发信人: lie (撒谎的哑巴)
标 题: Re: 转载2,有关ascii创作方向的感受
发信站: BBS 大话西游站 (Thu Nov 20 22:20:15 2003), 转信
谢谢,呵呵
这篇评论是很早以前写的,当时针对lstar的一个《庄子》的作品,
感觉很好,就说他是天下第一,这个说法是非正式场合的灌水,而
chine同样灌水的反驳说天下第一应该是flubber,所以lie写此评论,
只是用来说明对不同风格的看法,以及自己对ascii特点的总结,还
有对ascii适于发展趋势的一个个性描述。
lie也赞同一个百家争鸣的局面,但是各种风格之间也有一定的相似
之处,却很容易被人混淆。精细的ascii作品以flubber最具代表性,
但是很多同样爱好精细创作的作者有时候对精细却走入了歧途,lie
在精细的作品上也曾有所尝试,也曾走过一段弯路,深刻感觉到精细
创作的难于把握。作品是为思想而创作,而非为创作而创作,lie曾经
走向了后者,感到了痛苦。于是看到很多从事精细创作的人同样走入
了误区,便禁不住出来批评。用纸与ascii相比不是就其本身相比,而
是就创作的思想决定创作与否相比。换句话说,如果是拥有思想而创作,
其个性又同时严谨则无可非议,也便是你所说到的一种创作方式而已;
然而,又的确有很多人不经意的走向了误区,即想要做一幅精细的作品,
进而痛苦的通篇查找古怪字符,渐渐的,自己的思想就消散了,作品也
仅是为一个创作而成就,那么思想又在哪里呢?没有思想的作品又为什么
要妄自菲薄为艺术品呢?因此lie时常说ascii是娱乐,不轻易说是艺术。
如同摄影与绘画无法相提并论一样,用ascii与纸、笔相比也看似毫不沾
边,但从另一方面而言,ascii与纸笔的区别在哪里又的确需要思考。ascii
的魅力在于ascii字符本身的想象力,精细的创作、粗糙的创作之所以都可以
被接受正是因为都拥有这个共性,而纸和笔并没有直接提供给我们有趣的字
符,因此用纸和笔创作需要勾勒轮廓,注重比例、透视。所以如果先用笔勾画
出一个情景,再设法用复杂的ascii字符来套用,甚至不惜大量扩充ascii字符
集,那么,虽然选择字符本身也具有想象力,但ascii字符本身对整体构图的
想象力却被抹煞了。flubber可以两全两者,但不是所有同样从事精细创作的
人都可以,他们容易忽略后者。与纸和笔相比,ascii可以没有轮廓,可以忽视
比例,无视透视,但他依然可以体现情景,体现思想,原因正是刚才所提到的其
字符本身可以对构图隐约的来进行影响。ascii字符本身就可以模糊隐约的表
达这些。ascii字符不是点,也不是线,因此它的想象力是无穷的。举例而言
,如果画一个动物,如果只是用一些字符来准确的够出轮廓,再添加细节,
那么想象力只是局限在了字符对轮廓,对线条的影响,但是字符本身能够对
整体构图的影响却很轻易被忽视掉了,字符可以是动物某一个体现神情的肌肉,
某处字符的着重与缺省也可以是画面整体的重点、虚实,这些想象力被忽略
掉都很可惜。我还想说lstar的那个林冲,他用复杂的字符准确勾出了林冲的身
体轮廓,但是他无法用更精细的字符去刻画出林冲的神情,我们看到,林冲没有
了眼睛、眼神、没有鼻子嘴也没有表情,那么他为什么是林冲呢,他不能是武松,
或是史进吗?如果旁边还有很多复杂的情景作对比那么可以认为这些不是重点,
可以被忽略,但如果只有林冲孤零零的一个人,那么就极大的忽略了字符本身
可以对整体构图的表达。所以用ascii和纸、笔来相比,是对没有完全发挥ascii
想象力的一种批驳。
lie的作品风格一定程度是偷懒,是对精细难于处理的一种回避,但是,如同精细
是一条通往ascii创作的路一样,粗糙的,但却注重字符本身对整体影响的创作也是
另一条。所不同的,只是lie是一个懒汉罢了。呵呵
【 在 dntx (冬鸟听雪) 的大作中提到: 】
: ascii的方向不是线性的,可以有多个方向,
: 线条的、色块的、卡通的、写实的、黑白的、颜色的
: 近景刻画、大势勾略、细腻精美、豪放粗犷,等等,
: 这里的每一个都可追求,每一个都可以在 ascii 上得到一定体现,
: 都具有一定艺术性(当然艺术含量与美观度会有一定差异),代表一定的方向,
: 所以论述一定应该是往某个方向发展,个人以为不妥。
: 因为初衷是在bbs 上展现细腻完美。
: 就象美院教大家画人体一样,就是要让画手能在画纸/画布上
: 展现真实的肌肉感、身材比例、光影什么的,
: 这些事拿个照相机来肯定要完美得多,但我们并不这样做。
: 应该说在 bbs 上做东西,不是做出只能由 ascii 做的事才是目的,
Sender: lie lying mute
Title: Re: Reprint 2 Feelings about the direction of ascii creation
Sending station: BBS Westward Journey Station Thu Nov 20 22:20:15 2003, forwarded
Thank you Haha
This review was written a long time ago. It was about a work by Zhuangzi on lstar.
It feels good, so just say he is the best in the world. This is an informal statement, but
chine also retorted that the number one in the world should be flubber, so lie wrote this comment
Just to illustrate my views on different styles and my own summary of the characteristics of ascii.
There is a personal description of the development trend of ascii
Lie also agrees with the situation of a hundred schools of thought contending, but there are certain similarities between various styles.
However, it is easy to be confused. Flubber is the most representative of fine ascii works.
However, many authors who also like precision creation sometimes go astray about precision. lie
I have made some attempts at fine works, and I have also gone through a detour, and I have a deep sense of fineness.
Creation is difficult to grasp. Works are created for ideas, not for creation. Lie once
I went to the latter and felt pain, so I saw many people who are engaged in fine creation also go to the latter.
If you encounter a misunderstanding, you can't help but criticize. Comparing paper with ascii is not a comparison of itself, but
It is the thought of creation that determines whether to create or not. In other words, if you create with thoughts
Its personality and rigor are beyond reproach. It is just a creative method you mentioned.
However, it is true that many people inadvertently go to the wrong direction, that is, they want to make a delicate work.
Then I painfully searched for strange characters throughout the article. Gradually, my thoughts dissipated and the work also disappeared.
It is just for a creation. Then where is the thought? What is the purpose of a work without thought?
You have to underestimate yourself as a work of art. Therefore, I often say that ASCII is entertainment, and I don’t easily call it art.
Just like photography and painting cannot be compared, using ASCII and pen and paper seem to be incompatible.
But on the other hand, what is the difference between ascii and paper and pen? We really need to think about ascii
The charm lies in the imagination of the ASCII characters themselves. The reason why both fine and rough creations are possible
They are accepted precisely because they all share this commonality, and paper and pen do not directly provide us with interesting words.
Therefore, when creating with paper and pen, you need to outline and pay attention to proportion and perspective. Therefore, if you first outline with a pen
Come up with a scenario and try to use complex ASCII characters to apply it, even at the expense of a large number of ASCII characters.
Set So, although the choice of characters itself is also imaginative, the ascii characters themselves have a profound impact on the overall composition.
Imagination has been wiped out. Flubber can have both, but not everyone who is also engaged in fine creations.
People can easily ignore the latter. Compared with paper and pen, ascii can have no outline and can be ignored.
Proportion ignores perspective, but it can still embody scenes and thoughts. The reason is precisely the other reasons just mentioned.
The characters themselves can vaguely affect the composition. The ascii characters themselves can vaguely affect the composition.
These ASCII characters are neither dots nor lines, so the imagination is endless. For example
If you were to draw an animal, just use some characters to accurately outline it and then add details.
So imagination is limited to the effect of characters on outlines and lines, but the characters themselves can affect
The influence of the overall composition is easily overlooked. The character can be a muscle of an animal that reflects the expression.
The emphasis and default of a certain character can also be the focus of the entire picture. These imaginations are ignored.
It's a pity to lose it. I also want to talk about Lin Chong from lstar. He used complex characters to accurately outline Lin Chong's body.
Body outline, but he couldn't use more detailed characters to depict Lin Chong's expression. We see that Lin Chong didn't
He has no eyes, no eyes, no nose, no mouth, and no expression. So why is he Lin Chong? He cannot be Wu Song.
Or Shi Jin? If there are many complicated scenes for comparison, then you can think that these are not the focus.
It can be ignored, but if there is only Lin Chong alone, then the character itself will be greatly ignored.
It can express the overall composition, so comparing it with paper and pen using ASCII is not fully utilizing ASCII.
a refutation of imagination
The style of lie's works is lazy to a certain extent, an avoidance of the difficulty of handling finesse, but as fine as
It is a road leading to ASCII creation, which is rough but focuses on the overall impact of the character itself.
The other difference is that lie is a lazy guy, haha
Mentioned in the masterpiece of dntx Winter Bird Listening to Snow:
: The direction of ascii is not linear and can have multiple directions.
: line, color block, cartoon, realistic, black and white, color
: Close-up depiction, general outline, delicate and exquisite, bold and rough, etc.
:Everyone here can be pursued. Each of them can be reflected in ascii to a certain extent.
: They all have a certain degree of artistry. Of course, there will be certain differences in artistic content and aesthetics. They represent a certain direction.
: So the discussion must be developing in a certain direction. I personally think it’s inappropriate.
: Because the original intention is to show exquisiteness and perfection on bbs
: Just like the Academy of Fine Arts teaches people to draw the human body, it is to enable the painter to draw on paper and canvas.
: Show real muscles, body proportions, light and shadow, etc.
: It would be much better to use a camera to do these things, but we don’t do that
: It should be said that the purpose of making things on bbs is not to make things that can only be done by ascii.