Jump to content



Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  Fire Blazer : (24 November 2017 - 01:47 PM) and I think it'll stay this way for a bit. do you not like it? any alternatives that don't compromise the benefits of DLC? (e.g. Smash 4 DLC characters; would you rather delay the game for more characters, just so that they aren't released as DLC instead?)
@  Fire Blazer : (24 November 2017 - 01:46 PM) and you can see how they do their mobile games, so... yeah, Nintendo was a bit late to do it, but they eventually did join the other big companies with the new way of selling games and such
@  Fire Blazer : (24 November 2017 - 01:46 PM) uh, idk. I'm not against DLC as a whole, I just want it to be executed well. which to me mainly means, the original game should be a full experience, and any DLC should be extras and adequately priced; if you're selling a single costume for $1, or a single new gameplay map for $3, that kinda thing, that's way overpriced IMO.
@  xcrash1998 : (23 November 2017 - 08:12 PM) I mean in terms of how they sell their games and then there are DLC's and every thing. Nintendo is clearly going into that kind of direction. (Actually is doing that already). Not that I am against them trying to keep profit high to stay in the business but there needs to be a better way.
@  xcrash1998 : (23 November 2017 - 08:09 PM) How do you think will nintendo change in the future
@  Fire Blazer : (13 November 2017 - 08:55 PM) lol, perhaps
@  kirant : (13 November 2017 - 07:19 PM) I assume nostalgia hits as soon as we get old enough to "fall out" of things.
@  Rujio : (13 November 2017 - 03:57 PM) aren't we supposed to be too young for nostalgia or something?
@  Fire Blazer : (13 November 2017 - 06:08 AM) yet it feels bad since somewhere in my heart I miss all that
@  Fire Blazer : (13 November 2017 - 06:08 AM) and even if i am i dont find myself talking about video games much like the old days. esp. not serious conversations on forums
@  Fire Blazer : (13 November 2017 - 06:08 AM) :( idk man i'm hardly even into FE anymore
@  xcrash1998 : (12 November 2017 - 09:50 PM) hi
@  Rujio : (12 November 2017 - 05:46 PM) I mean I'm actually around pretty frequently. But we never do anything.
@  Idiot : (12 November 2017 - 04:13 PM) Not since the fire nation attacked...
@  Valke : (12 November 2017 - 10:07 AM) hi hello anyone here
@  Idiot : (11 November 2017 - 07:51 AM) Blegh, even
@  Idiot : (10 November 2017 - 05:11 PM) same
@  Fire Blazer : (10 November 2017 - 04:54 AM) meh
@  Fire Blazer : (07 November 2017 - 04:52 AM) yeah, seems fine to me
@  kirant : (04 November 2017 - 07:51 PM) To update the Crunchyroll thing: according to their Twitter page, they've fixed their website.

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
  • 1,408 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
  • 806 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • 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
  • 1,408 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
  • 806 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • 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
  • 1,408 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
  • 806 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • 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