Jump to content



Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  Fire Blazer : (18 March 2020 - 03:18 AM) hope everyone is managing ok...
@  kirant : (03 March 2020 - 05:41 AM) New challenger approaching!
@  xcrash1998 : (26 February 2020 - 09:55 AM) Not anymore
@  Mage Girl : (17 February 2020 - 02:33 AM) I can safely say I'm so far the only person to post to this shoutbox in 2020...
@  Fire Blazer : (24 December 2019 - 03:17 AM) naw, it's when the bots make collaborated efforts to crawl places, lol
@  kirant : (23 December 2019 - 05:20 AM) What do we do on Index Day? Give each other bots?
@  Fire Blazer : (16 December 2019 - 01:39 AM) LOL
@  xcrash1998 : (30 November 2019 - 11:07 PM) New fictional holiday "Index Day"
@  Fire Blazer : (28 November 2019 - 08:52 PM) yeah just guest bots and stuff I think :( we really were active once upon a time though...
@  kirant : (26 November 2019 - 03:48 PM) No invasion. I imagine a lot of guest bots visiting for indexing purposes.
@  xcrash1998 : (26 November 2019 - 02:15 PM) How is most people online at 959 for the 8th of October of this year? Is that right? Did I miss something or was there somekind of spambot invasion?
@  xcrash1998 : (26 November 2019 - 02:06 PM) I know what you mean, it gets awkard to post something unrelated to the current conversation, and even if somebody picks up on it, it would just become a huge mess in the c hatbox if a multitude of groups talk about different topics.
@  Fire Blazer : (10 November 2019 - 11:45 PM) especially better imo if you want to update on a topic but like only occasionally (e.g. a project you're working on or a let's play of a game)
@  Fire Blazer : (10 November 2019 - 11:44 PM) it's hard for me to explain precisely why but forums just like work better for meaningful discussion over a longer period of time ig
@  Fire Blazer : (10 November 2019 - 11:44 PM) but that's def just not hte same ig, idk
@  Fire Blazer : (10 November 2019 - 11:44 PM) yeah, you can also kind of respond at your own pace on forums. Discord conversations are often like... it's awkward to respond to something that happened a while ago, especially if the server is active, but even just in general. since you sort of need to keep track of multiple conversations at once at times, and it's not like it has a good reply/quote system ala forums, closest thing really is to copy/paste or screenshot the text you're responding to and then type a response below
@  Elwood : (09 November 2019 - 11:29 AM) Adding on to what's been said, I just enjoy the order and structure of the forums. You can look through the threads and know exactly what people are talking about. Conversation get lost and buried on discord which is why I'm not a big fan of it.
@  kirant : (06 November 2019 - 05:31 AM) I enjoy that part of forums too. They become niche communities where you can have very specialized conversations as opposed to the cluttered mess in Discord.
@  Ezra : (31 October 2019 - 01:17 AM) Yeah, part of me wishes I could go back to the times forums were more prevalent. I really enjoyed how even several different forums based off the same franchise could feel so different. It's not like what we now is bad though, I just feel nostalgic for old times.
@  Fire Blazer : (30 October 2019 - 06:39 AM) also forums in general are just not as prevalent, there are so many other ways to interact these days, like Twitter, FB, Tumblr, etc., where you can just throw your thoughts into the void. I think that's the real issue and that the only people rly interested in forums these days are either super dedicated to whatever they're about, have a specific reason/need to (e.g. support forums), or grew up with them and are thus attached to the idea enough to continue to try and use them (this was kinda me for a while lol but things happen, I couldn't keep it up forever)

Photo

Modern sensibilities on what constitutes good aesthetics


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Mercurius

Mercurius

    Ars est celare artem

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,409 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Interests:Digital art, idealistic stories, MMOs, SRPGs, hunting games, FAAAAAAAAAAABULOUS-ness, and staying out of the social order.

Posted 03 January 2017 - 08:50 PM

Starting off with a recent example I read...
 

I personally find that sword's design to be quite tacky. If i were you (or your friend for that matter) i'd prefer a more realistic/historic sword like this onethis onethis one or this one, all of which are closer to the real thing.

 
Now before I say anything else I will say that in this particular case I do not necessarily disagree with the person who made the comment, and it is not inappropriate to point out that the friend mentioned would prefer a different, more accurate sword because they were established as being a history nerd by the one who asked for an evaluation.
 
However, the nature of my reasoning and their reasoning for lack of favor is completely different. I personally would suggest staying away from that sword because of the company is notorious for poor craftsmanship, often looking to be subpar in every aspect even in images that were designed to market their stuff as appealing (which would mean, chances are, it would look even worse in real life.)
 
Their reason? It's tacky.
 
I fucking hate that word.
 

Adjective
tacky ‎(comparative tackiersuperlative tackiest)

Now as far as dictionary definitions go they tend to more or less separate these meanings from each other but in actual English use, it will most likely be a combination of several of these meanings at the same time. Personally I have never actually encountered the use of definition 4 and 5. It's either a combination of 1, 2, and 3, or just 2 and 3. In other words, this is the message most people using that word will pass:

Anything that aims to be ornate is shit taste, socially unbecoming, and may cast doubt on the build quality of the object in question.

 
Now, if you happen to have any objections to my brusque representation of common human language, pointing out that you are under the impression that it's actually a much nicer thing that has all sorts of unspoken and specific connotations that cannot be brought across through an interpretation that aims to be rather literal in comparison, I have to point out that language is learned through observation and that any popular enough interpretation of it is going to function the way the majority wants it to, regardless of how ridiculous that is to the actual purpose of the word. I'm sure plenty of you know what happened to "literally" and considering apparently tacky is supposed to have evolved from "shabby" which is virtually never used in reference to opulence that's probably exactly what happened to this word too.
 
Let's look to another example, in reference to Greek statues originally having been painted in vivid, primary colors:
 
67Eg4AF.jpg
 
Again, before I say anything else, I will point out that I actually think of the statues from ancient times to look better without the paint. This is because I think of those statues as having a very solemn or intimidating feel to them when they are without color, in a similar kind of way I feel about cleaned up skeletons, I find that it is rather appropriate that they have lost their color to time to end up giving this deadness or emptiness to it, because they belong to times long past.
 
The reason everybody in the image above agrees on why they like it better without the paint? Because with color, it's tacky. Even the person who is in protest of the poor opinion being shown is not doing it because they disagree, but only because they find it inappropriate to apply modern sensibilities to the ancients. They still follow this idea of "tacky" in the same way the rest do.
 
What do I think when I see them in color? Well, I'd describe them as being rather bright, vivid, and colorful, perhaps reminiscent of a rather festive mood. That's not me being nice. That's just me wanting to recognize the aesthetic for being different rather than distasteful.
 
What the hell happened going into the modern age to warrant this idea of extravagance being equivalent to tastelessness?
 
There's a difference between preference and opposition and this clearly falls into the latter. One of them just happens to like something else better. The other one practically looks to it as an injustice. People probably take this idea of aesthetics more seriously than they do the significance of their religion. Whether something is tacky or not has less to do with opinion and more to do with professing the reality of things.
 
Think back to the times of kings, aristocrats, and successful merchants among those same people. Do you expect them to wear simple tunics of brown, grey, denim and so on? Of course not! They are all about showing off with powerful colors, luxurious metals and gemstones, and intricate details in their stuff. Why did they do that? Is it because they just wanted to prove they were rich? No, they did it because they wanted to look awesome! Imagine some peasant looking at a king and, upon witnessing his vesture, decides to sneer at the lack of aesthetic sense the high class never seem to have with all those frills, gold and jewelry. That sounds completely ludicrous, but it's acceptable and normal today to behave as that very peasant does.
 
Even presidents, CEOs, and mob bosses(In popular perception at least) tend to favor fairly simple and unassuming attire before the public. Only gay guys, singers(+their bands) and military officers(by uniform) get away with looking fabulous. I'm baffled as to how things like wedding rings survive as shiny and brilliant instead of being oxidized all over with "a nice patina" in modern western culture...


I believe in judgment of humans through their judgment of fiction, for nothing else tells better of their disposition freed from apprehension.


#2 ^Leo^

^Leo^

    Mega Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:the magical land of cleve

Posted 03 January 2017 - 11:39 PM

Not the direction I expected that to take, but I'll bite. Extravagant things that are also seen in a positive light still exist. Take a look at supercars. Functionally speaking a supercar is just too much. There's no way to use your 800 horsepower Ferrari during everyday driving, and having taken a ride in a Lamborghini I can tell you that some of them are far less comfortable than even something as common as a civic. People buy them anyway, and for what reason? Because they can. The only reason to buy a car like that is for the purpose of extravagance. Some people like to show them off, others like to take them to the track and drive like madmen for a bit, but the basic purpose of a supercar is as a status symbol.

#3 Mercurius

Mercurius

    Ars est celare artem

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,409 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Interests:Digital art, idealistic stories, MMOs, SRPGs, hunting games, FAAAAAAAAAAABULOUS-ness, and staying out of the social order.

Posted 04 January 2017 - 12:32 AM

Supercars are somewhat more niche in their recognition, their extravagance is primarily tied to factors that aren't really that visible to the layman, though it is true that they aim to have a nonstandard look. I've worn $2,000+ jackets before (didn't buy them for obvious reasons though) and they don't really feel or fit (off the shelf) all that much better than something you can get for $400, and at that point, it's more about the name than it is the product. (something tells me cars have a similar thing going on for them)


I believe in judgment of humans through their judgment of fiction, for nothing else tells better of their disposition freed from apprehension.


#4 ^Leo^

^Leo^

    Mega Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:the magical land of cleve

Posted 04 January 2017 - 02:58 AM

you're basically right about that, which was really my point. that $2000 jacket is the same as buying a $1000000 car in that functionally speaking they are the same as a cheaper car/jacket. obviously there are slight differences, but in the end you're paying for a name that people perceive as "better" than everything else.



#5 Mercurius

Mercurius

    Ars est celare artem

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,409 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Interests:Digital art, idealistic stories, MMOs, SRPGs, hunting games, FAAAAAAAAAAABULOUS-ness, and staying out of the social order.

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:24 AM

The subject then moves to brand fame/trust over actual aesthetics though. Which is a thing but changes the subject entirely.


I believe in judgment of humans through their judgment of fiction, for nothing else tells better of their disposition freed from apprehension.


#6 Blue Leafeon

Blue Leafeon

    Mega Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 10 January 2017 - 12:14 PM

Incoming post where Leafy was not quite sure the direction Mercu was going but tries her best.

 

Tacky is definitely not a word I use often, but after reading that post, I might delete it from my vocabulary entirely.

 

 

However, the nature of my reasoning and their reasoning for lack of favor is completely different. I personally would suggest staying away from that sword because of the company is notorious for poor craftsmanship, often looking to be subpar in every aspect even in images that were designed to market their stuff as appealing (which would mean, chances are, it would look even worse in real life.)
 
Their reason? It's tacky.

 

I am definitely not a connoisseur of real swords, but my experience with video games has shown me far more extravagant weapons, many of which truly don't seem functionally sound. I don't consider that first sword "tacky" in the slightest. I definitely agree that avoiding a weapon for the company that made it is a far more reasonable thing to do.

 

Then again, my idea of tacky isn't really linked to extravagant in the slightest, but more toward functionality and/or boldness. Boldness, mind you, has nothing to do with how fancy something looks. (I actually like fancy things at times.) One of my favorite video game swords of all time is this one, for example:

Spoiler

 

Granted, this weapon is probably not structurally sound, but it seems to be made of Ether, which is the energy of the world of Xenoblade Chronicles, so heck with physics.

 

Had to do something and lost my train of thought. Guess it's time to move on.

 

In other words, this is the message most people using that word will pass:

Anything that aims to be ornate is shit taste, socially unbecoming, and may cast doubt on the build quality of the object in question.

 

That's not how I use "tacky"...

 

Tacky, for me, usually has to do with repeated uses of bright/incompatible colors. I like bold colors, mind you, (I LOVE rainbow tie-dye shirts) but there's a certain limit as to what colors work together, and for what purposes. I once saw a website whose background color was a solid yellow and its text was lime green. Although in this instance, I wouldn't even call it tacky. I'd call it obnoxious.

 

 

 

Let's look to another example, in reference to Greek statues originally having been painted in vivid, primary colors:

These people are just stupid.

 

Paints in those days weren't like the ones we have now, where we can basically have any color and shade we want. They had very limited means to make paint back then, if memory serves. Purple, for example, was a very expensive color to make and was considered to be among the most regal colors because of it. You were RICH if you wore purple. Nowadays, men rarely wear purple because...I actually don't know why. I've seen men wear pink more than I have seen them wear purple.

 

I'm sure plenty of you know what happened to "literally" and considering apparently tacky is supposed to have evolved from "shabby" which is virtually never used in reference to opulence that's probably exactly what happened to this word too.

 

See: electrocute. People (including myself, at one point) use electrocute as a means of describing an encounter with more electricity than just a minor shock, when in reality it means "to die of electricity." Granted, no other word really holds the seriousness of electrocute, so when describing exactly how much electricity you were shocked with, "zap," "shock," and "electrify" usually don't feel as strong. (For good reason, though, I suppose, since electrocute holds such a strong meaning.)

 

 

 

I'm baffled as to how things like wedding rings survive as shiny and brilliant instead of being oxidized all over with "a nice patina" in modern western culture.

To be fair, wedding rings are not nearly as fancy as the engagement rings. I've seen absolutely gorgeous engagement rings, and then horrifically bland wedding rings to go with them.

 

After posting this, I realized that while I did know where mercu was going with this, I apparently decided to just reply to the individual points instead of adding my own discussion about the topic. OOPS.


IUfb9Eg.png


#7 ^Leo^

^Leo^

    Mega Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:the magical land of cleve

Posted 10 January 2017 - 02:09 PM

@wearing purple: I would wear more purple if it was more commonly sold tbh. When I buy clothes I typically don't care what I end up with at long as it doesn't look bad(pale lime green shorts that end above my knees are unacceptable for example), but I don't go out of my way to find something in a particular style or color or anything like that. I do like purple, but it just isn't sold much. Pink is worn because people think it's funny. That's a different discussion I don't feel like getting into though.

Tl:dr i think people would wear more purple if it was more available.

#8 Blue Leafeon

Blue Leafeon

    Mega Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 21 January 2017 - 12:23 PM

@wearing purple: I would wear more purple if it was more commonly sold tbh. When I buy clothes I typically don't care what I end up with at long as it doesn't look bad(pale lime green shorts that end above my knees are unacceptable for example), but I don't go out of my way to find something in a particular style or color or anything like that. I do like purple, but it just isn't sold much. Pink is worn because people think it's funny. That's a different discussion I don't feel like getting into though.

Tl:dr i think people would wear more purple if it was more available.

Point taken. Men's clothing in general seems like it has a thing against color, unless it's something super casual or something like a Hawaiian shirt.


IUfb9Eg.png





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users