what is art...?

a philosophical question people will often ask time and again with quite possibly no true answer. so, i'll add my own thoughts to the growing miasma of this question.

i come from an animation background where art and design needs to work together to create moving images. granted, i'm not exactly an expert on the subject, but i think i see enough of both to at least try and give a slightly different perspective on the matter. let's qualify both art and design, starting with design.

Design is basically creating something according to a plan. It is creating something with a specific goal, objective or result in mind. A design can therefore, fail. It can fail in the sense that it does not achieve the goal it was made in mind with. Design is very factually based, easier to quantify and analyze and it also has a easily documented procedures in mind, for ease of repeating the process. From a visual arts perspective, design blurs with art in terms of the creator's technical skill and the creation of results that are pleasing to the eye.

Art itself is a bit of pothole, but for the sake of argument, i'll put that visual art can be divided into 2 categories: modern art and fine art. Fine art is all about pure technical skill. It is the ability to create artworks that imitate life and nature. Therefore, it can be surmised that fine art's overall objective is to create works that are both visually appealing and is as close to reality as possible. Modern art on the other hand is entirely subjective. More often than not, you'll encounter pieces that seemingly have no rhyme or reason to be put together in the first place. Jackson Pollock's art comes to mind and so does 'the fountain' from Dadaism. Some modern art is visually appealing but others don't look very different from everyday objects or are so abstract that they don't look like art in the first place. In this case, modern art's definition of art is allowing the viewer to come to their own conclusion about the artwork. A literal case of: 'but what does it mean?' Modern art invites people to draw their own interpretations on the art piece. The question then becomes, why create such pieces in the first place?

Coming back to the question of what art is and what it should be, we sort of find ourselves needing to qualify each and every art piece. Why do some people like to draw or paint in a specific way or style? Why are some artists celebrated for the same reasons they are reviled? Why are there certain works of art that people will find revolting but is nevertheless classified as art?

Art is and will always be an expression of creativity. At the end of the day, even a piece of pornography can actually be considered art. Art will usually trump design for the simple reason that for design to work, you need some level of visual appeal and in my mind, visual appeal usually comes from art. I would therefore answer the question of what is art with this: Art is about creating works that are appealing.

Why this though? Because simple answers are the best.

We as humans seem to be programmed to like things that draw our attention. It is why we assign value to inanimate objects like gold. It is why we revere a piece of paper with ink on it and call it a national constitution. we like a particular piece of painting and some of us will get the impulse to buy it immediately.

Listen to a piece of music. Read a piece from Shakespeare. Look at the fine details you can find in any modern day concept artist's piece. Even some pieces of modern art has this kind of appeal. Art in this sense is the ability to please our need for something attractive in our lives. 

But what about design being better than art? Design will usually take a backseat to art, philosophically speaking. i think the best way to look at how art can beat design is from an architectural perspective. Buildings from different time periods will reflect the thoughts and emphasis of that period. You'll note that with most modern buildings, a lot of them are designed to be highly utilitarian; big, boxy and with as much space maximized as possible. Contrast this with buildings from the British Victorian or Gothic era or even the American Art Deco period and you'll figure out which buildings look more appealing in general. Design to a degree lacks the soul found in art because at its core, it is about posing and finding a way to answer the question. As such, design can always be without art but to do so would mean that the design will never be as attractive as one that has a bit of flair and passion in it. Which is why when it comes to visual work, good, attractive designs can sometimes be mistaken for art and vice versa.

So, coming back to the question of art. Art for art's sake is a saying that's sometimes used to try and deflect from this question but i think we all know why we do art for art's sake; it's because we bloody well like things that look attractive to us and we want to create more of it.

electric cars... the other choice... with no difference

i feel like weighing in on the debate of the fossil fuel car versus the so-called superior electric car. you can't otherwise convince me that driving an electric car is better than driving a similar golf buggy. to me, the notion of driving an electric car feels alien, wrong and completely strange. call me old fashioned but our over reliance on computers and more importantly electricity, means that if there is a black out in the city for days or weeks on end, your car won't start but my old style fossil fuel one will.

however on paper so far, electric cars are beating the typical, aging, normal fuel cars black and blue, just have a look at the wikipedia page. its a terrible tragedy but is it really? there are very few redeeming qualities for the old style fuel cars. but before we get on with that, i've put together a table of characteristics of both cars, good and bad, so we're on the same page.

So, depending on how you read it, the normal car will have at least 10 good points and 7 bad ones and the electric car will have 11 good points and 6 bad ones. There are a couple of moot points which in any case mean they're equally bad.

Consider the points in the list and think really hard because far as i can tell the only 2 major plus points for an electric car are slightly better care for the environment (which we aren't doing a great job of at any rate) and its supposed savings. Wikipedia tells us that at the moment you still won't save or get back your money's worth on fuel charges and on the other hand, your home electricity bills will definitely increase. So, not too much of a saving grace there either.

Far as the ball is rolling? Electric cars are still more of a novelty than an actual solution to the global warming problem and every other problem linked to it. Whatever bits of environment you are saving by not releasing carbon into the atmosphere is offset by the toxic pollution created by the mining of rare earth metals for the batteries. Never mind that wars will play out for the rights to mine out rare earth from hostile countries, because they're already happening over oil anyway, so this is just one more resource to fight over. No, the thing to be looking out for then is what do you want out of the car? Reliability? Fuel savings? Performance?

Fact of the matter is this, automakers are still making normal fuel supercars. Very few are committed to making electric supercars though that number is increasing. The only company dedicated to making electric supercars is Elon Musk's own Tesla but that's it. Everyone else is still cranking out fossil fuel supercars. I wonder why that is? Could it be because that it is easier to find fuel than a charge point?

The reason i look upon electric cars with disdain is that it seems to be a rather elitist thing. Here in SEA, we do not have as many charge stations for electric vehicles. It would in fact take a great deal of infrastructure overhaul and additions to make it friendly for electric cars and even then the utility would be dubious at best. old style kampung roads that lead into the wilderness bedot the lands beyond the city, where there is no wifi and electricity. Which is why i considered the range of the cars. you would be very hard pressed to try and charge your car in a kampung at any rate. the distance from any sort of proper urban or rather utopian needs for the car is just simply too far.

The elitism is further being pushed by Germany. Germany is demanding of its citizens and the EU through lobbying, that everyone use an electric car by 2035. By all means, that at any rate sounds like a very, very optimistic target. To go off topic for awhile, can you imagine an electric powered tank trundling forwards to go and fight Putin's tanks in the Balkans? They'd run out of electricity even before they get to the frontlines. In all honesty, Germany has a great many better things to do than enforce what can only be described as facetious idea in the face of an overwhelming refugee crisis that is only getting worse, ISIS knocking at its front doors, a rather edgy Russia and its own growing economic woes no thanks to the EU. There is nothing to be gained from this Germanic Leap Forwards.

Back to having electric cars at home. Currently, its mere snobbery and holier-than-thou-ness that is getting people to buy into green cars. Unfortunately, the only truly green car that i can appreciate are the hydrogen fuel cell cars and the solar powered ones. Solar cars are much greener than the so-called eco-friendly electric cars and they look much cooler and sleeker. Just don't drive when it rains or at night. Hydrogen fuel cell cars; these are the real future. All the reliability of a normal fossil fuel car and it produces water that you can drink after your long drive. There's still an emission but its making H20 or for the unscientific, water.

Personally, i think it will be the sound of a proper engine that i'm going to miss if i am forced to buy an electric car. you simply don't get that with an electric car unless you've got a very clever audio program and sound system installed in it. Yes, an electric car is cheaper.... only in many years time when the price of the batteries have fallen. Yes, an electric car is eco-friendly only because it is the car itself that is not giving off the emissions. You do need to have a fully renewable energy electric grid if you plan to boldly make that claim... and a way to mine out and create the batteries without all the toxicity involved. Regardless, the real only redeeming feature is that the electric car does not produce any form of carbon. Though, granted electric cars will have a slight positive impact on a global scale in terms of carbon dioxide production.

So, what does this mean? It means that you really need to think hard when you make a decision to buy an electric car. Are you buying for some form of personal satisfaction? What sort? Is it the current Tesla aesthetics that's getting you going? Is it perhaps the need for a little one-up-manship? You'd get better mileage from a Myvi in all honesty. If we have to compare an electric car to say your own electronics, namely the laptop and the smart phone, then fine, buy as many electric cars as you want since you're already using rare earth metals in them. Curiously though, if we are indeed going by the batteries in your laptop, then be reminded that each Tesla uses 64 of those. So, multiply that by about 100,000 and you are looking at a lot of rare earth used and ecological devastation, but hey, all for clean air isn't it?

While we're on the subject of batteries do consider my other point mentioned in the table: Samsung batteries. The very same lithium ion batteries that power the decidedly volatile Samsung Galaxy Note 7 could end up in your car, especially if China decides it wants to produce electric car batteries. There aren't all that many fossil fuel cars that explode on their own and those that do are either driven by terrorists or are supercar owners and there aren't all that many supercar owners as there are normal car owners. By the same logic then, your new 'everyday joe' electric car with batteries from China could be a very convenient mobile funeral pyre.

A lot of the hype of electric cars come from its potential in....wait for it... the future. That's a very optimistic way of saying, it will get better but not soon. The logic is certainly there too. If we follow Moore's Law with regards to the batteries it is entirely possible that an electric car will cost as much as a laptop computer. no, i'm exaggerating. But yes, it would become cheaper than a conventional fossil fuel car used by joe everybody, eventually. However, this point lies in the future and is not yet happening. Electric cars are still monstrously expensive and are as with most expensive things nowadays, merely a trophy or status symbol. The current and most utilitarian of the electric cars suffer from the inability to drive and stay in areas beyond their charging infrastructure for long. And as Wikipedia would be updated mostly in western regions, electric cars would only be really effective in highly urbanized societies that have decided they shall be electric car friendly. To be more on point, I don't see most parts of the USA becoming easily accessible to electric cars, especially the rural town areas.

So, the good news is that everyone telling you that electric cars will be the death of fossil fuel cars will have to wait at least another 10 years before they can truly make that claim. Hopefully by then though, the fossil fuel cars will have evolved into the hydrogen fuel cars. And this is with the hopes that hydrogen, being literally all around us, will be very much cheaper than electric cars and more importantly much more eco-friendly than they are. this just leaves the myriad people who are driving around hybrids then. if we look back at all the information here, then it is the people who drive hybrids then that are the real problem. hybrids are as the name implies, capable of using both fossil fuels and generating their own battery charge. They would be great, were it not for the lithium ion batteries in them. So, they use both oil and rare earth which then creates both a toxic wasteland out of the area the rare earth is mined from and also pollute the air. And the hybrid drivers have to gall to rub their rare earth powered cars in our faces.

P.S.

i'd like to end this thought by firmly stating my stance on the matter. i'm still going to be for fossil fuel cars. i'll be using them at least till either bio fuels become more feasible and somehow less environmentally damaging or hydrogen cars become a common reality. fossil fuels were a great thing, till we decided we would like to have more of it. the more of everything mentality, which frankly, is the reason we as human beings are always in a messy state in the first place.

add on to previous post (weird times pt 2)

in view of the now rather volatile western comic and movie industry with regards to infiltration of supposedly "politically correct" and "social justice" views. i think it is time to step back and just appreciate once more the beauty that is anime, manga and doujins.

japan is truly something else. despite their economic situation, their creative industry is still going strong.... though workers' benefits and situation could obviously be better, especially for the game devs and animators but regardless. they're going very strong. for every one creator that is sunk by the corporate machine, 10 others are still going at it with a vigour that often belies their age.

the proliferation and spread of anime and manga has not stopped and the way its going, will never stop. you really must stop and appreciate the ingenuity that is put into the writings. this is not saying its just the japanese are good at it. the pool includes south koreans and whoever else is doing manga and animes of their own. however, i would like to point out that it seems to be a relatively quiet sort of thing that was created and introduced by the japanese. this unfiltered creativity that doesn't use anybody's lens but the creator's own mind. it is a refreshingly pure thing to behold truly.

some mangas and anime are just for fun and that's fine. others have serious stories and themes. the most important part? they are usually able to tell their stories without having anything like an agenda hidden in it. for manga world, it isn't so much the need to show the world what sort of suffering a girl or person of colour goes through. for them, it is the story that is important, the dramatization and not the attempt to rub any sort of message into someone's face. i appreciate mangas and anime because of the free way they express themselves. this appears to be something precious that the western comic industry has lost, this ... creative expression for the sake of creative expression. if its any wonder why manga and anime is still going strong.

i think, if it is one thing that the western comic world needs from the eastern side is this: real freedom. back in the 60's western comics had all sorts of different and wacky superheroes. there were cool ones and then there were those that made absolutely no sense and of course tanked. but the important part was that the creative juices were flowing. this period was full of ingenuity and is the main reason you have an ungodly huge library of heroes. if the japanese can so effortlessly foster an atmosphere of pure creativity, could the west not do the same?

i believe that the salvation for western comics then lies in europe. america has strangely become a land full of strictures and restrictions. the only acceptable place for fresh ideas in america is on the internet. so then, scratch that. the salvation of the western comic book creativity doesn't lie just in europe, it lies in the free content creators who reside on the internet.

the net is vast and infinite, it should be a great many decades to come for online comics. just stay away from the traditional media and i think we'll all be happier for it.