I feel like posting art here should have to include some sort of background or explanation. I would like to know how I’m supposed to interpret this image.
FWIW, art that gets posted to !hobbit_art is supposed to explain what’s going on if possible. I like art, but I think art has to include background or it’s just a pretty picture.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with art being ‘just a pretty picture’, there is plenty of artwork that has powerful meaning attached to it, for example ‘Guernica’ by Picasso- it’s striking, very large, has a strong anti war message and is loaded with symbolism…I wouldn’t want it on my wall though (even if I could get it to fit)
I like abstracts mainly because I love colour (I think it may be an autistic thing, as I don’t like portraits or images where humans appear, but I can still appreciate the technical skill involved)
For me, an image like this is visually bathing in colour, it’s very stimulating or it can be soothing depending on the colour used. I like the patterns and how they repeat, also how they appear to tumble down the canvas/paper, there’s an energy in the composition and also in the marks made by the brush/pastel/pen.
The community you link has in the sidebar-
‘It is not required, but if you know, please talk a bit about the scene in the image. What’s going on? Who is in it? Why is it happening? Do you like it? Why?’
possibly to encourage engagement and discussion, which is a nice touch, I think it also helps that all the images are illustrating scenes from Tolkien literature, who was rather good (an understatement) at writing and world building. I think that Tolkein produced enough detailed content to be discussed and analysed for some time
I think ultimately, even if this piece of art is not to your taste or you don’t understand the meaning (if there is any meaning to it), has got us both talking about it, which I think is a good thing, and possibly the whole point of art in the first place?
I wasn’t complaining about the art. I’ve seen random looking pictures that turned out to have explanations. I remember one gallery where it was just a bunch of rectangles. Someone explained that it was showing how you can be distracted from some details by others and then pointed out shapes I hadn’t seen because the colors of the rectangles pulled my attention. I found that interesting, but would not have gotten it without explanation.
I just think the forum would be more engaging if artwork was posted with explanations if there is one. Maybe this image is just some pleasing shapes, but it would not surprise me if there was a story.
From the perspective of someone who isn’t currently in the “Bad If Not FOSS” mindset, this image really gets the impression backwards. To the average user who doesn’t appreciate the user-unfriendly klunk and jank that is inherent to FOSS interfaces, it really feels like the image should depict a bunch of FOSS Teletubbies being intruded upon by a competent Power Ranger.
I used to be a FOSS guy. And then I realized I valued my time and sanity way too much to spend more time troubleshooting and nudging my software into just working normally than I did actually using it.
FOSS software as the underpinning of the platform that is then accessed by a closed-source client is, ultimately, the best circumstance we could ask for. Clients are what the user actually interacts with. If that experience is more engaging and approachable, you get many more users on the platform overall, without threatening the sanctity of the freedom of the FOSS platform it all runs on. There is no one authority to make unilateral decisions to derail the platform, while still offering a more welcoming public face. If you can’t understand that, or don’t care to recognize it, that you’re content to let the platform wallow in obscurity.
What about FOSS software is inherently jank? This is a stupid take that’s likely informed by some bad past experiences, of which I’ve had many with proprietary crapware.
It is easier to find crap FOSS software because it is easier to make & maintain a FOSN project when you’re less competent & you don’t have a strategy for long term success. Proprietary software relies on for-profit motives to improve, while FOSS software relies on user feedback & community incentives. This is why, while the average quality of service from FOSS programs is potentially worse, the best QoS is usually from a FOSS program. See Elk for Mastodon for a fantastic example of premium quality.
It comes from a ten year period of distro-hopping a dozen different Linux distros that ultimately all fell short of delivering an experience anywhere near as stable or reliable as Windows or Mac OS. The closest I got to that was Mint, which I ended up using from Mint 9 thru Mint 17. And then the drivers for my nVidia graphics card just…broke. I had my laptop set up as a dual boot, and until that driver mess, rarely ever booted Windows. After the driver busted, I found myself having less and less interest in spending ungodly hours trying to coax some other distro into cooperating (Ubuntu, Pentoo, Kali, Knoppix). Every distro would have some kind of conflict or missing libs or some other issue requiring hours of fixing config files or finding exactly the correct repo to install from so as not to break compatibility with something else. It just got exhausting, like having a second job just to maintain a functioning desktop that wasn’t full of obsolete or deprecated software. Mind you, I gave up back in 2015. I did wonder if I should have given LM 18 a try when it came out about a year later, but by then, I had largely just moved on from PCs as an interest altogether. I just didn’t have the budget to keep up with hardware, and my job as an over the road driver at a time lent itself to portable gaming and consoles. I couldn’t justify spending another 2 grand on another laptop that would be obsolete in two or three years.
So yes, it is my own experience with FOSS software, and lots and lots of it, and all of the headaches that went along with it. I absolutely adored Mint when it worked. It’s just too bad that that only lasted a couple years, at least for me.
I mean great in what way? Great at looking into the empty mind of a conservative grifter? The scene of that researcher trying to explain the intricacies of gender identity and expression, and Matt Walsh zoning out to classical music will be stuck with me forever
IMO those researchers should be able to easily explain what is a woman or any of those asked definitions, but somehow they are just stuck in a loop of a circular definitions… thats pretty much says to me, they are no researchers but charlatans…
And you would be wrong. It’s almost impossible to narrow down a definition to something that includes everything that is, and excludes everything that isn’t. The entire point behind gender identity and expression is that human beings are extremely complex, and the things we attribute to biological sex are almost all sociologically constructed. Trying to rigidly define a woman will inevitably exclude those who even conservatives would consider traditionally consider woman. As such, a deep look into gender theory is needed to understand how we categorize people into different genders.
The entirety of sciences is based on generalizations of stuff by their common denominating parameters, despite the outliers. This includes chemistry, physics,…
Generally in biology, the female are usually characterized as the sex producing immobile ova and the males producing mobile sperm. The outliers, which due to some mutation or other reason doesnt fit that description, doesnt change the definition, they are simply described as outliers.
Its now also indicated by studies, that those intersex outliers in humans are mostly caused by endocrine disruptors during pregnancy but also during later life: journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.4137/EHI.S39825
Great as in nicely edited, compelling in a Michael Moore way. I just rewatched it and think I know which scene you mean. They could’ve left more of his contortions in, fair enough, but he gets an awful lot of airtime besides. How is Walsh a grifter? I only know him from this documentary and the interview that led me to it.
Idk, half the apps look like they are just a fork of one app including sync. Why pay for an app that is mostly just a reskin of an open source project.
It just looks like every other lemmy app. They all look the same with a few things changed and their talking points are so similar from app to app. It’s almost completely impossible to decifer the differences without trying them out. If it wasn’t a fork I wouldn’t know because they are so similar on the play store.
If anything, the Lemmy apps would look like Sync, because obviously Sync has existed way longer, even before Lemmy was even a thing. The more likely reason most of them look the same on Android, is because they’re following some (sometimes older) form of Material Design, the design standard for Android.
It would be easier just to imagine a generic social media app than to copy sync. It would look similar too because sync is pretty generic in feature set, like all social media apps are in feature set. Besides I pay developers for making a good app not paying the developers to make it a good app.
In english, “I know you are, but what am I” is a childlish rebuttal to name-calling. It’s like saying “no, it’s not me, it’s you” or “it’s the one who says it who is”.
It’s the degree zero of rebuttal becaude there’s no argument. In this joke, the rebuttal actually works in a court setting and seems to convince the judge.
lemmy.ml
Top