315 réponses à ce sujet

[wantedman dan]

Ziggeh wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

It depends on the example, if you bothered to read my post.

So the substance of art is diminished by replication in your view? If lots of people have access to it, it ceases to be art?

You're either unintentionally misunderstanding the context of my argument or purposefully obfuscating it; I'm not sure which at this point. 

Lots of people have access to museums, however, the art contained within does not lose its artful status. I'll repeat: if it is intentionally mass produced to be disseminated to the public-at-will for the sole means of profiting off of it, it is then not an art, but a commodity with artful components. EDIT: However, the initial piece(s), such as the script, character designs, etc, may retain their artful status because they're not following the same path of dissemination as the former example.

"Access" is incorrect in the ambiguous context you provided. "To purchase to access for the sole means of profiting the producing company" is correct.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 03 avril 2012 - 06:01 .

[wantedman dan]

Avissel wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...
Not if its sole purpose of existence is to be a commodity.

Which is why I made use of the word "can".

Fair enough, then.

[AndreasShepard]

Mass Effect is art it's just that it's the combined efforts of concept artists that design the world, story developers and writers as well as the fans input that make it into a uniqe form of art that was sullied when they let Mac Walters be the only one to decide how it ends.

[pfellahX]

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?

You know what you've just done, right? The next DLC will have Clippy as a squad member. "It looks like you're trying to activate the Crucible. Would you like some help?"

[Ziggeh]

tjc2 wrote...

Yes and No. I beat this example like a dead horse, but here it goes. The Dark Knight Rises is created to sell everything about it like Mass Effect 3. There are comics, there are video games and toys and everything you can think of to sell for both products.

Then there is The Artist it won all of the academy awards, but it did not make very much money and it did not cost very much to make. The people who made the artist honestly did not care if it sold. It was Art. 

So for you the definition depends on the attitude of the author towards the financial reward.

What if a piece is commisioned? In such a case the artist is unlikely to have made it in absence of the sale (not in every case of course), and so they must "care" about the money involved.

[Aran Linvail]

Art or not , i dont understand people saying it cannot be changed, they add and change games all the time, via patch or DLC , ME3 just need a big one.

[tjc2]

Ziggeh wrote...

tjc2 wrote...

Yes and No. I beat this example like a dead horse, but here it goes. The Dark Knight Rises is created to sell everything about it like Mass Effect 3. There are comics, there are video games and toys and everything you can think of to sell for both products.

Then there is The Artist it won all of the academy awards, but it did not make very much money and it did not cost very much to make. The people who made the artist honestly did not care if it sold. It was Art. 

So for you the definition depends on the attitude of the author towards the financial reward.

What if a piece is commisioned? In such a case the artist is unlikely to have made it in absence of the sale (not in every case of course), and so they must "care" about the money involved.

Exactly this product was essentially comissioned by the success of ME2. Bioware had to make ME3 because they are in the business of making money.

During the renaissance most Art was comissioned and thusly the content was at the discretion of the patron not the artist.

[Hudathan]

At this rate nothing will be art once BSN is done with it.

[Saul Iscariot]

There is nothing with telling an artist that their work fails on some level and that they should change it. As a Fine Artist I welcome the views of anyone that wishes to critique my work.

[ragnorok87]

when you get something as crappy as the me3 ending you cant call it art.

[Ziggeh]

wantedman dan wrote...
You're either unintentionally misunderstanding the context of my argument or purposefully obfuscating it; I'm not sure which at this point.

You're wrong and you don't get to arbitrate what consitutes creativity. Now I could have just said that, which you would not agree with, and we could restate our position in various ways and attempt to solve a debate that's literally millenia old on a forum about a computer game, or I could try to understand why you think the thing that you do.

wantedman dan wrote...
if it is intentionally mass produced to be disseminated to the public-at-will for the sole means of profiting off of it, it is then not an art, but a commodity with artful components.

This feels a little semantic. I don't think anyone is saying it is exclusively a piece of art, that would be silly, but rather that it is artistic, it is the product of creativity for whatever end and therefor can be described as art.

[Gigamantis]

Fine, but don't ever complain when a publisher like EA changes things to nickel and dime you. It's the exact same thing. If you want Bioware to sell out just keep convincing them it's the right way to operate in a creative industry.

[Ziggeh]

tjc2 wrote...

Exactly this product was essentially comissioned by the success of ME2. Bioware had to make ME3 because they are in the business of making money.

During the renaissance most Art was comissioned and thusly the content was at the discretion of the patron not the artist.

In what way do you mean exactly? Whether it should be subject to consumer review or not wasn't anything like my point.

You consider commisioned works to be art, which is surely inconsistent with your point that creativity in the name of finance is not art?

[Ziggeh]

Hudathan wrote...

At this rate nothing will be art once BSN is done with it.

It's slightly disturbing that we have this sort of power over the nature of reality.

[Ariella]

wantedman dan wrote...

Avissel wrote...

Art can be a product.
A product can be art.

Not if its sole purpose of existence is to be a commodity.

tell that to writers, mucisians and actors. I've seen devs here says they'd love to be able to do this stuff for free, but we live in the real world where people need this little thing called money to survive.

Game design is an artform, just because it makes money doesn't change that.

[AlexXIV]

Saul Iscariot wrote...

Does anyone know how much Michaelangelo was paid to paint that ceiling so Christians could venerate their diety?

No but sure as hell he cencored his paintings so the church wouldn't be offended.

[wantedman dan]

Ziggeh wrote...
You're wrong and you don't get to arbitrate what consitutes creativity. Now I could have just said that, which you would not agree with, and we could restate our position in various ways and attempt to solve a debate that's literally millenia old on a forum about a computer game, or I could try to understand why you think the thing that you do.

Lol. I'm not the one equating creativity to art. Not once have I laid judgment upon what constitutes "creativity;" instead, I have argued that mass dissemination disqualifies a piece of creativity from being "art." You're making me lean towards believing you're intentionally obfuscating me, considering your use of semantics is constitutionally different than mine.

I'm not wrong--you're just not willing to understand what I'm arguing. You could have just said that, too, but I doubt you understood.

Your condescention is noted and dismissed.

This feels a little semantic. I don't think anyone is saying it is exclusively a piece of art, that would be silly, but rather that it is artistic, it is the product of creativity for whatever end and therefore can be described as art.

A good portion of creating comprehension is through semantics. Differentiation is made through it. However, I thank you for conceding my point.

[GreyLord]

I feel video games as a whole are art.

Relating video games to OS's IS similar to relating whether literature is art in relation to a car repair manual.

I'd say literature IS art, regardless of whether you consider the car repair manual art or not (though even the manual has art in it depicting various items).

I'd say Video games are as much art as Movies or TV...which I also consider part of the arts.

[tjc2]

Ziggeh wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...
You're either unintentionally misunderstanding the context of my argument or purposefully obfuscating it; I'm not sure which at this point.

You're wrong and you don't get to arbitrate what consitutes creativity. Now I could have just said that, which you would not agree with, and we could restate our position in various ways and attempt to solve a debate that's literally millenia old on a forum about a computer game, or I could try to understand why you think the thing that you do.

wantedman dan wrote...
if it is intentionally mass produced to be disseminated to the public-at-will for the sole means of profiting off of it, it is then not an art, but a commodity with artful components.

This feels a little semantic. I don't think anyone is saying it is exclusively a piece of art, that would be silly, but rather that it is artistic, it is the product of creativity for whatever end and therefor can be described as art.

No you are wrong. What is being said by devlopers and critics(not real critics people who make their money promoting games) is that the ending should not be changed because games are Art and Art should not be changed based on popular demand.

This argument is faulty on two levels. First to say that artists never change their art at the discretion of the people they made it for is ridiculous. Artists are always trying to make art for their fans, even though not many artists have millions of fans like video game companies.

Second it is not art. As I said when i started this post. ME3 is a piece of software, yes it took people with artistic ability to create, but so do most things that are sold to the public. Is Windex art because an Artist created the label?

Modifié par tjc2, 03 avril 2012 - 06:20 .

[AlexXIV]

Ziggeh wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

At this rate nothing will be art once BSN is done with it.

It's slightly disturbing that we have this sort of power over the nature of reality.

I am sorry but you people are burning strawmen.

Art may be involved but nobody at Bioware is even free in his or her vision of art. It is a team and they have to make compromises all the time. Your defense for art is as misplaced in this forum as it can get. If you want to discuss art then discuss it on forums that are about art.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 avril 2012 - 06:22 .

[wantedman dan]

Ariella wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Avissel wrote...

Art can be a product.
A product can be art.

Not if its sole purpose of existence is to be a commodity.

tell that to writers, mucisians and actors. I've seen devs here says they'd love to be able to do this stuff for free, but we live in the real world where people need this little thing called money to survive.

Game design is an artform, just because it makes money doesn't change that.

Boo-hoo.

Sorry, just because you want it to be something doesn't mean it is that. It's still a commodity, even if they oh-so-wish it to be art.

Game design is artful, yes, but the dissemination of the final product revokes its status as art.

Do you people not read, or are you just not comprehending it?

[AttaBoyTroy]

Are they handing out prizes for the millionth thread on each topic today or something?

[Zeppex]

Anything can be considered art tbh. I'm a certified welder and often work on oil rigs. But in my off time I like to build grills from scratch, I use old metal containers. That is my art, but in my opinion it stops being art when I decide to sell the grills. I can get up to 600 for one, am I supposed to tell client, oh one leg is shorter then the other, just deal with it, its my art.

Modifié par Zeppex, 03 avril 2012 - 10:19 .

[AlexXIV]

AttaBoyTroy wrote...

Are they handing out prizes for the millionth thread on each topic today or something?

What do you mean by 'today'?

It's just another day in hell on the BSN.

[Ziggeh]

wantedman dan wrote...
I have argued that mass dissemination disqualifies a piece of creativity from being "art."

But exclusively financially motivated mass dissemination? What constitutes mass? Beatles albums for example? Do they get to be art?

wantedman dan wrote...
A good portion of creating comprehension is through semantics. Differentiation is made through it. However, I thank you for conceding my point.

Your point was that it is art, but not a piece of art?