[HN Gopher] Fifteen years of Ringo Starr's computer art
___________________________________________________________________
Fifteen years of Ringo Starr's computer art
Author : kuhewa
Score : 45 points
Date : 2022-01-08 11:18 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ringostarrart.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ringostarrart.com)
| mwattsun wrote:
| Ringo was a much better drummer than I appreciated as
| demonstrated by Grahame The Drummer. I realized that the stylings
| of Ringo made me love these songs as much as anything else
|
| https://www.tiktok.com/@grahamethedrummer/video/702419516832...
| tejohnso wrote:
| Can we say that Ringo's professionalism and artistic choices
| were at a higher level than his technical skill? It seems as
| though he made great choices, but I get the sense that he's
| nowhere near the level of a Bonham or Peart technically.
| tasha0663 wrote:
| I feel like that's comparing apples, oranges, and bananas.
| 2bitencryption wrote:
| no one would argue that Ringo was a technically skilled
| drummer. George Martin said "Ringo hit good and hard and used
| the tom-tom well, even though he couldn't do a roll to save
| his life".
|
| and yet he's one of the most beloved and influential drummers
| of all time, and for good reason. Ask Bonham or Peart to
| create fills as emotional as those in "A Day in the Life".
| mbg721 wrote:
| I guess Paul McCartney probably had the most prolific post-
| Beatles career of any of them, but it was close. Ringo's no
| slouch of a musician.
| jason0597 wrote:
| At the end, The Beatles weren't a masterfully technical band.
| It wasn't being the greatest at the guitar or the bass or the
| drums that made them great. It was being creative that made
| them great.
|
| Hey Jude is an incredibly simple and easy to play song yet it
| is infamous
| hericium wrote:
| The pace at which they were releasing new albums was also
| unrealistic.
| saghm wrote:
| I've always considered songwriting to be an independent
| skill playing music. Some musicians are just so good at
| writing songs that it almost doesn't matter whether or not
| they're above average in their musicianship. I don't think
| anyone would rate Bob Dylan as an exceptional singer or
| guitarist, but he's unquestionably one of the most prolific
| musicians of the 20th century. I'm probably an even worse
| singer and guitarist than Dylan, but if I could write
| something as good as Like a Rolling Stone, there's no
| question I would try to perform it myself and have it
| released before giving the song to someone else.
| asveikau wrote:
| And yet Dylan's vocal delivery is still very good in its
| way. It seems very personal and authentic.
|
| If you listen to early 70s Dylan (his tracks on Concert
| for Bangladesh come to mind) he sounds a bit better
| vocally in that period. I read that it was because he
| quit smoking.
| MajesticHobo2 wrote:
| You can listen to tapes from his teenage years in the
| late 50s, where he's singing in almost that exact early
| 70s croon. But his voice throughout most of the 60s was
| very different and, for the most part, intentionally so.
| ppod wrote:
| Dylan occasionally produced exceptional vocal
| performances https://youtu.be/pxr22ih0r9A?t=19
| MrsPeaches wrote:
| Ironically Bob Dylan is also on their roster:
| http://artcelebs.com/bob-dylan/
| egypturnash wrote:
| Those thumbnails are like, the platonic ideal of what I was
| expecting when I clicked on that link. Wow.
|
| I would say "don't give up your day job, Ringo" but the fact that
| he is already insanely famous means that he will probably sell
| some of these things for more than I will ever make with my art
| in my lifetime.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| I'm absolute garbage at visual art, and I think your take is
| super unfair.
|
| They're all super weird but, notably the newer ones, also
| really competent in a way that this newbie would never be able
| to replicate. Kind of like the work he's actually famous for,
| now that I think about it.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| > They're all super weird
|
| I made it as far down as the revolver tied in a knot with
| IMAGINE written on the barrel. I'm not sure you could come up
| with a more uniformly ham-fisted image of "peace" if it was
| plastered over a peace sign...
|
| So I'm not knocking the art or technical ability or anything.
| I don't care. But I personally wouldn't describe anything
| there "super weird".
| Blackthorn wrote:
| > I'm not sure you could come up with a more uniformly ham-
| fisted image of "peace" if it was plastered over a peace
| sign...
|
| It's Ringo Starr! He might as well have invented this
| cliche.
| bitwize wrote:
| Look again.
|
| It WAS plastered over a peace sign.
|
| Never change, Ringo.
| stemlord wrote:
| Well he did do the work of helping to make The Beatles what it
| became, so it's not entirely unfair.
| 2bitencryption wrote:
| I think part of this art is the story behind it.
|
| I'm sitting here trying to imagine Ringo Starr on a computer in
| MS Paint (or whatever he used) drawing blobby spacemen, and
| that alone makes me want to have one hanging on my wall.
| nine_k wrote:
| I would say that this is what sets apart "classical art" and
| "modern art".
|
| "Classical art" is a technical feat that produces emotions in
| you through its execution, through the beauty of the "art
| piece" itself. Beatles' songs were closer to "classical art";
| I want to hear "Yesterday" because of its melody.
|
| "Modern art" is an otherwise uninteresting material piece
| with a large bunch of metainfo attached: the author's
| personality and connections, the stories behind its creation
| / exhibition / resale, being in the circle of those who know
| about this particular piece or author, a practical joke or an
| ironic reference that the art piece or its metainfo
| comprises, etc. This metainfo is what produces the emotions,
| not the object which formally is the "art piece". Ringo's
| gallery items are firmly in the "modern art" category.
| tessierashpool wrote:
| except anyone with the slightest background in art history
| can tell you that those metadata mattered immensely for
| "classical art" pieces at the time that those pieces were
| made. and indeed even today two pieces of equivalent beauty
| and craftsmanship will not sell for the same price if one
| is a Michaelangelo and the other comes from a less famous
| artist.
|
| I'm sorry, because I'm sure you didn't realize this, but
| your taxonomy breaks down to "pieces I like, for which the
| metadata is old," and "pieces I dislike, for which the
| metadata is recent."
|
| _edit_ -- or, at best, "pieces I like, with a continuous
| aesthetic tradition, which made quality easy to evaluate,
| for which the metadata is old," vs "pieces I dislike,
| created after that continuity disintegrated, which made
| quality very subjective, for which the metadata is recent."
| because there was a massive break in that continuity, and
| there is a real distinction between modern and "classical"
| art (at least in the European/Western tradition), but it
| just doesn't have anything to do with the metadata.
| nine_k wrote:
| I do not say that the metadata for old pieces does not
| play a role! It very much does, beginning from the very
| age of an old piece. A lot of primitive ancient art
| coveted by museums or collectors is not aesthetically
| notable. The auction price of an old painting changes
| drastically depending on whether it's considered "genuine
| <insert a famous name>" or not.
|
| The difference I'm trying to make is that in "modern art"
| (not all art produced in modern times, but the kind that
| inherits from what Duchamp invented) the metadata is
| basically _all_ that 's interesting, and the art is
| _produced_ with this assumption in mind. A "classical"
| piece of art usually had to also work without the
| metadata being known.
| nerdponx wrote:
| I've heard this summarized before as "product" versus
| "process".
| j4yav wrote:
| All that exact same metadata is there and evaluated in the
| price of the piece for classical art as well, and whether
| something is interesting to you or not is in the end
| subjective. There are plenty of people who find pieces of
| modern art interesting even without knowing the metadata.
| I'm not sure there is a meaningful concrete distinction
| here.
|
| I.e., have you just said that the fundamental difference
| between modern art and classical art is that you personally
| find classical art more interesting?
| nine_k wrote:
| Not I personally.
|
| Take 100 pieces of "classical art" and show them to
| somebody who does not have a context of it at all (a
| faraway country, Amazon jungles, kids these days); the
| reaction would mostly be "wow" or "hmm", because the
| pieces are usually _technically_ interesting, without any
| metainfo attached.
|
| Do the same with 100 pieces of "modern art" like this
| [1], and the reaction will mostly be "wtf", because there
| is nothing to appreciate without the metainfo, like "this
| is a piece of art by X sold for $YM".
|
| [1]: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/banana-artwork-
| eaten-scli-...
|
| BTW, by this measure, Dali produced "classical" art.
| gilleain wrote:
| All art is a mixture of craft and marketing. There's just
| a lot more marketing to modern art than classical art.
| bobthechef wrote:
| filoeleven wrote:
| I agree about the art, especially at those prices, but I will
| also note that all proceeds from sales are donated to a
| charitable foundation.
| tasha0663 wrote:
| These make rounds every once and a while, and I've dunked on his
| art before, so I clicked around a little more and landed on this
| one that had some pictures of Ringo actual holding a print of it.
|
| https://www.ringostarrart.com/product/eye-lidded-man/
|
| Scale and viewing conditions matter, and that'd look fine hanging
| in a music room. It's obviously not for everyone, but at $1600 to
| have a signed Ringo it's not bad. Definitely a conversation
| starter.
|
| No idea what the vaguely defined Lotus Foundation is, what it
| does, or how well, but he's not pocketing the money, so there's
| that.
| oksurewhynot wrote:
| How long before these get minted as NFTs?
| peanut_worm wrote:
| Classic. Yer Baby and Bad Finger are my favorites.
| MrsPeaches wrote:
| Bob Dylan as well: http://artcelebs.com/bob-dylan/
|
| Seem to be a few run by the same company/gallery:
| http://artcelebs.com/art/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-09 23:01 UTC)