90 réponses à ce sujet

[Chuvvy]

dreman9999 wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

My face when people try and define art.

I can easily do it.

Art is any medium that can attract any emotion and /or emotional attachments and /or significant meaning to it's form. In short, It's the human attachment made between viewer or attendee and medium the makes it art be it food, music , dance, illustration, painting or interactive medium aka games.

You gave a definition of the word art, that's not the same thing. Art is subjective and everything about it is based off of ones own opinion. What's art to someone may be **** to someone else. If some ****** smears a bunch of paint on a canvas in no real way, I don't think it's art. But some people see itas an expression, that's their opinion. You can't lay out guide lines and say this one thing is art and this other thing isn't. It doesn't work that way. Art cannot be defined, because the art is in the eye of the beholder.

Modifié par Slidell505, 03 juillet 2010 - 09:44 .

[LilKis1]

What do they mean by this game being art? Art in what way?

[Lara Denton]

A lot of people working on video games are trained artists and while working on these video games they are using their trained abilities to produce something. To give an example: the difference is that they are not using marble, or stone, or whatever, anymore to carve something, but they are using, let's say ZBrush. So, is the result less of an art because it's made out of pixels? I think not. 

[dreman9999]

Slidell505 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

My face when people try and define art.

I can easily do it.

Art is any medium that can attract any emotion and /or emotional attachments and /or significant meaning to it's form. In short, It's the human attachment made between viewer or attendee and medium the makes it art be it food, music , dance, illustration, painting or interactive medium aka games.

You gave a definition of the word art, that's not the same thing. Art is subjective and everything about it is based off of ones own opinion. What's art to someone may be **** to someone else. If some ****** smears a bunch of paint on a canvas in no real way, I don't think it's art. But some people see itas an expression, that's their opinion. You can't lay out guide lines and say this one thing is art and this other thing isn't. It doesn't work that way. Art cannot be defined, because the art is in the eye of the beholder.

Why are you disagreeing with me. We're both saying the same thing. Art is based on the human element that we have. The social intact that we have that let us communicate with each other and make bonds allow use to appreciate art. Whether we are moved, indifferent or disgusted by the work or not makes no difference, it's just that we connect with it. And all that is base on perspective and how that perspective is developed..
All I did is give a broad definition of the meaning of art that was very vague on what is considered art. I was not wrong.

[SuperMedbh]

laradenton wrote...

A lot of people working on video games are trained artists and while working on these video games they are using their trained abilities to produce something. To give an example: the difference is that they are not using marble, or stone, or whatever, anymore to carve something, but they are using, let's say ZBrush. So, is the result less of an art because it's made out of pixels? I think not. 

Speaking as someone studying 3D design with the hopes of getting a job in the industry someday, THANK YOU. 

[Bryy_Miller]

slimgrin wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Okay, let's not get entirely stupid here. Debating what is and is not art is one thing, saying that one medium is another medium is another.

Chill for a moment. Are you saying opinions are the end of the discussion here? I have mine, Ebert has his, lets agree to disagree and all go home.

What is yours?

I'm saying that calling a video game literature is just incorrect.

[SuperMedbh]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
I'm saying that calling a video game literature is just incorrect.

Absolutely.  A videogame is not a book.  It's also not a movie, play, painting or Queen Anne style end table.  Glad we've cleared that up.

[wrexingcrew]

laradenton wrote...

A lot of people working on video games are trained artists and while working on these video games they are using their trained abilities to produce something. To give an example: the difference is that they are not using marble, or stone, or whatever, anymore to carve something, but they are using, let's say ZBrush. So, is the result less of an art because it's made out of pixels? I think not. 

*high-fives lara*

I guess that's one of the things I find mystifying about the argument that games aren't (or can't be) art. So many of the constituent parts of a game are already widely thought to qualify - is their inclusion in a broader whole what disqualifies them, then? That would seem to disqualify a lot of installation works, collages, multimedia pieces and the like. Hell, film is a multimedia form in some instances (if not all).

[Sable Phoenix]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Okay, let's not get entirely stupid here. Debating what is and is not art is one thing, saying that one medium is another medium is another.

Chill for a moment. Are you saying opinions are the end of the discussion here? I have mine, Ebert has his, lets agree to disagree and all go home.

What is yours?

I'm saying that calling a video game literature is just incorrect.

One of the more concise definitions of literature I found:

"Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: "Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity" (Rebecca West)."

Planescape:Torment had over a million words written for it.  It incorporated both prosaic and poetic forms.  It invoked emotions and tensions and philosophical considerations within the player.  It asked a pointed question about what it means to be human, and gave the player the means to decide what the answer is.  In all its accomplishments it matches the category of literature.

Literature is not dependent upon the medium which delivers it.  It may be delivered orally, or in written form upon stone, paper, wood, or electronically, and ultimately the medium is irrelevant to the work.  Someone experiencing a great work of literature delivered in a traditional form does not remember the quality of the binding and the pages, but the quality of the writing.  Likewise, someone experiencing a literary work in a modern, electronic form will remember the writing long after the experience of the medium has faded.  Simply because the medium was an interactive electronic one does not mean that the writing created for Planescape:Torment was any less a literary work.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 04 juillet 2010 - 06:21 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Okay, let's not get entirely stupid here. Debating what is and is not art is one thing, saying that one medium is another medium is another.

Chill for a moment. Are you saying opinions are the end of the discussion here? I have mine, Ebert has his, lets agree to disagree and all go home.

What is yours?

I'm saying that calling a video game literature is just incorrect.

One of the more concise definitions of literature I found:

"Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: "Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity" (Rebecca West)."

Planescape:Torment had over a million words written for it.  It incorporated both prosaic and poetic forms.  It invoked emotions and tensions and philosophical considerations within the player.  It asked a pointed question about what it means to be human, and gave the player the means to decide what the answer is.  In all its accomplishments it matches the category of literature.

Literature is not dependent upon the medium which delivers it.  It may be delivered orally, or in written form upon stone, paper, wood, or electronically, and ultimately the medium is irrelevant to the work.  Someone experiencing a great work of literature delivered in a traditional form does not remember the quality of the binding and the pages, but the quality of the writing.  Likewise, someone experiencing a literary work in a modern, electronic form will remember the writing long after the experience of the medium has faded.  Simply because the medium was an interactive electronic one does not mean that the writing created for Planescape:Torment was any less a literary work.

This thread is going to go on FOREVER, isn't it?

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 04 juillet 2010 - 07:42 .

[Whatever Works]

Ebert retracted his statements



/end thread

[Bryy_Miller]

Whatever Works wrote...

Ebert retracted his statements

/end thread

This means nothing to enraged people. Especially if they are yet of a certain age.