315 réponses à ce sujet

[FatalX7.0]

wantedman dan wrote...

samurai crusade wrote...

So only original in duplicated works can be art?   Oh to be a millionaire and own such an unique piece

The original piece, or comprising pieces, is what is considered to be art. Whether or not you think it is artful is up to you.

Ha.

I got the first piece of art when Pizza Hut opened the other day. Everyone else after me ate commodities!

Bunch of nubs.

[samurai crusade]

wantedman dan wrote...

samurai crusade wrote...

So only original in duplicated works can be art?   Oh to be a millionaire and own such an unique piece

The original piece, or comprising pieces, is what is considered to be art. Whether or not you think it is artful is up to you.

So the collection of pieces as a whole... Say for example mass effect 3. Is art then? Yes I agree. I'm glad we reached this conclusion together

[Helishorn]

wantedman dan wrote...

Helishorn wrote...
As far as art ceasing to be art when it becomes a commodity...Picasso, famous artist, not only mass produced his picture of a dove holding a leaf but also gave his friend the right to create copies and sell them when he needed money. By the logic presented here one would say that Picasso's dove holding a leaf was no longer art...I believe anyone would have a tough time selling this idea to an actual art critic or gallery.

You've misrepresented the argument.

The initial piece of the picture of the dove was the work of art. After its mass reproduction, it then became a commodity. Your argument allies itself to fundamentally misunderstanding exactly what commodities are.

From my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong as my econ 101 class was a few years ago, but a commodity is any item that is produced to satisfy the wants of needs of the consumer.

It seems that the argument you are making, and mind you I was not trying to single our argument out in my previous post,  is that something can start as art but when you start produce it as a commodity, i.e. for the masses, then it stops being art.

In a way I can see what you're saying although I will admit some of the bantering back and forth might have confused the point you wre trying to make some. I think what your saying is that when you go to say a statue store and buy a statue of a girl holding a vase it is so far removed from the original sculpture that it in itself is not art. This might be an over simplification of what you're saying mind you. Again though in this i agree with you to a point. Yes it is a commodity at this point and perhaps not something that I would call high art or at least an original piece but as stated I don't think something stops being art just because it's created as a commodity. Indeed if I put it in my garden I would do so because I thought it added beauty to my flowers and tomatoes. In this way the mass produced commodity becomes art...just not art I'm going to get all mushy about if it breaks. 

Still, the problem with the conversation is that what is art is so subjective and dependent on who is viewing it. You or I might see the label on a Windex bottle and not see it as art while a graphic designer might think that the styling is incredible.

[wantedman dan]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Everything is a commodity.

In economics, a commodity is the generic term for any marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs.

I like the wiki for this.

And one that is also readily exchanged or exploited within a market. Does that fit your definition of "art?"

[knightnblu]

Funny, I never thought that I purchased a da Vinci masterpiece. I thought that I bought a game. But let's roll with the art assertion just for giggles. There was once a painter who painted over a master's work in order to pay tribute to the concept of negation. That's what we want with ME3's ending. Creative destruction done in an artistic way in order to cull new and vibrant art out of the old.
 
Think about it, BioWare splashes us with a dark and grim ending and we retort with a vibrant and happy one thus negating the previous. That my friend is art. Dynamic, gregarious, impetuous, and worthy of cheese, wine, and croissants.
 
Magnificent don't you think? And oh, so artful in its execution and simplicity. Therefore, let us pay tribute to the concepts of negation and creative destruction and re-write that ending in the name of art!

[IGSR]

So if William Shakespeare came to my house and read an original story to me, that's art, but if I buy the book later, the story is now a commodity and has ceased to be art.

Grasping at straws is fun!

[FatalX7.0]

wantedman dan wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Everything is a commodity.

In economics, a commodity is the generic term for any marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs.

I like the wiki for this.

And one that is also readily exchanged or exploited within a market. Does that fit your definition of "art?"

Books, Movies, Paintings, Cars, Clothing, Drawings, Scultptures, Weapons, Food, Photography, Dancing, Theatre.

Seems to fit the definition of lots of art.

[The Mercenary55]

mass effect 3 is a form of art, but first and foremost it is also a game/product, that has certain promises/expectations to achieve which it has failed to do. therefore customer satisfaction must come before artistic integrity. after all bioware is a business selling a product, not art.

[FatalX7.0]

knightnblu wrote...

Funny, I never thought that I purchased a da Vinci masterpiece. I thought that I bought a game. But let's roll with the art assertion just for giggles. There was once a painter who painted over a master's work in order to pay tribute to the concept of negation. That's what we want with ME3's ending. Creative destruction done in an artistic way in order to cull new and vibrant art out of the old.
 
Think about it, BioWare splashes us with a dark and grim ending and we retort with a vibrant and happy one thus negating the previous. That my friend is art. Dynamic, gregarious, impetuous, and worthy of cheese, wine, and croissants.
 
Magnificent don't you think? And oh, so artful in its execution and simplicity. Therefore, let us pay tribute to the concepts of negation and creative destruction and re-write that ending in the name of art!

What the hell are you talking about?

[IGSR]

knightnblu wrote...

Funny, I never thought that I purchased a da Vinci masterpiece. I thought that I bought a game. But let's roll with the art assertion just for giggles. There was once a painter who painted over a master's work in order to pay tribute to the concept of negation. That's what we want with ME3's ending. Creative destruction done in an artistic way in order to cull new and vibrant art out of the old.
 
Think about it, BioWare splashes us with a dark and grim ending and we retort with a vibrant and happy one thus negating the previous. That my friend is art. Dynamic, gregarious, impetuous, and worthy of cheese, wine, and croissants.
 
Magnificent don't you think? And oh, so artful in its execution and simplicity. Therefore, let us pay tribute to the concepts of negation and creative destruction and re-write that ending in the name of art!

Then they'll negate the negation, and all hell will break loose.

[FatalX7.0]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Everything is a commodity.

In economics, a commodity is the generic term for any marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs.

I like the wiki for this.

And one that is also readily exchanged or exploited within a market. Does that fit your definition of "art?"

Books, Movies, Paintings, Cars, Clothing, Drawings, Scultptures, Weapons, Food, Photography, Dancing, Theatre.

Seems to fit the definition of lots of art.

Or, they're not art?

Only the first one is art and the rest...are not art anymore, even though they are art?

But they aren't?

Yeah.

[Clayless]

Seriously art is subjective. There is literally no way you can say "Mass Effect 3 is not art".

[FatalX7.0]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Seriously art is subjective. There is literally no way you can say "Mass Effect 3 is not art".

But, Video Games are legally art in the US. National Endowement for the Arts says so.

So, it is art. If someone says it's isn't, they are wrong.

Unless they leave the country, then it's all good.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 03 avril 2012 - 08:50 .

[Helishorn]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Seriously art is subjective. There is literally no way you can say "Mass Effect 3 is not art".

Reminds me of what Supreem Court Justice Stewart said about pornography, 'I can't define what is pornography. But I know it when I see it."

[Gerudan]

ME and the ME universe are art, but that doesn't mean you can't change it. When a famous artist painted the wife of someone, but his customer didn't like the way the painting looked like, then he had to change it to sell it, simple as that.

[redcarpet26]

Whether something is art depends on whether it has been mass produced and is for profit. The more mass produced, the less artistic. ME3 is both things, so it looses its "art" credentials pretty quickly.

[FatalX7.0]

redcarpet26 wrote...

Whether something is art depends on whether it has been mass produced and is for profit. The more mass produced, the less artistic. ME3 is both things, so it looses its "art" credentials pretty quickly.

I guess lots of things aren't art anymore. :<

[Batarian_Army]

Mass Effect IS ART! But I must say, at the end, it was very very very bad writing art. About art you can discuss. About flavor you can discuss. And my flavor say to me, that the endings do NOT taste very good. My opinion. My flavor. No more words about this kind of topic.

[wantedman dan]

samurai crusade wrote...

So the collection of pieces as a whole... Say for example mass effect 3. Is art then? Yes I agree. I'm glad we reached this conclusion together

You obviously misunderstand the context of the argument. Because Mass Effect 3 is, in essence, a complete game in and of itself, the pieces comprising the game make up its artistic components.

Your example fails.

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Ha.

I got the first piece of art when Pizza Hut opened the other day. Everyone else after me ate commodities! 

Bunch of nubs.

If you think pizza is an art, so be it. I'm not going to contradict your sense of artistry. However, it's glaringly obvious you misunderstand what exactly my point is, or you just don't know how to convey yourself accurately. The first pizza produced by said Pizza Hut on a given day is still a reproduction, ergo, still a commodity. Your example fails.

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Books, Movies, Paintings, Cars, Clothing, Drawings, Scultptures, Weapons, Food, Photography, Dancing, Theatre.

Seems to fit the definition of lots of art.

Then you seem to misunderstand what exactly the boundaries between art and commodities are. Again, your example fails.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 03 avril 2012 - 09:08 .

[OkaeOne]

Sorry for the long rant...

As a graphic designer and being the creative director for a couple of multimedia development firms  and ad agencies this whole "is it art thing?" is very conflicting for me. I have been doing graphic design on multiple mediums for a wide variety of industries (including the gaming industry) for over 12 years now and I wish I could say that my life's work has been art.  But, when I think of the process it took to produce the creative it saddens me that so much of it was driven off of principals such as demographics, target audience, conversion rates, perceived value, and a slew of other marketing terms. And yes even if I am the Creative Director I still answer to someone that usually is more familiar with business & economic models than artistic renderings.  At the end of the day, even though I like to think I've made some real kick-@ss art, I can accept that my designs are more akin to capitalism propaganda.  It's an awful way to think, but to be honest, it has helped me ensure that the creative I produce communicates the message of our clients and in turn helped made their product or campaign successful.

The Mass Effect series is quite artistic from it's storyline, visuals, sounds, music, and so on.  However, imho, at the end of the day it is still a product. And obviously as a product it needs to be commercially successful.  IMO, when you're pushing a product for profit you are not free from criticism.  Good or bad, you have no choice but to accept your consumers criticisms and respond accordingly.  Some companies won't do a darn thing and others will try to do everything in their power to make things right it's called customer service.  This whole Retake ME3 movement and the general outcry for proper closure is something that BW can't ignore or pretend only affects a few.  No matter how artsy they want to make it out to be... they need to be able to continue to sell to a somewhat content consumer base.

I find the 'artistic integrity' line to be a complete cop out.  My biggest problem with the term is that it has the ability to quickly and easily divide people.  Once a seller uses the 'art' argument it quickly evolves into freedom of expression vs. consumers desires.  It tries to make a very grey issue become very black & white, ie. "it's art you can't criticize it because artistic expression should not and cannot be surpressed or critiqued." or "it's not art, because I paid for it.. I own it and I want it like this."  Neither side is right.  We as Bioware consumers have made multiple purchases of their products because of their ability to continually produce a product that we feel has had a certain level of quality and adhesion to it's brand.  Unfortunately, ME3 has left many including myself wondering what the heck happened to continuity and how did a game that was 95% perfection end the way it did.  It's like The Athenaeum having Washington sport a stick figure body. 

Make no mistake about it... we are all consumers and BW needs us more than we need them.  We also have every right to critique their product along with any and all attached artistic values of said product.  Now technically they don't need to do a dang thing about the ending... and in fact they can tell everyone to shove it.  But, they know the repercussions of having done that could hurt them financially in the long run.  In the end (no pun) if BW decides to address the concerns of many it benefits all.  At the very least BW will be more conscious about the overall quality of the products they release.

Modifié par OkaeOne, 03 avril 2012 - 09:04 .

[wantedman dan]

Helishorn wrote...
From my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong as my econ 101 class was a few years ago, but a commodity is any item that is produced to satisfy the wants of needs of the consumer.

You're missing a key component: a commodity is something that can be readily exploited and exchanged in the public market. Art does not fit that definition, as it cannot be readily exploited nor exchanged by the general populace.

It seems that the argument you are making, and mind you I was not trying to single our argument out in my previous post,  is that something can start as art but when you start produce it as a commodity, i.e. for the masses, then it stops being art.

It, as in the product itself, ceases to become a piece of art and instead becomes a commodity. The artistic components that comprise the final product maintain their artistic value, however the final product is, in and of itself, a commodity.

In a way I can see what you're saying although I will admit some of the bantering back and forth might have confused the point you wre trying to make some. I think what your saying is that when you go to say a statue store and buy a statue of a girl holding a vase it is so far removed from the original sculpture that it in itself is not art. This might be an over simplification of what you're saying mind you. Again though in this i agree with you to a point. Yes it is a commodity at this point and perhaps not something that I would call high art or at least an original piece but as stated I don't think something stops being art just because it's created as a commodity. Indeed if I put it in my garden I would do so because I thought it added beauty to my flowers and tomatoes. In this way the mass produced commodity becomes art...just not art I'm going to get all mushy about if it breaks.  

That's actually a pretty good simplification, however you and I disagree as to whether or not it is "art." You're essentially buying a piece of "artful" decor. It looks, and has the composure of being, artful. That product, however, is not art.

Still, the problem with the conversation is that what is art is so subjective and dependent on who is viewing it. You or I might see the label on a Windex bottle and not see it as art while a graphic designer might think that the styling is incredible.

I was more or less playing Devil's advocate with that example.

[wantedman dan]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Or, they're not art?

Only the first one is art and the rest...are not art anymore, even though they are art?

But they aren't?

Yeah.

That's cute.

[wantedman dan]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

redcarpet26 wrote...

Whether something is art depends on whether it has been mass produced and is for profit. The more mass produced, the less artistic. ME3 is both things, so it looses its "art" credentials pretty quickly.

I guess lots of things aren't art anymore. :<

Sorry to burst your bubble there, sweetheart. Corporatism has its feelers in everything now.

[avonkorff]

Just because something is crafted with the intention of being sold to/available for purchase by the masses, does not mean it's not art. To insinuate, or imply, that because Bioware is a "business selling a product", Mass Effect 3 (or any other video game for that matter) can not qualify as 'art' is nonsensical and ignores the fact that mass consumption is the linch pin of current mass media/art production (ie: production cost, director's vision, realization of pre-project goals, continued support for future artistic endeavors, etc...).

To be sure I understood what the "Mass Effect 3 as a commodity" side of this debate were really saying, I shamefully visited Wikipedia to ensure that I understood what application of the word commodity they seem to be using....and came across this passage at the top of the article which I found particularly helpful:

"The more specific meaning of the term commodity is applied to goods only. It is used to describe a class of goods for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.[3] A commodity has full or partial fungibility; that is, the market treats it as equivalent or nearly so no matter who produces it. "From the taste of wheat it is not possible to tell who produced it, a Russian serf, a French peasant or an English capitalist."

There is an incredible amount of qualitative differentiation in every artistic medium. That's the central point here...this is why it is art...because Bioware is not presenting ME3 as a "goods and services", or commodity, type product (especially considering it was not created in reaction to consumer demands to provide an exclusive product to fill a specific need).

ME3 [video games] is [are] unique, individual, and qualitatively differentiated, from all other products in it's [their] class (video games). Common threads may exist between games, but there is no true market DEMAND (ie: goods and services requisite) for 3rd person action RPG shooters set in Space with a relatively individualized story depending on past choices...to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

The notion that games aren't art because they are created for mass consumption, again, is absurd. To postulate this theory, one has to assume that music, film, and/or fashion industries all exist to provide goods and services, and do not have, harbor, or foster qualitative differentiation within their respective medium. It is undeniably obvious that such a hypothesis is utterly full of s*&#.

Modifié par avonkorff, 03 avril 2012 - 09:20 .

[heathxxx]

I like to call this, the Andy Warhol ending.