Rayman Pirate-Community

Spanex wrote:I guess you're right in that, but I think this debate is pointless.

While I can understand that you're not interested in such discussions, I actually find it a very interesting topic, so I believe the best solution for you is simply not to post if you don't want to take part in it.

Haruka wrote:I say the same thing. Fanart might not be the best definition for the subject, but that it is used by everybody it is.

spiraldoor wrote:That would depend on the context and tone of the statement, and also on the speaker's understanding of the rather abstract concept of what constitutes 'art'.

That's true, and since this term is used in common langage, in which the definition of art is usually not particularly broad, it is definitely not suitable.

sergiomonty wrote:Sometimes I get paid for drawing stuff and I still consider it art, because I find them beautiful and I'm proud of them.

I've studied arts, and I can confirm that if a canned piece of poop can considered a piece of art (Dadaism), then anything can be considered art, maybe not appealing art, but at least art for the point of view of the author.

If you all want to stop this stupid discussion, just do the obvious: go PM the author and ask her "Excuse me, do you consider what you did there fanart or fanwork?"

The author has absolutely no more legitimacy to decide whether his work is art than anyone else. You say you're sometimes proud of your creations, and that's a good thing. But which definition of art are you using when you consider your work art? Either it's art as in fine arts and then saying it is pretentious, or it's a broader definition of art and in this case it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of your work and your pride to be its author.

Last but not least, because anything can be considered art does not mean that everything has to be considered art. Manzoni's shit may be art, but not every dump you take is.

Hunchman801 wrote:

Haruka wrote:I say the same thing. Fanart might not be the best definition for the subject, but that it is used by everybody it is.

What? I'm being honest: everybody uses this term. I already said that we only use this term, because it is the term used by everybody. Don't ask me who came up with the term in first place, regardless if the meaning was to be pretentious or not.

Did you read my message?

Hunchman801 wrote:I cannot believe that the three of you are using the same logical fallacy to justify your opinion: this is nothing but an argumentum ad antiquitatem. I can say a million times that 1 + 1 = 3, however I doubt this will make it more true.

Hunchman801 wrote:

Haruka wrote:I say the same thing. Fanart might not be the best definition for the subject, but that it is used by everybody it is.

So far your strongest argument.

Spanex wrote:I guess you're right in that, but I think this debate is pointless.

I agree, I couldn't feel less entertained with a topic than with this one. And it's supposed to be a topic about freaking Rayman.

@Sergio And it had to leftover for me.

@Hunch I read right now. But I think it is a matter of how you interpret the word. You think it is pretentious. But I don't find it pretentious. If it is more logical naming Fanwork just to not sound pretentious but obeying to the same meaning of content, then fine: Fanwork.

sergiomonty wrote:So far your strongest argument.

What? He's come up with plenty arguments, all of which are far, far stronger than yours.

Even still though, I don't know why this debate arose, even if it is mildly interesting. It's just pickiness.

Adsolution wrote:

sergiomonty wrote:So far your strongest argument.

What? He's come up with plenty arguments

*sigh*... I define most of Hunchman's arguments as thoughts. I accept them, but I don't think it's the general consensus or at least the direct definition of art. I don't have the divine touch to say what is art and what is not, but come on... it's more question of opinions and tastes. That's why the concept of aesthetic is so variable and inconsistent, it is mostly defined as, well, beauty. There's no possible way I could call any of my drawings "works", because I don't feel them as works. I think "work" is something you have to do in order to earn profit or at least contribute to the society. Art is the strongest manifestation of the aesthetic, a medium of communication and expression. I can't see why a fanwork can't be fanart at the same time.

I do agree with you on what 'art' is, according to my post I made last page:

Adsolution wrote:In my mind, art is the result of creating something that employs your creativity. Fan art is merely art that is directly and intentionally based off of preexisting (and fictional) art.

To be technically and exclusively 'work,' ** it has to employ no creativity, thus precisely following the directions given to you by someone or something else. What signifies graphics and music to the most notable forms of art though? Well, they utilise far, far more creativity than banking per se. I could almost go as far as to say a 'positive art to work ratio.'

**Though what does 'work of art' mean? I don't know, I just sort of improvised the word 'work' to take the place of whatever the opposite of art is. Technically, I think 'work' is anything that one does, whether it employs creativity or not.

Well, I guess we're in the same team. About the "best argument so far", well, it was clearly sarcasm. It's just that making this " " doesn't make anyone sound clever, in any particular way. The face is an allegory of "huhuh, you're dumb", and Hunchman uses it pretty often and in the most unpleasant moments.
If you don't believe me, just check this out... *huhum cofcof*

VIKING GIRL.

sergiomonty wrote:So far your strongest argument.

I think RayFan already addressed this remark pretty well, but since you don't seem to understand the situation, I will explain it again:

1. Several members, including Haruka, use a logical fallacy called argumentum ad antiquitatem to justify the use of the term “fan art”.
2. I notice this and therefore nullify their argument.
3. Haruka uses the same logical fallacy again.

Hence a well deserved boon. And here comes yours:

sergiomonty wrote:Well, I guess we're in the same team. About the "best argument so far", well, it was clearly sarcasm. It's just that making this " " doesn't make anyone sound clever, in any particular way. The face is an allegory of "huhuh, you're dumb", and Hunchman uses it pretty often and in the most unpleasant moments.
If you don't believe me, just check this out... *huhum cofcof*

VIKING GIRL.

The boon smiley is meant to express consternation over a particularly appalling remark or message, when contradicting it would be no more than a statement of the obvious and therefore a loss of time for the author and the reader. I am sorry to read that you're offended by its satirical dimension but here at PC you're better off swallowing your pride and enjoying the sometimes crude humour that is has been a trademark of the community for almost ten years.

Haruka wrote:I read right now. But I think it is a matter of how you interpret the word. You think it is pretentious. But I don't find it pretentious. If it is more logical naming Fanwork just to not sound pretentious but obeying to the same meaning of content, then fine: Fanwork.

Then maybe the definition of art you're considering is not adapted to the non-formal register the term “fan art” is mostly used in.

sergiomonty wrote:I define most of Hunchman's arguments as thoughts. I accept them, but I don't think it's the general consensus or at least the direct definition of art. I don't have the divine touch to say what is art and what is not, but come on... it's more question of opinions and tastes. That's why the concept of aesthetic is so variable and inconsistent, it is mostly defined as, well, beauty.

Nothing I said ever valued one definition of art over the others, I am simply taking most of them into account. You're actually the one pushing forward the æsthetic definition of art, given your above (and below) statement.

sergiomonty wrote:There's no possible way I could call any of my drawings "works", because I don't feel them as works. I think "work" is something you have to do in order to earn profit or at least contribute to the society. Art is the strongest manifestation of the aesthetic, a medium of communication and expression.

Then why do we call a piece of art a work of art? I believe your negative perception of the word “work” is what is misleading you.

sergiomonty wrote:I can't see why a fanwork can't be fanart at the same time.

I can't either, but who said that anyway?

Ok, I'm confused. I'll be back when the weird topic is over and we talk again about, I don't know... Rayman himself

sergiomonty wrote:Ok, I'm confused. I'll be back when the weird topic is over and we talk again about, I don't know... Rayman himself

We can see that Rayman himself is painting something. But can it be considered art?

Hunchman801 wrote:

We can see that Rayman himself is painting something. But can it be considered art?

Why, if it's by Rayman, a strictly fictionally-bound character, then of course. What better to qualify as art than something that itself might be considered art creating that alleged art!

are my sigs art
and gangsta globox

Gangsta globox is so much art, that we had to invent a new definition of art that it no longer qualifies as... but hey! It's purdy as heck!

Hunchman801 wrote:

sergiomonty wrote:Ok, I'm confused. I'll be back when the weird topic is over and we talk again about, I don't know... Rayman himself

We can see that Rayman himself is painting something. But can it be considered art?

oh fuck, you got me this time.

Matyuv wrote: and gangsta globox

You are the new Kasimir Malevich and Gangsta Globox is the continuation of the Russian Suprematism.

I would love to have a large painting of Gangsta Globox at home. There's no such fine art.

Eh, imagine something like this.

^I'll make a drawing of those two characters of yours someday... they look so... oh jesus D: (and I say it in a good way )