Re: ART vs. DRAMA

["Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@indiegamedesign.com>]

Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:

> I have no problem with randomness in art but bottom line is the artist 
> accepts of rejects the random event.

If you accept this, then it is not difficult for you to understand how 
frottage, Standard Stoppages, Jackson Pollack flinging paint (not 
randomly done, but harnessing somewhat randomized paint splatters), and 
a happy accident in a watercolor are all 'real ART'.  So it shouldn't be 
difficult for you to understand how http://www.random-art.org/ is also 
'real ART'.  The artists, in this case, are those who vote on the works 
and thereby advance or diminish their merit.  The randomness is most 
explictly being accepted or rejected, that's half the point of the 
site.  A site that presented only random images with no selection would 
probably bore us.

Or do you think communal art forms are not valid, where lay 
practitioners take a hand in the end result?  If so, you'll have major, 
major issues scaling up any iDrama you pursue.  It all hinges on this 
rather arbitrary distinction of yours about 'decoration'.  Would you 
care to define 'decoration', so that we might deconstruct your reasoning 
better?


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.