Re: [pic] Font

> > >What you say here is like playing the synthetiser and claiming
> > >you play the flute. It sounds like a flute but it's not.
> 
> > If the sounds are indistinguishable, who cares whether it has been generated
> > with an acoustic or electronic flute? This is a perfect example for
> > illustrating the difference between medium/means and ends/artform.
> 
> The point here is that one say he's *playing the flute* as he's acuallyplaying
> the synthetiser. The result might seem (!) identical but it isn't.
> You say that you're making ascii art but you don't: it just look like it.
> (see example below)

Well, not quite. In terms of ascii, perhaps the simplest example is an ascii
pic on the computer monitor and an ascii pic printed out on paper. Same
artform, different media. The ascii artform does not become a non-ascii
artform, just because it is on a different medium.

In terms of flute music, there is someone playing the acoustic flute and there
is someone playing the electronic flute. Again, same flute music/artform,
different media. (The vast majority of music, including flute music, that you
hear on radio, TV, and movies these days, is generated electronically and no
one differentiates between acoustic flute music and electronic flute music, it
is all flute music without any additional adjectives. Occasionally you hear
acoustic flute, but it is then guaranteed announced with a hoopla such as
"SoloFlutistein performs Bach ... etc. If it is not announced, you can be
assured that it is the "other" medium  ;-))

> > >This reminds me of a painting of Rene Magritte. He painted a pipe
> > >and wrote bellow: "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (This is not a pipe).
> > >He was damn right: It was a painted representation of a pipe.
> >
> > You are talking about two different things here, the object itself and its
> > pictorial representation. This is not a relevant argument to what we are
> > discussing here.
> 
> I'm talking about what one sees and what things really are. This is
> relevant indeed.

Well, I was commenting about ascii art being able to live in several different
media and the above responses concern something totally different (they
concern an object and its pictorial representation) that's why I call the
above responses irrelevant.

> > >What you have on your website looks like ascii art but it isn't.
> >
> > I maintain it is. My sig below contains an ascii pic. If I turned it into a
> > gif, then all of a sudden it is no longer an ascii pic? I maintain it still
> > is, since the artform does not change, even when the medium has changed.
> 
> Let's try an other example: I make woodcuts -which could be seen a
> "luddite/dinosaur sort of activity in these modern days"-.
> Just like ascii art.  ;-)
> Imagine now that I scan a woodcut, save it as a photoshop document
> (or a gif) and print it... I'd have a duplicate of a woodcut but it wouldn't
> be a woodcut anymore; no matter the quality of the print.
> It would have lost all the properties of what *makes* a wookcut...
> and it isn't just the rendering of an image.

Again, this has nothing to do with my comment on the difference between
artform and medium. (The above response is again on an object/woodcut and its
pictorial representation/print)

> The same applies to ascii art. A gif of an ascii pic is no longer ascii art
> because it lost the properties of what the -American Standard Code for
> Information Interchange- is made of.

Well, not quite. You do not change the ascii artform if you print which is
really a "save as hardcopy." You do not change the ascii artform if you do a
"save as gif" either.
 
> > A pic made with a mechnical typewriter on paper (that cannot even be
> > immediately transmitted over the Internet or shown here on aaa) is also an
> > ascii pic, for that matter.
> I we'd follow this kind of logic we could say that the Mona Lisa
> is a great photo because some people use, now, photography to make
> great portraits too.

I don't see a train of thought here, leading up to equating the Mona Lisa
painting with a photo. I certainly did not say anything of that kind. What I
did say is that you can manually draw the letters by hand on a piece of paper
and create ascii artwork that way. I don't really see why anyone would want to
work that way, but this is an example that ascii artform can use a variety of media.

> Art made on a typewriter is called -typewriter art- and certainly isn't ascii.
> ASCII= American Standard Code for Information Interchange, have nothing
> to do at all with mechnical typewriters (there were typewriters
> and typewriter art long before ASCII was even created).

This is again a failure to recognize that the ascii artform can live in many
media. I can't really believe that you want to deny that the ascii pics that
you can type on a typewriter is a valid ascii artform.

You do recognize the difference between artform and medium, don't you? Since
you do woodcutting, what is the artform (styles, etc) of woodcutting? What are
the media (techniques, etc) for woodcutting? Or ... do you really don't
differentiate between artform and medium?

I am sincerely wondering here.

================================================================
[]                                                            []
[]   /(      )\     Visit the Gallery of the 'steins!         []
[]  ( ">    <" )   http://www3.sympatico.ca/petecasso/        []
[]   (> )><( <)   Woodpeckersteins dancing the boogie-woogie  []
[]     ^^  ^^                                                 []
================================================================

Related ASCII art in the Gallery

Explore these categories from our collection of 11,000+ artworks:

[>====]

   ))
 .-#-----.
/_________\
 |[] _ []|
 |  |*|  |

  ,  ,  , , ,
 <(__)> | | |
 | \/ | \_|_/
 \^  ^/   |
 /\--/\  /|
/  \/  \/jgs

     /| __________
O|==|* >__________>
     \|

(    )
|\^^/|
(0::0)
 \\// 
 (oo) 
/ \/ \

(\  _  /)
( \( )/ )
(       )
 `>   <' 
 /     \ 
 `-._.-' 

Make your own ASCII art

Turn images, text or 3D into ASCII, or draw your own – right in your browser.