(Untitled)

[coraxjabberwock]

I've seen this linked in a few places, and something about the way it's being described kind of annoys me.

Someone's taken the Simpsons, whom we all know as extremely stylized two-dimensional cartoons, and imagined them as creepier, less stylized three-dimensional figures. It takes some impressive photo-manipulation skills and the end result is

Comments

[bluedragon716]

In terms of this simpsons thing (which I hadn't seen before actually) I think that definition of 'real' is the same one that people have used in talking about barbie. "If Barbie were real, she would be 7 feet tall/fall over because of the size of her head/breasts/weigh 100 lbs" etc.

I know what you're talking about in terms of myths and fairy tales (and to a certain extent all fiction). You pretty much sum it up when you say "well, of course they couldn't, they're not in the genre of realism, they're following a different standard entirely."

I'm not sure that "realistic" is meant to equal "good" though. I think it's more like "realistic" ought to equal "the ways things are for me-the-viewer (or reader or whathaveyou)" Because you could have a depiction of, you know, two very different cultures getting along perfectly and while that is "good" it is not "realistic." This is of course ignoring the fact that things may reflect and/or comment on what is 'real' without being 'realistic.'

palestra altedo

[anonymous]

Hello

mp5 civile

[anonymous]

Hi