315 réponses à ce sujet

[Ratham]

You lose all claim to "art" when you start using/photo-shopping images off of Google.

Also, if you have to tell me that it is art as the artist... guess what, its not art.

Modifié par Ratham, 03 avril 2012 - 06:27 .

[tjc2]

Zeppex wrote...

Anything can be considered art tbh. I'm a certified welder and often work on oil rigs. But in my off time like 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.

Yes this is so perfect and makes the point so well. And I think what is more is that you promised your customer a grill that sits evenly. If you made a crocked grill, the customer came to your home, looked at it, saw that it was crocked and still bought it that is one thing.

What ME3 did was promise a grill that is sturdy and delivered one that was crocked. And then said, "too bad its Art."

Modifié par tjc2, 03 avril 2012 - 06:29 .

[goofyomnivore]

I would consider Mass Effect art. However I don't buy into artistic integrity when a piece of art is clearly more monetarily driven than creative.

Modifié par strive, 03 avril 2012 - 06:30 .

[AlexXIV]

Ziggeh wrote...

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?

So every song ever made, every picture drawn, is art? What else, food? Medications? Hey dude, sorry you got cancer from it but it is our art!

[Calbeb]

Mass Effect 3 is a story-based product which attempts to capture emotional reactions. These include the feeling of loss, love and excitement. The game also attempts to ask you questions about your moral stance on issues, by providing you with moral conundrums and asking you to make decisions about them. This can, for some individiauls, provide a better sense of self. It is also, despite the parallel paths, a guided experience by a series of creatives (in this case writers and designers.

It is a new artform, and one that has not been perfected yet, but there is not that much of a different between this and a film (which most would consider to be an artform), and litterature. All of the above are ALSO done in order to sell to the public and make a profit.

There isn't a ton of good art in videogames yet, and maybe you think that Mass Effect 3 definately doesn't fall into that category. That's fine. But comparing it to pure software is disingenuous. It's like comparing a new novel to a technical manual.

[Ziggeh]

AlexXIV wrote...
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.

Please don't misrepresent my argument and then call it a straw man. Feel free to do either on their own, mind.

I'm not defending the position that it shouldn't be changed due to diminishing anyones integrity, but whether mass media can be art. This may seem pedantic because it is.

[Ziggeh]

AlexXIV wrote...

So every song ever made, every picture drawn, is art?

Anything made for the purpose of expression, yes. So yeah, lot of chefs would call their food art. I doubt anyones trying to express anything through medicine mind.

[Grudge_NL]

Anyone who thinks Mass Effect is just software instead of Art should reconsider basic Education. Appearently you don't even know half of what happens in a Game Studio.

[wantedman dan]

Ziggeh wrote...

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

Each commodity you would examine has a different set of consequences preceding, during, and proceeding its release. Beatles albums would fall under the same constitutional dogma as the Mass Effect; they are commodities to be bought and sold that have artful components to them.

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

No, it is a commodity with artful components. You're not helping your case, here. Maybe with repetition, it will sink in.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 03 avril 2012 - 06:36 .

[tjc2]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

*Wonders if OP called ME1 and ME2 art before ME3 came out*

No I didn't I do not consume art regularly in my life other than a few indie films here and there and I am not even sure if I consider them Art.

When something isn't art, like a videogame, and it is excellent and works well on virtually all levels critics say it is *like* a work of Art.

Guess what things did not go well together and it was not like a work of art.

The ending of ME2, the suicide mission, was in my opinion the closest the ME IP has come to being Art. After completing that mission I really felt like recruiting each of my crew members mattered, I wondered what it would have been like if I had not assisted my crew and done their loyalty missions. And guess what when I went back and did that I died. That is right Shepard can die and that playthrough does not carry over to ME3.

NONETHELESS: It was not Art. If the game is free and free of advertisments come back to me and we can talk about Art.

Modifié par tjc2, 03 avril 2012 - 06:40 .

[Ziggeh]

tjc2 wrote...

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.

Not sure what that has to do with the argument I made.

tjc2 wrote...
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.

I'm a bit curious about this. Would pleasing a fan base not be considered financially motivated?

tjc2 wrote...
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?

No, but the label is.

[AlexXIV]

Ziggeh wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
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.

Please don't misrepresent my argument and then call it a straw man. Feel free to do either on their own, mind.

I'm not defending the position that it shouldn't be changed due to diminishing anyones integrity, but whether mass media can be art. This may seem pedantic because it is.

Of course it can be art. But that's not the point. The point is that art can be changed. Especially if it is art for the masses. Because, you know, if you do art for the masses then you have to appeal to the masses. So alone the consideration that your art is supposed to please alot of people throws the integrity defense out of the window. ME was never meant to be art, it was meant to be a video game. Of course you can view it as art or parts of it. But the product is a video game. Art is secondary at best.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 avril 2012 - 06:41 .

[Saul Iscariot]

Ratham wrote...

You lose all claim to "art" when you start using/photo-shopping images off of Google.

Also, if you have to tell me that it is art as the artist... guess what, its not art.

Gerhard Richter, Jasper Johns, Francis Bacon, Roy Lichtenstein, Marcel Duchamp and many others would beg to differ.

[wantedman dan]

Ziggeh wrote...
No, but the label is.

Would you not apply this same logic, then, to Mass Effect 3?

[AlexXIV]

jedi.flow wrote...

OP, can you define what is art?

Art is, in essence, beauty.

[Sgt Stryker]

Art and commercial products are not always mutually exclusive.

[Hudathan]

This whole argument is dumb.

[Ziggeh]

wantedman dan wrote...
No, it is a commodity with artful components. You're not helping your case, here. Maybe with repetition, it will sink in.

You said I conceded your point. So I was asking if your point was the one that I conceded.

So, artful components do not make something art. They can seek to express in precisely the same manner, but are disqualified from the term by authorial intent. Would that be closer to your position?

[Saul Iscariot]

AlexXIV wrote...

jedi.flow wrote...

OP, can you define what is art?

Art is, in essence, beauty.

No it isn't. That is a mediocre view.

[tjc2]

Hudathan wrote...

This whole argument is dumb.

Thanks for your contribution to this thread.

[wantedman dan]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Art and commercial products are not always mutually exclusive.

Exactly my point.

[Ziggeh]

AlexXIV wrote...

Of course it can be art. But that's not the point. The point is that art can be changed. Especially if it is art for the masses. Because, you know, if you do art for the masses then you have to appeal to the masses. So alone the consideration that your art is supposed to please alot of people throws the integrity defense out of the window. ME was never meant to be art, it was meant to be a video game. Of course you can view it as art or parts of it. But the product is a video game. Art is secondary at best.

Indeed. By and large I agree. I think changing based on popular opinion would compromise their integrity, but that they shouldn't care because it's primary purpose is entertainment. That said, I really think they should change it because it's objectively flawed, but that's another conversation.