315 réponses à ce sujet

[Saul Iscariot]

There are discernible differences between a Fine Artist and a Commercial Artist but there isn't an exclusivity between either camp is the only thing people should take away from this.

[AlexXIV]

Saul Iscariot wrote...

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.

Or you have a narrow view of the term 'beauty'.

[wantedman dan]

Ziggeh wrote...
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?

It was a concession. If you want me to clarify something, just ask. Confounding your intent only hurts your cause.

That's an acceptable summation for now, however, yes. I'll let you make your point before expouding upon it.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It's a game if it's something you want to improve. It's art if you don't want to improve it. Art can always be a fallback point.

[ThisOneIsPunny]

Art is subjective. That one would try to argue what is or isn't art does nothing but waste time.

[Ziggeh]

wantedman dan wrote...

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

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

No, because one is purely functional with something (slightly) expressive attached while the other is a vast array of nuances, expressions and creative input.

If the faint lemony scent of windex was intended to express a sense of ennui in addition to providing it's primary cleaning I'd call that art too, but I expect it's just there to cover the chemical aroma.

[wantedman dan]

Ziggeh wrote...
No, because one is purely functional with something (slightly) expressive attached while the other is a vast array of nuances, expressions and creative input.

If the faint lemony scent of windex was intended to express a sense of ennui in addition to providing it's primary cleaning I'd call that art too, but I expect it's just there to cover the chemical aroma.

But who are you to determine its limit of expressiveness?

For all you know, that (seemingly) basic label is full of nuances, expressions, and creative input. 

[tjc2]

Ziggeh wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

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

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

No, because one is purely functional with something (slightly) expressive attached while the other is a vast array of nuances, expressions and creative input.

If the faint lemony scent of windex was intended to express a sense of ennui in addition to providing it's primary cleaning I'd call that art too, but I expect it's just there to cover the chemical aroma.

Im just wandering your opinion, do you think the endings should be untouched?

[tjc2]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

tjc2 wrote...

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.

I think you misunderstand what art is. Let's take a look at three of the most basic parts of a game.

Programming: People write code to "tell" the game what to do. Sets damage values, health values, determines where the character is on screen, enables hit detection, etc. Not art but important.

Graphic design: I assume, and I say ASSUME that character models are done by graphic designers based off of concept art by traditional artists. The cahracters you see on your screen weren't randomly thrown together, they are the product of being drawn over and over again until they were right and then being created on the computer over and over again until they are right. Concept art that arrives with Collector's Editions aren't made just for Collector's edtions, they are something that were created for the game and created by artists with great talent and attention to detail. It is art, and it is important.

Writing: People will be arguing literature is art or not forever. It's not a concept that is only tied down to the debates people have about this game. Usually when people consider a piece of writing art it's something that resonates with them. It usually involves doing something with words that other people couldn't. It means being creative. Not only do people have to create a story that people will read and enjoy, they also have to create a story that get's people emotionally pulled in. Artistic stories often make people think about their life. Oftentimes the most legendary stories will have characters or events that a person can relate to even though the story has nothing to do with them and the writer doesn't know these people at all. Why is the connection there? The writer has a good grasp on The Human Condition. If a writer understands this concept well enough and implements it well enough then there is a good possibility that they have a story that can be described anywhere between above average and legendary. Consider this for a moment, how well would've Mass Effect's main story be if it was a series of novels? It wouldn't be as legendary as Shakespeare, but it probably would've been one of the most popular series out there with a strong cult following. The ending would've been accepted, I believe, because it's one that calls upon many literary elements, such as symbolism, and  allusions such as a phyrraic victory. It would make people think, could I make that sacrifice? Would I make that sacrifice? The open endedness of the story, such as not explaining what would happen would also be accepted. Whether or not the Tali could finally build her home wasn't the point, defeating the Reapers was. The ending was supposed to create a feeling of peace and resolution. In a literary world, the ending would've been accepted. The story would've been considered above average, especially when compared to best sellers like Twilight and Harry Potter. It would've been similar to The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Whether or not you consider literary works art is ultimately up to you, I beleive this story was written artistically.

Also, I think you misunderstand art. If you believe an artist has to work for free then you surely don't consider da Vinci an artist right?

No you misunderstand the argument. The argument is art as expression versus art as a product. Art as expression should not be changed because the point of that work is to send a message. Art as a product should be changed because the point of its creation is to sell.

Renaissance Artists, like da Vinci, are very diferent from the way we look at artists today. During the time Art, meaning paintings sculptures etc., were commisioned pieces and the content was set by the patrons.

People who we consider great artists today, especially those who make paintings, sculptures, etc., create Art and then have Art shows and then sell their Art. During the Renaissance this model of selling art was only done by second-rate artists. Artists that were not prominent enough to have works comissioned by wealthy patrons.

[Ziggeh]

tjc2 wrote...

Im just wandering your opinion, do you think the endings should be untouched?

Lord no, it's terrible. As such I don't place a lot of value in their integrity, but more importantly, art or not, broken thing's should be fixed. I think the artistic integrity argument misses the point and shouldn't be countered on it's own terms.

[AIR MOORE]

Collective of Smithsonian > Some nerds on BSN who are e-intellects.

I'll just leave this here...

www.si.edu/Exhibitions/Details/The-Art-of-Video-Games-840


NEXT TOPIC.

Not to mention, in the US if we consider them art, they have higher protections under the law than if it was not the case.

(Yes art is subjective, but between the Smithsonian collective seeming to think it is, as well as the positive legal ramifications if it is art... I think we can go ahead and ignore e-intellects on BSN on the matter.)

Modifié par AIR MOORE, 03 avril 2012 - 07:16 .

[tjc2]

Ziggeh wrote...

tjc2 wrote...

Im just wandering your opinion, do you think the endings should be untouched?

Lord no, it's terrible. As such I don't place a lot of value in their integrity, but more importantly, art or not, broken thing's should be fixed. I think the artistic integrity argument misses the point and shouldn't be countered on it's own terms.

I think our argument is simply symentical then. I don't consider video games "works of art," but I readily admit art and artists are involved in their creation. The closest I think video games come to "Works of Art" would be technical demos of new gaming engines and other vectors that show off progression in the field of processing and virtual graphical design.
 

Modifié par tjc2, 03 avril 2012 - 07:20 .

[wantedman dan]

AIR MOORE wrote...

Collective of Smithsonian > Some nerds on BSN who are e-intellects.

I'll just leave this here...

www.si.edu/Exhibitions/Details/The-Art-of-Video-Games-840


NEXT TOPIC.

Not to mention, in the US if we consider them art, they have higher protections under the law than if it was not the case.

(Yes art is subjective, but between the Smithsonian collective seeming to think it is, as well as the positive legal ramifications if it is art... I think we can go ahead and ignore e-intellects on BSN on the matter.)

Nothing disproves my assertions in this article.

Your unneeded condescention is recognized and, as the condescention before, dismissed.

[RenascentAnt1]

Of course it is not art.

Bioware and EA are business companies. Their bottom line is profit, not artistic integrity.

I find it incredibly offensive for Bioware to try to hide behind artistic license when they are a shop not different to Zara or KFC or Amazon.

[AIR MOORE]

wantedman dan wrote...

AIR MOORE wrote...

Collective of Smithsonian > Some nerds on BSN who are e-intellects.

I'll just leave this here...

www.si.edu/Exhibitions/Details/The-Art-of-Video-Games-840


NEXT TOPIC.

Not to mention, in the US if we consider them art, they have higher protections under the law than if it was not the case.

(Yes art is subjective, but between the Smithsonian collective seeming to think it is, as well as the positive legal ramifications if it is art... I think we can go ahead and ignore e-intellects on BSN on the matter.)

Nothing disproves my assertions in this article.

Your unneeded condescention is recognized and, as the condescention before, dismissed.

Again, I'm glad your smarter than the collective of the Smithsonian... keep your e-intellect high pal... whatever keeps your life going. What's your job again? I'm sure it's far more prestigious than that at the Smithsonian.

When it comes to trusting what generally (currently) is accepted as art I think I will trust their collective intellect over yours. When it comes to law, I trust mine over yours.

You can trust your intellect over that of the Smithsonian collective who organizes such exhibits, and over my intellect regarding law, but it begs the question... why are you on BSN and not at the Smithsonian, Ivy League professor meeting, or somewhere as highly regarded on the subject? Regardless, your choice... I'm sure you're a smart cookie.

Modifié par AIR MOORE, 03 avril 2012 - 07:40 .

[Teamsleeper]

Art is utterly subjective , you may find it **** whilst other will love it .
The characters in mass effect are art too, someone designed them, someone wrote them.
A book is art, one of the oldest types of art that exist.
And mass effect is a visual and interactive type of art.

[Ziggeh]

wantedman dan wrote...
For all you know, that (seemingly) basic label is full of nuances, expressions, and creative input. 

I meant the windex, I already believe the label to be art.

wantedman dan wrote...
But who are you to determine its
limit of expressiveness?

That's a good point. The same could be said for cans of soup or urinals.

Which is to say, which is my issue with the summation I gave above, that authorial intent isn't the exclusive defining factor. What is expressed by art is largely uncontrollable. Whether or not the artist was creating purely for access to cocaine and hookers I may see value and beauty. I might be entirely detached from any intent by time and context.

So I suppose the point I'm meandering slowly towards is that any attempt to pin down the term "art" is largely futile as our ability and desire to concieve it will always confound any guidelines.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 03 avril 2012 - 07:32 .

[Ziggeh]

tjc2 wrote...
I think our argument is simply symentical then.

Yes, sorry, I should start making this sort of thing clear as I almost always end up in conversations like this. Essentially I'm a pedant. I agree with the general theme of the thread, just not the detail or manner. I should put that in my signature.

tjc2 wrote...
I don't consider video games "works of art," but I readily admit art and artists are involved in their creation. The closest I think video games come to "Works of Art" would be technical demos of new gaming engines and other vectors that show off progression in the field of processing and virtual graphical design. 

Yeah, "work of art" rather implies an exclusive purpose and I'd certainly agree thats not it, but I wouldn't agree that the term art has the same connotation.

[ForceXev]

The problem with this debate is that we put the concept of "art" on a pedestal.  Once we have identified that something is art, people say it cannot be touched, and we must all bow down to the all mighty ART!  This is false.  Art is not the most important thing in the world, and it certainly is not the most important thing in a video game (see: Minecraft).

Yes, the story is art.  But in a video game, it exists only as a servant to the gameplay and entertainment.  As soon as it gets in the way of the gamer having fun, it must be removed.

This would be ridiculous for a work of pure art.  You wouldn't cut the feet off the statue of David because he doesn't fit through a door.  But if some piece of art prevents me from getting through a door in a video game, it must go.  There isn't even a discussion -- the art is in the way, so you get rid of it.

In the case of ME3, the art is getting in the way of the fun.  This is partly because when you finish a game, you are supposed to feel like you have won, but in ME3 it feels more like a defeat.  Some people claim that this is OK, it's just a new concept in video games.  I disagree, because losing when you win is a concept that will never work.  Some people say the good guys lose all the time in movies.  But that's different, because a movie is not a competition.  I'm just an observer, so while the main character may have lost I didn't lose.  A video game is a form of competition, whether it's against other players or the computer AI, and when I win I expect to be rewarded.  You don't reward the winner of a football game by spitting in the players' faces.  You don't reward a child for winning a spelling bee by grounding her.  You don't reward the winner of a chess game by beating him over the head with the chess board.  And you don't reward a gamer who wins a video game with a story of destruction, genocide and failure.

[wantedman dan]

AIR MOORE wrote...

Again, I'm glad your smarter than the collective of the Smithsonian... keep your e-intellect high pal... whatever keeps your life going. What's your job again? I'm sure it's far more prestigious than that at the Smithsonian.

When it comes to trusting what generally (currently) is accepted as art I think I will trust their collective intellect over yours. When it comes to law, I trust mine over yours.

You can trust your intellect over that of the Smithsonian collective who organizes such exhibits, and over my intellect regarding law, but it begs the question... why are you on BSN and not at the Smithsonian, Ivy League professor meeting, or somewhere as highly regarded on the subject? Regardless, your choice... I'm sure you're a smart cookie.

When it comes to reading comprehension, I'll trust my judgment and postulate that you have little of it.

[Ziggeh]

ForceXev wrote...

This is partly because when you finish a game, you are supposed to feel like you have won, but in ME3 it feels more like a defeat.  Some people claim that this is OK, it's just a new concept in video games.  I disagree, because losing when you win is a concept that will never work.

I don't know, I can recall games that ended with a sense loss or lack of control, but largely where that fitted thematically. Horror games spring to mind. But I do think the general sense of triumphalism and all round bad assery in ME made victory important, rather than it being vital to the medium.

[clarkusdarkus]

art is like having the worlds biggest dump.....quite emotional, makes you feel proud, but gotta let it go at some point.

[Flextt]

Artists creating commissioned art are writhing in pain right now.

Modifié par Flextt, 03 avril 2012 - 07:46 .

[wantedman dan]

Ziggeh wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...
For all you know, that (seemingly) basic label is full of nuances, expressions, and creative input. 

I meant the windex, I already believe the label to be art.

wantedman dan wrote...
But who are you to determine its
limit of expressiveness?

That's a good point. The same could be said for cans of soup or urinals.

Which is to say, which is my issue with the summation I gave above, that authorial intent isn't the exclusive defining factor. What is expressed by art is largely uncontrollable. Whether or not the artist was creating purely for access to cocaine and hookers I may see value and beauty. I might be entirely detached from any intent by time and context.

So I suppose the point I'm meandering slowly towards is that any attempt to pin down the term "art" is largely futile as our ability and desire to concieve it will always confound any guidelines.

The grander point I alluded to was that the Windex is just as much commodity as Mass Effect 3--they both have artistic components, however, they've been "commoditized" and mass disseminated.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 03 avril 2012 - 07:49 .