208 réponses à ce sujet

[Lakhi]

Play Journey, If you can't call it art in a contemporary sense, then I don't know what's wrong with you.

In my personal view, so long as the medium is delivered in a way that has been designed to appeal to a group, then it is art.

[InvincibleHero]

A simple defintion of art should suffice. If it takes fruit from the creative mind and shows an interpretation that can be transmitted to another via any of the senses for the express purpose of entertaining, evoking an emotional response, or sending a message then it could be art. They have to want to make art for a purpose and want an audience to consume the work.

Writing is purely creative and it conveys messages and entertainment and it is clearly art. Art remains even if BW caves just they tarnish their reputation for not standing up for their artitic integrity.

If Mass Effect 3 were a play with all the scripted dialog and BW just chosing one branch of the narrative then no one would dispute that it was art. They just added gameplay and options around that core. It still remains art.

[Il Divo]

JudasMesiah wrote...

'Cause leave an artist to their devices will often times suprised you.

Sometimes. And other times, they will disappoint, in very significant ways as ME3's ending does. What you are proposing has far greater implications than Mass Effect. Sure, we might say Bioware rewriting the ending demonstrates a loss of "integrity". I myself say it's  a correction of bad writing.

But consider for a moment where this line of thinking takes us. Imagine that you're a writer in an academic institution submitting a rough draft for a story. So your professor hands the draft back and across it he has written a million different corrections and mistakes to fix. Reality is, you can correct your mistakes, or risk the consequences of claiming "artistic integrity". Bioware rewriting the ME3 ending is no more a crime than a student following his teacher's criticisms.

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 mars 2012 - 04:16 .

[o Ventus]

As soon as it starts to be manufactured with the intent of generating profit, it ceases to be art. It then becomes a product.

The box of cereal I purchased isn't art, nor is my TV.

[InvincibleHero]

o Ventus wrote...

As soon as it starts to be manufactured with the intent of generating profit, it ceases to be art. It then becomes a product.

The box of cereal I purchased isn't art, nor is my TV.

Wrong they are physical products anything based on intellectual property may be art. Words are different than a product with set features that concretely deliver as promised or not.

Mass lithographs are not art try and make that argument.  You can commercialize anything. Anything can be a commodity so your definition means there is no art. Plays have paying customer so not art ditto movies and novels and paintings and sculptures, etc. What's letf?

[o Ventus]

InvincibleHero wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

As soon as it starts to be manufactured with the intent of generating profit, it ceases to be art. It then becomes a product.

The box of cereal I purchased isn't art, nor is my TV.

Wrong they are physical products anything based on intellectual property may be art. Words are different than a product with set features that concretely deliver as promised or not.

Mass lithographs are not art try and make that argument.  You can commercialize anything. Anything can be a commodity so your definition means there is no art. Plays have paying customer so not art ditto movies and novels and paintings and sculptures, etc. What's letf?

The plays themselves can be art. You aren't paying for the play, you're paying for admission. You pay money to receive a ticket (the product) to get in.

Movies aren't mass produced on industrial levels, neither are paintings or sculptures or plays anyway.

And yes, lithographs are products if they are manufactured and sold to generate revenue.

Modifié par o Ventus, 26 mars 2012 - 04:26 .

[addiction21]

I remember when when this guy Roger Ebert said video games could never be art... I had to get a new internet after the outrage at that statement.

[Il Divo]

addiction21 wrote...

I remember when when this guy Roger Ebert said video games could never be art... I had to get a new internet after the outrage at that statement.

Yeah, that was a fun episode. A shame too, since I actually liked his writing style.

[bigCman123]

It's normal for artists to get outsides opinions or ask for critiques on their art. That's one way to learn and to get better. People rate and give feedback on art all the time. Your argument is invalid. Source: Personal Experience.

In my opinion, video games are art in the same way that music, movies, and novels are art.

Modifié par bigCman123, 26 mars 2012 - 04:31 .

[addiction21]

Il Divo wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

I remember when when this guy Roger Ebert said video games could never be art... I had to get a new internet after the outrage at that statement.

Yeah, that was a fun episode. A shame too, since I actually liked his writing style.

He responded to the backlash he got over that. He did not retract his opinion but I remember he was sincere about it.
I tried to pull it up but for what ever reason its locking up my firefox.

[Il Divo]

addiction21 wrote...

He responded to the backlash he got over that. He did not retract his opinion but I remember he was sincere about it.
I tried to pull it up but for what ever reason its locking up my firefox.

No worries. To an extent, I understand his viewpoint. I think gaming has a long way to go as an art form, compared to other mediums. I just think that Ebert does a very weak job of expressing his position, especially with his "art is about authored intent", which introduces alot of problems for other mediums Ebert does consider art, movies included.  

[InvincibleHero]

o Ventus wrote...

The plays themselves can be art. You aren't paying for the play, you're paying for admission. You pay money to receive a ticket (the product) to get in.

Movies aren't mass produced on industrial levels, neither are paintings or sculptures or plays anyway.

And yes, lithographs are products if they are manufactured and sold to generate revenue.

No as you defined it you cannot change the terms. A play is written to sell tickets so it is a product thus not art.

Movies are mass produced and sent to thousands of theaters worldwide then sold on DVDs and Blu-ray to make more money making people that saw it pay for it again. How evil right not art just for the money. Your point was commercialization made it not art.

You trapped yourself. You aren't paying for Mass Effect just admission to play the game. So which is it?

[addiction21]

Il Divo wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

He responded to the backlash he got over that. He did not retract his opinion but I remember he was sincere about it.
I tried to pull it up but for what ever reason its locking up my firefox.

No worries. To an extent, I understand his viewpoint. I think gaming has a long way to go as an art form, compared to other mediums. I just think that Ebert does a very weak job of expressing his position, especially with his "art is about authored intent", which introduces alot of problems for other mediums Ebert does consider art, movies included.  

http://chrishecker.c...r_Make_You_Cry?

I like to believe there are those out there that still believe in the sentiment that article was written.

[KroganShepard]

JudasMesiah wrote...

This whole debacle over the ending of ME3 has left me with a bad taste in my mouth due to the fact that some people out there, a very vocal division of the gaming community (like a unhealing, puss infested wound) have decided to stick their nose into no one else's buisness. 
This whole Take Back Mass Effect movement is just an attempt by a "entitled" few to (no pun intended) take back what they think are rightfully theirs. But here's the kicker. What Is To Take Back ?.
From what I can see none of of you wrote it, None of you did the art for it, None of you did the design for it and definitely NONE of you did the programming for it. So what to take back ? NOTHING!

As a art to be truly consider art (at least from my definition of art) should be left on the device of the artist and must not be influence or intervend by any outside influences, sure the artist can take outside influences (like players feedback) but that must not interfere with the art what so ever. 
So why and what gave the right to TBME movement to (what I see is) BULLY Bioware into changing there're art ? What entitles them to tell Bioware that their art is not good enough and should be change ?

Like them I hated the ending. But like I won't tell Vincent Van Gogh to change Starry Night so it can be brighter and have spaceships or tell Beethoven to get Lady Gaga to perform/sing in String Quartet No.14 and Im definitely won't tell Peter Jackson or J.R.R Tolkien to change the ending of the Lord of the Rings series. I simply won't.

Let's wind the clock back two years ago when a indignatous, useless old fart by the name of Roger Ebert wrote in his blog that "Video games cannot be art", I'm one of those who opposed that notion and called out Ebert for his bias. Well thanks to the *movement* and Bioware for bowing to their bullying I don't think so.

Not anymore.

PS: This is my two cents on the whole debacle and the results of it. Take it or leave it but I won't argue,sway or bullied into changing my opinion.

So because gaming is an art form that can be changed it doesn't make it art.  Great logic you little b****.  Like do you feel if you don't complain you are better than someone when you are just a ****?

Modifié par KroganShepard, 26 mars 2012 - 04:51 .

[o Ventus]

InvincibleHero wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

The plays themselves can be art. You aren't paying for the play, you're paying for admission. You pay money to receive a ticket (the product) to get in.

Movies aren't mass produced on industrial levels, neither are paintings or sculptures or plays anyway.

And yes, lithographs are products if they are manufactured and sold to generate revenue.

No as you defined it you cannot change the terms. A play is written to sell tickets so it is a product thus not art.

Movies are mass produced and sent to thousands of theaters worldwide then sold on DVDs and Blu-ray to make more money making people that saw it pay for it again. How evil right not art just for the money. Your point was commercialization made it not art.

You trapped yourself. You aren't paying for Mass Effect just admission to play the game. So which is it?

Huh? You aren't writing millions of copies of the play to sell. You're writing it once and selling admission to view it. The manuscript for the play can be considered art, the playing is a service.

Movies aren't mass produced. The DVD's, VHS tapes, and Blu-Rays are. Again, the manuscript can be considered art, but the showing of a movie is a service that you pay for. The DVD (or other format) is a product.

Video games are different, because they exist solely on a disc (or digital download). You can sit down and watch a play, or watch a movie on HBO. In order to play the game, you need to pay money and actually purchase the game (Or rent it, but you're still paying money for the product/service).

Modifié par o Ventus, 26 mars 2012 - 05:01 .

[Il Divo]

addiction21 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

He responded to the backlash he got over that. He did not retract his opinion but I remember he was sincere about it.
I tried to pull it up but for what ever reason its locking up my firefox.

No worries. To an extent, I understand his viewpoint. I think gaming has a long way to go as an art form, compared to other mediums. I just think that Ebert does a very weak job of expressing his position, especially with his "art is about authored intent", which introduces alot of problems for other mediums Ebert does consider art, movies included.  

http://chrishecker.c...r_Make_You_Cry?

I like to believe there are those out there that still believe in the sentiment that article was written.

Agreed. I definitely do, though I guess it would matter a bit more if I were in the computer business. I see our medium (in the very long run) as having the potential to surpass others in its ability to create a connection
with the narrative. Just looking at how games are capable of replicating thought experiments discussed in ethics is already a huge step for us.

[InvincibleHero]

o Ventus wrote...

Huh? You aren't writing millions of copies of the play to sell. You're writing it once and selling admission to view it. The manuscript for the play can be considered art, the playing is a service.

Movies aren't mass produced. The DVD's, VHS tapes, and Blu-Rays are. Again, the manuscript can be considered art, but the showing of a movie is a service that you pay for. The DVD (or other format) is a product.

Video games are different, because they exist solely on a disc (or digital download). You can sit down and watch a play, or watch a movie on HBO. In order to play the game, you need to pay money and actually purchase the game (Or rent it, but you're still paying money for the product/service).

Yes there are many copies of plays (they have to be bought from the author) and it can run in hundreds of theaters at a time in high schools and communities everywhere. It is a commodity yet also art. They are not exclusive terms as you define.

Yes movies are both in versions sent to theaters and those to stores for home purchase and to renatl sites like net flix blockbuster and cable company PPV. If videogames are mass produced not art then movies are as well. You cannot have it both ways. Mass media is mass-media. Choose.

So your definition is plain wrong as well as your labelling attempts.

[o Ventus]

InvincibleHero wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Huh? You aren't writing millions of copies of the play to sell. You're writing it once and selling admission to view it. The manuscript for the play can be considered art, the playing is a service.

Movies aren't mass produced. The DVD's, VHS tapes, and Blu-Rays are. Again, the manuscript can be considered art, but the showing of a movie is a service that you pay for. The DVD (or other format) is a product.

Video games are different, because they exist solely on a disc (or digital download). You can sit down and watch a play, or watch a movie on HBO. In order to play the game, you need to pay money and actually purchase the game (Or rent it, but you're still paying money for the product/service).

Yes there are many copies of plays (they have to be bought from the author) and it can run in hundreds of theaters at a time in high schools and communities everywhere. It is a commodity yet also art. They are not exclusive terms as you define.

Yes movies are both in versions sent to theaters and those to stores for home purchase and to renatl sites like net flix blockbuster and cable company PPV. If videogames are mass produced not art then movies are as well. You cannot have it both ways. Mass media is mass-media. Choose.

So your definition is plain wrong as well as your labelling attempts.

Look back at my post, this time attempting to understand the point.

Movies exist in more than 1 format, as do plays. The original manuscript, like I said, can be considered art. I never once said "it's art, end of story".

Video games, however,  do not.

[foo man chew]

Get off the art argument its tired.Video games are a mass produced product and consumers have the right to ask for change on a product that failed to deliver what was advertised.

[o Ventus]

foo man chew wrote...

Get off the art argument its tired.Video games are a mass produced product and consumers have the right to ask for change on a product that failed to deliver what was advertised.

This.

[RocketManSR2]

I'll make this simple. Music, motion pictures, sculpting, and painting are unquestionably art, but a medium that uses them all isn't? Wut?

[o Ventus]

RocketManSR2 wrote...

I'll make this simple. Music, motion pictures, sculpting, and painting are unquestionably art, but a medium that uses them all isn't? Wut?

I wouldn't call music or film "art", since they're part of a larger conglomerate (The entertainment industry).

[RocketManSR2]

o Ventus wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

I'll make this simple. Music, motion pictures, sculpting, and painting are unquestionably art, but a medium that uses them all isn't? Wut?

I wouldn't call music or film "art", since they're part of a larger conglomerate (The entertainment industry).

You would also be wrong. You may not like some of the films or music, but they are an art form. Just because an industry formed around them doesn't magically turn them into a Model T coming off an assembly line. An art form is anything that allows someone to express themselves. BioWare crafted the game they wanted. Whether you like it or not is entirely up to you. I for one don't know what people see in looking at paintings. I would find it very boring. That doesn't suddenly mean painting isn't an art form.

- When men like Beethoven & Mozart composed their masterpieces, there was no entertainment industry. People eventually learned that money can be made off of things like that and the rest is history. Paintings are bought and sold all the time, does that mean they aren't art anymore?

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 26 mars 2012 - 05:30 .

[InvincibleHero]

o Ventus wrote...

Look back at my post, this time attempting to understand the point.

Movies exist in more than 1 format, as do plays. The original manuscript, like I said, can be considered art. I never once said "it's art, end of story".

Video games, however,  do not.

Nope video games are a mass media like movies. If movies are art then games are as well. Either that or your logic is inconsistent or you are making a biased argument on purpose.

I pointed out how commercial doesn't matter or depreciate things from art to not. Your defintion is invalid.

How does amount of verison have to do with art? It is still the same vision the same words the same script. They can give different cuts but both verisons are art. A videogame has written (story and dialog) and visual (movie elements) that are unique thematic and shot and frmaed a certain way to evoke a response in the user. They are art.

[o Ventus]

RocketManSR2 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

I'll make this simple. Music, motion pictures, sculpting, and painting are unquestionably art, but a medium that uses them all isn't? Wut?

I wouldn't call music or film "art", since they're part of a larger conglomerate (The entertainment industry).

You would also be wrong. You may not like some of the films or music, but they are an art form. Just because an industry formed around them doesn't magically turn them into a Model T coming off an assembly line. An art form is anything that allows someone to express themselves. BioWare crafted the game they wanted. Whether you like it or not is entirely up to you. I for one don't know what people see in looking at paintings. I would find it very boring. That doesn't suddenly mean painting isn't an art form.

- When men like Beethoven & Mozart composed their masterpieces, there was no entertainment industry. People eventually learned that money can be made off of things like that and the rest is history. Paintings are bought and sold all the time, does that mean they aren't art anymore?

If it's an industry, then it cannot be art, by definition.

It can be artistic, sure, but I won't rush to call it art any time soon.