Hey, don't rag on artists, dumbass. LOL
Hey, there's a difference between an artist and an "arteeeeest." Ya know what it is?
The "arteeeeest" isn't nearly as talented, but has a greater sense of his/her own personal "self worth."
You know the type I mean. I dunno if you ARE the type, but if you're not, you've probably seen them. The oh-so-haughty type who are convinced that if they'd been around when the Mona Lisa was being painted, they could've given the artist a few tips on how to make it REALLY good. Yet, somehow, nobody buys THEIR art... "obviously due to the fact that the current market is made up of clods with no taste!"
That's an "arteeeest!" If you see that as being you, well... that's your call.
...but it seems now that you're letting your anger take in directions you're going to regret.
What bit in there (other than my statement about finding the current trends in shoe design to be obnoxious!) could REMOTELY be considered to represent "anger?" For the record, there's not even the tiniest hint of anger anywhere in that post.
I know, in today's "don't offend anyone... oh except for the accepted targets of course" culture, we've all been trained to walk on eggshells. I just don't do that. And yes, it seems to frighten some folks who see any overt disagreement as an indication of "being really irate" when in fact it's the most central element of ANY actual DISCUSSION.
The reason that discussion has become such a rare thing today, and has been replaced with the mindless inanity of "Myspace blogs" and so forth, is that too many people are afraid to actually discuss things that they care about with people who might not agree with them.
The world would be a better place were that not the case.Do you realize that you just made a generalization?
MANY generalizations are true. For instance... if an apple falls off of a tree, it falls to the ground... every time! I doubt you can find a single example of one deciding not to and suddenly flying into orbit instead.
However, you do make a valid (if overstated) point, so I'll rephrase my point by saying adding "the overwhelming majority" instead of the implicit "all" in the original comments. And I'll stand by that one.Well, the term "anachronism" does have a clear definition:That's pretty clear-cut. It's either an intentional presentation of something out of it's proper place in time, or it's something inadvertently out of it's proper place in time.
Humans living in caves, wearing bear skins, using flint knives... that would be anachronistic today. By converse, cavemen using cell phones and walking through airports, looking at Geiko insurance signs... that, also, is an anachronism.
For styles... anachronistic is easy to define, because styles are not defined by functionality. Funky fins on cars served no purposes, so having those today would be undeniably anachronistic. Goofy "beehive" hairdos were a matter of style (and were not often worn even when "in fashion" because they were so utterly impractical!) and they would be unlikely to be seen today.
For aircraft... excepting the most advanced fighter craft... an aircraft which was flying in the 1960s is by no means out-of-place today. For the FUNCTIONAL elements of automotive design, the only "anachronism" is that today's cars are designed so that the owner can't work on them, while in the past they were designed so the owner COULD.
For the TOS Enterprise... there are a few "anachronistic" elements inside. The colored "mood lighting" for instance, and the "swirly" stuff in the overhead panels in the corridors. But by and large, it's designed to look FUNCTIONAL as as such is not a "style" issue at all. Same with the details of the ship design. Sure, there's some art involved... but it was designed to look like a machine, not a sculpture. VERY little of the 1701 design is in any way tied to "styles" which are related to a particular time.
And as I said before, the "revised" intercoolers have more in common with 1960s finned cars than with any reasonable mechanical elements. The image another poster put, above, shows that remarkably clearly, I think!
A good rule is "think through WHY its' how it is." If you can provide a believable reason for that "why" then you're doing OK. That's why I loved Andy Probert's work on Trek... even where I disagreed with a point or two, it was clear he'd thought everything through. He's an artist... not at "arteeeeeest." And there was both artistic AND logical grounds for his decisions in virtually every case.Well, to start off... yes, you are wrong. I don't believe I've ever said anything like that... and if I ever did, it would have been as a CRITICISM (for instance, I might have criticized the 1701-E design for having "artsy" elements that serve no meaningful, plausible purpose... even though the ship looks good on first blush!)
I have no idea how you could EVER imagine me saying such a thing, if you've read much of anything I've ever said. I presume you never read the threads wherein I developed my concepts for the Ringship Enterprise or for the Vega class (which is my avatar). EVERY SINGLE SHAPE AND FEATURE in my work is wrapped around a functional element. For instance, I've been working on the embarked cutter for the Vega recently, doing a "high-res" version... and every bump, every curve, every wall element... I could tell you what plumbing or wiring is going through there!
Realize that this is just ONE TINY ELEMENT of the "big ship" I've been playing with for the past couple of years... but it illustrates how I view these things pretty clearly.
The features many of us understand as intercoolers on the E-nil were not originally understood as such. That label came quite a bit later.
In that case, untrue. Jeffries, prior to his work in the film biz, had worked in the aeronautical engineering field. He designed the Enterprise's engines to resemble aircraft engines (which, not coincidentally, are mounted on pylons, in nacelles). MANY engine designs have intercooler systems installed. Real engines, I mean, not "trekkian" ones. Hey just put elements that are often fuel-cooled, today, onto the outside of the nacelles.
It's true that some elements were named, later on, and even redefined (I think we'd all have to acknowledge that the lighted dome on the bottom of the primary hull was supposed to be the main weapons emplacement, not a sensor array!) But the aeronautical stuff came from him... and the three "coolant loops" on each nacelle were ripped straight from contemporary aviation engine design, where they are referred to as "intercoolers."
Plus, the understanding that the form, flow, and detailing for the Enterprise was changed for the big screen is from the commentary soundtrack on the Director's Edition, with comments from Robert Wise discussing his recollection of why they took the artistic direction they did.
I don't seem to recall that Bob Wise was heavily involved in the redesign of the ship. In fact, as I recall, the ship redesign was pretty much fixed (externally at least) before Bob Wise was signed, wasn't it?
Roddenberry was key to that (but then again, he did have his moments of "arteeest-ness," even when dealing with his own work!). Mike Minor was involved, and of course Andy Probert was key. But overall, the changes were (1) reasonable (considering that it was essentially a new-built ship) and (2) logical (most everything made senses except for the engine nacelle design, which IMHO never really fit in properly with the rest of the ship... and which I've since discovered was done by someone else who wanted them to look "art deco"... a very anachronistic style, honestly, and probably why they're my least favorite element of the ship... too many details on there that seem to be there to "look good" without any logic behind them!)
