Author Topic: How sounds website?  (Read 3885 times)

Mingva

  • Stunts Maniac
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Aishwarya Rai
    • View Profile
    • Hattrick
How sounds website?
« on: February 23, 2010, 08:13:41 PM »

Duplode

  • Lives on Stunts
  • ******
  • Posts: 4135
  • Rabbit hole goes on forever
    • View Profile
    • The Southern Cross Stunts Trophy
Re: How sounds website?
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2010, 09:47:44 PM »
Great find! scr.stunts.hu sounds fabulous, loved it!  :) I only wonder why the program has a clear preference for minor keys...

zaqrack

  • Administrator
  • Makes love with Stunts
  • *****
  • Posts: 4545
    • View Profile
    • ZakStunts
Re: How sounds website?
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2010, 09:49:34 PM »
I wanted to post the same website today, but forgot!  ;D
www.stunts.hu is a bit similar to the Stunts tune. :)

BonzaiJoe

  • Eats Stunts
  • ******
  • Posts: 5100
    • View Profile
    • Purple
Re: How sounds website?
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2010, 11:32:04 PM »
That's a wonderful site. The concept of translating things into music is exceptionally poetic and I see it adding to a future sensoric union of impressions.
But we can't be quite sure.


CTG

  • Having only spam addict friends
  • ********
  • Posts: 21253
    • View Profile
Re: How sounds website?
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2010, 09:20:47 PM »
That's a wonderful site. The concept of translating things into music is exceptionally poetic and I see it adding to a future sensoric union of impressions.

Useless. :P ;D

(waiting for the "that's art, you can't understand it" crap)
2656,42 km

BonzaiJoe

  • Eats Stunts
  • ******
  • Posts: 5100
    • View Profile
    • Purple
Re: How sounds website?
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2010, 09:49:45 PM »
That's a wonderful site. The concept of translating things into music is exceptionally poetic and I see it adding to a future sensoric union of impressions.

Useless. :P ;D

(waiting for the "that's art, you can't understand it" crap)

It's not particularly art. Of course it's easy to perceive as art if one wishes to, but it's not art in the sense that it has a creator and is an impression of something in the creator or mediated through the creator.

Your definition of "use" is very quantity-oriented.
But we can't be quite sure.


CTG

  • Having only spam addict friends
  • ********
  • Posts: 21253
    • View Profile
Re: How sounds website?
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2010, 09:52:57 PM »
Your definition of "use" is very quantity-oriented.

Welcome in the rational world. ;D
2656,42 km

BonzaiJoe

  • Eats Stunts
  • ******
  • Posts: 5100
    • View Profile
    • Purple
Re: How sounds website?
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2010, 10:23:09 PM »
Hmm, no. That is pre-rational. "Use" embodies rationale itself. The end goal of the rationale is not itself a rational consideration.
But we can't be quite sure.


Duplode

  • Lives on Stunts
  • ******
  • Posts: 4135
  • Rabbit hole goes on forever
    • View Profile
    • The Southern Cross Stunts Trophy
Re: How sounds website?
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2010, 11:56:39 PM »
Objectivity is only possible within an exterior context, thus it becomes very difficult to negate either of the positions here. In fact, they complement each other. The website is not art as long as we are unaware of the designer's creative process, and is useless as long as it does not get rerouted through someone's subjective logic jumps.

CTG

  • Having only spam addict friends
  • ********
  • Posts: 21253
    • View Profile
Re: How sounds website?
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2010, 11:57:31 PM »
Back to the site: music is really crappy. ;D
2656,42 km

BonzaiJoe

  • Eats Stunts
  • ******
  • Posts: 5100
    • View Profile
    • Purple
Re: How sounds website?
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2010, 01:24:28 AM »
Objectivity is only possible within an exterior context, thus it becomes very difficult to negate either of the positions here. In fact, they complement each other. The website is not art as long as we are unaware of the designer's creative process, and is useless as long as it does not get rerouted through someone's subjective logic jumps.

I don't quite agree. First of all, it makes no sense to say that it "is not art" and then let that depend on "we are unaware". Are you aiming for an objective or a subjective concept of art? Our awareness lies outside the work of art itself and has no bearing on it. If we want it to be art, it is. We can call this "selection" or "ostentation". Taking something and viewing it through an "art" prism. Some things, like the white wall or a cable, don't produce much when viewed this way, while other things, like music, produce a lot. One could then, if one wanted to, stage an axiomatic grade definition of art as being something that produces more than a certain value if considered as art. But questions of what "art" is were never very interesting anyway.....

I agree, though, that this needs to be rerouted through someone's subjective logic jumps to be useful, but as this is definitely happening to a very high degree, we can conclude that it is useful. And more importantly, let's make it clear what I mean by "useful"! I mean that it produces something positive.
But we can't be quite sure.


Duplode

  • Lives on Stunts
  • ******
  • Posts: 4135
  • Rabbit hole goes on forever
    • View Profile
    • The Southern Cross Stunts Trophy
Re: How sounds website?
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2010, 03:53:37 AM »
First of all, it makes no sense to say that it "is not art" and then let that depend on "we are unaware". Are you aiming for an objective or a subjective concept of art?

Both concepts co-exist. The art prism you mentioned is a very real, valid perspective, but it is entirely subjective. If we are to exchange and argue about impressions through discourse a line has to be drawn at some point - while acknowledging it is a compromise, for the transcription of an idea as language always causes loss of detail. One possible choice for tracing a limit at some distance from the observer's subjectivity would be the degree of intentionality of the creator/possible artist in provoking some kind of impression. After reading the "About" text in the site, such a degree appears to be fairly low, making it seem more like a programmer's toy of the usual kind (that was what the "unaware" comment implied, but that part of the comment was rather poorly phrased). That being said, it is almost paradoxical that in art-related issues subjectivity ends up being a key factor even if practical considerations are accounted, as subjective and even irrational processes will often have very tangible material consequences.

It is interesting to wonder where such a line of though leads to when applied to different objects such as scientific papers or Stunts replays.