Also I might have spelled the dude’s name wrong.
FF VII, his fist game as character designer, was a huge disappointment compared to previous entries. All the characters were bland and had generic and overly simple outfits.
From there on, all his "designs" looked like Matrix leather suits that were as bland as in FFVII. He’s a really lame artist who still thinks that adding more chains and belts will make an outfit look cool somehow. Add that to the silver haired villain and you understand that Nomura can’t even think of anything cool by himself and must rely on every clich� the Japanese artists has done countless times before him.
Nomura didn’t contribute anything good for the FF series, and pales more than a over-corrected Gamma of a LCD screen when compared to Amano’s vibrant and personality filled artwork and designs.
As you’ll hear a lot here from oldies that have been fan of the series since the beginning, Nomura is the worse thing that happened to the FF series. It beats the departure of Sakaguchi and Uematsu easily.
I totally agree 😀 Amano’s artwork just has this feeling to it that Tetsuya Nomura’s lacks. Not that Nomura’s artwork isn’t good, but it is bounds from ever being nearly as interesting as Yoshitaka Amano’s.
FF VII, his fist game as character designer, was a huge disappointment compared to previous entries. All the characters were bland and had generic and overly simple outfits.
From there on, all his "designs" looked like Matrix leather suits that were as bland as in FFVII. He’s a really lame artist who still thinks that adding more chains and belts will make an outfit look cool somehow. Add that to the silver haired villain and you understand that Nomura can’t even think of anything cool by himself and must rely on every clich� the Japanese artists has done countless times before him.
Nomura didn’t contribute anything good for the FF series, and pales more than a over-corrected Gamma of a LCD screen when compared to Amano’s vibrant and personality filled artwork and designs.
As you’ll hear a lot here from oldies that have been fan of the series since the beginning, Nomura is the worse thing that happened to the FF series. It beats the departure of Sakaguchi and Uematsu easily.
You think so? I didn’t mind many character designs until Advent Children and the XIII’s when he got all leather obsessed. But I will admit, the 1-6 character designs far surpass those afterwards.
Also I saw in a magazine a new game for DS called "The World Ends With You" and I saw the main character. Before I read the article I knew it was Nomura’s handywork.
Finally, I knew of Sakaguchi leaving, but Uematsu left for good? Ahh shit… X_X
He became free lance, so he may or not work for a new FF game in the future.
One thing though, he’s taking part somehow in the soundtracks of the games.
In XII, he composed the "Kiss me goodbye" theme and he’s the composer of FF XIII’s main theme (or at least, the opening theme, if it doesn’t end up being the "main" theme, which I think is unlikely—wishful thinking?—), even if the rest of the score will be composed by Masashi Hamauzu (who’s responsible for Dirge of Cerberus, Unlimited Sage and Tobal no. 1 OSTs as well as a collaboration with Uematsu on FFX’s OST).
fix’d :smrt:
hahaha naw man thats what i would say.
Yeah, yeah… Everyone is entitled to their opinions and all that.
But you’re still a blind and mindless fanboy.
How old are you to think all leather with chains and belts is equivalent to cool? That aura is usually consisting of emo/dull, FTR.
Besides they`re not emo.
Emos are the ones who cry in the corner and cut themselves… FF characters never do that.
An example of a typical emo.
http://www.ipix.lt/desc/44128616/
Yep, too hard… That’s obviously why they decided to go with Amano in FFIX.:rolleyes:
You’ll most likely come up with the argument that at the time FFVII was conceived, Squaresoft didn’t have the expertise they had when they did FFIX. I don’t recall any character sprites in the FFs prior to VII that reproduced Amano’s art faithfully, yet he did the character design for all 6 games.
I don’t see how Agent would say you’re fighting hard since your argument is completely inaccurate.
Yes, an attractive female with unnaturally large breasts in a miniskirt. I bet it took months, nay, YEARS to come up with that!
You’ll most likely come up with the argument that at the time FFVII was conceived, Squaresoft didn’t have the expertise they had when they did FFIX. I don’t recall any character sprites in the FFs prior to VII that reproduced Amano’s art faithfully, yet he did the character design for all 6 games.
I don’t see how Agent would say you’re fighting hard since your argument is completely inaccurate.
It`s not inaccurate. It was mentioned in one interview although I don`t have any proof about that because I don`t remember what interview was it.
And it`s not about S-E expertizing it`s about hardware limitations that were back then.
And it`s not about S-E expertizing it`s about hardware limitations that were back then.
Hardware limitations that weren’t the same when they did FF VIII and IX. God, all the bullshit you spit.
And you clearly didn’t get my point about the 2D sprites of the SNES FFs.
There:
Yeah, yeah… Everyone is entitled to their opinions and all that.
But you’re still a blind and mindless fanboy.
Now shut the fuck up.
And by that same token, Hynad is allowed to smash her for it.
2. The idiot has posted in a lot of threads and proven that she is a retarded fangirl through and through.
2. The idiot has posted in a lot of threads and proven that she is a retarded fangirl through and through.
I only recently joined so I wouldn’t know that.
(God, how I hate the noobs coming here and reacting like morons to things that are beyond themselves.)
And anybody can call those people fools for loving these. Especially when they talk about an "aura" surrounding those.
Nomura has the merit of making every single characters look like siblings. The main protagonist of FF Versus XIII looks like a clone of Sephiroth from Advent Children, who look like Cloud which in turn looks like Sephiroth with blond hair. Yuna looks like Rinoa who looks like a boobless Tifa, Rikku is the same as Selphie who is the same as Yuffie.
I can go on an on…
And Seifer looks kinda cool though I’m not a fan of the hair.
Both outfits are good-looking and also suit the characters perfectly. Except maybe the sunglasses for Auron….
And if you wanna become a hero… Die.
OMG?
My keyboard lights up when you press a button. ^_^
Curses, foiled again.
Still, my point stands.
Nomura has at least gotten one character right.
There’s hope for everyone.
As for the character designs looking the same lately, well exactly in what sense do they look the same? Now before anyone goes ballistic on me, please don’t take that as moron fangirl defense :p. It’s just a question I have. I could see in some cases how some of them might look similar (i.e. Ashe looking like Yuna or Vaan looking like Tidus etc.), but I can also see some differences in newer character designs such as the characters outfits.
This thread is no where near 50 pages. It’s not even to 50 posts.
No, it’s not the graphics though that’s a part.
It was the blissfully interesting character design.
Ie. the lack of Nomura.
I find that I enjoyed the character design for XIII more, though the city reminded me way too much if VIII. Also, the guy on the bike, resembled Seifer too much, imo.
No, it’s not the graphics though that’s a part.
It was the blissfully interesting character design.
Ie. the lack of Nomura.
x2
Does anyone know/think they may change artists sometime in the near/not so near future?
Duh, that’s right the same guy who did Vagrant Story did XII. I guess they both suck then.
Does anyone know/think they may change artists sometime in the near/not so near future?
I will! I will work under Tetsuya`s supervision!
amano art is great
tetsuya is epic.
well that’s just me though.
Do you realise that Nomura’s first name is Tetsuya?
So Tetsuya Nomura’s art is fine and Epic?
Either he’s just fine, while Amano is great; you meant to write Yoshida; or you just don’t know who’s who.
Personally I really enjoy seeing the Amano’s pictures (especially IX artworks, and Gidan was my favourite character), but Nomura has a "modern" (or simple, call it as you wish) style, that makes me like his characters.
lol Nomura is fine, but Tetsuya is EPIC!
edit: Nomura sucks. I’ve said in at least one other thread that he’s a hack. Yoshida seems to be pretty decent from what I’ve seen (FFXII and Vagrant Story), though. However, he’s not Amano.
MusashiDen, Ergheiz, Kingdom Hearts and a DS game whose name I don’t remember (akihabara something…)
Nomura’s work is pleasant, nice to look at and easy on the eye. But people have said, it’s not particularly original. I disagree that his work is terrible or awful or whatever. And before any of you short-tempered ‘l337’ fellows get on my back – this doesn’t make me a fan-boy, and I have a right to my opinion.
Amano’s work however is superior. His drawings are extremely elegant, and have a real individuality to them that Nomura’s (slightly generic) manga does not. I wish the Amano book I ordered would hurry up and arrive.
You speak rational, reasonable sense – unlike most of the folks on here!
It amuses me how an Onion Kid with a whole eight posts comes in and passes judgement on the entire Shrine immediately before insisting on his/her "right to my opinion," evidently attempting to disarm any contention before it happens.
Anyway, as you said, "to the topic at hand." Your assessment of Nomura’s work, namely the "not particularly original" part, is the biggest understatement I’ve seen on FFS in a looong time. His stuff is on the boring side of generic. Look at Tifa and Aeris for examples. Both are total stereotypes. Tifa’s the typical anime/manga babe with enormous tits and absurdly short miniskirt, while Aeris is the damsel in distress, complete with a pink dress that only Princess Peach could love.
Because, rational or not, people have different tastes. Art, you may not have been aware, is utterly subjective in it’s appreciation.
Calling the manga archetypes of Nomura, art, has to be the most subjective thing of all.
Anyway, as you said, "to the topic at hand." Your assessment of Nomura’s work, namely the "not particularly original" part, is the biggest understatement I’ve seen on FFS in a looong time. His stuff is on the boring side of generic. Look at Tifa and Aeris for examples. Both are total stereotypes. Tifa’s the typical anime/manga babe with enormous tits and absurdly short miniskirt, while Aeris is the damsel in distress, complete with a pink dress that only Princess Peach could love.
Her miniskirt could, and should, have been more absurdly short.
nomura ftw!
WHat does his sexual orientation have to do with the content of his post?
I’m gay, is there a problem with gays?
Everything.
Everything.
Had I asked what was wrong with gays, your post would have made sense. As it is, it’s just a bit moronic though…
Everything.
Had I asked what was wrong with gays, your post would have made sense. As it is, it’s just a bit moronic …
Everything.
Had I asked what was wrong with gays, your post would have made sense. As it is, it’s just a bit moronic…
Everything.
Paraphrasing Sherlock Holmes out of context does not make you seem more intelligent. Nor does it serve to make you appear wittier. You are probably one of those kids who always wears a bow tie, no matter where you are or what else you are wearing because you think it increases your chance with the ‘ladies’.
What is an ‘amirite?’
Are you are asking if you are right?
If so, about what? About Amano? Lol.
Apparently it’s Amano concept art for X-2. It’s got all the hallmarks of Amano’s art… but still, it looks a bit like someone drawing like Amano. What do you reckon?
That being said, I’m not sure that’s Amano’s work; the males don’t look at all effeminate like, say, Locke or Zidane, nor are they super-buff like Sabin or Amarant. When drawing males, Amano seems to have more lines and such, too.
nomura ftw!
Hmmm, or not.
That being said, I’m not sure that’s Amano’s work; the males don’t look at all effeminate like, say, Locke or Zidane, nor are they super-buff like Sabin or Amarant. When drawing males, Amano seems to have more lines and such, too.
Yeah, that’s what I thought. I’ve seen Amano do cleaner drawings (as opposed to all textured with lines and so forth) but it lacked that Amano feel I think. He has done concept art for FFVII-X, despite Nomura designing the characters.
For example, my personal opinion is that Nomura’s artwork is superior to Amano’s, specifically the drawing/painting of character’s faces. I personally hate Amano’s faces, I think they look like ventriloquist dolls. However, his character DESIGNS are great. Because he has a quirky and very individual style is "bleeds" out into his character designs and they end up with highly original and unique looks, specifically with regards their attire.
This is where Nomura is lacking (though I feel more recently than in days of old) because much of his attire is simply making a generic trench-coat like design and trying to overcomplicate it as much as possible with belts, ties, zips etc. by the million.
So yeah, I think that people are generally mixing up design and art in this thread. Many of the people who say Nomura "pwns" Amano I feel are looking at the aesthesis of the artwork rather than its design.
Any professional in the field will tell you that. Whether you like a style or not doesn’t change these facts.
Nomura is a design artist. Amano is a full fledged artist, and can design (as you can see from all the character designs he did, as well as the stage costumes he created for multiple plays), create a conceptual piece of art that gives the general feel of a game or movie (he’s been credited for many Illustration work for the Final Fantasy series, VII being one of them) as well as graphic novels work (Neil Gaiman’s Sandman).
Nomura only does character and monster DESIGNS.
Any professional in the field will tell you that. Whether you like a style or not doesn’t change these facts.
Nomura is a design artist. Amano is a full fledged artist, and can design (as you can see from all the character designs he did, as well as the stage costumes he created for multiple plays), create a conceptual piece of art that gives the general feel of a game or movie (he’s been credited for many Illustration work for the Final Fantasy series, VII being one of them) as well as graphic novels work (Neil Gaiman’s Sandman).
Nomura only does character and monster DESIGNS.
Er, yes, hi there, in no part of my post did I discuss what constituted art or design, nor did I specify whether Nomura’s or Amano’s work was considered art or design or both so I have no idea why you’ve begun arguing about that on a tangent. You’re not even talking about the same topic I was and as such your reply has virtually no topical relevance relative to my original post. You have COMPLETELY missed the point of the post you’ve attempted to attack. You’re talking about the artists, I was not. You’re talking about the "roles" the artists fulfill or the occupations they have, I was not. You’re talking about what work is "considered" design and what is "considered" art, guess what? I was not.
I am not mixing up art with design because I did not state anything about the definitions of these terms. Nor did I state that Amano was a designer, and only a designer, and Nomura was an artist. In fact, I said nothing about the artists themselves at all, or what their work was "considered" to be. What I posted were only PERCEPTIONS of their work, both mine and others in this thread, looking at their work from both an art AND design viewpoint where relevant. The fact that Nomura’s works are design and Amano’s works are "art" is irrelevant to my post because I didn’t even mention what category their work came under.
Besides, the two disciplines cross-over regardless of what their work is "considered" to be due to its presentation.
An artist who is a pure "design artist" can still be highly praised for the "art" WITHIN his "design", and vice versa, whether his work is "considered" to be pure art or not – it wholly depends on the light in which the beholder views the work. In this thread that is EXACTLY what has happened and that is precisely what I was stating in my post, NOT that Nomura was an artist and Amano a designer, nor that Nomura’s works were art and Amano’s design, but that many people in this thread were judging the DESIGNS of Nomura as ART and then saying "I like Nomura’s DESIGNS". Surely you can see the problem there? They are mixing up the aesthetics of art with design.
Where do the artist’s occupational roles come into that point?
That’s correct: They do not.
Nomura only does character and monster DESIGNS.
The only work that can be compared between Amano and Nomura is character design, since that is the only point of reference, and as such whether Nomura only does character and monster design is irrelevant to the comparison. You can’t compare a scenic composition from Amano to a character design from Nomura, there is no comparison. Therefore, for the purposes of the comparison in this thread, the quoted sentence is totally irrelevant.
Any professional in the field will tell you that. Whether you like a style or not doesn’t change these facts.
Well under that self-annointed mal-logic I guess that would make my post correct and yours potentially incorrect since I am a professional in the field of conceptual art AND design.
Firstly, I didn’t argue against this statement in my original post which makes the quoted sentence, as a reply, completely irrelevant.
Secondly, now I will argue with your INTERPRETATION of that fact. What constitutes "Art" is not something which is set in stone, like you seem to believe it is. Whether a person is an artist themselves or a garbage man it doesn’t matter. There is no "fact" in what is art and what is not, only opinion, and you seem to believe that opinions of those who are loudest is fact. What a professional tells you only accounts for one thing: his or her opinion. With Art it is all perception-based so a professional’s opinion doesn’t weigh much more, if any more, than a random person’s on the street. It’s not like a lawyer’s opinion on Law compared to a janitor’s as unlike Law there is no real "knowledge" involved in Art, except Art History (boringly dull subject at that), and so it purely based on situational purposes.
With design, that is a different case of course.
Art is a purely individually based perception. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc. What "art" is, is down to personal opinion. Most people need to like a style of art in order to consider it art. This is why many people either love or hate Picasso, but rarely somewhere in between – because of the style of his "art". That is also the same reason why many people in this thread say they prefer Nomura – because his style is more tidy (generally) and therefore the aesthetics of it are considered to be better. His "style" pleases the eye of more people in this thread than Amano’s "style". This is what I was stating in my post. Saying people’s opinions on "style" are irrelevant to whether they consider a piece of work art is ridiculous. I’m afraid you don’t have autocratic powers over people to tell them what their opinions should be nor what they should base them upon. You’re not important enough for that.
To reiterate my point about how art and design cross-over, here’s an example: http://www.ryanchurch.com/ryanchurch_WW002.htm
This is a design piece. Yes, that’s correct, it’s a conceptual design of the tripods from War of the Worlds. Yet, it’s also a piece of artwork. AND it is a cinematographic image. How it is viewed depends on the situation and the one viewing it.
A CGI artist who will create the tripod in the movie will view it as conceptual design.
A director will view it as cinematography.
A housewife who bought it because she thought it’d look nice over her fireplace will view it as artwork.
It is PURELY situational how work is viewed if it is of a good standard.
Likewise, this is considered pure mechanical design: http://www.ryanchurch.com/ryanchurch_AC019.htm
Yet many people view it as artwork and the artist in question has sold hundreds of copies of that image to individuals as DISPLAY ART.
Art and design cross over constantly and therefore in many situations both can be extrapolated from a single piece of work. The only reason they are departmentalised is for the sake of specialism and inter-company organisation. In other words, it’s a business/industry gimmick. In high quality work that ticks all the boxes art and design co-exist.
Finally, what’s ironic is that my post was actually backing you up in this thread and suggesting that Amano doesn’t get as much praise as he deserves by many FF fans.
Er, yes, hi there, in no part of my post did I discuss what constituted art or design, nor did I specify whether Nomura’s or Amano’s work was considered art or design or both so I have no idea why you’ve begun arguing about that on a tangent. You’re not even talking about the same topic I was and as such your reply has virtually no topical relevance relative to my original post. You have COMPLETELY missed the point of the post you’ve attempted to attack. You’re talking about the artists, I was not. You’re talking about the "roles" the artists fulfill or the occupations they have, I was not. You’re talking about what work is "considered" design and what is "considered" art, guess what? I was not.
You first mentioned that people were potentially mixing up artwork and designs. On what you base that claim I don’t know (or you might not comprehend how people might not like the same designs styles and other artwork aspects as you do, but these are your words. I had to talk about art and designs because you clearly didn’t seem to know where to lead the readers with your badly formulated paragraphs. But to make you understand better what I meant, I’ll clarify once again with a word I often forget because of the nature of my studies: fine.
I am not mixing up art with design because I did not state anything about the definitions of these terms. Nor did I state that Amano was a designer, and only a designer, and Nomura was an artist. In fact, I said nothing about the artists themselves at all, or what their work was "considered" to be. What I posted were only PERCEPTIONS of their work, both mine and others in this thread, looking at their work from both an art AND design viewpoint where relevant. The fact that Nomura’s works are design and Amano’s works are "art" is irrelevant to my post because I didn’t even mention what category their work came under.
You didn’t get what I said at that point. But hopefully, you will soon.
Besides, the two disciplines cross-over regardless of what their work is "considered" to be due to its presentation.
Of course. And the "fine" word will make everything clearer.
An artist who is a pure "design artist" can still be highly praised for the "art" WITHIN his "design", and vice versa, whether his work is "considered" to be pure art or not – it wholly depends on the light in which the beholder views the work. In this thread that is EXACTLY what has happened and that is precisely what I was stating in my post, NOT that Nomura was an artist and Amano a designer, nor that Nomura’s works were art and Amano’s design, but that many people in this thread were judging the DESIGNS of Nomura as ART and then saying "I like Nomura’s DESIGNS". Surely you can see the problem there?
You are right, I got that wrong at first.
They are mixing up the aesthetics of art with design.
A design is by definition the application of an aesthetic study.
Where do the artist’s occupational roles come into that point?
That’s correct: They do not.
I already adressed that, and put that way, you are right.
Nomura only does character and monster DESIGNS.
The only work that can be compared between Amano and Nomura is character design, since that is the only point of reference, and as such whether Nomura only does character and monster design is irrelevant to the comparison. You can’t compare a scenic composition from Amano to a character design from Nomura, there is no comparison. Therefore, for the purposes of the comparison in this thread, the quoted sentence is totally irrelevant.
Now is the moment to re-read this part with the omitted "fine" word.
Amano’s work is concidered fine art while Nomura is concidered design.
Any professional in the field will tell you that. Whether you like a style or not doesn’t change these facts.
Well under that self-annointed mal-logic I guess that would make my post correct and yours potentially incorrect since I am a professional in the field of conceptual art AND design.
So am I. And as a matter of fact, I’d really enjoy seeing what professional work you’ve got.
Firstly, I didn’t argue against this statement in my original post which makes the quoted sentence, as a reply, completely irrelevant.
Secondly, now I will argue with your INTERPRETATION of that fact. What constitutes "Art" is not something which is set in stone, like you seem to believe it is. Whether a person is an artist themselves or a garbage man it doesn’t matter. There is no "fact" in what is art and what is not, only opinion, and you seem to believe that opinions of those who are loudest is fact. What a professional tells you only accounts for one thing: his or her opinion. With Art it is all perception-based so a professional’s opinion doesn’t weigh much more, if any more, than a random person’s on the street. It’s not like a lawyer’s opinion on Law compared to a janitor’s as unlike Law there is no real "knowledge" involved in Art, except Art History (boringly dull subject at that), and so it purely based on situational purposes.
That was a really good demonstration of the basics, but the "knowledge" part is partially wrong, technically speaking, and I’ll get to that a bit later. As for the rest, the omitted word (and it is no excuse) makes this mouthful pretty useless.
With design, that is a different case of course.
Oh, because there has to be more?
Art is a purely individually based perception. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc. What "art" is, is down to personal opinion. Most people need to like a style of art in order to consider it art. This is why many people either love or hate Picasso, but rarely somewhere in between – because of the style of his "art". That is also the same reason why many people in this thread say they prefer Nomura – because his style is more tidy (generally) and therefore the aesthetics of it are considered to be better. His "style" pleases the eye of more people in this thread than Amano’s "style". This is what I was stating in my post. Saying people’s opinions on "style" are irrelevant to whether they consider a piece of work art is ridiculous. I’m afraid you don’t have autocratic powers over people to tell them what their opinions should be nor what they should base them upon. You’re not important enough for that.
That babbling is meaningless now that you understand what I meant by art. I did mention that Nomura is a design artist after all.
To reiterate my point about how art and design cross-over, here’s an example: http://www.ryanchurch.com/ryanchurch_WW002.htm
I never said or implied that it didn’t or couldn’t cross-over. At all.
This is a design piece. Yes, that’s correct, it’s a conceptual design of the tripods from War of the Worlds. Yet, it’s also a piece of artwork. AND it is a cinematographic image. How it is viewed depends on the situation and the one viewing it.
It is a design piece made to give the tone and set the design piece into context to give the movie producer an idea of what it could look on screen. These pieces are often made in the same way a fine art piece would be.
A CGI artist who will create the tripod in the movie will view it as conceptual design.
A director will view it as cinematography.
Of course.
A housewife who bought it because she thought it’d look nice over her fireplace will view it as artwork.
Which it is.
It is PURELY situational how work is viewed if it is of a good standard.
if if if
Likewise, this is considered pure mechanical design: http://www.ryanchurch.com/ryanchurch_AC019.htm
Yet many people view it as artwork and the artist in question has sold hundreds of copies of that image to individuals as DISPLAY ART.
Art and design cross over constantly and therefore in many situations both can be extrapolated from a single piece of work. The only reason they are departmentalised is for the sake of specialism and inter-company organisation. In other words, it’s a business/industry gimmick. In high quality work that ticks all the boxes art and design co-exist.
A repetition that has already been adressed earlier. I think I clarified what I mean when I compare Nomura with Amano by calling more specifically what Amano is applying in his work.
As for the short sentences I use, I prefer going with straight to the point sentences than going through long explanatory sessions like you do. Which, like you, would end up being redundant.
Finally, what’s ironic is that my post was actually backing you up in this thread and suggesting that Amano doesn’t get as much praise as he deserves by many FF fans.
That’s not really ironic. I was adressing what I concidered at the time as a bad interpretation of your idea of what art versus design is.
So to better explain, here’s something that you should already know if you really are a professional (I indeed guess that you would have gone through some higher level studies, even if your "high school level" explanation (no hard feeling, just saying what I saw there) didn’t quite make me think that way):
Applied arts refers to the application of design and aesthetics to objects of function and everyday use. Whereas fine arts serve as intellectual stimulation to the viewer or academic sensibilities, the applied arts incorporate design and creative ideals to objects of utility, such as a cup, magazine or decorative park bench.
The fields of industrial design, graphic design, fashion design, interior design, decorative art and functional art are considered applied arts.
In a creative context, the fields of architecture and photography are considered applied arts.
Fine art refers to arts that are "concerned with beauty or which appealed to taste". The term was first attested in 1767, as a translation from the French term beaux arts and designates a limited number of visual art forms, including painting, sculpture, and printmaking. Schools, institutes, and other organizations still use the term to indicate a traditional perspective on the visual arts, often implying an association with classic or academic art.
The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline. This definition tends to exclude visual art forms that could be considered craftwork or applied art, such as textiles. The more recent term visual arts is widely considered to be a more inclusive and descriptive phrase for today’s variety of current art practices, and for the multitude of mediums in which high art is now more widely recognized to occur. Ultimately, the term fine in ‘fine art’ comes from the concept of Final Cause, or purpose, or end, in the philosophy of Aristotle. The Final Cause of fine art is the art object itself; it is not a means to another end except perhaps to please those who behold it.
A) If you don’t even understand the base of the claim why are you arguing. Do you always argue about things you don’t understand?
B) You didn’t use the word "fine" once in your original post.
C) You didn’t "talk" about art or design – your post was 3 lines long and notibly obnoxious (which was probably the biggest motivator for me to reply in the first place).
D) The remainder of the quoted text is irrelevant as "fine art" was not used in this argument until now.
You didn’t get what I said at that point. But hopefully, you will soon.
The point in your first reply was moot and failed in its relevance as a reply due to its vaguity. It was like arguing that apples are green when I had originally said oranges are orange.
Of course. And the "fine" word will make everything clearer.
It does, but it is also not relevant to any posts previous to your own with respect to the argument.
Now is the moment to re-read this part with the omitted "fine" word.
See above. You can’t say: "Re-read my post now with an additional word in it" as part of an argument. That ship has sailed. My original reply was in response to your post without the "fine" prefix.
So am I. And as a matter of fact, I’d really enjoy seeing what professional work you’ve got.
Same to you. I’ll upload something I’ve been working on recently.
That was a really good demonstration of the basics, but the "knowledge" part is partially wrong, technically speaking, and I’ll get to that a bit later. As for the rest, the omitted word (and it is no excuse) makes this mouthful pretty useless.
I’ll reply to the "knowledge" part of this quote below.
The omitted word was a word you placed into an excerpt from your original post that wasn’t originally there. You can’t invalidate a post replying to your original argument by editting the argument after its original conception.
Therefore, the only useless action is the use of this prefix within a previously conceived post. Using "fine" in present and future posts is fine (no pun intended) but trying to integrate it into previous posts only declares your own past entries irrelevant.
You’re effectively saying "My old posts were crap because they lacked this word".
That babbling is meaningless now that you understand what I meant by art. I did mention that Nomura is a design artist after all.
What you "meant" by art is irrelevant until now as you failed to be specific with your definition at the time. You loosely weavered the term "art" without the prefix of "fine" but then tried to attack my post suggesting I was vague.
That, incidentally, was the irony that I spoke of.
I never said or implied that it didn’t or couldn’t cross-over. At all.
You didn’t state it, but you did imply it:
You’re obviously the one mixing up art with design. Amano’s work is concidered art while Nomura is concidered design.
Any professional in the field will tell you that. Whether you like a style or not doesn’t change these facts.
That’s an implication.
As for the short sentences I use, I prefer going with straight to the point sentences than going through long explanatory sessions like you do. Which, like you, would end up being redundant.
There’s either two ways to argue a point:
A) Long explanatory "sessions" as you put it
or
B) Shorter "to the point" sentences that are specific in their convictions.
If you’re not original specific, such as using a specific term such as "fine art", then you’re not succeeding in getting "to the point" so a short sentence doesn’t suffice.
That’s not really ironic. I was adressing what I concidered at the time as a bad interpretation of your idea of what art versus design is.
If you considered it bad "at the time" then does this suggest you don’t now? If this is the case then I suggest we hold hands and skip into the sunset from here on rather than argue.
So to better explain, here’s something that you should already know if you really are a professional (I indeed guess that you would have gone through some higher level studies, even if your "high school level" explanation (no hard feeling, just saying what I saw there) didn’t quite make me think that way):
Applied arts refers to the application of design and aesthetics to objects of function and everyday use. Whereas fine arts serve as intellectual stimulation to the viewer or academic sensibilities, the applied arts incorporate design and creative ideals to objects of utility, such as a cup, magazine or decorative park bench.
The fields of industrial design, graphic design, fashion design, interior design, decorative art and functional art are considered applied arts.
In a creative context, the fields of architecture and photography are considered applied arts.
Fine art refers to arts that are "concerned with beauty or which appealed to taste". The term was first attested in 1767, as a translation from the French term beaux arts and designates a limited number of visual art forms, including painting, sculpture, and printmaking. Schools, institutes, and other organizations still use the term to indicate a traditional perspective on the visual arts, often implying an association with classic or academic art.
The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline. This definition tends to exclude visual art forms that could be considered craftwork or applied art, such as textiles. The more recent term visual arts is widely considered to be a more inclusive and descriptive phrase for today’s variety of current art practices, and for the multitude of mediums in which high art is now more widely recognized to occur. Ultimately, the term fine in ‘fine art’ comes from the concept of Final Cause, or purpose, or end, in the philosophy of Aristotle. The Final Cause of fine art is the art object itself; it is not a means to another end except perhaps to please those who behold it.
Firstly, this is not "knowledge" – its terminology. The two things are not the same, and when arguing on a board which 99.9% of its members are not artists I choose not to use terminology or jargen.
For example, if I asked average posters on these boards:
"What happens to a person who has an AMI?"
They’d probably not have a clue, even though they know the answer. That’s because they wouldn’t know what an "AMI" is. If I asked:
"What happens to a person who has a heart attack?"
Then I’d get replies and discussion.
Point is, jargen kills discussion.
Secondly, electing to not use such terminology does not invalidate an argument, even though I concede it can make it difficult for those who have tunnel vision with regards jargen (which is common in those who work within an industry using the terminology such as yourself).
Thirdly, I agree, the prefix "fine" does SO much to define a discipline of artwork – if it is actually used. Your original post did not include the use of this prefix, nor did it include the prefix "applied" in any part of it. I realise this goes against my own views of using jargen but that’s why I post longer replies.
While now you’re being specific your original post was as vague as a politician. Furthermore, this newest post is still a work-around – all it does is attempt to invalidate my original reply by adding a prefix to a term from your first post but due to its retrospective nature it fails in said invalidation attempt.
My first reply was a response to your first post. Chronologically it came after your original post and thus it can’t now be invalidated by saying you meant to say "fine arts" in a post previously – that’s just tough luck.
However, it does at least clarify your opinion. It also demonstrates the fact that we’ve been arguing past and around each other’s posts throughout this entire thread because your opinion is not at odds with my own.
That’s not exactly mysterious either since my post was aimed all along to back yours up.
So, to hopefully tie all this up I’ll put it to you what my original post was saying using the same terms you defined yourself:
People in this thread were looking at the applied arts of Nomura and evaluating this work from fine art viewpoint/context, regardless of whether you think that is possible or not. Then, unaware of crossing over the viewpoints, they were using this fine art based evaluation to back-up their opinion on his work from an applied arts standpoint.
For example (should’ve said this originally): "That machine design is awesome because it’s painted in a pretty way".
A simple criss-cross and hence my post suggesting the possible confusion of many posters in the thread.
I wanted to clear up my side of things. As far as I’m concerned we’ve been arguing past and around each other for the best part of a 2 week period which is a waste of time for both of us. If you want to post a reply then fine but as far as I’m concerned that’s that and we’ve distortedly agreed all along.
Haha ye, it’s no problem, that last post was my final word on the debated topic anyway.
Incidentally, does anyone have a link to the Dissidia concept art? I’ve found Nomura’s Ultimecia design but can’t find the rest.
My last post was to clarify my first one. I admited that because of my work, I tend to just use the word "art" when I’m talking about fine art (what I studied), and all the other "specialties" using their own labels (design, fashion, architecture, etc…). It took me a while to understand why you didn’t understand what I meant, even after multiple read of my original comment.
When I first read your comment, I got confused because you introduced the subject by presenting a possible confusion arising in the mind of the commenters here. So after that introduction, I thought you were elaborating on that (the confusion between design and artwork) but you talked about Amano’s faces… and lost me there. When you mentioned artwork, I heard the words "technique", "flow", "application" and various others. Of which it is undeniable that Amano has the uper-hand.
Now that you’ve explained yourself, I understand better the word that you were trying to tell me. Which was more in the line of "style".
In any case, I still didn’t like that you had to pinpoint everything I said, and repeated what I had already admited. That my omitance of the word "fine" (which wasn’t luck, by the way. If you read my original comment again, you’ll see that it was my point of view all along) made my view on the subject confusing if not completely incoherent.
Again, I’m sorry for the passionate response I gave you, and gladly accept to go walk hand in hand with you at the foot of a rainbow on a grassy hill filled with flowers during sunset. ^^
Seriously, if you want to take this conversation further (not the hand in hand part, dumbass:P) feel free to PM me.
Online Casino South Africa
Online Casino New Zealand
Online Casino India
Online Casino Australia
Online Casino UK
Online Casino Canada
