1311 réponses à ce sujet

[Dethead123]

Difference between Art for the Artist and Art for the People/Consumer.

One involved me paying for it.

[Unit-Alpha]

Lugaidster wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Sorry, but claiming that art has an objective definition is patently untrue. The term is incredibly subjective.

And we aren't even talking about content here.

This game fits the commonly accepted consunsus (which is why it is the one that appears on dictionaries) on the meaning of the word in many societies, not just the american one. The term isn't subjective, the work that abides to the term's definition is. The definition is at most loose, not subjective. 

In any case, following your logic, you're contradicting yourself. If it is indeed not objective, then it's stupid to say the game is not art in absolute terms like you have said in the past posts. How can you if the definition is really subjective?

Read what I said again.

The definition is subjective. I never said that it was objectively art; I was merely making my subjective opinion known.

God, you pro-enders just *love* to project.

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 24 mars 2012 - 05:33 .

[Lugaidster]

Cyph3rX wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

...and then they charge money for it and it changes from purely art to a consumer product.

It's not purely art, as much as it's not purely a consumer product. You're going from one end of the spectrum to the other.

[aliengmr1]

Did people just forget about publishers and distribution companies?

[Cobra's_back]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

It's not my definition, it is the accepted definition on the english (and many other) language. If you don't like the english language definition for the word, why use the word in the first place. The game is not fine art, I agree on that, but so what. Not everyone is a fine artist, I'm not comparing Bioware to Da vinci, but the Da vinci types aren't the only types of artists. 

I just feel that the whole discussion on art degenerated to the point where everyone is claiming that their definition of art is *the* definition of art. This game is art as we can regard it as the result of creative work following aesthetic principles (how much is up for discussion), the qualitative aspect is entirely subjective. This may well be crappy art for many, but it's still art and comparing it to a scribble on a bathroom stall is as silly as comparing it to the Mona Lisa. This stuff isn't black or white.

Sorry, but claiming that art has an objective definition is patently untrue. The term is incredibly subjective.

And we aren't even talking about content here.

I'm with you on this.


BioWare is not in any way a Divinci or a Claude Monet. They didn’t sell to the masses. They didn’t have a marketing dept. Bio Ware is Commercial only.

[Renoscott]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

Except this wasn't made for the artist's enjoyment, this was made for public consumption.So it was made for the people.

To have fans make there own concution of the ending of ME sires before they release the true ending, Mike wanted to see what the fans would come up with for the ending and well stupide people all go "AHHHG NO I DON'T WANT TO IMAGON ANYTHING FOR I HATE BOOKS AHHHG!"

[Cyph3rX]

Lugaidster wrote...

Cyph3rX wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

...and then they charge money for it and it changes from purely art to a consumer product.

It's not purely art, as much as it's not purely a consumer product. You're going from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Then what is it?

[Grasich]

aliengmr1 wrote...

Did people just forget about publishers and distribution companies?

Yes.

[Grasich]

Cyph3rX wrote...


Then what is it?

As I said above, it's a commercial product with artistic elements.

[Unit-Alpha]

Renoscott wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

Except this wasn't made for the artist's enjoyment, this was made for public consumption.So it was made for the people.

To have fans make there own concution of the ending of ME sires before they release the true ending, Mike wanted to see what the fans would come up with for the ending and well stupide people all go "AHHHG NO I DON'T WANT TO IMAGON ANYTHING FOR I HATE BOOKS AHHHG!"

I literally cannot read that.

[Renoscott]

aliengmr1 wrote...

Did people just forget about publishers and distribution companies?

You mean how EA LOVE to milk fanchies almost to the same level as capcom?

[Dethead123]

Renoscott wrote...

To have fans make there own concution of the ending of ME sires before they release the true ending, Mike wanted to see what the fans would come up with for the ending and well stupide people all go "AHHHG NO I DON'T WANT TO IMAGON ANYTHING FOR I HATE BOOKS AHHHG!"

wat

Modifié par Dethead123, 24 mars 2012 - 05:34 .

[Lugaidster]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Sorry, but claiming that art has an objective definition is patently untrue. The term is incredibly subjective.

And we aren't even talking about content here.

This game fits the commonly accepted consunsus (which is why it is the one that appears on dictionaries) on the meaning of the word in many societies, not just the american one. The term isn't subjective, the work that abides to the term's definition is. The definition is at most loose, not subjective. 

In any case, following your logic, you're contradicting yourself. If it is indeed not objective, then it's stupid to say the game is not art in absolute terms like you have said in the past posts. How can you if the definition is really subjective?

Read what I said again.

The definition is subjective. I never said that it was objectively art; it was merely making my subjective opinion known.

God, you pro-enders just *love* to project.

I'm not a pro-ender. Who said I was? Do you even read?

When you were asked if DA:O was art you said "No". You didn't say "No, to me it isn't". You sent a clear negative as if it was objectively true. Great way to contradict yourself. 

[DemGeth]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

It's not my definition, it is the accepted definition on the english (and many other) language. If you don't like the english language definition for the word, why use the word in the first place. The game is not fine art, I agree on that, but so what. Not everyone is a fine artist, I'm not comparing Bioware to Da vinci, but the Da vinci types aren't the only types of artists. 

I just feel that the whole discussion on art degenerated to the point where everyone is claiming that their definition of art is *the* definition of art. This game is art as we can regard it as the result of creative work following aesthetic principles (how much is up for discussion), the qualitative aspect is entirely subjective. This may well be crappy art for many, but it's still art and comparing it to a scribble on a bathroom stall is as silly as comparing it to the Mona Lisa. This stuff isn't black or white.

Sorry, but claiming that art has an objective definition is patently untrue. The term is incredibly subjective.

And we aren't even talking about content here.

I'm with you on this.


BioWare is not in any way a Divinci or a Claude Monet. They didn’t sell to the masses. They didn’t have a marketing dept. Bio Ware is Commercial only.

Ahhhhhh so the catering to the wealthy is different than catering to the masses.....it's artistic?

[Unit-Alpha]

Cyph3rX wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Cyph3rX wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

...and then they charge money for it and it changes from purely art to a consumer product.

It's not purely art, as much as it's not purely a consumer product. You're going from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Then what is it?

An enigma.

Thus, it must be art!

[Cyph3rX]

Renoscott wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

Except this wasn't made for the artist's enjoyment, this was made for public consumption.So it was made for the people.

To have fans make there own concution of the ending of ME sires before they release the true ending, Mike wanted to see what the fans would come up with for the ending and well stupide people all go "AHHHG NO I DON'T WANT TO IMAGON ANYTHING FOR I HATE BOOKS AHHHG!"

http://desmond.image....jpg&res=medium

Not sure if serious.

[Jackal7713]

Lugaidster wrote...

It's not my definition, it is the accepted definition on the english (and many other) language. If you don't like the english language definition for the word, why use the word in the first place. The game is not fine art, I agree on that, but so what. Not everyone is a fine artist, I'm not comparing Bioware to Da vinci, but the Da vinci types aren't the only types of artists. 

I just feel that the whole discussion on art degenerated to the point where everyone is claiming that their definition of art is *the* definition of art. This game is art as we can regard it as the result of creative work following aesthetic principles (how much is up for discussion), the qualitative aspect is entirely subjective. This may well be crappy art for many, but it's still art and comparing it to a scribble on a bathroom stall is as silly as comparing it to the Mona Lisa. This stuff isn't black or white.

Sorry buddy, but first and foremost its a product. People who bought this product aren't happy that they were sold a lie. Claiming the art defense, because don't want to deal with upset customers is a cop out. Plain and simple.

Bioware got caught slacking and so now they don't want to be held responsible. Thats the whole reason for the art defense. So what do they do, now that their sales and ratings are tanking? Oh we'll release DLC to "explain the ending". Well what the hell happen to their art defense?

It seems money made them change their mind really quick.

Edit: they also said " please rate the game high on our promise of giving you explaination DLC."

Modifié par Jackal7713, 24 mars 2012 - 05:40 .

[aliengmr1]

Renoscott wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

Except this wasn't made for the artist's enjoyment, this was made for public consumption.So it was made for the people.

To have fans make there own concution of the ending of ME sires before they release the true ending, Mike wanted to see what the fans would come up with for the ending and well stupide people all go "AHHHG NO I DON'T WANT TO IMAGON ANYTHING FOR I HATE BOOKS AHHHG!"

books actually explain things, instead of giving you random pieces of imagery.

[Grasich]

Renoscott wrote...

To have fans make there own concution of the ending of ME sires before they release the true ending, Mike wanted to see what the fans would come up with for the ending and well stupide people all go "AHHHG NO I DON'T WANT TO IMAGON ANYTHING FOR I HATE BOOKS AHHHG!"

You are a very confusing person.

[Renoscott]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

Except this wasn't made for the artist's enjoyment, this was made for public consumption.So it was made for the people.

To have fans make there own concution of the ending of ME sires before they release the true ending, Mike wanted to see what the fans would come up with for the ending and well stupide people all go "AHHHG NO I DON'T WANT TO IMAGON ANYTHING FOR I HATE BOOKS AHHHG!"

I literally cannot read that.

Mike wanted you to imagon the ending, much of what you must do with books.

[aliengmr1]

I want to reply, but I can't stop laughing

[Unit-Alpha]

Lugaidster wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Sorry, but claiming that art has an objective definition is patently untrue. The term is incredibly subjective.

And we aren't even talking about content here.

This game fits the commonly accepted consunsus (which is why it is the one that appears on dictionaries) on the meaning of the word in many societies, not just the american one. The term isn't subjective, the work that abides to the term's definition is. The definition is at most loose, not subjective. 

In any case, following your logic, you're contradicting yourself. If it is indeed not objective, then it's stupid to say the game is not art in absolute terms like you have said in the past posts. How can you if the definition is really subjective?

Read what I said again.

The definition is subjective. I never said that it was objectively art; it was merely making my subjective opinion known.

God, you pro-enders just *love* to project.

I'm not a pro-ender. Who said I was? Do you even read?

When you were asked if DA:O was art you said "No". You didn't say "No, to me it isn't". You sent a clear negative as if it was objectively true. Great way to contradict yourself. 

Sorry I had to put that obvious information into words. I just expected that most people would be intelligent enough to realize it on their own. Obviously, I was wrong.

If I say, "Toast is good," do I also need to say, "in my opinion?" No. It's implied.

Edit: I am tired.

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 24 mars 2012 - 05:41 .

[Grasich]

Renoscott wrote...
Mike wanted you to imagon the ending, much of what you must do with books.

Whether I imagine a doomsday galactic dark age scenario or see it really doesn't make a difference. It sucks either way.

[Renoscott]

aliengmr1 wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

Except this wasn't made for the artist's enjoyment, this was made for public consumption.So it was made for the people.

To have fans make there own concution of the ending of ME sires before they release the true ending, Mike wanted to see what the fans would come up with for the ending and well stupide people all go "AHHHG NO I DON'T WANT TO IMAGON ANYTHING FOR I HATE BOOKS AHHHG!"

books actually explain things, instead of giving you random pieces of imagery.

True but books will only give you a hint of what they want to see and hear, and leave the rest up for your mind to fill in the blanks, and I'm sure Mike knew of the ME fanfics and just wanted to give them more to go on for a wile. Hell DA is full of them.

[Cobra's_back]

aliengmr1 wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

This is actually wrong on so many levels. If you are applying that logic to video games and the like.

You are soo right. There is no logic in this. Mass Effect is a product.