Do you think that...

[requiett]

Do you think that you can judge the intimate details of a person's character based on their artistic output?

Isn't that the point of art?

[Beowulf]

Do you think that you can judge the intimate details of a person's character based on their artistic output?

Isn't that the point of art?

shh, you'll give away the ending!

[Fall_Child42]

What this thread is actually about is

"HEY GUYS I MET TARANTINO AND YOU FAGS DIDN'T. BASK IN MY AWESOMENESS."



and i think art CAN express oneself, but doesn't nessacarily.

but in order to properly answer this question you'd have to define "art", which is impossible, so the question is pointless.

[godix]

I'd certainly hope not. If so that means 80% of the org are fat fucking nerds who desperately wish they could beat people up and be cool. 19% of the org are fat fucking nerds who wish they could talk to chicks without drolling all over themselves and be cool. 1% of the org is actually people of some interest. That's some shitty percentages there, although I wouldn't be that surprised if what I just described is true.

[Kionon]

What this thread is actually about is

"HEY GUYS I MET TARANTINO AND YOU FAGS DIDN'T. BASK IN MY AWESOMENESS."

rodriguez is cooler

[CodeZTM]

Meh. I can see it. I can see it clearly. I think that the editors really do express themselves and their being based on the content of editing skill. While like what Godix said is true, and how it is scary to believe what these people are like, I think we might as well face the truth.

[Abyss1]

Well quality is my main ingredient, as in the overall composition, is it lacking areas, if not then that person show a lot of charicter, but people who become one-sided tend to produce works that reflect a narrow creative stream.

[TaranT]

Example: Daniel Chang makes lots of cartoon romance video using sappy 80s songs, so he must have a sappy and unrealistic view of love and women.

OR...considering the crowd of fangirls in his wake, he may have a perfectly realistic view of love and women, or at least, young women.

And how could you tell the difference between one conclusion or the other without a waving of hands to sense the waves coming off his brain?

Sometimes a video...is just a video.

[Lick]

I think requiett made a very good point. Real art should hold a part of the creator in it, but this must be not be visible straight away. Just saying, that guy makes comedy vids, so he must be a funny or happy guy, is too simplistic. The character of the creator must be found in somewhat subtler forms, like finding a pattern in views shown on subjects, in how he/she works while making something, in the style a person uses, or just in materials used.

The point is art should be subtle in telling the viewer about the artist, but should and is don't always fall into place, so you get what Cornwiggle mentioned; people who just make stuff out of what interests them, which is one of the most easily discovered part of a person.

Btw
This topic suddenly made me rediscover the point I was making in my short essay on esthetics. So thanks guys.

[Cornwiggle]

Nah, I think it's more on their interests, not character.

Tarantino might like writing about women being raped and gory violence, but I don't think he'd be the one to go out and rape some hoes and then shoot up a bank one night.

Your simplifying too the point of negating the entire point of the thread.

I would say your interests ARE your character, or at least the pac-man sized portion of that pie chart.

I definitely agree that it is indeed a piece of your nature. But I don't think that someone can grasp a good understanding of someone's nature from something like their AMV preferences.

For example, I don't like to make romance videos, I hate it. But I like all that romance gooey stuff more often than not. You would never have gotten that from watching any of my videos...it's a piece of it, but you can't understand someone's nature through so small a piece.