/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6940282
>makes new art general
>doesnt post work
lol lmao

>>6940282

>>6940423
'Pure art' is the artistic equivalent of 'pure mathematics': the 'hard' branch is the axiomatized expression while the 'soft' branch is the naturalistic one (imitation). The current state of the arts is mostly soft (perhaps with the exception of music), which prevents efficient creation.

If the hard branch is defined, there will be an exponential artistic growth.

>>6940282
>>6940440
If you're serious, is there some way I can contact you? I crave this kind of discussion but there's no way that it will flourish here

>>6940440
>'Pure art' is the artistic equivalent of 'pure mathematics': the 'hard' branch is the axiomatized expression while the 'soft' branch is the naturalistic one (imitation). The current state of the arts is mostly soft (perhaps with the exception of music), which prevents efficient creation.
Pure mathematics requires creativity, it's not about crunching numbers or combining axioms anymore. Discovering some peculiar proof techniques, sets of axioms, weird paradoxes, is almost magical.

There's not that much critical progress in science, in part because most people aren't really creative. Same problem as in art. Studying what you call the "hard visual arts", as described in the OP, won't allow exponential progress, for the same reason that studying pure mathematics won't make truly great mathematician either.

>>6940282
insane the shit some of you retards come up with just to not draw...

>>6940282
interesting
do you have a book, youtube channel or something?
I want to learn more

>>6940282
sex

>>6940282
Let's just talk and write today for hours and hours
-Kim Jung Gi

>>6940282
>brotherhood
>entropy
> biformisms
You made this shit up didn’t you

>>6940484
Perhaps the direct comparison with pure mathematics is not the most appropriate (the term can be changed), the important thing is its definition: "congenital/psychological laws that determine 'aesthetic pleasure' when a stimulus is experienced".

Universal axioms, not vague rules like: 'replicate what you see', 'you have to improve your posture'.

What is 'what you see'? How is the empirical stimulus conditioned in people's minds? What is art? What is pleasure?

These are the questions that pure&hard art (perhaps wrongly called, I don't know) studies.

In the same way that the formalization of natural phenomena into mathematical laws allowed technological development, the formalization of aesthetics/mind would allow art to develop enormously.

>>6940282
As I understand it, you want to discuss the WHY and perhaps HOW we perceive things as appealing or beautiful?

>>6940539
You OP is confusing, unhelpful, and doesn't provide any examples. Do you have any work you could post that shows what you're talking about? Your questions/things you want to discuss are statements, not exploratory questions. Is this for your PhD/PsyD thesis or something? I don't want to give anyone free research material.

>>6940282
Lay off the grass.

>>6940282
There are birds that make nests and decorate them and then the female assesses the nests to determine if the potential mate is viable. What I’m wondering is if the beauty of their nests when judged by humans would correlate with reproductive success.

>>6940539
Exactly! I know that some will say: 'art is subjective'... but I don't think that's entirely true: if we compare 'big mouth' with 'hello kitty' (silly examples, I know) I think 90% would say the kitten as more aesthetically pleasing, isn't it? Which means that there are certain rules of aesthetics outside the cultural context that can be studied.

>>6940581
People that say art is subjective are mostly non-artists. There is a wide range of taste and different things that people like, but it doesn't take away from basic appeal. If art was completely subjective, we would have no fundamentals at all. Even "outsider art" has its own type of fundamentals, and even uses things like composition.

>>6940541
I like creating things, but I hate wasting energy and time on inefficient results. For this reason I seek to discover the 'hidden logic of art' (hard) that allows me to express myself freely and efficiently. The current (soft) paradigm that everyone points out as holy truth, for me, is redundant, clumsy and inefficient. And it will be even more so with the rise of artificial intelligence!

In any case, this is not a selfish initiative; I believe that formalized art would allow other authors to free themselves from the chains of the cultural context and express themselves sincerely.

The authors that I observe who have come (partially) closer to this truth are what are called 'creative geniuses' for example:

Anime tradition (understanding the relationship between complex and simple forms)

Chris Ware/George Herriman and Shintaro Kago (understanding of comic laws and composition)

>>6940523
>Universal axioms, not vague rules like: 'replicate what you see', 'you have to improve your posture'.
Those aren't that vague, unless you overthink.

> What is art? What is pleasure?
When you have such questions, head to the words's etymology.

> I hate wasting energy and time on inefficient results
Then walk into the footsteps of more experienced people, don't try to outsmart them too much before you've reached their level. This works for art, but also for "formalizing art": read what Plato, Aristotle said about aesthetics, look into ancient architecture treatises (the human body was often used as a template for proportions in cathedrals for example) and so forth.

Don't look for shortcuts, don't look for ready-made answers, don't expect random 4channers to be more insightful that treatises and books who have endured for literally millennia.

The learning process is always slow. It'll take you years of dedicated work to "formalize art", you won't do it in two months. In part because it'll require you to get practical experience with art along the way.

>people who can barely grasp Thales theorem talking about what pure maths is.

kek keep sticking crayons up your noses

>>6940633
You talk a lot, let me simplify your idea.

In HVA context, the influence of the 'great masters' can be summarized as follows: [See ugly image made in paint] But this does not bring you closer to the definition of congenital psychological structures [the main objective of HVA], only allows you to use the 'accepted knowledge' efficiently. It's like learning an old trick and repeating it over and over again. There is no ability to create new non-arbitrary things.

>>6940581
>if we compare 'big mouth' with 'hello kitty' (silly examples, I know) I think 90% would say the kitten as more aesthetically pleasing, isn't it?
I'm pretty sure this is because of the infant schema. Figures more closely aligning with our ingrained image of infantilism are more likely to elicit a positive response in us. This is why anime and "chibi" are popular: they are more baby-like.

>>6940786
nta but is that image you posted actually something smart or pseud giga sperg numerology bullshit where you reduce all meaning to math and then call philosophers irrelevant

>>6940448
We can talk here, if we achieve mutual interest I can send you my personal discord :)

>>6940494
Because it is an apparently 'new area' and I thought there is no interest in these things everything I have developed is in my mind/personal notes. Maybe it's a good idea to publish them online in some way.

>>6940866
>my personal discord :)
Your entire personality is a maladaptive sham covering over a childhood wound, get help you faggot.

>>6940881
Why don't you go back to /b/? You are too rude to be here. I'm sharing something interesting, you just complicate things.

>What is 'what you see'? How is the empirical stimulus conditioned in people's minds? What is art? What is pleasure?
Bait thread, but nigger OP, aren't you just talking about the branch of philosophy commonly called "aesthetics"?

>>6940890
I was going to leave you alone to sperg out in your hug box, but now I fully intend to bully you to suicide.

>>6940898

Why do you argue with me? Let's be friends... I know that beneath that rebellious personality hides a good guy!

>>6940910
Yes, but I save that good guy for family and friends and co-workers, I come here exclusively to shit.

Is this thread trying to quantify aesthetics and appeal? Stop wasting your time, philosophers of old such as Pythagoras have already explored this concept and formulated/established the principles of aesthetics which are proportional to the meme ratio. Nothing is new under the sun.

>>6940895
>>6940921
If 'Schoopenuhuer' and his crazy friends had discovered what I'm talking about, they would have invented anime/lolis (like the ones in your image). Instead they only talk about fat and ugly old women in strange poses (like the generic art of artstation). All their theories are just a superficial description of much simpler (and less arbitrary) principles.

>>6940816
It's the latter, anon.

>>6940282
I'll continue the discussion in OP because there are some interesting concepts that I have come across in my own studies.

Firstly however, there is something I should make clear: You can't quantify that which never existed. Aesthetic appeal is unique to the mind experiencing it. What I find appealing and what you might find appealing may have some overlap, but due to the law of averages the wider your sample size the less and less specific will the definitions get, and eventually will lead to a zero sum, where nothing is truly appealing. This has been proven countless times by failed artists trying to create ultimate appeal and failing.

>Identification and simplification of conceptual PH/W primitives (such as: Flow, brotherhood, rhythm, color, author & observer, realism & symbolism, entropy).
These words have no meaning without context. There needs to be a definition of what concept you are referring to when using broad terms like "brotherhood", "entropy", "flow", and "rhythm". These terms can have multiple implications in the visual arts alone, and when I hear them I have to know in which context they are stated to properly discuss them.

>Literal propagation of biformisms.
word salad, once again no context to prove the linguistic statement, and thus cannot be understood for those without the context.
Define: Literal Propagation
Define: Biformism

>Local/general definition of 'aesthetics'.
As stated before, there is no quantification of appeal.
But If I'm reading this correctly, you want the 'local' understanding of what is pleasing.
for that I would recommend scrubbing the treads for images and then sorting wich ones get the most positive feedback, unless you want this general to become an inspiration thread.

I would recommend calling this thread the 'Hard Deconstruction General' next time, as that better defines the idea of the thread from what I can parse.

OP may be schizo or pseud, but I am here for it.

>>6940786
>You talk a lot, let me simplify your idea.
This made me laugh (the amount of projection).

> It's like learning an old trick and repeating it over and over again. There is no ability to create new non-arbitrary things.
It seems you're looking for shortcuts in learning art. Which mean you didn't extensively practiced learning from master. Which means your understanding of it is purely theoretical.

And I tell you, from a practical understanding, you're wrong. Feel free to start over from scratch. See in 10 years where you are, and reflect on whether this was a wise choice.

Bye.

Lately my biforms have have had less than ideal propagation. They are aesthetically complete, but lack conscious implementation of PH or W primitives. Who should I study if I wish to try incorporating that sort of thing?

>>6941094
I liked the other with his comic from 2004 better

>>6940282
>muh esoteric knowledge...
nobody ever posts any art they made with said knowledge...you fucking crabs...

>>6940282
Im gonna need a translator

>>6940440
>'Pure art' is the artistic equivalent of 'pure mathematics'
Only happened in your head.
>the 'hard' branch is the axiomatized expression while the 'soft' branch [...]
Preparing your manichean shit, but why not.
>is the naturalistic one (imitation). The current state of the arts is mostly soft (perhaps with the exception of music), which prevents efficient creation. If the hard branch is defined, there will be an exponential artistic growth.
Retardation confirmed.

You're still allowed drooling and doing your shits with your own money tho.

>>6940282
>PH/W primitives
I do not know what PH/W means.
>Literal propagation of biformisms
Literal spreading of theory/ideas/ideologies characteristic of having two forms simultaneously?
Are you taking the piss?

If you're actually wanting discussion and not just performing some advanced trolling, cut the technobabble and unexplained acronyms.

>>6940282
Pure art isn't pure anymore.
>since when
>since banks are involved in the money laundering
Pure art used to be elites and the powerful becoming patrons of an artist for life. They hire musicians to play music for the artist while he sculpts or paints. Royals, monarchs, oligarchs, dukes, and emperors, their taste top notch.

>>6941076
I consider your comment relevant, I will save it for future reference.

This thread, due to its 'novel' condition, is a 'schizo-pilot' to test people's reactions. What's the point of sharing something if it doesn't have an audience? With the information I have obtained, I now know what approach to give to the following iterations.

What I will comment below is a summarized version of something more complex: My 'congenital psychological structures' hypothesis assumes that we were all born with the same structures for interpreting the world (similar to Gestalt laws). These structures delimit the visual input and accordingly create a set of 'waves' used to request information from the brain. The nature of these waves determines the immediate aesthetic pleasure and the 'wave history' determines personal taste (see the ugly image in paint).

This is something I had to develop, but in this image you can get an idea of what I'm trying to communicate.

>I would recommend calling this thread the 'Hard Deconstruction General'

I will consider your advice.

and as usual with these retarded ass threads, no work.

>>6941841
> but the point is to develop the theory to reduce the practice time to get better quicker [because we're smarter that the smartest people of history who studied the theory of art]
:shrug:

>>6941720
Then it seems I was correct in my assumptions. We see the world much differently than the other folk here. Most see the world as a whole, and while the definitions and outlines of the world around them are simple, we see the depth that they hold. Worlds within Worlds of information, in axioms of logic, all creating a seemingly simple artwork.

>we were all born with the same structures for interpreting the world (similar to Gestalt laws). These structures delimit the visual input and accordingly create a set of 'waves' used to request information from the brain. The nature of these waves determines the immediate aesthetic pleasure and the 'wave history' determines personal taste

There is some truth in this Hypothesis, but I feel it needs to be expanded in accountance for variation in edge cases and use cases. In my own studies, I've observed that what you refer to as 'Biforms' (I've been referring to them as 'Atoms' myself in honor of the cynic tradition) are real, just deconstructed in different ways by different minds. As you have mentioned the 'Wave History' (I've been referring to it as a 'Visual Lexicon' or 'Lexa' in shorthand) contributed substantially to how the mind perceives these 'Biforms'.

I'd recommend the book 'Form, Space, and Vision' by Graham Collier. It goes into general understanding of visual artwork, from the perspective of an observer to art rather than a creator. It's an interesting perspective even to artists themselves as it is unfiltered deconstruction of how our creations are observed. Specifically I would recommend the Third Edition, which in our case more relevant to deconstruction than the other editions. It is a bit of an elusive book, so I am willing to scan my personal copy for the resources of the general if that would please you.

>>6941900
pyw crab

>>6942013
sure, I've been in the past OC thread practicing digital art with an intentionally hard to use pen. I'll draw something for you if you can guess.

an aislop thread died for this

>>6941900
I like finding people to talk to regarding this underexplored area :)

That book you mention, the ['biform', 'atom' ] have already been anticipated? Or rather is it an indirect vision that can complement/inspire our observations? What concepts from that book do you consider worth mentioning?

>so I am willing to scan my personal copy for the resources of the general if that would please you.

I'll be happy to add that book when you scan it!

>>6943193
>underexplored
It's not.
It's not.
It's not.

You just have been cut from your roots. That's all.

>unhinged /co/ tourist thread
Why is everyone from that board an actual lunatic?

>>6943486
They must be dumping chemicals in the water in south america and Europe because those fags have crippling autism from.what I seen.

>>6942013
alright, I'll stop posting inari's art and post my own after this post. don't want top false flag the fellow, I've just been deconstructing their art and taking what I like from it.
here is their twitter:
https://twitter.com/inari1369
I'll bring my own art next time I post, as a way to 'sign' my posts like OP recommends.

>>6943193
I'll scan to book then. It runs through the logical process of art rather than the expressive process that most artists describe in their art. It comes from a different time, written by an observer to the visual arts (he is a musician).
The main thesis is the cycle of form (atoms) on space (the medium of art). For an artistic context, this is partially already present in art circles, just in a diluted form.
as >>6943480 states, the fundamentals of rendering still apply, but in my analysis only cover a third of the book. The 'roots' of art remain the same, but we are observing them in their natural habitat, not in a vacuum as most artists tend to put them in. The core p[oints of the book are in the name:

>Form
as in what the artist around here call 'fundies' or the fundamentals of rendering often stated in shorthand as 'art'

>Space
how and what ways the form is placed on canvas, what the book calls the 'ground'. This goes through some less explored concepts in art, as like I stated in >>6941900 this comes naturally to the heavy majority of people. this is probably why there is such friction in the comments here. They don't understand that others can perceive the world drastically differently than they. 'ignorant dullards' if you will.

>Vision
The interaction between form and space, how they achieve aesthetic.This is the most abstract part of this book, as it can be applied to almost any art. It also is the most contextually relevant to this discussion. It's the moment where everything 'clicked' for me creatively, and cured me of having any form of creative block. it was the 'just draw' pill in heavy dosage.

>>6943570
No, no, no, no. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty#Conceptions, get the general idea, and read the old references. You guys are thinking of it from an extremely modern/superficial, viewpoint, with plenty of weird concepts.

If you have to invent words/notions to push forward, chances are you're doing it wrong. Again, it's extremely bold to think you can do better than the standards which have been upheld for millennia.

You need to start by studying the experts. THEN you branch out and try to do your thing. It's 101 research/teaching process.

The "problem" is that you guys follow the "modern philosophers" road: you have a superficial understanding of some aspects of science, but are unaware of how superficial it is. Deep scientific studies require tedious, very rigorous and creative intellectual training, it's much, much harder than what you think. You won't get far in a few days on a 4chan thread.

That difficult process is mandatory.

It's needed to get good at art, and it's also needed to get good at conceptualizing art, and more generally, to get good at anything remotely sophisticated.

It doesn't mean you shouldn't think for yourself or develop your own pet theories either. But don't be stubborn, don't live in your bubble, and learn from others.

Look at how many time I've repeated myself here already, only to be systematically ignored. Look at how stubborn you are. You simply can't be taught, you don't want to be taught:you don't want to learn.

I've watched a stream from David Finch + Jeff Watts yesterday. Finch said that among his students, those who struggled the most are those who can't set their ego aside, accept critiques & learn from others. Watts redefines "talent" as the ability to push through the pain to get gains: this is much more important than superficial innate abilities. Michelangelo said something similar.

Alright, that was my last attempt at helping you.

>>6943570
That book looks promising. The truth is that I can't talk much about such concepts until I have read the book. I need to reduce ambiguity/clarify ideas: know to what extent my concepts and those of that author coincide. I need to know if my 'biforms' are the same phenomenon treated by that author.

By the way, did you participate in the oc thread? Could you share some of your drawings? I am the author of this thread >>6943409

>>6943624
Your word is redundant and confusing @_@ Let me try to simplify it...

Basically what you are saying is: "I live in a context where '?' action (obeying an arbitrary set of rules) is valued by society and gives me gratification (respect, money), then I will replicate it." That's all.

You draw following a pattern because society says so, not because you 'understand' it.

On the other hand, we 'hard artists' ask ourselves the 'why' of those rules. We do not accept them simply because they are 'hegemonic'. And only when we understand them (and perhaps improve them) do we use them in our art. We are not interested in the pleasure of superficial applause, but in the pleasure of understanding. We observe reality, study it and experiment, trying to get closer to the 'fundamental truth'.

Another thing: why do you assume that we do not have traditional skills? Most of our ideas come from direct drawing/study of nature. Nobody here isolated themselves from the world and invented whimsical ideas. It's a 50/50 (think, observe)

My intention is not to be confrontational (I recognize the good intention of your words) I just want to clarify my perspective.

>>6943748
> Basically what you are saying is: "I live in a context where '?' action (obeying an arbitrary set of rules) is valued by society and gives me gratification (respect, money), then I will replicate it."
No. That's all in your mind, I haven't wrote that. I haven't even wrote "set of rules", "society" nor "gratification".

I wrote:
> You need to start by studying the experts. THEN you branch out and try to do your thing. It's 101 research/teaching process.
> It's needed to get good at art, and it's also needed to get good at conceptualizing art, and more generally, to get good at anything remotely sophisticated.

You can't skip that first step. Think about how people learn maths: they study well-known results, study well-known proofs techniques, etc. Then they move on to do research.

> You draw following a pattern because society says so, not because you 'understand' it.
No, twice. First, it's not about following patterns from society, but patterns established by experts, by knowledgeable people. How do you identify them? Well, chose those who have stood the test of time. Second, you follow them "blindly" alright, but precisely as a way to understand them. It's not about following like a sheep, without intelligence or desire for knowledge.

> Another thing: why do you assume that we do not have traditional skills?
Among others, because traditional skills are essentially acquired by studying one's master's works. And those who did know that overthinking only bring you this far, and that actual work is key. That's why people often say "just draw": because it's a common mistake for people to think too much, or make attempts to avoid having to do the tedious part.

> Alright, that was my last attempt at helping you.
Am I not kind & generous.

>>6943748
>>6943818
please stop posting.

>>6943820
they aren't even the same person

>>6943837
i know. i'm telling both of them to stop posting.

>>6943839
why? what's another stupid discussion on a board with discussions like these:
>>6939219
>>6937500
>>6940469
>>6942703
>>6939428
>>6935843
>>6938906

>>6943841
at least those threads weren't made by pretentious mongoloids who have no idea what they're talking about, or even why they're talking about it.

>>6943841
Missed a few
>>6937413
>>6943348
>>6940372
>>6943752
>>6943577
>>6941115

>>6943843
You were saying?

>>6943818
People like you who believe that everything in art has been discovered are the reason why the West cannot create something that competes with Eastern creativity (specifically Japan). Japan and its 'tezukist/anime' school has instinctively studied what is pointed out here (atoms, biforms) and it is the root of its 'power'.

I respect the Japanese enormously, but I dislike that they have an overrepresentation in the 'creative context' just for discovering a principle which they repeat over and over again (biformidal propagation: relationship between complex'simple forms). I think that if we dedicate time to 'think' the West could create its own non-trivial creative branch quickly.

>>6944540
You type like a schizoposter. Take your theory, if you can even call it that, to >>>/his/

>>6944540
>People like you who believe that everything in art has been discovered
Is clearly, clearly is contradiction with what I wrote:
> You need to start by studying the experts. THEN you branch out and try to do your thing. It's 101 research/teaching process.

Either you're baiting, or you're unable to articulate a coherent set of thoughts, which unfortunately for the endeavor of this thread, is the foundation of any kind of rational formalization. It'd be like 5yo kids wearing daddy's suit, but doing Le Très Beaucoup Serious Business.

One last time: you need to start by establishing solid foundations, otherwise, this is all but fancy, ego-flattering fluffy talk. How can you not understand. How is this possible. I'm forced to conclude you're baiting.

>>6940514
Of course he did, and it's hilarious to see the pseudo-intellectuals eat it up.

See for example:
>6940619
>I like creating things, but I hate wasting energy and time on inefficient results. For this reason I seek to discover the 'hidden logic of art' (hard) that allows me to express myself freely and efficiently.
Anyone who was in any way involved in studying art, let alone in a purely abstract, conceptual fashion, would recognize that it's ludicrous to think there is a "logic", let alone a "hidden one" to making art that "expresses self freely and efficiently" for obvious reasons. It's genuinely just a bloviated way to write "give me the secret method to get good at drawing".

>>6940282
STEM-brained autismo wants to reduce art to a fucking formula.
absolutely soulless hylic ass behavior

>>6944811
You are right that this thread is poorly articulated, but that is because it is an eccentric proof of concept to measure the reactions of the friends of this board. This way I will know the right approach for future iterations...

But let's be more constructive and put aside my strange concepts for a moment. Now I want to know your opinion from a person of traditional skills. How would you define an 'attractive' visual stimulus? What is 'art'?

Your opinion is valid and I respect it. It is the 'soft perspective' of art, but I seek to balance 'visual art' by developing the 'hard perspective'. The truth is that I get tired of this eternal friction between hard paradigms (reasoning, locality) and soft paradigms (feeling, generality). I believe that if harmony is achieved, interesting things can happen. It is like the auditory stimulus: the 'recording of a waterfall' is persuasive but has no flexibility, but by reducing it to its minimum conception it allows great melodic plasticity (Mozart, jazz, etc...)

as usual, no actual work was posted
full of underage nodraw midwits like the above
LMAO

>>6944826
>It's genuinely just a bloviated way to write "give me the secret method to get good at drawing

That is exactly what this thread aims to do: the use of reasoning/study of nature to create a 'formal structure' that allows art to be efficiently created. I don't know why you think it's wrong.

>>6944874
>Your opinion is valid and I respect it. It is the 'soft perspective' of art
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I said (third time?):
> You need to start by studying the experts. THEN you branch out and try to do your thing. It's 101 research/teaching process.

Here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-aesthetics/

>>6944874
>The truth is that I get tired of this eternal friction between hard paradigms (reasoning, locality) and soft paradigms (feeling, generality). I believe that if harmony is achieved, interesting things can happen.

You can't resolve this tension. You can achieve middle-road and hybrid approaches but you can't harmonize them as long as they mutually exclude one another.

It's like saying that lukewarm harmonizes hot and cold. It does nothing of the sort, the two are still in tension and if you made everything lukewarm you'd lose more than what you'd gain.

Art is deeply tied to phenomenology. What gives rise to our experiences may be formalizable into a predictive structure like a formula or algorithm but the experiences themselves are not, you can't altogether formalize what is is like to be [insert whatever here]. If you do, you immediately solve the mind-body problem, so good luck.

Trying to run away from the tender elements of the self and of your humanity is not just a bad way to make art, it's a bad way to live.

You're alive! You're here! You're you! Make art, take risks, endure failure, celebrate success. Anything else is foolishness.

>>6943841
>>6943847
>>6943843
Always thought it was trolling..
> japanese discovering a principle (biformidal propagation: relationship between complex'simple forms) Everything seems in its right place.

>>6945026
> japanese discovering a principle (biformidal propagation: relationship between complex'simple forms)

Everything seems in its right place.*

>>6944914
I like your comment because it helps me clarify my thoughts.

I think you have not considered the time factor: my intention is not to create an output/thought'set [centered, gray, STATIC] but to understand the 'symmetries' (harmonious relationships) of the psychological structures in order to create at different instants all possible non-arbitrary outputs. In more immediate language it would be to create all the styles that evoke a great aesthetic response at will.

What I am looking for is to understand the congenital psychological structures (sequentiality, memory, pleasure, etc...) not the cultural ones (language, fashion, politics, history...) The second ones, as you say, being arbitrary, cannot be anticipated by pure reasoning.

Or in a more technical way: reduce the entropy of the systems and increase it again with 'interesting structural proportion' (something that the 'anime style' does very well).

PS: Are you the anon of Splatoon/Inari's 'visual signature'? Or are you someone new to this discussion?

>>6944874
Imo there is no way to quantifiably achieve harmony between your paradigms solely because of what the soft consists of. Feeling is infinite. You can achieve the perfect ratio of the face with math and statistics (hard paradigm), but it won't stop my fat fetishist friend from swiping left. Once you get human taste involved that middle ground becomes a grey void.

>>6945361
As always, I appreciate your opinions, they help me analyze my ideas.

The main hypothesis of Visual Pure Art (VPA) is that everyone is born with the same psychological structures to conceptualize the environment, and on these, arbitrary cultural structures (diaper/foot fetish) are built. Let's call this difference 'conditional divergence(CD)'. The 'hard' branch studies these congenital/universal structures while the 'soft' branch studies the cultural/ambiguous ones.

New concept:
'Pure Applied Art' studies the relationship between both perspectives.

This is an example of a 'soft' study:
>>6939915

I don't think I've found an example of 'hard', even Loomis' anatomical studies are considered 'soft'.

You are right: the target audience of the hard branch is people with CD(0), but in theory even high CD minds can understand the truths of the hard branch.

>>6940282
I have no idea what the fuck any of this means but
>problem 1
this doesn't really seem to be exclusive to art but really just to how we interpret the world in a psychological/sociological manner, which then reflects itself on the products of human intellect i.e art but it does not sprung from them originally
>problem 2
what does this mean im retarded
>problem 3
same as above

>>6945796
It is understandable because to solve these problems you need to become familiar with the theory of biformisms/atoms which is extremely novel and incomplete.

But this is the future! These things are worth studying! When AI surpasses human creative expression, the study of these concepts will not be a whim but a necessity.

Now I will share a basic exercise for beginners: Considering the following expressive context of reduced entropy (The shared image; 3x3; binary cells: can only be white or black)

>What kind of 'primitive concepts' can you 'feel' through random permutation? (only the information in the cells can be altered)

>How would you define an aesthetic stimulus?

I cannot take you by the hand, self-sufficiency is necessary to awaken the heuristic cerebral hemisphere necessary for the study of the novel.

Why is this general even a thing, where the FUCK is the ART?

>>6946045
Your beloved sailor scout obeys mathematical laws that can be studied. Our intention (pure creatives) is to understand these laws and create a stimulus 1000 times more attractive.

Mathematicians do not usually have artistic knowledge and artists do not have formal knowledge. This is the bridge between both disciplines: the mathematical side will create revolutionary ideas and the artistic side will provide the efficiency to communicate them.

>>6946042
>biformism
WHAT THE FLYING GOD DAMN FUCKING HELL IS A BIFORMISM!??!?!!?

You seem like you'd be fun to talk to anon.

Shame spirit is non-rational.

You forget that art is executed within the scope of Dasein, read a book.

>>6944540
Anon, I am a different anon (>>6940539 >>6940541) but I do research for a living. You haven't been told bullshit of any kind, you're actually just being unreasonable. You need to show that you have a grasp on the discussion in the literature, and how you can add to the discussion in new and unique ways. There is no bullshit here, you just haven't shown how your ideas interact with the research that already exists.

This is a topic for a phd thesis, not an /ic/ post. You would need to conduct your own research to substantiate your hypotheses like >>6941720 possibly in the fields of psychology and neuroscience.

Right now, it's just ideas. Show your research and your lit reviews if you want to be engaged with seriously. Also, not doing anything for free - where's our Amazon gift cards? As it stands, you are on the path of Christopher Langan, with probably not an IQ of 195.

https://www.shortform.com/blog/christopher-langan-outliers/

>>6946171
Completely agree with the need to verify things. It's easy to get lost in an echo chamber so the need for clarity in a discussion is needed.

>>6946078
>>6941900
>>6946150
You need to describe what the fuck you are on about with more clarity and in thought of what has already been established. either establish a ground that everyone else can stand on, or explain clearly.


Also,
>>6940489
>>6941841
>>6942013
>>6946045
What kind of work would even come from this discussion? As far as I can tell they are just trying to quantify what they find appealing.
More examples maybe?

>>6946201
>You need to describe what the fuck you are on about with more clarity and in thought of what has already been established. either establish a ground that everyone else can stand on, or explain clearly.


I would only need to do that if your comprehension in particular was an objective.
I'm not sure why you thought the contents of my post suggested it was.

>>6946205
Fuck off Langan. Lol this is ridiculous. Not taking you seriously anymore. Bye. Either:
1. Go get a research grant and make something out of yourself
2. Scream into the void for no reason other than to masturbate to how smart you think YOU are (regardless of the estimation of others)
3. Quit and delete your thread

>>6946205
>>6946150
>>6946210
Not OP, anon. I just think there is some value in this thread, maybe, if OP would get smart and actually draw.

While the idea's he's grasping at are smart, you can't study mathematics if you can't do sums.

>>6946205
Is this yours? Blog?

>>6946210
>>6946217
Please don't fight (or pretend to be me), I just want to understand things so I can create beautiful things for all of you.

You are absolutely right about the need to show evidence that supports a set of arbitrary and exogenous thinking, but you have to consider that this thread is a 'proof of concept' to measure the reaction of the people on this board. The next iteration will consider all your advice: it will have 'theoretical foundations', 'demonstrations', 'external resources' and all that stuff.

But what kind of 'demonstration' do you consider the most appropriate?

>>6946258
pyw

>>6946221
sorry no blog anon, decided a while ago instead of an archive i will simply not post on /ic/ without posting my work, lest somone reply with pyw

Jesus Christ humbled my soul and granted me true wisdom, and now I hope that my dumbass pictures can help do the same for others. OP here is on the same path I was and I suspect he is getting close, but its the same mistake most intellectuals make with art, they have no conception of self beyond their intellect. He is correct in believing that there is a unified center to the concept of aesthetics, but he's mistaken in thinking that it must be rational. Cringe and Platopilled imho

>>6946295
I drew this cute image.

I also drew this comic:
>>6943409