for a vague approximation of the general census of spectation. It doesn't matter who you are, or what you make, you're watched by the same people. Sure, some of us might be more artistically inclined than others, and vice versa. I'm betting a good 80% of the people on YTMND
are kids not even out of highschool yet who come on YTMND every day after school to comment, vote on, support and encourage others to make, or even make their own YTMNDs. These are people that dedicate themselves to YTMND. I dedicate myself to YTMND. I don't dedicate my life- I dedicate time. Lots of it. I dedicate time to flyinglobsters.com. I put my heart and soul into the 2, because I enjoy it. I enjoy the people here. I enjoy the art that comes out of here. What right have you or I to say that YTMND is
not a place for discussion? Where else would we go? This seems like an appropriate place to discuss art. Where else would we go, the forums? Vitafin knows better than most that the forums are no place for sensible discussion. So I pose you with this question: Where else would we go? Where else would we go for humor? For discussion? For art? I know I'd rather be no place than here. I love YTMND. I enjoy the conversations here, and I sure enjoyed reading the conversation that went on up there. I'm still
Working in the arts, you quickly learn that you do things that "anyone" thinks they can do. I work in an industry where everyone thinks they can act, write, etc.. few can, and even fewer can do it well. If YTMND takes the art path, it will be very hit or miss just like the rest of the site, a "gallery" would probably have only about 20% of the work be any good, probably less.
Working in the arts, you realize that you're working. Here, we're dabbling in the arts. Success really doesn't matter. We're putting something out there, and if someone likes it then it is good for their life, not mine. All I care about is doing whatever I want aka doing whatever makes me happy at the time. Would I prefer 900,000 views and a 4.9 rated site? Uhh, sure, but it's not a realistic choice so it is not to be considered. Also, it doesn't actually have an effect on me, it's merely preference.
Also people need to learn what the word "artsy" means... I've seen at least 5 people on this site use artsy in an attempted complement... unfortunately... art‧sy /ˈɑrtsi/ 1. arty. art‧y /ˈɑrti/ characterized by a showy, pretentious, and often spurious display of artistic interest, manner, or mannerism. Calling something arty without giving any justification is pretty pretentious in and of itself, so most people that fling it around are self-defeating anyways, but honestly it's better to be artsy than...
to be silent, invisible, and essentially lifeless... a bottom feeder if you will. Also, if someone can find me a piece of art that isn't in some way pretentious or a piece of artsy that isn't in some way contributing then I'll... give you a medal. It's all part of putting yourself out there and not just for your self-satisfaction but for the benefit of others. As for this talk of the 80%, I don't normally speak of them in such terms for fear that they may think that they are 80% of 100%.
I think of them more as 80% of a given population with a value of 0, while 20% have a value of 1. I also typically use 95% but that's neither here nor there. This way they feel as they should, inadequate, until proven otherwise. You can and should place me in the same category, until proven otherwise. Because, honestly, if someone can appreciate a creative take on an old fad, and a new fad over an old fad, at some point they need to be able to progress beyond a fad into something entirely new. I'm waiting.
it's pretntious to call yourself an artist for the mere fact that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" for example the modern art pieces that consist of a unturned urinal made fountain, or a can of tomato soup. the truth of this is that the design of the urinal and the soup can where at one point a piece of art before hand, jefferson didn't invent electricity but he did harness it. take a picture of the mona lisa and a picture of a girl from myspace to a person that has not heard of either and which...
do you think they will look good, or artistic? ask a thousand people an opinion question and you will get responces, some the same but all are slightly different. i have friends that are stoners, big time, and others that are as close as stright-edge as one of my friends can be. when they look at my art work some times they both say that is sucks, other times they disagree. sometimes they see things in my room and ask if it is something i made and it turns out to be a pile of s...
tuff on my dresser, which hurts my pride at times, anyway, though they have conflicting ideas about life and art, they all seem to like my art, and my trash can :( , but this proves something else, when the enter my house, or art room, they are ready for "art" so the things they see they will veiw in an artistic view point instead of the fact that my house is a horrifing mess. so, when recently i started playing the bass they heard me play and they thought that it sounded cool, but i had no clue what i...
was playing. thus, when some on gets on YTMND they start of thinking, this is going to be silly and funny, so when they go to sites like klasky's they will think that some one is being to serious and wont like it, and that is a set up ruining something, thus we have things on YTMND like PTKFGS and TEKSOQP, when the go to a ptkfgs site the expect a parody of an existing ytmnd parody, i.e. nsmb is countered by i stole n*gg*'s bike, and when the go to TEKSOQP the will be expecting something ramdom as all hell.
people need to be lead to something are else they will go their own way, so to get a dark and forboding site likes there needs to be some sort of lead in that makes the veiwer thing in a depressive tone, this can be done with sound, a title, colors, or telling them stright out. it is like the writen language, the reason that "L" is "L" is becuase we are tought that "L" is not any thing but "L". so when you look at japanese and think, how the hell do you read that, that is about how the return is, or...
in short, english is ytmnd, we learned it first so we understand it rather well, and japanese is PTKFGS, we don't exactly understand it but we know it means something, and "ajln;bvjn" is TEKSOQP, be cuase it is random crap. so a carrot is a carrot unless every one thinks it's a radish, then it becomes a radish, and the person that thinks it is a carrot is insane for thinking that way, truth is only true untill some one can disprove it, thus the greatest threat to humanity and YTMND ever is born...
FAITH, (ba-bom-dom), and that is in a way the only magic in this world, giving a damn, caring so much that it becomes real, that was stolen, so art is magic in that it becomes everything and nothing depending on the smallest whim of the mind. the woeld is magical, but not in the D&D way. (side note: AskAak doesn't respect me, i wonder why? i think i just lost some respect for myself...)
I'm pretty sure this is one of the most elaborate talkings in comment section of a ytmnd ever. Next to Pale Blue Dot. But its seems everyone has thier views on the ytmnd and so I'd like to present mine. YTMND, its another country. We have our own laws, our own rules, and our own share of problems. Its not like we all have the power to get rid of these problems, but we try our hardest to help our fellow user. What no one comes to understand is that we never meant for down voters or up voters to...
join our country. and although it seems clear, that we can't get rid of them all, we have to coincide with them. Make them feel welcome, because they aren't leaving, and niether are we. Another aspect that'd I'd like to talk about is age. We have alot of twelve year olds claiming to be high and mighty when they can barely wipe thier *ss correctly. Its been too long since the base was correctly balanced. Once we get rid of one, two more show up. I think the only thing we can really do, is migrate. To where..
What a little gem of a comment page I stumbled onto. You can see the seed of HMI forming here...fascinating. It seems you will always have to struggle to find a place for "non-humor" sites on what is essentially a humor website. The majority of people who visit this website either come here to laugh or find your more radical sites to be inaccessible. Thus with a sigh I have to look at the site catalogues of most of the HMI members and find criminally under-appreciated and under-viewed work.
The U&C does not seem to be friendly to ytmnds of a more abstract or esoteric nature. Of course, there comes a time when one makes a name for himself so that his work will invariably be seen by the like-minded users. We all know, however, that this does not compare to the mass exposure that the U&C grants. A shame really, but who knows what future layouts of YTMND may bring. Perhaps a dedicated gallery as was suggsested.
Anyhow, I enjoyed reading the comments here. The Internet is the future of art, and I believe YTMND to be a fascinating medium for the creation of new projects. So far I have concentrated on humor sites, mostly editing source material from film and pre-existing music to create a new result. I consider this a form of "found art", however, it is nothing compared to what people like you and ROY4L are doing here. I must admit I am getting tired of manipulating scenes from movies....
because of the obvious inherent restrictions and limitations involved. There is something comforting about the limitations, however...as the inifinite possibilites of a tabula rasa is quite initimidating at times. Not to mention the fact that I do not exactly have the resources to hire actors to perform my own comedy sketches. I think I have succeeded in making a few people laugh on YTMND, so for me that is satisfying, whether or not I have communicated any kind of "truth about the human experience".
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link