I made this little typo right now and oddly enough I was sent to bigbot.com.

It's cheap on bigbots part and I thought I would share how another boards are feeding off this board.

That is all

Thanx
Transbot90210

 

Man, what I wonder is when they're going to, you know, jump into the future and use graphics, or even some web-design.

HOSTED BY GEOCITIES for the win y'all!

 

Yeah, they've done that for awhile.

 

Do you know what would be even more radical then that? Actual content, other then lists of links to shops and the odd 5+ year old picture gallery.

 

It's like compuserve all over again.

Contact me at [email protected] and I'll link you to my homepage full of animated gifs and flashing text. Up to 1 hour to download everything! YEAH!

 

Get rare and hard to find Alternators, Cybertron and G1 toys.

 

thats ok, www.bigbot.info

 

 

Actually that should read "list of links, at least 90% of which are dead, to shops that have been out of business or generally incognito for the past 10 years"  

 

That's right, I forgot you were a sympathizer.

Don't get too down on yourself.  


(btw, you never answered my question as to the difference between a "music video" and a "work of art.")

 

wow, I used to go on there all the time about 5 years ago...still looks the same...

 

the fandom's equivalent to coprolite; old but practically worthless.

 

If you don't know I'm not telling  




No seriously, I just thought the technical merit and softness of the music made it beyond the label of "music video". I suppose there is no difference, it's just wasn't something you don't see every day. So kudos.

 

What if the guy that makes the Video is named Art?

 

Then it'd be a great pun  

 

Not really what I meant.

Allow me to rephrase - would you consider YOUR music videos "works of art?" Afterall, what constitutes a work of art? What about Cobra Commanders? My others?

It seemed that you distinguish the two, whereas, I consider all music videos - regardless of editor or content - to be art. It's just a different form of art than say, 3D modeling or Photoshop coloring or inking.

 

if i can chime in (since i'm inclined to participate in this sort of discussion, academic interest).

MV is a medium. its vocabulary is relatively new, no more than a quarter century. you can do a really, really good to great music video, but its always dodgy to claim something of a derivative nature 'art' (i'll take this opportunity that remind that art itself is subjective, hence the cliche 'but is it art?').

personal opinion, something is art when it transcend medium. for me, this way something less than technical proficient may still lay this claim. ergo, just because you make a really technically sound MV doesnt make it art. its just an accomplished piece of work (just like the really good painter who reproduces excellent painting is not necessarily an artist).

an example of something that transcend medium? say, michael jordan. sure lotta ppl can dunk, but MJ dunked with consistent artistry. so much so that it even appealed to those outside of basketball fans. so much so that it used to be when someone mentions slam dunking, they think 'oh, air jordan'.

going back to the video thing, the fact is its hard to do the medium without being derivative is why a guy like baz luhrman can lose out in the oscar. he in fact introduced musicals to a new generation, but because the work was part unoriginal, itll always be disputed.

 

Optimus Prime is over 20 years old, and yet our "fan artists" recreate him all the time.

 

KA I seem to remember the Beatles doing music videos too, and it's been over 35 years since they were together, and 25 years since J. Lennon's death.

 

jux,

purely semantics, but 'work of art' and 'artist' use the word differently. 'artist' is a easier catch all noun(?) for one who dabbles in art be it draw/ink/color/digital, whereas 'work of art' is...i cant really explain better than i already have above. i have no intention of demeaning anybody's work but i just believe theres a distinction between works inspired and works that inspire.

again, pure semantics, but the art field has always been pretentious like that. even warhol's work took time before it was considered serious.

(warhol's work is another example where using interpretation he can claim its art, yet the product itself on its own devoid of context is just pure graphic).