Art

I've finally found a definition of art that I think I agree with... Came to me as I woke up this morning.

****
Art (as a verb) is a creative or transformative process undertaken primarily as an appeal to some aesthetic, in order to induce a sense of "aesthetic euphoria" in those who experience the resulting object.

An object created (or transformed) in this way (this is, with this aesthetic goal as a primary objective) is a work of art.

The broad category of all artistic processes is art-- Everything which is done primarily as an appeal to an aesthetic. Any category of process which is primarily undertaken for aesthetic appeal is an artistic discipline.

Anything which has an aesthetic appeal, but was not designed with the aesthetic appeal as the primary objective is craft.
****

This definition is pretty loose (yet mathematically precise; I won't apologize for who I am), but it seems to explicitly exclude "useful" objects from the category of art... This isn't entirely true. An object which is useful, but was designed with its aesthetic appeal as a primary objective is still art: Something can be both craft and art.

I also am not trying to be derogatory towards craft: many great artists are primarily craftsmen, and a lot of craft is more aesthetically appealing than a lot of art. Further, what separates a good craftsman from a great craftsman, is that a great craftsman elevates the artistic value of his creation to an equal footing with it's utility-- without sacrificing function for form.

It's also, I assume, a very modernist definition... So my poetry and my artistic ideals are 70+ years behind the times; C'est la vie.

The one thing I'm struggling with is how kitsch fits into this. I would like to say kitsch is not art, but I don't think this definition excludes it.
On the other hand, I tend to refer to kitsch as "the unart" in the same way that zombies are undead. So it makes sense that kitsch will fit the definition of art; now how does in fit the definition of non-art?

Haunting

I often have to explain to people that I do math, not for it's scientific utility, but it's aesthetic value. Many people either get confused by this idea, or think of pretty math pictures or mystifying symbols. This is not at all what a mathematician is thinking of when he calls math "pretty".

A much closer representation would be Pope's question "Ah, Why, ye Gods, should two and two make four?" Why, indeed! There is a simplicity, a finality that is striking and counter-intuitive in math. It is obvious that 2+2=4, and saying otherwise will confuse people (even when you're correct.)

But mathematically obvious and intuitively obvious are two very different things. Mathematically obvious means "a proof is trivial". Intuitively obvious means "the assumption that it is true is so ingrained within us that another system is difficult to comprehend." 2+2=4 is not mathematically obvious... until you define addition, and define equality. 2+2=4 is so often used because of this fact. It relies, almost solely on the foundations of mathematics. If math were a building-- one built over millennia, with thousands of architects-- 2+2=4 would be the buttress opposite 1≠0.

There is something mystifying in this idea, something almost haunting. More haunting yet, is Euler's Identity. e^iπ+1=0. This may be meaningless to my audience...
e (2.718281...) is the "natural base" It has a number of fascinating properties, perhaps the most important of which is that the the slope of the line e^x at any point is also e^x. This number is primarily important in calculus (where it is the most important number): real analysis and the study of differential equations. π (3.14159) is the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter. It is the most important number in trigonometry, and therefore all of geometry. Consequently, π, like e, shows up everywhere in math. i is the imaginary number √-1. Complex analysis is the study of this number.

We have, then, undoubtedly the 5 most important numbers in math: 0, 1, e, i, π. They come together in one simple equation-- 7th grade math-- e^iπ+1=0. When you see this equation, you are simultaneously looking at all of analysis, as well as analytic geometry. If this doesn't leave you in some way uncomfortable, you have missed something: take a math class.

As you learn the required material-- certainly more work than 7th grade math-- the equation changes from meaningless symbols to utterly counter-intuitive. Mathematically, it's obvious; there are proofs which require no more than high school math; but intuitively, it cannot be. How can everything be related so simply?

If you still do not see it, if you still cannot feel it. Think of the way a good song can almost bring you to tears, or the way certain paintings refuse to be forgotten, or the power in a great piece of literature. That's what a mathematician feels when he sees this equation.

"Why must e to the i pi negate 1? And how, O God, does it steal my sleep?"

Game design

I've been thinking about video game design again lately; I think just like movies, game designers are trying too hard to make worlds understandable, and not hard enough to make them unique and alive. I want to see a fantasy world with surreal landscapes; you should see Dalí or Kush everywhere. I want characters like Marquez's. I want creatures like Tolkien's-- not in appearance, but in imagination and originality.

Castes need to be broken; roles need to be changed. Turn our ideas on their heads. We gamers talk about games as art, but where are our artists? Gears of War? Assassin's Creed? Beautiful games, to be sure, but we can achieve a whole new level of beauty-- a whole new type of beauty-- with video games. Who is doing that? I see cloud ships and sky harbors; I see cultures that represent these things; I see a player making a drastic change in these cultures; where are they? When will we see our beloved games wrapped up in literature and art in a new way? Where are the cubist and surrealist game designers?

Game makers need to spend less time making games look amazing, and more time making them feel amazing. Is there tremendous detail in Van Gogh's work? Or Picasso's? How about Dalí? Then fuck detail: we need worlds that come alive and strike us with awe. Until someone steps out and does that, we will be stuck playing tired old FPSs that play exactly the same, RPGs with the same classes, and fighting games with a Bruce Lee look-alike. Some companies have been making small steps in this direction, and have been welcomed, but we still need something drastic. We need someone to step out and fail, keep pushing and succeed in everything that failed, and perfect everything that worked.

I know I've been ranting for a while now, but it just struck me as I imagined a harbor city on a cloud. Can you imagine piloting a ship from the clouds, through a pirate attack, and down to an ocean harbor? Then why hasn't this game been made?

A sudden realization.

I think I'm going to make a conscious effort to let my stories become more surreal. I've always found a certain level of reality in surreal works-- an awe-inspiring mythical atmosphere-- something that's missing in realism. For the most part, my writings fit under the classification of surreal, but even Breviary, which has a extremely surreal plot, is framed as a series of dreams. It's as if I'm trying to rationalize my works, bring them into reality. I need to stop doing that. I feel like I'm trying to make my writing something it isn't; trying to add something in order to make it better, or more literary or something. I'm killing it when I do that. I need to just let it flow.

On another note, I'm definitely going to start drawing and painting again soon. It's a lot of fun, and I've spent far too long away from it.