#to conceptualize art as only being 'good' (having value) if it has 'good writing' is such a stupid and capitalist way of thinking about art | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

headspace-hotel · 9 months

Text

I've been able to neither read nor write stories in a long time. Poetry too, for the most part. I guess what I mean is that the art of the written word has become a stranger to me.

I hate what poetry classes did to my writing. Yes, the Wikipedia poems, but they are easier because they're not my own words, and I have gotten so many comments on those saying they are powerful pieces of art, but for me personally they're a way of hiding from the awfulness of trying to assemble my own words into poetry.

I hate the poems I wrote in poetry classes. I hate the version of me I showed others in those classes. I hate the way poetry classes taught me to draw from my own experiences and thoughts for poetry. I hate everything I learned about how to interpret poetry, the eye with which I learned to read poetry, and the vocabulary I learned to talk about poetry, and ultimately, I hate "literary" poetry.

"Literary," by the way, is the category of art that has more meaning, value and legitimacy than the "other" category, which is not "literary." A "literary" poem is published in special, fancy "literary" magazines and almost invariably written by a person with a MFA or PhD in poetry.

You could say that the distinguishing feature of "literary" art is its overwhelming sense of legitimacy. A "literary" poem is a poem in the same way that a nonprofit organization is charitable, that a CEO is rich, or that an SAT score demonstrates your academic prowess. It is a poem completely immune to the possibility that someone will think it sucks. It expects to be absorbed, analyzed, studied, and discoursed upon because something feels "official" about whatever designates it as Good Art.

Literary poems are not only written by and for a special subset of people that have been formally taught to read and interpret poetry, they are written exclusively for audiences that will automatically assume they are Good Art; beautiful, meaningful, and worth interpreting. Because of this, most literary poems are literal incomprehensible nonsense.

Just take this one:

Say I climb the ladder of wheat/and at the top there is a faucet dripping beads of water/but the water takes a year to turn into an eagle/and the sky's forty-three shades of gray pierce/the first inflection of my heart, the point where the signals/throw grass into the river. Say the river sags/and the horizon sucks the lance out of the ghost's hands/like the moment of being born, the point where a shadow's/tongue slides through the faultline./Grace. Sunlight, cherries.

(it continues like this)

And conceptually, I love art as collaboration between the creator and viewer, where abstract, indeterminate and murky things are forced to take shape through the participation of the viewer as they interpret and associate things that stand out to them in the work! The "aliveness" of art in the abyss between what the artist attempts to communicate and what the viewer feels is the coolest thing to me!

But this philosophy of art is incompatible with the idea that there is an elite category of art that is worthy of interpretation, analysis, and reverence. I can fuck around with this random word generator and get something that is roughly as meaningful as the above. I don't mean that as demeaning to the poem, I mean that I feel demeaned by the poem, because its linguistic play and experimentation is something that everybody can do, that everyone should try doing, but this poem has been designated as something exceptionally meaningful and worthy and its writer teaches writing at the University of Chicago. You can click through that website for hours and not find a single soul without a MFA or above in poetry or creative writing.

For me, the world of "literary" writing was like a room with a splatter of vomit across the floor that no one else would acknowledge. The ability to formally study poetry in college was a privilege, but I was constantly aware of privilege, and the thing about privilege is the more you have, the less you think about it. What of the ability to pursue a PhD in poetry? What small fraction of people could expend so much time and money on something that didn't really have a career associated with it? And of that fraction, which fraction would be seen as "good enough" to publish poetry books and to teach? With poetry this indeterminate, how were the "good" poets selected at all?

Literary writing excludes poor people, and the existence of published literary poets who are immigrants or minorities doesn't negate this. Increasingly, published writing in general excludes poor people. A LOT of popular authors graduated from very elite schools!

But literary poetry I hate especially, because it puffs itself up on unlocking the universe and human experience and pain, as if insight into those things is a seldom-appearing gift instead of something many people have, except they don't have the time and money to train themselves into expressing it in a way that appears Literary.

The "literary" vs. "non-literary" paradigm had an inescapable rottenness to it. I couldn't stop thinking about the luminous conversations I'd had with people who lacked the formal training to express ideas in a "literary" manner, but still showed me something vital about the universe.

I've been bitching about literary poetry for like two years now, and really, I just hate what studying all that shit has done to my own writing style. It's so frustrating that the joy and playfulness won't come back.

746 notes · View notes

chynandri · 10 months

Text

Additional Thoughts About Ibara & Aesthetics

Using this image to indicate to you that I'm gonna be mentioning Rouge&Ruby a LOT.

Writing this post on Ibara and Tsumugi's dorm room, it reminded me of some more thoughts I’ve been microwaving in my brain for a while. From the dorm post we’ve pretty clearly established that Ibara… doesn’t express much of a personality in his sense of style 😂 he was born in a wet cardboard box all alone ok

HOWEVER… what I’ve found really intriguing about him (besides everything.) is that despite that lack of self expression in a personal space, he does have a strong sense for art and aesthetics in what he creates.

What tipped me off on this was actually his in-game office interaction with the whiteboard. He has the ‘good’ result of drawing a cute bird, saying he ‘knows a little about the arts’ (which probably means he knows a lot, he’s just being fake humble). When I first saw this, I was a little bit surprised.

So later on, when Rouge&Ruby confirmed that he does do costume designs and storyboards himself, I was pretty excited to see his artistic skills a little bit expanded upon.

And actually, he has said this interesting thing in relation to art:

Translation by Land of Zero

So clearly, Ibara has a sense for the value of art and thinks it’s important.

And it aligns with how he intended for Adam to focus on the art of performance (compared to Eve which is more popular and takes on more entertainment jobs).

What I’m trying to say is that while he obviously loves making money and business domination, he also has an understanding and skill for art and design. Business, art, aesthetics often come hand in hand I think, as having a good concept and attractive visuals is essential to selling anything...

Translation by Land of Zero

Considering he designed every part of Melting Rouge Soul + Ruby Love himself and contacted Hiyori for his connections to chocolate designers so that Eden's chocolates stand out, I feel his consideration for making something with 'artistic and financial value' really comes through in Rouge&Ruby.

Translation by Land of Zero

I think the whole point of that event is that within Ibara there is a passionate burning soul bursting with expression and creativity (even love) in pursuit of his ambitions, and it comes through so so much in those songs and his own performance. He’ll prove Eden’s superiority in every avenue possible, not just monetarily but also artistically.

Although all this is only applied to his work, which is what he’s most passionate about. To Ibara, his work IS him:

Translation by Land of Zero

Additionally, Rinne notes Ibara’s more 'poetic' (and nerdy 🤓) side with how the Minotaurs Labyrinth is designed in Ariadne (variety show Ibara traps Crazy:b in):

Not only do things have to look good, they have to be quite meaningful and conceptual too. I mean, this IS coming from the guy who bases his whole personality and image on one (1) book he read as a sad little kid (Art of War btw) and inserts very unsubtle Bible references everywhere.

And Ibara putting the most effort into his chocolates despite being annoyed at having to make chocolates past Valentine's Day and it having no relation to work:

Translation by Land of Zero. He loves to succeed and be impressive for the sake of it.

So where he doesn’t put much effort into his personal spaces or appearance outside of work, it’s all because Ibara’s personality is just one that’s extremely singularly focused on one thing - his passion and work. I think this creates another interesting and lovely paradox to his personality, just one of the many this guy has. It’s what makes Ibara so delightful as a character.

Tl;dr - Ibara is actually quite into art and aesthetics, and even artistically inclined himself.

#ibara saegusa #enstars #yet another display of insanity from me. ur welcome #chyna writes too

85 notes · View notes

argentnoelle · 5 months

Text

so yesterday I was bored and wanted to read something that I wouldn't get too emotionally invested in. so I decided to go find platinum end and see how bad it is. and wow, it... really is that boring. 3 chapters in & i was skimming over most of it & I'm not sure I can make it to the end. there's literally not a single compelling aspect about this entire piece, except maybe the question of why it exists. it's like Ohba went. "hmm. I have one really popular manga, but I'm honestly not sure why it got popular, so if I just do all the same things in *this* story maybe I'll replicate my success" which. I do have *some* sympathy with. having something you make get that popular, everything else is going to reflect on it whether you want it to or not, and I understand how that could cause some writer's block. especially when it seems he doesn't? actually know what his strengths as a writer are?

because here's the thing Ohba *does* have strengths as a writer. he can write incredibly convoluted plots with ramifications, and that can be a fun thing to watch play out (he's got "convoluted" down here, but instead of being connected by cause and effect, stuff seems to just "happen" and there's no ramifications yet, which makes the plot super boring). The other thing Ohba is good at is writing smart characters doing clever things. And it's not like he lost all of his capacity as a writer, he was still good at it when he wrote Minoru. so it's not like he can "only write one kind of smart character" either. If he wanted to avoid writing Light 2.0 he could've done that and still made it compelling, I think. but... so far, the most interesting character here is... the guy who was dying of cancer and wants to design superhero suits. But upon further reflection, most of what makes him interesting is because of Obata. because Obata at least put some *effort* into the art, while I feel like Ohba put 0 effort into the writing. I don't feel the story plays to Obata's strengths as an artist, but he's managed to create some nice panels that are somewhat memorable. and again, the only reason any character or scene becomes interesting is because of the artwork. Like the main character: he's got no personality beyond being depressed and missing his family and an obsession with finding happiness. but Obata draws him with pathos in some certain scenes, and it could almost make you feel something except that it doesn't.

The main duo, that is the main character and his angel, don't play off each other well. she's also a bit morally iffy, which I feel was purposeful: the only remotely memorable line so far is when she's talking to the other angel about the main character and says "I don't think he's the kind of person who can be happy after committing murder yet." like. what kind of a line is that. what kind of a contest is this.

yeah, none of the god contestants except for knight dude want the job, since they're all depressed. conceptually that comes the closest to being interesting this story gets, except it's the least fun thing in the world to watch. and knight dude is just. you can't even root for him, he's that dull. others have mentioned the super weird conversation between knight dude and his friend(?) when they're at the archery place, where the friend is like yeah if I had a wish I'd wish for all ugly girls in the world to disappear. which yeah. sexist. and knight dude is like cool wish! (???) but then the friend goes on and is like 'and all guys more handsome than me, too' and then knight dude is like 'can't do that one, I'd have to die' and friend laughs and agrees. what I want to know is, who talks like this?? was knight dude "joking"? he has no sense of humor though; it's not played that way. and the friend just. Idk that whole scene is baffling.

there are gore and fanservice scenes like "look! shock value! surely this counts for something???" which are also honestly incredibly dull. Obata draws that stuff like he's drawing the Yotsuba building. actually the Yotsuba building was more interesting. because yes, Yotsuba makes a cameo so knight dude can blow up its doors with his arrow weapon. Sakura TV makes a cameo too.

anyway I can see where Light gets his belief that humanity is boring from. it's from the author because the author seems to think that too. Ohba probably should've stuck to writing genius characters and villains, all his "good guys" have no personality whatsoever. they're like little paper dolls. unfortunately, the villain in the piece (so far) also feels like a little paper doll.

there's one moment or aspect that could've been interesting, but again, wasn't. which is the fact that the main character is in love with Saki, this girl at his school. But she's also a god candidate and ended up shooting him with cupid's arrow to make him on her side (it doesn't last, he's still on her side though). That plus main character's tragic Cinderella backstory including dead parents makes him a bit of a Misa parallel, and I don't think I'm reaching with that because there's an actual line where he (who has wings, Saki doesn't) offers to Saki "I can be your wings!" so. Misa who won't kill people though, and has no sense of volition, which makes him significantly less interesting.

The thing is, if Ohba had taken the flip and played it through all the way, he could've done something kind of halfway-clever, and had Saki be a Light parallel. Like, if main character thinks this girl's so sweet and nice but you the reader meet her and go "wow, she's cold and calculating and totally just using him to gain her foothold as god" that could've added something to the character dynamics. but instead she, also, has no personality and does nothing. and so far main character hasn't even wondered once why the girl he likes apparently lost the will to live so much that she got entered into this contest.

#my meta #death note

3 notes · View notes

generation1point5 · 10 months

Text

I can’t help but find it odd when I see other creative types, especially those more progressively oriented, discuss intellectual property. It’s a necessity on an economic basis, certainly, but on an ideological level the philosophy begins to break down. Ideas can be formulated in parallel; all creative pursuits are derivative to some degree; meaning is as much the result of interpretation as it is the act of generating something following one’s own vision. In no way shape or form is ownership of that idea brought into the conversation. It smacks of American individualism.

This is not an argument that can be used in the broader context of abusing artificial intelligence to mimic another’s art, writing, music, or any of the other creative pursuits. The arguments against AI are fundamentally economic in nature; to try and approach it from a philosophical standpoint is to derail the argument into semantics and fruitless excursions into what it means to be human, the nature of reality and experience, and other topics that are mere fronts for people to flex their skills in rhetoric more than it is a good-faith attempt by any party to arrive at some sort of truth.

I can certainly understand the frustration of having ideas being derived directly from a creator without credit. There’s even been an occasion where I’m all-but certain there was a character design that had been derived from one of mine by sheer parallel, but it’s not like I “own” the idea of the outfit I came up with. This has been a fairly common pattern with many artists I know whose designs have been (rather brazenly) lifted and copied with only minor alterations. But the offense in that, at least to me, seems to stem more from the fact that it signifies an unwillingness from someone to engage with the author, and merely understand the author’s work to possess wide enough appeal to be worth mimicking in an effort to achieve similar recognition. I think this, at least on a psychological level, is the origin of all objections to the use of artificial intelligence in the creative process. It is about the fundamental break in the relationship between the creator and the audience. It stems from a lack of validation and recognition for the labor put into the process. On some level, it can also be argued that the person who takes what is given and puts their own twist on it does not truly understand the source material, and imitates mere shapes and colors.

But this line of thinking is another matter of mistaking authorial intent to be authoritative. To some degree it certainly is, but it is not the word of god. The break is not on ethical lines, but relational. To mimic a work without respect to its source material signifies a break between how the author connects with their audience, and it is this lack of respect, recognition, and value that creates the reactionary behavior that forms the basis for arguments in defense of intellectual property. This is felt most keenly when the work produced is conceptualized, understood, and made with the intention of being a means of self-expression. Work created on commission or for a client carries no such weight. The release of ownership signifies that intellectual property as a concept is a social contract; the ethical ramifications are the result of breached norms, not objective moral principle. This doesn’t make the act any less wrong, it merely highlights the nature of the wrong that is at the root of the problem.

These thoughts give me pause to consider the reasons for my own writing, the goals I hope to achieve with them, and the inevitable impacts it will have on my own self-perception, esteem, and the way in which I try to derive value for myself, my reasons for being. I conclude again that writing should not be my reason for being; it is a part of me, a fundamental one, but I do not want it to be the source of my value as a person. Neither do I want to grasp it so tightly that I think it too precious to evolve, to be taken and transformed by others, even if that transformation comes with a shift in vision altogether different from what I originally strived to realize. Even my contemporary writing strives to paint a different picture from what I had first set out to make.

I see my writing as a means to be understood; but the story does not end in understanding. After understanding, there comes exploration, growth, and inevitably, change. I do not want my writing to be a static thing, or something that remains solely in my hands forever. In some sense it has to be released in order to be offered to an audience, for them to see and do as they see fit, heedless of my own approval or lack thereof. What comes after will emerge in its own way, and the story will go on, or be retold anew in an entirely different manner. There will inevitably come a point where my part in that whole process will come to an end, and that is not a bad thing at all. Whether my own contribution leaves a legacy or not is immaterial; it is a temporary and fleeting happiness. I have been at my most satisfied with my craft when I know I have written something others resonated with, even if it is for just a moment. When that moment fades, it is better to let go of it than to tie it to my own sense of worth or validation.

#personal #blogging #writing

5 notes · View notes

wisteria-lodge · 3 years

Text

snake primary + snake secondary (bird model)

Hello, I hope you’re doing well! I’m having a lot of confusion over my secondary, so a second opinion to help me untangle things would be lovely.

I’m pretty confident I’m a Snake with a Badger model that determines what I do when my people aren’t involved. Essentially, people are always important, but my people are most important to me. When push comes to shove I will protect them first (or feel worse about myself if I fail to).

So far, so good.

I think my secondary is at least a little burnt, in part because I’ve always struggled with interacting with people and don’t tend to think of myself as someone who’s capable of making an impact in people’s lives when it matters. I can remember several situations where I didn’t reach out to someone who needed my help, especially one of mine, because I was convinced that person would never want help from me.

That’s proper burnt secondary talk. You knew what you wanted to do, you knew what would feel good to do, but you DIDN’T do it because you didn’t think it would work.

I know better than to do that now, and I’m trying to get better at believing in my own abilities (and the fact that other people can want me around). I’m hoping it’ll help to get a better idea of what those abilities even are.

You’re unBurning. Good.

I’ve thought ever since I first discovered this sorting system that I must be an improvisational secondary. I’ve never thought of myself as a fan of plans and prepwork - I get stressed out that I’ll forget important things and be left stranded. I remember back in high school when I was getting used to using public transport, my mum went with me to do a trial run of a route I needed to travel in advance. I was stressed enough about the event I was travelling to as it was, and the trail run made it so much worse, because there was so much to remember, what if I forgot something? What eventually made me feel more comfortable about it was trusting myself to figure it out on the day.

What a gorgeous way to explain the difference between a Built (prepwork) secondary and an Improvisational secondary. Trial runs make me feel so much better and so much more comfortable. And I’m a built secondary (and I bet your mom is too.)

Nowadays, when I’m travelling somewhere I’m unfamiliar with I’d much rather just leave half an hour early to give myself some breathing room in case I mess up.

Perfect. Excellent improvisational secondary problem solving.

Following strict schedules just trips me up too - say I’m doing classwork for the afternoon, for example, I need the freedom to be able to say that actually I’m more in the mood for Subject B than Subject A. I like having space to improvise, and I feel really proud of myself when I pull off something on the fly!

Once for a final exam in high school, we had to write an essay for The Lord of the Flies using a set of quotes from the text we’d chosen and memorised beforehand. The essay question was only revealed in the exam, and it turned out to be asking us to write an essay about one specific character - except I didn’t have enough quotes for any one character, I’d deliberately made them very spread out. What I did instead was to argue for the symbol of the Lord of the Flies as a character, and make each paragraph about each different character’s relationship to ‘him’ and what that relationship revealed about the characters, so I could make use of my range of quotes. I’m sure my writing wouldn‘t hold up now, I’ve gotten better at writing since then, but I still think of it as one of the essays I’m proudest of.

I would have given you an A. That sounds brilliant.

So that all seems to point to an improvisational secondary, but - reading about Rapid-Fire Birds has made me question whether that’s actually what I’m doing instead, and I have no idea how to tell. What‘s the difference between an improvisational secondary using information they already have to help them improvise, and a Rapid-Fire Bird doing the same thing? To what extent can Birds dislike relying on lists and planning?

You’re an Improvisational secondary. A pretty loud improvisational secondary (and almost certainly a Snake because you value the ability to pivot quickly so highly.) Rapid-fire birds can *look* like Snakes from the outside, but it’s a totally different internal experience. A rapid-fire bird might be comfortable improvising their bus route - but only in an area that they already know super well. Rapid-fire birds look like Snakes… as long as they are operating within their area of expertise, are coming from a place of strength.

And where does looking for more information while you solve a problem, rather than beforehand, fit within the secondaries?

Feeling more comfortable and confident looking *around* you while solving a problem (versus bringing in a bag of tricks at the start) is an Improvisational secondary thing.

When I’m involved in a debate about something that relies on a piece of information - a definition of a word, a statistic, some sort of other fact - I’m known as the person who’ll pull out my phone and say ’oh! I’ll Google it!’.

This might be a Bird [model] thing, but I’m inclined to think it’s just a person thing.

(Sometimes people don’t seem to get why I do that - they’ll say it looks like I’m taking things too seriously when it’s just a silly discussion for fun? But it just makes sense to me, we need information and that information is easily in reach, why shouldn’t I go get it, silly conversation or not?)

Okay, scratch that, I actually think this is a generational thing. *Baby Boomers* get annoyed at me when I do this.

I’m the same way when I research for writing. I don‘t tend to go looking for specific resources when I don’t have a story on them planned, but I love digging into specific subjects and resources and systems to ground a story in, once I have a concept to work with and I know what could be useful.

I love digging into complex systems in general, really (hello, sorting hat chats!). But it’s not like I do it because I think it’ll be useful later - unless I know it will be, because it’s relevant to a problem I’ve already been presented with. And I know just having nerdy interests does not a true Bird make.

I think you probably have a fun Bird model.

But if I’m not a Bird - or if it’s only a model - which improvisational secondary do I even have? I’ve always figured Lion seems more likely, because I’ve never related to the ‘silver-tongued’ skill of Snakes.

I wonder if you relate at all to the idea of single-player snake - constantly pivoting, using their environment, problem solving on the fly. I think of Scotty from Star Trek - someone I would never describe as silver-tongued, and who’s happy being solitary. But he still problem solves the way a Snake does.

I do tend to be pretty stubborn and dig my heels in when I’m challenged, in a quiet sort of way. But the difference between charging or swerving when you head for something has always seemed hard to grasp, for me. When you’ve got something to go for, you just… go, and some obstacles can be barged through and some you can’t, so you try and then go around.

I actually think that’s a very Snake way of putting things. A Lion would say that you *can* punch though everything, given enough will power and enough time. It’s what makes their energy so intoxicating, and where a lot of their power and trustworthiness comes from. They keep at something until they fail.

(oh and also ~ I have noticed that generally, Lion secondaries make no sense to Snake secondaries and vice versa.)

I do relate more to a Lion’s interacting with everyone mostly the same - with ‘varying degrees of awkwardness’, as I think another asker phrased it - rather than creating masks for everyone on the fly. But I’m not sure anymore if that’s powerful for me or if it’s just… all I can do. This goes back to being burnt socially, I think - I feel like I‘m working with nothing at all when I talk to people.

Whatever secondary I’ve got, I don’t think I’m capable of using its ‘multiplayer’ skills very well. Or at least, I haven’t learnt to yet, and I feel like I‘ve gotten worse. Although, more than a year of not being able to talk to most people in person hasn’t helped.

Yeah, you and me both. You’re a little burned about this, which makes sorting hard. You might just be a Snake who… isn’t very social.

And as for Lions valuing authenticity… I do and I don’t? I’m not sure if that’s just because I’m a private person and I don’t like exposing all of myself and my interests and opinions, it makes me feel vulnerable.

I know it sounds crazy, but if you were a Lion, that would make you feel strong.

But I won’t lie about myself if someone asks about something I’m not willing to share, I’ll usually find something that’s still true and answers their question but’s less personal. To what extend do Lions do that?

Generally, “I don’t owe strangers the real me” is just… not something Lions secondaries think. Sometimes they lower their intensity. But they are unusual because they feel best and strongest when they put themselves out there.

But I also think that any ‘mask’ you create is still, to a great extent, a part of you and a reflection of who you are. People talk about it like you have a ‘core’ that is completely you and then a performance you make on top is automatically ‘fake’. That doesn’t make sense to me.

That’s because you’re a Snake. If you were a Lion, you would relate more to this idea of an ideal presentational “core.”

Performances can be helpful to express yourself, in a sense. And everything you make is self-portrait.

That is an incredibly Snake thing to say. Also, Snakes have a tendency to conceptualize their masks as “art.”

In any case - I hope this wasn‘t too long. Thank you for helping me sort through all of this!

You are very welcome. I thought this one was really interesting.

#sortinghatchats #snake secondary #snakesec #lion secondary vs snake secondary #snake primary #bird secondary model #sortme #wisteria sorts

71 notes · View notes

sanstropfremir · 2 years

Note

pls disclose more about ur hate towards the auteur theory! i always love reading your thoughts and whenever you go on a long post. i first heard about it when i took a film elective - the most frequent mentioned auteur is wes anderson. i don't really understand the depth of the theory but watching his films definitely gave me understanding of what makes a film wes anderson's.

oh baby this is a big ol' can of worms, i've never tried to write this out before so we'll see where this goes.

so i don't actually have a problem with all parts of auteur theory. i think it's an important element of criticism (the form) to acknowledge that film directors can have stylistically and thematically homogenized bodies of work. all artists have specific styles and it is important to acknowledge the flags of that style. i do also believe that there are artists who are better suited to conceptual and thematic control (which does include myself to some degree). these are all good things. what i do have a problem with is how auteur theory has totally destroyed the understanding of how the conjunction between art and storytelling has been, and will always be, collaborative. there's some finer points of the theory that apply specifically to film obviously, but a fundamental, and i mean fundamental flaw with it is that it specifically seeks to identify a singular 'authorship' in a form that by nature and history has never had such a thing. there is no singular person responsible for the whole of a film, or a play. yes, there is someone who wrote the script, of which yes, the thing would not exist without. but a script is not a final form. who do you know that reads scripts like they read novels? no one, because that's not what they're for. scripts are prescriptive for the larger, holistic experience of that story. and yes a director should be the steady hand steering the ship, that is their job, but the real strength that comes with being a director is realizing and acknowledging that two or twelve brains are better than one. it is not feasible for a director to know the intricacies of every field; i've never personally met or worked with a director that actually understood costume on the level necessary to have a meaningful contribution to the design.

the whole preoccupation with 'genius' and 'someone has to be the mastermind behind all the ideas' is so so so individualistic and denies agency and credit and credibility to the tens and hundreds of people that are involved in these productions. and despite being a theory that is only about 70 years old, it has infected every form of art (especially theatre) to the form's own detriment because idiot film bros for the last forty years have been inflicting this idea that a bunch of white guys are the pinnacle of cinema because they're 'the director'. designers get so little credit for their work and obviously i'm mad about that because i've experienced it personally, but the greater ramifications of this individualistic mindset is that it even further perpetuates the idea that collaboration is inherently weaker, that admitting that you don't have all the answers or ideas is somehow a flaw, that you are a lacking artist for not being fluent in every possible avenue. and it diminishes the value of all creative work that is not concept or 'ideas' based. is the reason for wes anderson's films looking like that actually him? or is it because of his longtime director of photography robert yeoman who's worked on every single one of his live action films? or is it because of his oft recurring cast of creative collaborators? do you know the name of the set designer for the grand budapest hotel? he won an oscar for it.

tldr it's a facile theory that has overtaken the cultural mindset because it gives one person all the power and credit and it exists only to stoke men's egos because they think they're hot shit even though literally everyone else is holding them up.

#some of it is celebrity culture and some of it is narcissism and all of it is patriarchal capitalist bullshit #every director that has ever claimed or been given the title of 'auteur' has been a white man #also one of the most prominent critics of auteur is a woman (pauline kael). so that should give you an indicator #like the erasure of people working as creative 'support' is so pervasive that like. people think celebrities dress themselves #actors know literally fuck all about clothes you think hollywood a-listers are dressing themselves?? seriously??????#basically auteur theory has made all general public education around film/art actively worse in every way #also the whole thing surrounding how the oscars for costume design are awarded....god do not even get me started it makes me FURIOUS #non kpop questions #text #answers #i took a lot of very specialized film electives in undergrad but i never talk about film because my area of expertise is SO niche #but i do actually know a lot about it rip #im not sure this makes sense but whatever #auteur theory and method acting are two white man theories that are destroying art and i hate them both with indescribable passion

16 notes · View notes

ganymedesclock · 3 years

Note

Clowns are great, tell us what you like about clowns!! Everyone seems scared of them to the point that a nice clown is an inverted trope...

I think that people initially get unsettled about clowns for a lot of the same reasons people get unsettled about dolls- the presumption of innocence that can be subverted, the 'that's not quite a normal face' affected by the makeup, and to a degree that circuses have become a little less common and a little more something regarded as fantastical or strange. (I attended a Cirque do Soliel performance- Cavalia- once in my life! It was extremely impressive)

I think on top of that, as you say, the trope of the monster clown, popularized by figures such as the Joker, has become so widespread that people tend to think of clowns as scary by default, a kind of monster category. Which is just kind of a shame and many people are taking that back. For me personally, I'm a bit more of a fond of old-school aesthetics/ court jester image than I am on the classic clown but I still think circus aesthetics are pretty fun.

For me, a lot of the appeal of this is twofold: I think "a performer" is an interesting psychological state to present a character in, especially someone like a clown who generally has a persona on and off and who drastically changes their face (with paint, wigs, costuming) between. The clown is designed to be funny- to affect a foolishness or otherwise harmlessness- and it is a performance taken on deliberately by others. At their core, clowns are actors, and their performance is to entertain one way or another.

This is an interesting thing to think about for me personally because I'm someone who tends to reflexively fear being not taken seriously, being found funny, harmless, ineffectual by others- but the key thing about a performance is that it is at the discretion of the performer. They are putting themselves, their art, and their control into it. At the same time, they're skillfully palming elements of themselves so the audience doesn't see who they are fully or clearly.

That can be used for horror, to be fair- the idea that someone is behaving harmless or benevolent when the actual person they are underneath is not necessarily. But at this point, the clown facade is so often associated with evil that it'll lose a bit of effectiveness before your audience unless you play it really well.

It can also be used for something interesting! I don't call myself a profound or storied batman aficionado, but I think it actually is interesting that the Joker has a "clown aesthetic" in some ways but that one of his most commonly depicted fatal flaws is pride- he dresses as he does to laugh at everybody around him but cannot stand the idea of being mocked or derided- he's not the one to take the pratfall, and any time he does, he hits the roof about it. Not someone who actually values the clown as an entertainer, but someone who wants to insinuate everybody around him belongs in the circus and he won't respect them.

But I think there's a plentiful amount of room for characters associated with clowns who are depicted as more of a clever hero; someone who performs and deflects, disarms and pleases, from the shrewd perspective of a person who knows they aren't being taken seriously. The core viewpoint character in one of my personal projects- Avery from Bevyverse- is raised by a circus and while he doesn't exactly keep up the clown makeup after leaving it behind, it still strongly affects his ideology about role, identity, performance and entertainment; to the point where, as an abandoned child with no known history, he takes the surname of the setting's equivalent of Robin Goodfellow- a role he came to thrive in at a key point in his upbringing.

I think there's not necessarily anything wrong with a scary clown, but I think that there's a trick and artifice to horror, in that fear is a very reflexive, instinctual response. There's a reason that the jump scare is the cheapest trick in the book and half the time we see it coming, but it rarely fails to get your heart rate up. As living creatures, on an instinctual level we want to keep going. We get startled by things not by any moral failing but by an assessment of risk that goes by so vanishingly fast in the depths of our brain we are left only with a sense of lingering unease- or a moment of direct terror, cued by our entire body shifting into high gear so we have the energy and resources to- hopefully- fight, fly, freeze, or fawn our way out of it.

But because this is so reflexive, and because many primal fears are intuitive- a fear of disease, a fear of injury, (and from those, a false-positive unease at anything that seems "like us, but not quite" or "us, but not moving right") a fear of predators, a fear of parasites, a fear of fire and shifting stone, asphyxiation and other natural hazards that could kill or profoundly injure us- in writing and designing horror we don't actually need to think about this stuff. So someone can think, hey, that horror movie I saw with a scary clown was really gnarly, right? I think I can capture that feeling in my own work!

I think that, if I have to cite one thing as the most important part of writing- for myself, which I'm sure many people can and ought to disagree with because there's never just one way to do art- it's interrogating the elements of your story, even to yourself. Not all of it needs to go into a story, but for me, someone who is very fond of conceptual horror, I feel like it's a good idea to not take things for granted, but challenge them to yourselves- why a clown? what's scary about a clown? If we unspool these reflexes and instincts, what do they lead us back to?

And I don't mean this as a reason you shouldn't have an evil clown! If you really want to have an evil clown, asking these questions will help you make the thing a lot scarier- it'll give you a clearer thesis of what, exactly, is the horror element here, what about this is scary- and hopefully help you avoid bigotry in horror, which can be a real problem in the genre when prejudice is to a degree rooted in fear, and fear is not objective- we can train our feelings to lead us astray, and while that isn't a mark of how we're a bad person- we often aren't given a choice in it- it's important to return to the source and ask yourself what's scary and if that is inherently so.

#writing ruminations #readmore

24 notes · View notes

writingandmore · 3 years

Note

Hi!!! May I get a HP, Star Wars, Voltron, and Disney matchup?

𝗕𝗔𝗦𝗜𝗖𝗦 + 𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘

19, Libra, Neutral Good, enneagram is 4w5, muggleborn Ravenclaw (with Gryffindor tendencies), and my patronus spirit is Hummingbird. Biromantic Pansexual Genderfluid woman using pronouns of She/Her or He/Him. Cherubic-like face, with short height (5'1") plus sized Southeast Asian woman with Spanish descent that has chic messy/wavy brunette medium hair that reaches to my shoulder, oriental skin, slightly upturned eyes, small lashes, chocolate brown irises, cute flat nose, heart shaped face, full cheeks, cupid's bow lips, a small beauty mark on the forehead, and naturally straight teeth with tiny gap in front (just imagine that it's a mixture of Marinette from 𝗠𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗟𝗮𝗱𝘆𝗯𝘂𝗴, Musa from 𝗪𝗶𝗻𝘅 𝗖𝗹𝘂𝗯, and Alexandra Trese from 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲---cause' my friend told me that I kinda look like them). My sense of fashion is in between emo and boyish plus korean glam, I sometimes let my hair down or styled like Lara Croft reboot.

𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗢𝗡𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗬

Distant, quiet, and timid at first making people thought I'm a demure, modest, and self-effacing that looks "immaculate" or "one of a kind" (due to my protective mom, a reason why I've never been in a relationship) but the truth is, dunno how to initiate a conversation, but a total opposite if I open up---friendly, ambivert, witty, laughing loudly on a daily basis---like my happiness is too shallow, super talkative, eats a lot (yeah I can finish a huge slice of cake or a meal in one sitting), awkward, daydreamer (I got embarrassed from knocking at the door even I'm inside the classroom 😂), EXTREMELY CLUMSY (mostly gets bruises from hitting, bumping my head somewhere, walking into something on my way, and being careless to my belongings), secretly likes affection, easily overwhelmed, prone to melt over wholesomeness, flusters on compliments, lightly blushes on cheesy banters, eager to share what I know (especially about Catholic Church---my past teacher joked that I'll become a saint because of it 🤣), oftenly speaks full of sarcasm with a lowkey crackhead energy citing meme references, and talented girl who can be your no.1 supporter and unashamed to be true to myself but can be awkward to strangers. In terms of leadership, I only educate and guide than being a prefect (I might take the role seriously), will lift my group when there's lacking/incompleteness. About doing projects in school, I become too extra and prepared for efforts, but I'll forget the process in the end.

The extent, I'm expressive, warm-hearted, willig to help, kind, intelligent, supportive, nice, creative, enthusiastic, laid-back, determined, tough, competitive, and feisty outside, but a real softie that can be childish and dramatic that cries so easily (but will enlightened real quick by smallest things that makes me smile) filled with doubts, frustrations, and insecurities with fear of failure that pushes off the limits to to please everyone because they might get dissappointed from expectations---I simply can't stop proving myself too much because I'm a survivor of bullying. But I still managed to be stronger than ever after I stumbled, even it's a slow burn process. I can be blunt, intimidating, harsh, and a douchebag if I receive ends or I got interrupted while doing something. Immature, headstrong, perfectionist, demanding, hesitant, jumpy, forgetful, overthinker, quick-tempered, sensitive, and anxious (no joke, my nervousness makes me think worse scenario will arrive). Though can be procrastinator and arrogant, I raised as a religious 𝖺𝗇𝖽 diplomatic youth, willing to fight what I believe (including my dreams and what's important to me) and what is right. In addition, I have a habit of staying up late and doing sign of the cross to ease nervousness.

Rowdy and feeling-brokenhearted and bitter friend in the group who fangirl a lot, swears like sailor, will call out on people that we loathe, will make fun of your stupidity (in a good way) before helping, and bring gossips, but a hopeless romantic and cheeky (makes banter with sarcasms or pick up lines as an endearment, but gets annoyed if I received sappy or offensive one), Still generous and concerned person in a subtle and different way.

𝗛𝗢𝗕𝗕𝗜𝗘𝗦

My hobbies are singing, drawing, roleplaying, listening to music, chatting/browsing on social media, conceptualizing, writing, and reading some stuffs. I'll include making corniest jokes/puns, sleeping, and dancing when nobody's around or walking like a model if I feel so bold (even I'm terrible at both xD). I also used to learn Italian language a bit.

𝗟𝗜𝗞𝗘𝗦

Loves kittens, milk tea, singing at the karaoke, cartoons, iced coffee, memes, cute things, watching YouTube videos (mostly pageants, ASMR, edit audios, and mukbangs), also enjoys playing games on my sister's PSP. Sucker for arts, choir, poetry, night sky, makeup, fun/deep/dumb conversations, Christianity, documentaries (about saints, real crime stories, and inspirational people), reading interesting stuffs, talking about social issues, and creative writing, chilling both indoors and outdoors. Beside that, my music taste are like late 90s-2000s songs (mostly rock, pop, and country) sometimes Catholic songs, kpop and ppop, chocoholic, and a sweetooth as well.

𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗟𝗜𝗞𝗘𝗦

Things that I hate are stereotyping, HUGE creepy crawlies (spiders, toads, snakes, and cockroaches), firecracker sounds, thunder and lightning, being left out, loneliness, heart break, blackout, and judgemental people. If I found out that someone hates or backstabbing or being rude to me, I won't hesitate to throw offensive criticisms, leaving them with a "I don't give a f" attitude. One random fact about me is, I 𝗐𝗂𝗅𝗅 vent out EVERYTHING I despise in my entire existence---from bad soap operas to toxicity, worse scenarios in real life, and how terrible is my love life from unrequited feelings that I got, because it's a big deal for me, and I consider forcing me to do what I'm not into and manipulating me as my major pet peeves.

𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗚𝗘𝗥𝗦

In terms of triggers...I only have two which are ta𝖨king about divorce/annullment/separation because I came from a generational broken family (it sucks that some people I knew assumed that the reason why I'm overly unaware that someone is interested in me in secret, is I have "high standards" looking for a partner, but the truth is I'm strict and I have a personal preferences...I know my worth and I don't want settle for less!) and religion/beliefs discrimination, cause' there are reasonings that doesn't makes sense because some, sounds too hypocritical, like as if you're a morally good person.

𝗥𝗢𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘 + 𝗟𝗢𝗩𝗘 𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗨𝗔𝗚𝗘𝗦

My love languages are quality time and gift giving, but I actually swoon over physical touch (especially cuddles and cute kisses) and words of affirmation when it comes to having a partner, though I get attracted so easily, matured but can be a goofy person who's nice, friendly, kind-hearted, loving, faithful, and excels in academics is my cup of tea. Whenever I have a real life crush (which is rare), I act the same but deep inside, my heart is about to explode and will eventually share to my trustful friends how I highly admire that person, however if they spilled the beans out, I'll obviously deny it and will cry if they like someone else, it will take some time for me to move on, now I don't care for them anymore.

Best Friends to Lovers is my ideal trope because I find it very cute since you already knew each other before dating (which happened to my 2nd cousin, she married her best friend!)---perfect balance for romance, laughters, comfort, and tears when it comes to sharing your vibes, being there through thick and thin, safe with embraces, and helping each other to grow.

𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗔𝗦

My best assets are smile, eyes, personality, singing voice, artistic skills, writings, intelligence, oratorical skills and I have potential in hosting...so I can consider myself as a singer, artist, orator, speaker, and a top student who's a former active campus ministry member with three roles (choir leader, psalm singer, and reader).

May sounds different but I'm passionate for helping people through my talents and sharing my story to inspire everyone. I may look selfish, but I have a different way on how I show that I actually care also I have a biased sentimental value

Currently a college freshman, learning how to cook. I have so many interests, to the point I don't know what I'm into because of my dreams to become a popular Filipino YouTuber, a novelist, and being part of a successful chorale competing internationally...I also consider joining pageants at school too once the pandemic ends, but maybe.

HP: Remus!

- Remus is also quiet and a bit reserved when he's not in a familiar situation, so your own first impression on him would be a good one, as you'd seem similar to his own personality. He's sweet and is able to start up a conversation if he notices the other person is having a hard time doing so, so hopefully he'd be able to bring out your more extroverted and friendly self after a while so he can be around the more open you. He wouldn't mind you being a bit awkward-he's very much the same way-honestly, the comradery that would come from that would be more positive than anything else. He loves sharing knowledge and learning about new things, so your eagerness to talk about what you know would work really well also! He does a lot better when he knows someone has his back too, so your extra supportive nature would endear him to you as well.

SW: Han!

- Your nicer and more helpful personality would balance out Han's more standoffish vibes when first meeting. You might get on his nerves a bit first, but you'd quickly grown on him and, in turn, make him a bit of a better person. Your ability to be blunt and a bit harsh would serve you well if you ever needed to stand your ground on an issue that two of you have, as he can be quite stubborn.

VLD: Lance!

- Lance can be a bit immature from time to time as well, especially when it comes to trying to be funny or cheering up those around him-he's also headstrong and typically firm in what he wants to do, so your own determined personality would attract him to you a lot as well. He often puts off things he needs to do if they make him anxious too, but if you both recognize that you share that problem, helping each other might be a good solution!

Disney: Flynn!

- Flynn is quite a sarcastic and teasing person, so your own humor would match well with his. He's also quite a hopeless romantic as well, even though he's certainly not one to admit that right off the bat. He enjoys singing, and as he gets closer to someone he feels more comfortable doing so in front of them, so a partner he's been with for a long time would get to see him be more and more open with it. That also applies to activities like dancing.

#hp matchup #remus lupin #sw matchp #han solo #vld matchup #lance mcclain #disney matchup #flynn rider

7 notes · View notes

harringtonsbae · 3 years

Note

Hi!!! Can I have a male matchup for Harry Potter in the Golden Trio Era?

19, Southeast Asian with Spanish descent, Libra, Bi Pan and Genderfluid, ENFJ-A/ENFJ-T, and a proud muggleborn Ravenclaw. Short (5'1"), chubby with kinda cherubic-like face, chic messy/wavy brunette hair, chocolate brown eyes, oriental skin, and boyish-emo sense of fashion with korean makeup look.

Really quiet, soft spoken, distant, and timid around random people (to the point they think I'm modest, demure, immaculate, and educated) but once I finally open up it's totally opposite---super talkative, rowdy-mouthed, laughing loudly on a daily basis, creative, talented, expressive, swears like a sailor, very clumsy, witty, passionate, religious, very supportive, unfortunate, super childish, determined, thriving, speaks with sarcasms, has a lamest sense of humour, gets excited so easily, skittish, forgetful, and unashamed to be myself but can be awkward around the strangers. Nice and kind to good people, but an opposite who isn't

Opinionated and EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE, in terms of academics and extra curricular activities (even I'm a procrastinator---I still ace them like what kind of sorcery I did?) that's why I got frustrated and dissappointed quickly if I failed, because I thought people I know is pressuring me, but I tried to keep moving forward once I already cheered up.

I may come off as stubborn, feisty, tough, demanding, and harsh if I get really angry also demanding and intimidating if things aren't all right, but my deeper self is sensitive, insecure of my physical appearance (some people around me makes fun of it and it's rude), and fragile who cries easily also has strong beliefs and reasoning, like fighting for my dreams to the point it'll become a debate because of my brashness. But I'm also willing to help or give up something as long I can, they think I'm selfish, but not really---I do have biased sentimental value and I have a different way how do I care---by being supportive and giving gifts also teaching them, in addition I have an emotional overwhelm, I get flustered too quickly, blush on compliment, and melt over wholesomeness.

My interests are arts, choir, night sky, makeup, fun/deep/dumb conversations, Christianity, documentaries (about saints, real crime stories, and inspirational people), reading interesting stuffs, talking about social issues, and creative writings.

My hobbies are are singing, drawing, roleplaying, listening to music, chatting/browsing on social media, conceptualizing, writing, and reading some stuffs. I'll include making corniest jokes/puns, sleeping, and dancing when nobody's around or walking like a model if I feel so bold (even I'm terrible at both xD). I also used to learn Italian language a bit.

Oof- I love you! Ron Weasley! Yes another Weasley!

•Ron loves you, no questions asked

•He has a VERY soft spot for people who are shy when they meet new people, but are really open when they are themselves

•It’s a reward for him when he gets to see your true self.

•You may not see eye-to-eye at times but it normally ends in really good makeup sex sweet cuddles on the the couch or in bed.

•Listen, this man would follow you anywhere anytime

•Would try his ‘lame’ nose jokes on you (I don’t know if you’ve read cursed child or not)

•He loves to join you in funny dance parties/runway shows that only you two get to do probably ends in sex

•He would definitely think roleplay was just for sex until he met you:

“What do you mean ‘Do you want to roleplay?’ Isn’t that for sex?”

•Ends up loving it, but he would never admit it

•He has the Weasley family sex drive for sure, so don’t even underestimate him

•When he first started dating you he would try to be romantic by going to your house and throwing rocks at your window until you either open it or look at him through it. There’s definitely a speaker playing some cheesy song in the background

•Later he takes you to go sit somewhere in a field and watch the stars while talking about anything

•Okay, so you guys are a literal power couple, no one ever plays games with you two because you guys always win

•He is smitten with you no doubt

•He probably gets jealous of Percy when he starts trying to talk to you about documentaries, social issues in the wizarding world, and would probably try to start debates with you. Your Ron’s world, one that he wouldn’t share ever, period

•Ugh you guys are a power couple and I can not stress it enough

I hope this is good! I’m still new to shipping people lol

Lots of love, babes<3

4 notes · View notes

houseki-no-suffering · 4 years

Note

I love all your analyses on gem society and what makes it so fatally flawed, (from how childish gems are to the collective ideal of conformity for the benefit of all) and I've recently been thinking a lot about how much of a role Adamant plays and has played in how gem society has turned out. It's not fair to say he's completely to blame for it, being a machine who is just trying his best for his gem kids, but what are your personal thoughts on Adamant's role in how messy hnk society is?

ty! i think sensei played a fundamental role in shaping gem society, if nothing for the simple reason that he comes from a specific cultural and social framework that was built for humans, not gems, and that he tried to share with the lustrous.

this prevented the lustrous from going through a long period of experimentation, at the end of which they would form their own culture and society.

The best way I can reply to your answer is by imagining a timeline where the lustrous were left alone to develop, an island where there is no sensei (and, consequently, no lunarians). What follows is an analysis of the society these rocks could build.

Time & Technicalities

Not being able to build on any preexisting input about civilization, on any direction or clue, these rocks will develop a civilization only much, much later than the lustrous we know. They have everything to learn and all the time in the world to do it.

Keep in mind that societies are born around a large-ish group of individuals and it takes each gem thousands of years to be born, so it will take a very long time before they reach a relatively high number of members. But lustrous don’t die and, since without sensei there would be no lunarians and thus no way for lustrous to diminish in numbers, their society would keep on growing.

With larger numbers comes greater job specialization (and thus technological development), greater complexity, greater diversity. When societies grow to a certain extent, in-groups start to form and separate from the original group. The lustrous could build cities and form separate sub-groups and cultures.

Language & Communication

The gems are taught human speech by sensei. Without him, they would communicate in whatever manner lustrous are naturally attuned to.

If gems are unable to naturally produce sounds unless someone chisels their throats (how gems speak is still a mystery to me: they have no vocal chords, they don’t even breathe) and if they naturally possess the intelligence required to process language, they could develop a complex form of sign language.

Gems are also unable to see as we understand it: sensei has to make eyeballs for them sot that they can focus the light that filters through their crystal eyes. So that will definitely play a role in what type of language they can come up with. And how complex that can get. For example, if they eventually invent writing, it could be similar to braille. Or something so alien we can’t conceptualize it.

Values

Sensei chisels gems to make them equal. I’ve gone over this a lot in the past: sensei is forcing his own values on the gems. He thinks equality is of absolute importance, but what if no one teaches the gems about (sensei’s own brand of) equality?

The gems are prone to gossiping, they’re childish, without anyone to chisel them, the lustrous will be able to be physically different and difference breeds conflict. The perceived dis-equality could stem from something as simple as beauty.

Even the gems we know have a concept of beauty, but what happens when they’re free to carry it to its extreme consequences? some gems will be deemed beautiful, others won’t, some will be considered less worthy, inferior, or superior, and this can be manifested in a variety of ways.

Desirability and social status will no longer be dependent solely on your work and what you can do for the society. If all gems are different and allowed to be different (with or without repercussions), they will come up with different values and there is no telling which vision of the world will become the dominant one.

Gems are naturally childish, but this could have been accentuated by sensei’s presence. If left alone to develop and grow, will they eventually mature? learn from their mistakes? Or will they become selfish and hostile?

Social Classes

Currently, high hardness gems and fighters are an elite group in lustrous society, and this depends mostly on the war between lustrous and lunarians. Even with no war, I believe the gems will still develop a hierarchical society, if nothing because they managed to create one even under sensei’s imposed ‘equality.’

I can see older (and thus more knowledgeable) gems taking up positions of power. More beautiful/more durable gems could also be in a position of power. Keep in mind that with no one teaching the gems about hardnesses and minerals, they will have to learn it all on their own. They’ll probably come up with different scales and that’s why I wrote ‘durability’ not ‘hardness.’

Mostly, though, i can see doctors becoming an elite group. Since gems don’t eat, the only indispensable job would be that of doctors: a broken gem is as close to a dead gem as you can get.

Medicine is an indispensable craft for the lustrous and with this comes power and with power comes control and influence. Depending on how cooperative gem society is, doctors might even repair gems on the condition of payment, or refuse to repair certain gems.

Medicine and body modifications could also develop in an opposite direction than the lustrous we’re used to see: no longer pressured to be identical, the gems might develop surgeries to diversify themselves, attach new parts to their body, increase their hardness, or for merely aesthetic reasons. Body modifications could be linked to symbolic, possibly magical reasons or to status.

General culture

Technological development takes a long, long, long time. The gems would come to be in what is essentially a stone age, with the exception that they have no natural predators and so no natural danger that doesn’t come from their own society (ie conflict) and nature (ie shattering).

When (if ever) will the gems discover the wheel? weaving? house building? tools? how advanced can their technology become? what about their history? will they come up with laws (like confinement, shattering, loss of privilege…)? will they come up with religion? magic? a mythological system?

The gems seem naturally more predisposed for math and memorizing detailed information than for more artistic endeavors. For example, I always found it odd how sensei never taught gems music since music is such a fundamental part of being a human. Will the gems eventually invent music? What about literature, sculpture, theater, dance, visual arts?

Finally, overpopulation would be a huge threat. With endless lifespans and a limited amount of land, the gems’ numbers will keep increasing until they reach a critical point.

War could ensue, shattering could become a punishment or a routine solution to prevent overpopulation. For example, gems might decide that, past a certain age, a gem must be shattered (a social and symbolic form of death) to leave room to the new generations. Or, on the contrary, prevent new gems from being born by patrolling the shore of nascency and shattering newborn gems.

Alternatively, gems could colonize the seabed, maybe befriend the admirabilis and form an alliance with them, exchange goods and knowledge... Without being under the constant threat of lunarian war, gems and admirabilis both would have the numbers and time to develop complex political and economical systems, which would be extremely unique in the case of the lustrous because gems don’t age, don’t die and don’t need to produce food to survive.

In the end, anything could happen. It’s like playing with ‘universe sandbox,’ except with an alien civilization.

#houseki no kuni #land of the lustrous #hnk #photoshop-and-chocolate #meta #best #today on: the cultural sociology of hnk

292 notes · View notes

butterfly-winx · 3 years

Note

What streams would the specialists choose if they were magic sensitive?

Ooh, what an intriguing idea!

Sky, due to societal and familiar pressure wouldn’t even think of anything else but fey magic. Centuries prior, Eraklyon and their neighbouring countreis on Manubra 47 basically kickstarted the anti-witchcraft movement that swept up the whole Magic Universe, which still has a lasting effect on how people view them. Calling someone a witch*er is up there with the worst insults of their language and the royal heir shouldn’t be seen anywhere near that controversial stuff. Sky would fit fey magic personality wise as well, he wants to please and he values harmony as well as gestures of selfless bravery. He wouldn’t have trouble cultivating a large magic core and his position as royal heir would put him in situations that allow him to reap benefits of his chosen stream, just like Bloom and Stella do. His aspect could be something conceptual, like Fairy of Freedom or similar.

Brandon is difficult. He spent so much of his formative years being what people wanted him to be, or entirely pretending to be someone else. He would definitely need to try out all three of them to form an opinion, and even then I think he would be most influenced by the two people who are closest to him, Sky and Stella, being fairies, so he might end up picking fey magic just based on that principle. Masculinity, though not in the rigid and traditional way, is very important to him, so I don’t believe witchcraft would be a top pick for him for this reason, as it is mainly a matrilinear art (just meaning that male or NB practitioners don’t stand as much gain from heritage artefacts as female ones do) and it wouldn’t mesh with him well. Brandon takes great care in the things he does and not being able to take advantage of a stream to its fullest makes his overachiever heart hurt. I never really contemplated an aspect for him, but I bet it could be something funny like Dance.

Riven would I think be enticed by the promise of near limitless magical power that sorcery offers, but I don’t think anything other than paying for his powers eye for an eye would appeal to him. So I believe he could settle for witchcraft, but maybe blend it with the physicality of sorcery spells. (Hybridising magic streams is not impossible, but a bit unheard of. Faragonda does it as well to an extent. But practitioners must be aware that they thread a difficult and uncharted path with no established canon of doctrines and elders to learn from). Riven1s aspect would be something very tied to the material world or his skills, like Swordsmanship, Weapon Forgery - or something softer and conceptual that is close to his person that he is embarrassed to share like Familiar Love.

Timmy is the only one who I think would head first go for sorcery, fully aware of the limitations and price it incurs. He is half Callistan half from Erath in the AU and not particularly spiritual, so the Afterlife never held an appeal for him that he now feels must give up to practice sorcery. He is extremely responsible and in tune with his limits to be able to apply sorcery with the care and logical consideration that scholars wish all practitioners of the streams would employ. His aspect would be like Analytical or Quartz Light Fractination, which would allow him to combine science and magic!

Helia in butterfly verse is magic sensitive and ends up training as a witcher. At first his interest was in sorcery and he begged Saladin incessantly to teach him, but the old man didn’t budge. Helia of course was spurred on by the denial, it just made him want to learn the forbidden thing more. It wasn’t necessarily that he really would have wanted to learn how to wield sorcery, but that he desperately wanted to be taught by Saladin, to have his adoptive “gruncle” pass something on to him that Helia could claim was family skill/wisdom. With Krystal’s help he settled on witchcraft though, because that stream was the easiest to learn without official instruction by reading books under covers. HIs aspect is Dexterity Arts, covering about anything you’d need good motor control for, not just fine arts.

Nabu, as in canon, was a sorcerer. His aspect was Seaside Upwind, but as transcendent as sorcery is he never really did big magic with tidal winds, but focused on natural and magical barriers of all kinds. (He for example helped Flora develop her Wall of Vines spell)

Roy is an Androsian freshly migrated into the bigger wider world and very rejecting of both ultra-traditionalism and the ever-present influence of the wider Magic Universe that so ruthlessly eroded Androsi culture as it was before. Would he even pick a magic stream, is what I’m asking myself, or would he prefer to remain untrained just to be controversial? He makes me think of tidal caves, carved by the ocean so i think that’s what his aspect could be tied to. Just like the caves, there is more to Roy than what meets the eye and he deserves to make those depth shine beyond hurr durr, trained defensive soldier or some bulshit (whatever are specialists?).

Nex definitely is an easy gain, easy win person and he would go head first for sorcery, but where Timmy is measured and contained, Nex is not. Magic to Nex would be a stepladder to be heard and to be allowed to leave the constraints of the involuntary quarantine life on Lynphea has brought him and his family. (I’ll write about the aditional specialists backstories another time). He would love the crackle under his finger and only being beholden to himself as far as limits go. Speaking of crackle, I think his aspect could be Conductance, magical, electrical or other kind.

#asks #winx club #specialists #winx specialists #I'm a bit dead so grammar and prose are flat in this one sorry #Anonymous

24 notes · View notes

hazardouscandy · 3 years

Note

Hi!!! Can I have a male ship from Harry Potter?

19, Southeast Asian with Spanish descent, Libra, Bi Pan and Genderfluid, and a proud muggleborn Ravenclaw. Short (5'1"), chubby with kinda cherubic-like face, medium brunette hair, chocolate brown eyes, oriental skin, and boyish-emo sense of fashion with korean makeup look.

My hobbies are are singing, drawing, listening to music, chatting/browsing on social media, conceptualizing, writing, and reading some stuffs. I'll include making corniest jokes/puns, sleeping, and dancing when nobody's around or walking like a model if I feel so bold (even I'm terrible at both xD). I also used to learn Italian language a bit.

P.S. I'm okay with both SFW and Nsfw headcanons for the matchup, but not really not required

I actually had to think about this for a while but I went with Neville Longbottom!

SFW headcanons

-You guys met briefly in your first year on the train while you helped him find Trevor

-The pair of you didn't actually become close friends until 4th year when he came to you for herbology help(you give off the good at herbology vibes)

-Neville has had a crush on your since first year at Hogwarts, only building up the confidence to become your friend in the beginning of 4th year

-you went to the Yule Ball together (sorry Ginny)

-he stepped on your toes a few times but it was still a really great night

-You guys don't start dating until later but you do get very close during your time at Hogwarts

-Now that the insight is out of the way, onto what actually being with him is like

-You start dating right after the battle of Hogwarts

-He confesses to you before going to fight because he thought you both we're going to die

-afterwards when he comes to the realization neither of you died, you get invited to stay with him and his family until it's safe to go home

-he's the type to be very soft and intimate after getting past his jumpy phase!

-expect lots of small gifts and smaller displays of affection

-he asks you to move in together about a year into your official relationship

-you guys have a place in hogsmeade

-your house is FILLED with plants

-he's very shy about a lot of things, but he is a very passionate lover

-he steals intimate moments with you whenever he can

-he is a huge softy and cuddle bug so expect lots of hugs from behind and neck kisses

-dances with you in the house all the time

NSFW headcanons

- I'm telling you now but this man is packing. We're talking 6 flaccid, 7.5 hard and a pretty wide girth. His dick had got a slight curve to it. It's mostly pale with a pink tip, pretty standard dick stuff

- It takes awhile for you two to actually get to this level of intimacy but when you do he is a very fast learner

-He knows your body better than you do

-He's is generally pretty serious in the bedroom but he does make jokes

-He 100% has a praise kink

-Neville is a grabber, and he is really good(and I mean like shockingly good) with his hands

-he's surprising dominant when it comes to sex, and likes being in control

-he also loves when you ride him, just saying

-Neville has a thing for chubby people, so you should expect him so be grabbing your hips all the damn time

-KING of aftercare

-He always falls asleep after you do

-Makes sure you don't leave the bed while he cleans up

-He's the type to bring you water and probably a snack if we're being honest

Overall your relationship with him is super wholesome and sweet! I really do hope you enjoyed this, and I hope you're happy with Neville ❤️

#harry potter #neville longbottom #hogwarts #headcanon #matchup #nsft text

4 notes · View notes

not-xpr-art · 3 years

Text

Art Deep Dives #1 - The Value of Art ~

Hi everyone!

This is the start to another project I want to start on this account, a companion to my Art Advice tag, and each week or so I’ll be ‘deep diving’ into art history, arts & culture, society’s relationship to art, etc etc... (I basically want to make use of my history of art degree, and also because I genuinely love talking about this stuff... especially without the pressure of deadlines lol)

Side note: don’t worry about these being really ‘academic’ or ‘formal’, since neither of those things are in my vocabulary lol... this is a very casual, informal kind of ‘essay’ writing that I want to be accessible to everyone, regardless of how much you know about art!

This first one is a kind of follow up of my Art Advice post talking about references, and I’ll be talking about the ideas of how we ‘value’ art.

(this is about 1600 words long by the way...)

The Value of Art

It’s no secret that art is highly subjective. Particularly when it comes to the question of ‘what is the most important type of art?’. It changes from person to person, country to country, and era to era. How we define ‘great art’ now is vastly different to how we defined it several hundred years ago. I mean, just look at the kinds of art in galleries in the modern era (Tracey Emin’s bed comes to mind) versus that of the 18th century (with the likes of Joshua Reynolds, JMW Turner and Thomas Gainsborough). Really, it’s clear to see that what we see as ‘the most important type of art’ is forever changing...

Or... is it?

In order to really answer whether the kinds of art we value now versus that of the past has changed, we need to first establish what ‘valued art’ even means.

I think in today’s day and age, ‘value’ is often synonymous with ‘price’. So, a Banksy original chipped away from it’s original wall setting and having been sold at a Christies auction for £3.2million is, by this definition, what we as a society ‘value’ as art... Right? Or maybe ‘value’ is more to do with what kinds of works that are displayed in big galleries or public spaces? The Tate has an entire wing dedicated to the works of landscape/seascape painter JMW Turner, so surely that means that we today place a high ‘value’ on his work still? What about public sculpture? Architecture? Sculpture and architecture are often a lot more available for the general public, and even if most people wouldn’t be able to tell you who made the Statue of Liberty, they at least know about her and perhaps even enjoy to look at her? And surely the fame of buildings like the Eiffel Tower or the Taj Mahal mean that they, too, are ‘valued’ as pieces of art? And what of artworks from other countries and cultures? A Chinese man may find no ‘value’ in a painting by a so-called ‘Great Master’ of the Italian Renaissance, but instead will ‘value’ a piece of Imperial Ming Dynasty porcelain instead, does that mean his opinion is the ‘right’ one? Colonialism has played heavily into what arts are now called ‘valuable’ and what are not, so how do we quantify whether a work has ‘value’ without placing our own individual cultural bias on it?

Basically what I’m getting at is, what we value as art in this day and age is very complicated, in a big way because our society is complicated. But for the sake of arguments, and for my next few points, I will be defining an art’s ‘value’ predominantly by whether it has been featured in a big gallery... Which also means I’ll be focusing on painting and sculpture... And also focusing on the Western world of art, specifically Europe, which I want to clarify doesn’t mean I personally ‘value’ that art more, it’s just where I’m from and predominantly what I studied in my course...

Art historians often declare the Renaissance (around the 14th to 16th centuries) the ‘beginning’ of what we know as art today. But for this essay, I want to instead start a little before this, in the Early Medieval period. People often know of this era as ‘the dark ages’, in Europe at least, because it was after Rome had fallen and taken all their so-called ‘genius’ with them. A particular note for why for years we’ve seen this period as ‘regressive’ is through their art. A quick Google search of ‘Medieval baby’ will come up with a plethora of results for a wide range of paintings depicting babies (usually the baby Christ) as scaled down versions of adults, complete with receding hairlines and strangely buff arms and chests.

Now, is this because medieval babies actually looked like this? I think this is... highly unlikely... I know most things happened earlier in that era than nowadays (girls getting married and pregnant at age 14, for example), but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to think their babies had six packs... No, instead it’s more likely that rather than being direct representations of babies, these were purely symbolic. And particularly given how they often were of Christ, art historians often say that the weird adult-baby hybrids are to represent Christ’s divinity.

Now... What’s all this got to do with art and value? Well, the thing about early medieval art is that the value was almost entirely placed upon the symbology and meaning of a piece. Later in the medieval period, paintings began to become more ‘realistic’ to some extent, but it still for the most part stayed true to this idea of symbolism over representation.

That is, until we get to the Renaissance and all of that gets thrown out of the window because artists want to be able to paint babies that actually look like babies, thank you very much! And with the likes of Leonardo da Vinci championing for art to become a science, surely this means that the kinds of art that was valued in this era were highly accurate portraits or landscapes... Right?

Short answer? No.

Long answer? Well, portraits and landscapes had their place in the hierarchies of art. Portraits were often commissioned by wealthy patrons, and were basically ways of the artist showing off how good their portrait skills are. And landscapes were less important, more seen as ‘nice backgrounds’ than anything else. But the art that was highly valued by most wealthy patrons and art connoisseurs of the time was... (imagine a drum roll here please)

History painting! These are basically big biblical or mythological scenes, often with a lot of figures doing a variety of things (think Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel), often with some pretty landscape as the backdrop, and often featuring a couple of portraits in the mix (including one of the patron who commissioned it, probably being blessed by the Virgin Mary, and a cheeky one of the artist peeking out from behind a bush or something...). From the Renaissance era up until basically the mid 19th century, History paintings were seen as the most important works of art to be featured in galleries.

And really, things only really began to change when we reached the end of the 19th century, with the development of photography.

Photography, and film, both lead to a massive shift in not only the kinds of art that are produced in the 20th century, but also the kinds of art that are valued. For so long art had been the main form of representation of society, and the advent of photographs meant that art had almost lost that ‘purpose’. Not to mention the leading towards a more secular society which no longer had a need for symbolic or spiritual artworks.

So, the only place art could really go was to become a form of expression instead. The likes of artists like Picasso and Braque pioneering cubism, being about new ways of representing the world. The Surrealists delving into ideas of the subconscious. Pop-Artists like Warhol looking into media and consumerist society, and the list goes on...

Which brings us onto my most hated period in the history of art: Conceptual art.

I’m not going to go big into this period, which is still around today (unfortunately), but all you need to know is this twat Marcel Duchamp flipped a urinal (which he didn’t even make himself) upside down and called it a ‘fountain’ and shoved it into a gallery and thus art that has no value beyond it being ‘concept based’ was born. And yes, yes I hate it a lot (I’m not even trying to be objective about this, I hate conceptual art with a burning passion... some guy put some sh*t in a box and put it in a gallery & called it art and I am SO mad about it lol...). And as much as I hate this period, what it does signify is how art began to be valued not through the craftsmanship of the work itself, but instead the ideas.

And this idea remains today. Damien Hirst has forged his entire art identity on creating works that are based entirely on some ‘meaning’ that could be forced onto it, rather than the aesthetic or material value. And as mentioned before, Tracey Emin’s infamous bed isn’t about the work and effort gone into the piece itself, but instead about what the artists intends for the piece to ‘mean’. So, the ‘value’ of the work is what it says, and not what it is, essentially.

(This is not to say that there are no artists who work today that get featured in galleries and are highly skilled at their craft. The one that springs to mind is Grayson Perry, who’s well known for his pottery and tapestries with some kind of social commentary bled into them.)

This ideology around art also bleeds into online spaces of art (which I see as distinctly separate from the world of art galleries and the Turner prize). I still see artists, and non-artists, talking about how much they enjoy work that is ‘original’, and oftentimes ridiculing and demoting ‘fanart’ as purely ‘derivative’ or ‘unoriginal’.

And all this brings us back to history paintings. Because their ‘value’ wasn’t just in the immense amount of skill that went into them. A large part of their ‘value’ was that artists and non-artists alike saw them as feats of the artist’s ‘genius’ or ‘imagination’ at play. And in the same way that Early Medieval art was valued for the symbology of the piece rather than the representation, history paintings had the benefit of including both elements. In essence, they were both meaningful AND beautiful.

In conclusion (just to remind you that this is technically an essay lol), a lot about art HAS definitely changed in the last few hundred years, particularly in what kinds of art is getting made now (and why we make art in the first place). However, what we as a collective society ‘value’ as art has remained surprisingly the same, often with a heavy preference for a work’s meaning and symbology, which can sometimes overshadow the craftsmanship of the work itself.

I still hate that godforsaken Duchamp toilet though...

(images used:

unknown medieval painting (I just liked that he had his hand down mary’s dress lool)

mona lisa by da vinky

detail of the creation of adam on the sistine chapel by michelangelo

a photograph by louis daguerre, often known as the father of photography

*clenches fist* ‘fountain’ by marcel duchamp

‘my bed’ by tracey emin )

I hope you enjoyed this informal essay about art, I will definitely be doing more of these in the future! If you have any thoughts on this, feel free to reply to this or message me, etc! I love having open and frank conversations about art!

#art history #art discussion #essay #history of art #art #long post #renaissance art #early medieval art #conceptual art #i over simplified a lot of this i know but i hope this is still interesting to read lol!#art deep dives #value of art #no sources or bibliography because we die like MEN #(also u want me to site things that i can't remember why or how i know them??? look just... trust me plz...)#(honestly this is more about sparking a discussion than anything lol)

9 notes · View notes

imaginationstimulation · 3 years

Photo

Philosophy of Art

The definition of art has been debated for centuries among philosophers.”What is art?” is the most basic question in the philosophy of aesthetics, which really means, “How do we determine what is defined as art?” This implies two subtexts: the essential nature of art, and its social importance (or lack of it). The definition of art has generally fallen into three categories: representation, expression, and form.

Art as Representation or Mimesis. Plato first developed the idea of art as “mimesis,” which, in Greek, means copying or imitation. For this reason, the primary meaning of art was, for centuries, defined as the representation or replication of something that is beautiful or meaningful. Until roughly the end of the eighteenth century, a work of art was valued on the basis of how faithfully it replicated its subject. This definition of "good art" has had a profound impact on modern and contemporary artists; as Gordon Graham writes, “It leads people to place a high value on very lifelike portraits such as those by the great masters—Michelangelo, Rubens, Velásquez, and so on—and to raise questions about the value of ‘modern’ art—the cubist distortions of Picasso, the surrealist figures of Jan Miro, the abstracts of Kandinsky or the ‘action’ paintings of Jackson Pollock.” While representational art still exists today, it is no longer the only measure of value.

Art as Expression of Emotional Content. Expression became important during the Romantic movement with artwork expressing a definite feeling, as in the sublime or dramatic. Audience response was important, for the artwork was intended to evoke an emotional response. This definition holds true today, as artists look to connect with and evoke responses from their viewers.

Art as Form. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) was one of the most influential of the early theorists toward the end of the 18th century. He believed that art should not have a concept but should be judged only on its formal qualities because the content of a work of art is not of aesthetic interest. Formal qualities became particularly important when art became more abstract in the 20th century, and the principles of art and design (balance, rhythm, harmony, unity) were used to define and assess art.

Today, all three modes of definition come into play in determining what is art, and its value, depending on the artwork being assessed.

History of How Art Is Defined

According to H.W Janson, author of the classic art textbook, The History of Art, “...we cannot escape viewing works of art in the context of time and circumstance, whether past or present. How indeed could it be otherwise, so long as art is still being created all around us, opening our eyes almost daily to new experiences and thus forcing us to adjust our sights?”

Throughout the centuries in Western culture from the 11th century on through the end of the 17th century, the definition of art was anything done with skill as the result of knowledge and practice. This meant that artists honed their craft, learning to replicate their subjects skillfully. The epitome of this occurred during the Dutch Golden Age when artists were free to paint in all sorts of different genres and made a living off their art in the robust economic and cultural climate of 17th century Netherlands.

During the Romantic period of the 18th century, as a reaction to the Enlightenment and its emphasis on science, empirical evidence, and rational thought, art began to be described as not just being something done with skill, but something that was also created in the pursuit of beauty and to express the artist’s emotions. Nature was glorified, and spirituality and free expression were celebrated. Artists, themselves, achieved a level of notoriety and were often guests of the aristocracy.

The Avant-garde art movement began in the 1850s with the realism of Gustave Courbet. It was followed by other modern art movements such as cubism, futurism, and surrealism, in which the artist pushed the boundaries of ideas and creativity. These represented innovative approaches to art-making and the definition of what is art expanded to include the idea of the originality of vision.

The idea of originality in art persists, leading to ever more genres and manifestations of art, such as digital art, performance art, conceptual art, environmental art, electronic art, etc.

Quotes

There are as many ways to define art as there are people in the universe, and each definition is influenced by the unique perspective of that person, as well as by their own personality and character. For example:

Rene Magritte: Art evokes the mystery without which the world would not exist.

Frank Lloyd Wright: Art is a discovery and development of elementary principles of nature into beautiful forms suitable for human use.

Thomas Merton: Art enables us to find ourselves and lose ourselves at the same time.

Pablo Picasso: The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our souls.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca: All art is but imitation of nature.

Edgar Degas: Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.

Jean Sibelius: Art is the signature of civilizations.

Leo Tolstoy: Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands-on to others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them.

Conclusion

Today we consider the earliest symbolic scribblings of mankind to be art. As Chip Walter, of National Geographic, writes about these ancient paintings, “Their beauty whipsaws your sense of time. One moment you are anchored in the present, observing coolly. The next you are seeing the paintings as if all other art—all civilization—has yet to exist...creating a simple shape that stands for something else—a symbol, made by one mind, that can be shared with others—is obvious only after the fact. Even more than the cave art, these first concrete expressions of consciousness represent a leap from our animal past toward what we are today—a species awash in symbols, from the signs that guide your progress down the highway to the wedding ring on your finger and the icons on your iPhone.”

Archaeologist Nicholas Conard posited that the people who created these images “possessed minds as fully modern as ours and, like us, sought in ritual and myth answers to life’s mysteries, especially in the face of an uncertain world. Who governs the migration of the herds, grows the trees, shapes the moon, turns on the stars? Why must we die, and where do we go afterward? They wanted answers but they didn’t have any science-based explanations for the world around them.”

Art can be thought of as a symbol of what it means to be human, manifested in physical form for others to see and interpret. It can serve as a symbol for something that is tangible, or for a thought, an emotion, a feeling, or a concept. Through peaceful means, it can convey the full spectrum of the human experience. Perhaps that is why it is so important.

#art #art history #philosophy of art #art philosophy

3 notes · View notes

satoshi-mochida · 4 years

Link

Tobyfox has provided a status update on the second chapter and beyond of Undertale sequel Deltarune in celebration of Undertale‘s fifth anniversary today.

First, here are the latest screenshots from Deltarune‘s second chapter:

Get the full update below.

Introduction

Hi everyone.

If you’re reading this, you must have been sticking around for about five years.*

I want to express my gratitude for everyone that has supported and encouraged me over this time.

Thank you.

I’ve said it many many times before, but I didn’t expect the simple game I made to receive so much attention. Because of that, many interesting things have happened, and now I can even spend my time making another game.

It seems both of us received a lot of happiness from this occurrence.

If it’s okay, I would like to keep striving to do things that make both of us happy.

Let me know what you think about that.

*Since the Undertale demo released in 2013, the game has really existed for 7 years. It’s already been more than 25% of my life…

Deltarune

I will make another.

I am making a game called “Deltarune.” It is the second game in the Undertale series.

The game will be released in many “Chapters,” the first of which I released two years ago on Halloween. Since that time, I’ve been working hard to figure out the rest of the game.

However, it’s a game that’s much harder to make than Undertale.

Graphics are more complicated and several times more involved.

Systems are more complicated.

Exposes the weak points of my creative and artistic ability.

Plot is much harder to tie together (more characters, more important locations).

Significantly more content than Undertale in one playthrough (especially cutscenes).

I have only made one game ever.

Unlike Undertale, this is the type of game that would normally have many designers working on each aspect of the game.

A story writer, a composer, an audio director, a map designer, a battle designer, a minigame designer, and an overall director. Instead, all of those roles end up handled by me.

The good news is that a few months ago, I completed a significant milestone regarding the game’s design. I completed readable outlines for every chapter in the game, including first-pass dialogue for almost all the cutscenes, examples of the music, etc.

Although certain details are still hazy, the flow of the game and all major events and battles that take place are now clear.

In summary, I largely spent the past two years writing, composing, designing, and drawing. However, that’s not the whole story.

We had actually attempted to develop the game since the time too. Development started around March 2019 and a 99% work was spent on investigating engines alternate to GameMaker, which I used for Chapter 1.

Without getting into the details, I decided a few months ago to go back to GameMaker after all. It still felt like the best fit for the project. So using Chapter 1 as a base, we’ve started creating Chapter 2 since May 2020.

A lot of progress has been made since that time. I believe we can complete this chapter, content-wise, before the end of the year (not accounting for translation, bugtesting, and porting).

I feel very confident. And the strange thing is, even though we ended up using the original engine, I don’t regret the lost time, either. Not only was I still busy designing the game, but during that long period, I was able to think of many ideas that make the game’s story and characters better.

I’m glad that I’m making the Deltarune that I have now and that we are making healthy progress.

Deltarune Status Estimate

■ Chapter 2 (04.15.20 – 08.13.20)

Phase 1: Design

Main Design: 100% (dialogue, etc.)

Initial Setup: 100% (stuff involved setting up people to make the game, adding debug tools, documentation, etc.)

Phase 2: Implementation (05.01.20 ~ 08.13.20)

Art: 90%

Cutscenes: 80% (90% are started, needs 2nd pass)

Bullet Patterns: 70% (enemies are mostly completed, bosses are about 40% done, needs 2nd pass)

Non-Bullet Battle Elements: 30% (Some ACTs are done and enemies are fightable, but interactive ACTs need to be completed and polished and the bosses aren’t programmed outside of bullet patterns)

Audio: 80%

Maps: ??% most are started or placeholder, most need 2nd pass. NPC interactions are completed in all spots where written.

Other: 65%

Phase 3: Finishing

Balancing: 0%

Bugfixing: 0%

Translation: 0%

Porting: 0%

(Honestly, a lot of stuff FEELS like 80% to me, but the truth is that what’s there is quite rough now. Polish ends up taking a lot of time, so the real actual time value may be around 50% done…? We’ll see what happens. It’ll be a lesson for everybody.)

■ Chapters 3 and Beyond

Phase 1: Design

Story and General Game Progression (first-pass): 100%

Cutscene Dialogue (first-pass, lacking cutscene instructions): 95%

Map Design (textual): 70% (varies per chapter, earlier chapters totally completed)

Map Design (drawn): 0% (this takes a lot of wrist energy so I don’t do it until we start programming)

Enemy Design (conceptual): 90% (all bosses are known)

Enemy Design (bullets / visual): 80% (varies per chapter, earlier chapters totally completed)

Music (concept): 95%

Music (completed): 50%

Visual Design:BG Concept (first-pass): 75%, Important Character, Bosses (first-pass): 100%

Phase 2

Sprite Art: 20%?