Is a Building Texture a piece of Art or is it a tool?

Tatanya, it's very nice that you think highly enough of your room mate to rush to his defense. But let's take a breath for a moment. Nothing I said here was in any way a judgment about Von himself. It was nothing more than direct response to his own statements. It's the statements that are in judgment, not his character, personal worth, intelligence level, or any other measure of his value.

He very well may be a great guy. He probably is, since clearly you seem to like him so much. But that doesn't change the fact that much of what he said here was either inaccurate, nonsensical, or both.

I'll respond to your questions one at a time. Please take the responses for what they are. Don't read too much into them. I don't know Von from a hole in the wall, so I've got no ability to judge him in any way. All I know is what he's written. Please try to see my responses in that context. My intent is not to hurt anyone's feelings, just to keep the facts straight.




That would be pretty much everything he's said about music thus far. Need some examples? Here you go:

1. He said "You can't copyright a riff made from existing notes." This is nonsensical. Every riff, by definition, is made from existing notes. There are no notes that don't already exist. No one invents notes. By Von's words, either he doesn't know what a note is, he doesn't know what a riff is, or both.

2. He implied a progression of three chords or less is not a song. In reality, a great many songs have three chords or less.

3. When I pointed out that lots of (copyrighted) songs have three chords or less, he said there was "other stuff" going on besides the chords, proving he doesn't understand in the slightest how music is actually structured. All notes in every song are elements of chords. There is no "other stuff" at all.

Need I go on?




Since it wouldn't be proper to ask for RL info on anyone, we've obviously got no way to verify that. But I must say, it's awfully difficult to reconcile that description with what was written in this thread so far. If your description is accurate, then it sounds like he's probably an individual with a good degree of raw talent, but not much understanding of the logic behind what he's doing.

That's not a slight against him in any way. It's entirely possible to be a good player, and even a good intuitive composer, without knowing what you're doing.



Laugh all you want. He opened the box for speculation all by himself when he said "I suppose you're better than me at guitar." My response was simply to say I have no idea how good or bad he might be, but my best guess would be he's probably mediocre, since most guitarists are. That's not a judgment in any way. That's simply playing the odds. I'm not sure what's funny about it. It's nice that you're such a fan of his, though.




Again, it's nice that you think so highly of the guy. But really, let's not take the conversation in that direction, OK? As I said, this isn't about anyone personally, and I'd like to keep it that way. It's only about what was written, not about who wrote it. My responses have only been to the words. I make no judgments about the quality of the person behind them.




He is a rock star, huh? If that's true, good for him. Tell me, where can I buy tickets for his next arena concert appearance? In what stores can I buy his records?

I've never been a rock star myself, in that I never launched a record with major label backing, and I never headlined a tour, and I'm certainly not a household name. I have lived and worked as a professional musician, though, which is hardly the same thing. Are you telling me VonGluckstein in RL actually IS a household name, and he does headline tours, and that his records are on store shelves all over the world? Or is he, like the rest of us, just one of the countless thousands of performing musicians who exist in our respective local scenes, and maybe go on tour once in a while?

I do happen to know several rock stars personally. I won't go into details for obvious reasons, but I can promise you you know their names. I have yet to meet a single one who would speak with such utter ignorance about music as what Von wrote here. The "you can't make a riff from existing notes" comment pretty much said it all. That was one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. The only conclusion I can draw from that is either he's got no clue or he enjoys pretending he knows less than he actually does. You know him, so I'll leave it to you to figure out which it is.

Just a quick note as this thread seems to be lingering on the "wrong" subject unrelated to its "original intention" - a question Von had about textures but somehow got off subject(how did that happen?):

I do believe when Von said there was "other stuff" going on besides chords he was referencing the fact that this blog was "created" with a question about textures and it was his intention to keep on subject (*Textures*) - not "music".

I can certainly understand how someone reading that might misinterpret the general meaning and purpose of the statement and place the "other stuff" statement as a blanket statement related to the subject that was changed at hand *music* but it assuredly was not. That's what happens when people turn subjects, I guess.

So here we are, let's change the subject back now to textures (which I personally know nothing about and therefore will not have to continue responding to this blog which I find disconcerting)....

Enjoy your texture conversations~

Many moons ago I was into photography. One of my buddies was into photography as well. We could both take a photograph of the exact same subject and his were always far better than mine. He had a natural eye for it where as I had to work and think and stumble. His photographs were indeed art.

If he were to take a photo of a brick wall, I'm sure he would have made it interesting in some way or another. That was his art. Now, if both of use where to turn his photograph into a texture for a building, well, that's my art.

I tend to see craftsmanship as an art. He can craft photographs far better than I can, and I can craft textures far better than he can. Some people call it execution of technique.

I'm sure if Leigh van der Byle were to do a brick wall, it would most certaintly stand out as a work art. It would stand out far beyond just snapping a pic and cropping.

I don't know if it IS art (or an art), but I do know that it CAN be.

exactly - if it is a stand alone photo that is artistic where there is cool lighting and dramatic effects or angles, yes.. that is a expressive piece of work and thats what photographers do and that's what makes them good or bad.

Paart of making a building texture seamless is to basically strip it of all shading , and all anomalies that would stand out. Basically you are making it as boring and flat as it can be in order not to look bad when repeated. If the source photo has too much expression to begin with it makes it a unusable source for a repeating texture.

So to simply document or copy a wall at a dead angle with completely even lighting and then further making it more boring by making it seamless, is utilitarian in nature .. far from artistic.. more like a job.

If you make a brick wall texture like that, then chances are good that I wouldn't call it a work of art. Same old same old and boring.

Now, a brick wall texture doesn't have to anything near monotonous. I'm sure that's how most folks see it, but there are always places you can break the monotony to make it different or interesting.

The first place I would start would be the shadows. They most certaintly do not have to be black. Try dark purple or dark blue. This is something that pixel artists have been doing in video games for many years. Or, if you get the gumption, use a variety of blues and purples together.

The second place I would break it up would be in the hue. Bricks do not have to be a flat hue or even a small selection of tight hues. Toss in some orange and magenta.

The third place I would break it up would be the bumpy texture. I would layer this up in several different ways using frequencies for a variety of different looks.

One thing I have been known to do is to sneak things in that don't belong yet some how work. What would happen if you took a photograph of grass and layered it over the bricks in a sublte way? Can you sneak in a photo of a face in the low frequencies that becomes apparent only when viewed from a distance?

What monotomy defines a brick wall texture? Where can you put in interesting variety without breaking the defining monotomy?

"Even a brick wants to be something."

Von, Tat, y'all didn't clearly didn't understand my answer, but I reckon it's the best one y'all are gonna get. Y'all asked a meaningless question. "Is it art or is it a tool" is like asking "is it sexy or is it orange".

So your explanation is that when he said, "all the songs mentioned have other stuff going on besides the chords", he wasn't actually talking about the songs, even though he said very clearly that he was? Wow. Ever thought of running for office, Tatanya?





Will do.

They also seem to be ignoring my answers, which boil down to what Aristotle said 2500 years ago. Art imitates or improves on nature, and it is what the artist and his (her) public decide that it is. People have been asking the same question for thousands of years. Sorry, but you're not going to get a better answer in an on-line forum.

Yes, once you start getting creative and adding elements that transform it, then you are applying artistic expression. And yes that will also be very visible and obvious by looking at it because it is no longer just a copy. I tend to remove more detail as I go rather than add when going for seamless. The trick there is knowing at which point the texture becomes too bland and make yourself stop evening out before you mutilate it..

I will have to start adding subliminal messages of some kind of Joy or Gretel or Barbie to my boring brick.. that is a great technique. It is great that only you end up knowing what is really on there. And everybody will think my Brick is sexy .. and hot..and not know why.

Actually I did, and the answer showed me an angle that a non artist would be likely to have. In a way that is very correct, but I am fishing more from input from other creators. There are different kinds of artists, like in every field. Honest ones will admit when something is not art, while the fakers and scammers will insist that anything they touch is art because they touched it and are trying to generate a image that they are so cool that everything they touch must turn to Gold.. or else...

Hopefully the general public will know which to appreciate more, chances are that if a artist says.. hey this is not art.. it was just a test or a mistake or this didn't take me any effort at all.. it was so easy , its a joke.. .. it will turn out to be more desirable, and not to mention rare...

Not ignoring, it was probably that your answers were just a little Overpowered by some other answers. Online Forum? hmm Some of the answers were actually pretty interesting. I know what to expect, but I was also hoping to find some angles that I didn't know about on the subject. If you felt ignored.. sorry, it was not intended, but I absorb all/

and thousands of years, that was before the intornetz back when art had to be considered art and highly recommended, in order for you to travel on foot all uphill for 3 weeks to go see a piece of art.

I was right, you didn't understand my answer.

The most persistent problem with the question "what is art?" is that we far too often fall into the trap of expecting some flourish of skill within a piece, which simply isn't the case, by modern standards at least.

A work of art is the result of an engagement between what is there and the individual's perception of it. The art is the result of a marked alteration in the individual's thought and feeling and how those qualities of perception are applied in the experience of the piece. This is why many historically famous artists tended to wait a long time, often dying, before popular perception caught up with the true nature of their work to recognise their achievements as art.

The single greatest achievement of modern art was to put the question of technical accomplishment in the dumpster where it belongs, encouraging us to focus on what an artwork 'says' as opposed to how it has been 'finished'.

Good craftsmanship is just that: a good job well done by an experienced hand, which isn't to denigrate the work at all. My basement is covered with a seamless brick texture by AXEI Foley which I chose because it has a rich yet subtle variation of colour and tone. It is visually stimulating without showing a repetitive secondary pattern across the walls. It is a work of tremendous skill and technical accomplishment but it is not art.

If I were to take that texture and apply it in such a way that it retained its essential qualities but became more than what it is through its application, I would have a work of art and I would be the artist.

As it happens, I simply have very handsome basement walls.

What is art?

Depends on what the viewer of said "art" decides. By some of the definitions I've read so far in this thread it's getting a little more confusing for me. It shouldn't be that way........each of us has a very clear understanding of exactly what we, as individuals, know as art. No one, not even our resident king "artist", can tell us what exactly is art. By consenses anything can become art..........but that does not make it art to everyone. Using the general "popular" definition being applied here I'm an artist (now that is a real stretch........LOL).

http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn474/PeggyPaperdoll/Multitonebrickswithdarkgrout1024.jpg

http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn474/PeggyPaperdoll/background.jpg

Why is that art? Hmmmm........because I say so and my real life partner agrees with me. That's what I've read so far anyway........but, is it art? Probably not.........one is a doodle I did for my desktop wallpaper. The other is something I made for a house I built. Both are more tools than art. Both are "from scratch". Both were for my enjoyment more than for anyone elses appreciation. Neither are for sale.........both can be copied and used in any fashion anyone wants to use them for. AND, you don't even need to credit me for them.

If you consider them art....thank you. If you consider them a novelty, I agree with you. If you consider them junk..........well, I can see your point there too.

So, to the OP.........my opinion is that textures made for building purposes would fall into the category of "tools". If the textures would be on the level of the Mona Lisa then that would fall in the art category. I don't think many, if any, building textures quite reach that level of artistic quality.

thanks for sharing your oppinion

Chances are that you are more of an artist than you know. At least you have a good attitude about your work.

I wonder what Andy Warhol would tell you about all the junk of his that is being passed off as art, when surely he would laugh at the pure stupidity of people spending money on it.

If I create something nice because I want it to be admired and it turns out good enough for me to admire it, then I might call it art. If I make something with the intent, that other people will use to make art with it, I step aside and let them take the credit for being the artist and I will quietly take the money and be the supplier. I have created many things that the general public would consider art, while I personally think it is total garbage because I know that it was a series of accidents or mistakes or I used the wrong tool or approach to create it and someone would be able to point out all my mistakes.

I am seeing a lot of very aggressive" I am an Artist and no matter what, everything I make is art and you can't tell me otherwise! " attitude in the digital world and it honestly freaks me out.

Ah, but the discussion isn't about quality. That's another nasty argument to get into sometime. The OP asked about "art," whatever that is. Grandma Moses became quite famous in her elderly years for painting in a style that is remarkably similar to the stuff that parents of kindergarteners put on their refrigerators. Her work is generally acclaimed as high quality art. I think that many people would agree that kids' paintings are art also -- just not as sophisticated and culturally rooted as Grandma Moses' ones. Art isn't just what sells, or what the critics swoon over. It's what the creator and those who appreciate it say that it is. The amount of swooning and the money are crude measurements of quality, not of whether the work is art.

The discussion here seems to get bogged down over the question of whether art can be utilitarian or whether, having been made to serve a purpose, it stops being art and becomes a "tool." Personally, I think that's a silly line to draw. It's the line that tends to divide "craft artists" from "fine artists," falsely implying that one is better than the other, or that craft is not art at all. Art is art, the creative product of a human mind's vision of the world, regardless of what the creator or others decide to do with it. It doesn't stop being art because you decide to wallpaper your basement with it instead of putting it in a frame to hang on the wall.

Whoaaa whooo!!!

I'm not alone.

Certainly not, if we're talking about quality. I don't think you'll get much disagreement that there's a lot of really bad digital artwork out there. There's a lot of bad "conventional" art too. I sneer with most people at paintings of dogs playing poker and velvet paintings of Elvis. I even share Von's assement of Op Art, in general. It just doesn't turn me on. Those are all quality arguments, though. They aren't about whether the work is art or not. The Romans had it right: there's little point in arguing about matters of taste. We'll never agree. The real test is Aristotle's ... is the work a creation of the human mind that is in some way a metaphor for the real or imagined world? If so, even if it's a bad interpretation, it's art.

That's strange, I thought the question was "Is a Building Texture a piece of Art or is it a tool?". Sort of hard to miss I guess......it's the title of the thread afterall. I answered the question..........I think it's a tool. But you are right about this thread getting bogged down on "what is art". As always, when you get in a discussion about art you get the self claimed artists with all sorts of distractions with all the "reasons" their personal views are superior to anyone elses.

You know an argument that a shovel is a work of art can be made.......and the "true" artists will defend that argument to the death. But, it's just a tool. Perhaps an artist tool but it's purpose for even being is it's a tool.

Haha........I wasn't referring to that at all.

Some people are tools too (and I don't mean that in a utilitarian way).

I see a lot of the usual bull in this thread about people thinking art is bull when they're only really talking about the way art is used as glorified money bonds or another excuse to guzzle wine and cheese at an opening. The whole point is that there is an infinite range of possibilities for anything to be something other than what it appears to be at first glance.

If you don't get it, you don't get it: take your shovel, dig the garden and be happy.

Art is a flaming sword that burns all the way down to the pommel.

You sure a flaming sword that burns all the way down to the pommel isn't just a flaming sword that burns all the way down to the pommel?