Shervin Afshar wrote as follows:
> I am a bit confused about the definitions of "modern art" and "emoji" here:
Thank you for replying to my post.
I think of emoji as picture characters used in a message, usually a message
conveyed by electronic means. An emoji conveys a meaning through the language
barrier, thus allowing communication through the language barrier.
Yet the pictures used for emoji are usually, thus far, representational
pictures.
I am thinking that the picture used in an emoji could be an abstract picture.
If an abstract picture is used to define an emoji character then there needs to
be some guidance, external to the particular message where such an abstract
emoji is used, as to what meaning the picture is being used to convey.
Since the idea is that the abstract emoji should convey meaning through the
language barrier, that guidance needs to be localized so that a person reading
the message can understand its meaning, regardless of which one or more natural
languages he or she has knowledge.
I have referred to the pictures that I have produced for these abstract emoji
as modern art because they are not traditional representational pictures.
I have heard of people looking at an abstract picture in an art gallery and
asking "What does it mean?".
If, say, ae78901 were produced as a picture for display in an art gallery then
there is an answer to the question "What does it mean?".
Thus it is applied modern art, art that can be applied to a practical
application, rather than just being art that is just there.
For the avoidance of doubt I am not in any way criticising art that is just
there: I like art, including modern art.
William Overington
21 August 2014
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
