there’s a post by max1461 about how they think most sciences can be conceived of as adding “base sciences” (e.g. philology + math = linguistics) and i was wondering if you could do something similar for art. like, thinking about it, i’d probably break it down into the five senses + language + dynamism + interactivity + body involvement. the tricky thing is that there are dependencies. like, you can’t communicate language without relying on your senses.
anyways if anyone can find that aforementioned post let me know
edit: misremembered, it wasn’t specifically “sciences”, more so general fields/concepts (e.g. organization)
books are sight + language
music videos are sight + sound (+ language if the song has lyrics)
cooking is sight + taste + smell + touch
tattoos are sight + body
choreography is sight + sound + body (again with an optional “+ language” depending on the song)
movies are “sight + dynamism” and video games are “sight + dynamism + interactivity” but they both can optionally have sound and language which is a bit weird. like are there terms for “movie with sound” vs. “movie without sound”?
also now that i think about it sound is inherently dynamic because that’s how vibrations work. not sure how far this “composite classification of art” can go
dynamism seems like it would be a prerequisite for interactivity but both visual novels and board games feel “interactive” but not “dynamic”. i think it’s like, if the change is user-driven it’s interactive and if not it’s dynamic so if all change is user-driven then it is interactive but not dynamic.
does the thing visual novels and other videos games do where the text appears gradually rather than all at once count as dynamism??? i may be reaching this system’s limit
