Hacker News Reader

Comment by knodi123 | Hacker News Reader

That vimeo short looks like it was exactly as grueling as he wanted it to be. I mean, he spent several seconds looking at a motionless room at, what, 5 fps?

Don't get me wrong, I've spent hundreds of dollars building a third-rate home security system from scratch, and it's almost to a useable state. But it's hard because I want to do it the hard way. I could have something much, much better for less money if I was actually focused on building quality efficiently.

View on HN

On the topic of home security systems, have you watched Home Alone with localhost(https://youtu.be/zkzlc76wJ6k)? It covers someone else building their own security system.

No, but that's awesome. Thanks!

Yea, I haven't finished anything, but at various times I've played around with animation. He was using full-frame ( AKA animating the entire frame instead of just the moving pieces) for a ton of shots where its not only unnecessary, but also detrimental to image quality. For example, the bookshelf looked all fuzzy/shaky. If he just drew a single frame and cloned it enough for several seconds, the shakiness would disappear.

That being said, overall I enjoyed the short film. He's got a lot of talent and dedication.

The difference is that your home security system is not an artistic expression.

I beg to differ, in the most strenuous terms. I've designed the web app, flowcharted the behavior, and even used fiverr to get a woman with a lovely british accent to record all the voice feedback. I am extremely proud of what I've built, and I show it to everyone who visits.

One of the components of my system is a computer that can literally do 90% of the functions I want, but I'm just using it as a dumb proxy.

Just because my art can do something does not mean it's not art.

Where did you draw that line?

Where the security system has a practical use outside of existing.

The notion that the only expression which can be artistic are those which are without value or purpose is bullshit.

Architects (as an example) combine art and utility. One doesn't exclude the other.

Indeed they do not exclude each other but they are also not the same thing.

Plenty of art is educational, and therefore has a practical purpose. In fact, I'd argue a lot of art is functional.

Your line is wrong.

That's not where artists themselves draw the line, despite the fact that it describes a large percentage of artwork.

The linked video appears to be a purely artistic expression, the comparison it to a home security system is not applicable.

Why not? If the security system includes artistic elements, I don't see why you couldn't compare those elements to something else that's purely artistic expression.

At the very least, it's valid to compare them on the level of work that goes into each, compared to the benefit that each provides (in one case, a functional security system, and in the other, a piece of entertainment).

If the primary purpose is utilitarian then it's not art, it's decoration. Art is its own justification. adding a little flair doesn't make you an artist.

I'd say that the motives of the creator have more to do with it than any real or potential use the item in question has. If I pay a bunch of time and money to create a crappy security system, am I doing it to have a security system? Or to have created something for the joy of it? Probably a little of both, but if objects of higher utility are available for cheaper (both time and money), then how are you going to argue that utility is the primary purpose?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com