The moment you slap a price tag on something, it stops being art and becomes a product. Artist arguments are valid if say some dude one day draws a picture that's sheer poetry to the eyes because he simply wanted to make something. He at this moment can say F off to any one who even looks at it wrong because he made it for him self. It is for him and him alone and there 0 argument atm for him to meet half way with any one
Now say same dude plans to sell said art work. Again, because he made it for him self and it just so happens that some one wish's to buy it, there is no reason to even think of change. If in the future he wish's to change something or add something he didnt think of at the time, again, its his right as an artist. The buyer can ask "well can you change this before i buy it" but the artist has no reason to comply other then making the sale work because the buyer is buying something that was solely the artist's
Now say that after awhile his art becomes popular and a great fan wish's to commission a painting. The artist says "well what would you like?". The fan says " i want this, this this and this, and plz no this, no this and no this, but other then that, do as you wish and surprise me". the artist agrees, and begins work. Since he does not wish to spoil the surprise, he does not show the fan his work in progress other then snippets and telling him how it is coming and that he is putting in the parts the fan wants. The artist finishes, gets paid and tells the fan that he can pick up his painting. Well when the fan finally see it, he is greatly disappointed. Everything he was told would be in the painting is not, and many things that he told the artist to his face he did not want are in the painting. So he goes to the artist and demands either to redo the painting or give him his money back. The artist tells him rather plainly and rudely that to change the painting would be insulting to him as an artist and the over all artistic integrity that he as its maker is honored to up hold, and that the buyer is S.O.L if in the end he doesn't like it. This is where art stops being art. Once you have a buyer who wants and expects something out of what you are making, this is called a product, which you must honor your end of the deal when you ask for money by giving the buyer what they asked for, even more so if the buyer has had input on the product and tells you what they want. Had Michelangelo F'd up his ceiling drawing and the church asked him that they didnt like it and to change it, despite being an amazing and famous artist, you better be damn sure he would of changed it. That or the church would of nailed him to a stake, burned him and dragged his charred remains through town behind a mule with the signed "Artistic Integrity" painted on its rump
We asked for multiple endings, the very fact our choices mattered in the end, a rich and relatively some what understandable story line with understandably allotted wiggle room for plot holes/plot devices and in turn the illusion of disbelief. Not only that, but the makers of ME3 out right told us they where gonna give us what we wanted, and leave out what we didnt months and even almost years before we even got to play it. If bioware had choosen to make ME3, and just hold onto it's self, yeah they could of made the claim it's there art and they can do what ever they want with it. They could even make that claim if they held onto it, shown every one what it was and then decided to make it because again, its theirs and every one knows what they are buying. But its an out right lie to say they dont have to do diddly when they promised and lead us along saying it was what we wanted.
It is not Art.
Débuté par
tjc2
, avril 03 2012 05:38
Retour en haut
#277
Posté 04 avril 2012 - 02:52
Teroseth
-
- Members
- 17 messages
As I understand Art, something that is artistic is created to engender emotion. Does the ending of Mass Effect 3 do this? Yes. But is it the emotion Bioware wanted us to feel? I would have to hope not. If the ending is art, it is failed art I would argue.
#278
Posté 04 avril 2012 - 02:56
veramis
-
- Members
- 1 956 messages
Get a dictionary out and look up the word art.
End of line.
End of line.
#279
Posté 04 avril 2012 - 03:02
Gyroscopic_Trout
-
- Members
- 606 messages
Teroseth wrote...
As I understand Art, something that is artistic is created to engender emotion. Does the ending of Mass Effect 3 do this? Yes. But is it the emotion Bioware wanted us to feel? I would have to hope not. If the ending is art, it is failed art I would argue.
Can't imagine how that meeting went.
"The ending should be emotionally powerful. What lasting emotional impression do we want to leave here?"
"How about...rage?"
#280
Posté 04 avril 2012 - 03:04
StarGateGod
-
- Members
- 537 messages
isnt the definination of art is that it has no other purpose than to exist? If that is true then no mass effect nor any other game is art
#281
Posté 04 avril 2012 - 03:08
wantedman dan
-
- Members
- 3 605 messages
veramis wrote...
Get a dictionary out and look up the word art.
End of line.
Get out a dictionary and look up the word "commodity."
LAWL
#282
Posté 04 avril 2012 - 03:21
kidbd15
-
- Members
- 1 142 messages
Games CAN be art... in the instance of Mass Effect 3's ending, it is not art.
If your art is constrained by time and money as much as gaming these days are, it's not really art because it doesn't reflect your true vision of the game.
Take the May 2011 Gameinformer issue. Compare everything Casey said in that magazine to what we ultimately received. His vision as he described it almost a year ago, THAT was art. But, for some reason along the line, things had to be changed most likely due to time constraints, and his original artistic vision was not realized, thus making the "artistic integrity" argument defunct.
If your art is constrained by time and money as much as gaming these days are, it's not really art because it doesn't reflect your true vision of the game.
Take the May 2011 Gameinformer issue. Compare everything Casey said in that magazine to what we ultimately received. His vision as he described it almost a year ago, THAT was art. But, for some reason along the line, things had to be changed most likely due to time constraints, and his original artistic vision was not realized, thus making the "artistic integrity" argument defunct.
#283
Posté 04 avril 2012 - 03:22
Ahms
-
- Members
- 534 messages
I'm pleased to see that there are rational people ITT who understand logic and argumentation. I'm disappointed that others, unfortunately, do not.
#284
Posté 04 avril 2012 - 03:22
Nomad1888
-
- Members
- 81 messages
Yorkston9152 wrote...
The moment you slap a price tag on something, it stops being art and becomes a product. Artist arguments are valid if say some dude one day draws a picture that's sheer poetry to the eyes because he simply wanted to make something. He at this moment can say F off to any one who even looks at it wrong because he made it for him self. It is for him and him alone and there 0 argument atm for him to meet half way with any one
Now say same dude plans to sell said art work. Again, because he made it for him self and it just so happens that some one wish's to buy it, there is no reason to even think of change. If in the future he wish's to change something or add something he didnt think of at the time, again, its his right as an artist. The buyer can ask "well can you change this before i buy it" but the artist has no reason to comply other then making the sale work because the buyer is buying something that was solely the artist's
Now say that after awhile his art becomes popular and a great fan wish's to commission a painting. The artist says "well what would you like?". The fan says " i want this, this this and this, and plz no this, no this and no this, but other then that, do as you wish and surprise me". the artist agrees, and begins work. Since he does not wish to spoil the surprise, he does not show the fan his work in progress other then snippets and telling him how it is coming and that he is putting in the parts the fan wants. The artist finishes, gets paid and tells the fan that he can pick up his painting. Well when the fan finally see it, he is greatly disappointed. Everything he was told would be in the painting is not, and many things that he told the artist to his face he did not want are in the painting. So he goes to the artist and demands either to redo the painting or give him his money back. The artist tells him rather plainly and rudely that to change the painting would be insulting to him as an artist and the over all artistic integrity that he as its maker is honored to up hold, and that the buyer is S.O.L if in the end he doesn't like it. This is where art stops being art. Once you have a buyer who wants and expects something out of what you are making, this is called a product, which you must honor your end of the deal when you ask for money by giving the buyer what they asked for, even more so if the buyer has had input on the product and tells you what they want. Had Michelangelo F'd up his ceiling drawing and the church asked him that they didnt like it and to change it, despite being an amazing and famous artist, you better be damn sure he would of changed it. That or the church would of nailed him to a stake, burned him and dragged his charred remains through town behind a mule with the signed "Artistic Integrity" painted on its rump
We asked for multiple endings, the very fact our choices mattered in the end, a rich and relatively some what understandable story line with understandably allotted wiggle room for plot holes/plot devices and in turn the illusion of disbelief. Not only that, but the makers of ME3 out right told us they where gonna give us what we wanted, and leave out what we didnt months and even almost years before we even got to play it. If bioware had choosen to make ME3, and just hold onto it's self, yeah they could of made the claim it's there art and they can do what ever they want with it. They could even make that claim if they held onto it, shown every one what it was and then decided to make it because again, its theirs and every one knows what they are buying. But its an out right lie to say they dont have to do diddly when they promised and lead us along saying it was what we wanted.
Art and product are not mutually exclusive.
#285
Posté 04 avril 2012 - 03:33
iheartbob
-
- Members
- 583 messages
The game, if anything, is artistic. I would not primarily clasify it as art.
This debate is irrelevant though. Video games are first and foremost consumer products. If you were happy with the ending then you got the full value of the money you paid for your product. Others feel the product they purchased failed to deliver on promises that were made, and thus did not get the full value of their money.
This debate is irrelevant though. Video games are first and foremost consumer products. If you were happy with the ending then you got the full value of the money you paid for your product. Others feel the product they purchased failed to deliver on promises that were made, and thus did not get the full value of their money.
#286
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 11:12
marrak
-
- Members
- 16 messages
wantedman dan wrote...
marrak wrote...
I'm curious, and just am looking for a clarification to your reasoning, Wantedman Dan.
By your logic, anything funded by a corporation, or paid for by a corporation, or tied to a corporation to become a product cannot be art?
Extrapolate.
Sorry, I thought I was being clear (also did not have access to forums, so sorry for the late reply).
You seem to be under the impression that if something has been managed by a corporation at any point of its existence, that it ceases to be or cannot truly be art. Please clarify if I'm mistaken.
#287
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 11:20
joe1852
-
- Members
- 481 messages
its as simple as this u only say its not art cuz bioware made an ending u didnt like and u want it to change so buy saying its not art allows for it to be changed. If bioware had made an absolutely brilliant ending i would bet my money u would be calling it art.
#288
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 11:26
marrak
-
- Members
- 16 messages
joe1852 wrote...
its as simple as this u only say its not art cuz bioware made an ending u didnt like and u want it to change so buy saying its not art allows for it to be changed. If bioware had made an absolutely brilliant ending i would bet my money u would be calling it art.
While you may or may not be right, art has been changed in the past due to public outcry. Sherlock Holmes' "death" is the most obvious instance of this, but Mary Shelley's Frankenstein went through several revisions from the author due to feedback from public and private sources.
Art is not involitable once it has been made, nor should it be. Doing so places it on a pedestal that actually hurts rather than helps art, artists, and artistic mediums in the long run.
#289
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 11:33
scaryness
-
- Members
- 19 messages
So the way i'm understanding the OP, is that if someone creates a game like Mass Effect, or any form of media, but never did anything with it or just gave it away for free, it is art.
Yet if the same person made a game like Mass Effect and sells it, it is no longer art?
Yet if the same person made a game like Mass Effect and sells it, it is no longer art?
Modifié par scaryness, 05 avril 2012 - 11:34 .
#290
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 12:09
Saile
-
- Members
- 83 messages
The "you can't change art" argument is a bit silly. Take etching- It's quite normal to edit an etch after you've printed it. Sometimes because you're not happy with the result, or somebody points something out. After you're
done, you make another print. Still not happy with it? You change it a bit more. It's similar to releasing patches, I'd say. (this bit was copypasta from somewhere else, didn't feel like saying it again in different words)
All the same, why would something stop being art if you sell it for money? Last time I checked, museums have to pay money for paintings, too. Even famous painters like Rembrandt did commissions and sold these. In a way, Rembrandt's paintings also had some kind of entertainment value.
In the 20th century, a lot of people bought Andy Warhol's art as well, even though most of his works were photo-edits. He went as far as saying that his works, much like most hard-pop, didn't even have any kind of message and yet we still consider it art. This possibly counters an argument like "art needs to have a message" as well... not to mention that Warhol's art was mass-produced in some cases, if I'm not mistaken. If it wasn't, we all still have Damien Hirst and Takashi Murakami for that, and I would say that if you think their work is art, ME3 is as well.
Games are just a new medium of art, in my opinion. I disliked Mass Effect 3's ending as much as most of you, but I won't argue that the game on its own doesn't have any artistic integrity whatsoever- you don't have to like the art to acknowledge this. I don't like Frida Kahlo's work, but I'm not going to tell everybody it's not art because I think it's bad. Then again, it's a little bit pointless to argue what art is to begin with- As with most philosophical debates, there is no 'right' answer and you're not going to be able to convince everybody that there is.
done, you make another print. Still not happy with it? You change it a bit more. It's similar to releasing patches, I'd say. (this bit was copypasta from somewhere else, didn't feel like saying it again in different words)
All the same, why would something stop being art if you sell it for money? Last time I checked, museums have to pay money for paintings, too. Even famous painters like Rembrandt did commissions and sold these. In a way, Rembrandt's paintings also had some kind of entertainment value.
In the 20th century, a lot of people bought Andy Warhol's art as well, even though most of his works were photo-edits. He went as far as saying that his works, much like most hard-pop, didn't even have any kind of message and yet we still consider it art. This possibly counters an argument like "art needs to have a message" as well... not to mention that Warhol's art was mass-produced in some cases, if I'm not mistaken. If it wasn't, we all still have Damien Hirst and Takashi Murakami for that, and I would say that if you think their work is art, ME3 is as well.
Games are just a new medium of art, in my opinion. I disliked Mass Effect 3's ending as much as most of you, but I won't argue that the game on its own doesn't have any artistic integrity whatsoever- you don't have to like the art to acknowledge this. I don't like Frida Kahlo's work, but I'm not going to tell everybody it's not art because I think it's bad. Then again, it's a little bit pointless to argue what art is to begin with- As with most philosophical debates, there is no 'right' answer and you're not going to be able to convince everybody that there is.
Modifié par Sailers, 05 avril 2012 - 12:10 .
#291
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 12:16
Roguekad
-
- Members
- 328 messages
Ziggeh wrote...
They charged an entrance fee to see Shakespeares plays. They were stories too.tjc2 wrote...
Hudathan wrote...
The story is art, which is the topic of discussion.
No it is not art, it is a story. The way the media and devlopers have designed art would be to say that Art is about sending a message. Bioware is not sending a message with this game they are selling a product.
If Bioware wants to start making games that are free, then their argument holds water.
True, but the Groundlings at the Globe were encouraged to throw items of food at the ators if they didn't like what they saw. The mature individuals in this whole ME debacle sent patches and cupcakes.
#292
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 12:16
karlchen
-
- Members
- 73 messages
It is no Art!
there is some difference between Art and highly creative Work with sometimes an artistic expression....
There are too many PR-driven, Monymaking-driven (thats not say, you cannot earn money with Art!!!) Influences (e.g. Managers, Surveys, PR-Datamining, Profit-Encreasing technics -> DLC <- etc. etc.) involved.
It's more about "Opium to the Masses" / "Opium für's Volk" (German saying, don't know how to say in english) as about Art. But in no doubt you need very genius creative people with artistic capabilitys. But the overall result ist no Art. If the overall result is a very pleasing, satisfying product and outstanding between other competeing products for all (Producers and Customers) you can honor it by talking about Art-LIKE!!! But not more!
Another Thing:
Movie-Industry for e. g. does Test-Screenings and changes Endings if the audience doesn't like it.
So much for "artistic integrity"...
there is some difference between Art and highly creative Work with sometimes an artistic expression....
There are too many PR-driven, Monymaking-driven (thats not say, you cannot earn money with Art!!!) Influences (e.g. Managers, Surveys, PR-Datamining, Profit-Encreasing technics -> DLC <- etc. etc.) involved.
It's more about "Opium to the Masses" / "Opium für's Volk" (German saying, don't know how to say in english) as about Art. But in no doubt you need very genius creative people with artistic capabilitys. But the overall result ist no Art. If the overall result is a very pleasing, satisfying product and outstanding between other competeing products for all (Producers and Customers) you can honor it by talking about Art-LIKE!!! But not more!
Another Thing:
Movie-Industry for e. g. does Test-Screenings and changes Endings if the audience doesn't like it.
So much for "artistic integrity"...
Modifié par karlchen, 05 avril 2012 - 12:26 .
#293
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 12:23
killnoob
-
- Members
- 856 messages
tjc2 wrote...
Mass Effect 3 is software designed to be sold/liscenced to generate revenue.
Is Windows Art, is OSX Art, is Adobe or Microsoft Office Art?
If any of the above products were (yes I know some of them are) massively flawed would it be the right, artistic choice, if Microsoft/Apple/Adobe ignored customer feedback?
Facepalm*
Let me make this perfectly clear for you.
Windows is not art. OSX is not art. Adobe and Microsoft Office are also not art.
They are tools.
Mass Effect is a game that has a story. It serves to entertain.
It has artistic quality.
Therefore, it falls under the category of Digital Art.
How old are you?
#294
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 12:26
killnoob
-
- Members
- 856 messages
karlchen wrote...
It is no Art!
there is some difference between Art and highly creative Work with sometimes an artistic expression....
There are too many PR-driven, Monymaking-driven (thats not say, you cannot earn money with Art!!!) Influences (e.g. Managers, Surveys, PR-Datamining, Profit-Encreasing technics -> DLC <- etc. etc.) involved.
Another Thing:
Movie-Industry for e. g. does Test-Screenings and changes Endings if the audience doesn't like it.
So much for "artistic integrity"...
Conan Dole resurrected Sherlock Holme after receiving angry letter from fans.
Who is he?
One of the most prolific artist of our time.
Artist Integrity does not exist - it all boils down to what the artist wants to do with his story.
Does it violate the artist's integrity if he found a plothole and decides to fix it?
Does it devalue his novels if he decided the readers have made some valuable point?
marrak wrote...
joe1852 wrote...
its as
simple as this u only say its not art cuz bioware made an ending u didnt
like and u want it to change so buy saying its not art allows for it to
be changed. If bioware had made an absolutely brilliant ending i would
bet my money u would be calling it art.
While you may or
may not be right, art has been changed in the past due to public outcry.
Sherlock Holmes' "death" is the most obvious instance of this, but Mary
Shelley's Frankenstein went through several revisions from the author due to feedback from public and private sources.
Art
is not involitable once it has been made, nor should it be. Doing so
places it on a pedestal that actually hurts rather than helps art,
artists, and artistic mediums in the long run.
This gentleman knows what he's talking about.
There's your answer.
Modifié par killnoob, 05 avril 2012 - 12:35 .
#295
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 12:34
Srefanius
-
- Members
- 387 messages
ThisNomad1888 wrote...
Yorkston9152 wrote...
The moment you slap a price tag on something, it stops being art and becomes a product. Artist arguments are valid if say some dude one day draws a picture that's sheer poetry to the eyes because he simply wanted to make something. He at this moment can say F off to any one who even looks at it wrong because he made it for him self. It is for him and him alone and there 0 argument atm for him to meet half way with any one
Now say same dude plans to sell said art work. Again, because he made it for him self and it just so happens that some one wish's to buy it, there is no reason to even think of change. If in the future he wish's to change something or add something he didnt think of at the time, again, its his right as an artist. The buyer can ask "well can you change this before i buy it" but the artist has no reason to comply other then making the sale work because the buyer is buying something that was solely the artist's
Now say that after awhile his art becomes popular and a great fan wish's to commission a painting. The artist says "well what would you like?". The fan says " i want this, this this and this, and plz no this, no this and no this, but other then that, do as you wish and surprise me". the artist agrees, and begins work. Since he does not wish to spoil the surprise, he does not show the fan his work in progress other then snippets and telling him how it is coming and that he is putting in the parts the fan wants. The artist finishes, gets paid and tells the fan that he can pick up his painting. Well when the fan finally see it, he is greatly disappointed. Everything he was told would be in the painting is not, and many things that he told the artist to his face he did not want are in the painting. So he goes to the artist and demands either to redo the painting or give him his money back. The artist tells him rather plainly and rudely that to change the painting would be insulting to him as an artist and the over all artistic integrity that he as its maker is honored to up hold, and that the buyer is S.O.L if in the end he doesn't like it. This is where art stops being art. Once you have a buyer who wants and expects something out of what you are making, this is called a product, which you must honor your end of the deal when you ask for money by giving the buyer what they asked for, even more so if the buyer has had input on the product and tells you what they want. Had Michelangelo F'd up his ceiling drawing and the church asked him that they didnt like it and to change it, despite being an amazing and famous artist, you better be damn sure he would of changed it. That or the church would of nailed him to a stake, burned him and dragged his charred remains through town behind a mule with the signed "Artistic Integrity" painted on its rump
We asked for multiple endings, the very fact our choices mattered in the end, a rich and relatively some what understandable story line with understandably allotted wiggle room for plot holes/plot devices and in turn the illusion of disbelief. Not only that, but the makers of ME3 out right told us they where gonna give us what we wanted, and leave out what we didnt months and even almost years before we even got to play it. If bioware had choosen to make ME3, and just hold onto it's self, yeah they could of made the claim it's there art and they can do what ever they want with it. They could even make that claim if they held onto it, shown every one what it was and then decided to make it because again, its theirs and every one knows what they are buying. But its an out right lie to say they dont have to do diddly when they promised and lead us along saying it was what we wanted.
Art and product are not mutually exclusive.
Even if art is sold the piece itself stays art. If you pay someone for a portrait its still art, no matter how well he reached your expectations. Its not about the question if something is art, its about the relationship between artist and costumer with the art as a subject (that becomes a product then), which was might have been presented differently before the buy or the customer just had wrong/different impressions and expectations.
Modifié par Srefanius, 05 avril 2012 - 12:36 .
#296
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 12:39
fpspind
-
- Members
- 43 messages
I'd say it's more narrative storytelling, although this then asks whether storytelling is a form of art, which I would say it probably is. My biggest problem is just that the ending doesn't fit the narrative structure, as instead of building down to a conclusion after the climax in London, new ideas are brought forward, and because they are undeveloped don't seem to fit in with the underlying themes of the series up to this point - because of this a lot of holes/inconsistencies in the story seem to show up, and this is the whole reason for the feeling experienced by many of the fans.
#297
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 12:44
bboynexus
-
- Members
- 1 484 messages
It disheartens me any of you are even trying to place limitations on such things.
#298
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 12:53
Zoonz
-
- Members
- 86 messages
Firstly as art it was sold under false pretences.
Also artists who have imput into games, really should not expect the buyer of said game to have to use their own imagination to overcome plotholes and imagine what happens in the aftermath. My imagination does not upload to my hard drive, my controller has no connection to my imagination, and I don't spend ££££ on a hard disk game to have to use my imagination.
The artists of ME3 need to go and play and understand ME and ME2 then create a concrete finish to ME3 or some relevant DLC.
Also artists who have imput into games, really should not expect the buyer of said game to have to use their own imagination to overcome plotholes and imagine what happens in the aftermath. My imagination does not upload to my hard drive, my controller has no connection to my imagination, and I don't spend ££££ on a hard disk game to have to use my imagination.
The artists of ME3 need to go and play and understand ME and ME2 then create a concrete finish to ME3 or some relevant DLC.
#299
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 12:57
Beti88
-
- Members
- 154 messages
Hudathan wrote...
The story is art, which is the topic of discussion.
And there are examples when the story is changed because of the overwhelmingly negative reception.
#300
Posté 05 avril 2012 - 01:10
Klijpope
-
- Members
- 591 messages
Zoonz wrote...
Firstly as art it was sold under false pretences.
Also artists who have imput into games, really should not expect the buyer of said game to have to use their own imagination to overcome plotholes and imagine what happens in the aftermath. My imagination does not upload to my hard drive, my controller has no connection to my imagination, and I don't spend ££££ on a hard disk game to have to use my imagination.
The artists of ME3 need to go and play and understand ME and ME2 then create a concrete finish to ME3 or some relevant DLC.
Art is constanty asking the viewer to use their imagination. It doesn't have to, but it can.
ME3 was not sold under false pretences. Such claims look ridiculous, and it really is a bit rich telling a set of artists that you know better about their artworks.
That's why this false dichotomy between artwork and mass production is bunkum - it's just an excuse for the non-talented to tell the writers how to do their job. While there is a great wealth of quality criticism from many actual writers on these boards, it often gets lost in the franky ignorant accusations of faulty merchandise. And anyone who has not been paid for their work cannot call themselves a professional artist or writer.
ME3 is not a faulty product - it plays fine, there are many fewer bugs than some other triple-A titles we could mention, and it is also longer than most games out there. If your beef is with the ending, that is a narrative decision, an aesthetic choice, and therefore it falls under artistic expression, not consumer protection. This is pretty straightforward, and there are actual laws to back it up (ie: copyright and intellectual property, and freedom of speech laws).
