315 réponses à ce sujet

[xsdob]

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.

the sinstine chapel is art, and the whole thing was just the catholic church showing off how much power they had and how much money they could make by getting the rich lords and businessmen to buy get out of hell free absolvtions. And michealangelo worked on it cause the church payed him a lot.

Money and reward driven persuits go hand in hand, and have always done so.

Anyone who say's otherwise is really just fooling themselves into thinking that art is some noble pursuit.

[Elidor109]

So I went to the store the other day and bought myself some art. I stuck the CD which contains the art into my computer and downloaded the art. I then began to create the protagonists appearance in said art. I then began to alter the art's story along a path which I choose but was of a handful of predetermined possibilities.

Oh and by the way, while I essentially made major choices regarding the piece of art, I also shot people and blew them into space...artfully.

[wantedman dan]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

It's a commercial product but still a work of art. In a rather detailed post in another thread, I pointed out that many of the great works of art by Michelangelo, Bernini, etc. were actually commissioned pieces done for money. That still didn't stop anyone from considering them brilliant pieces of art. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

And there is an arguable and substantial difference between massive dissemination of a product and commissioning its creation.

[wantedman dan]

xsdob 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.

the sinstine chapel is art, and the whole thing was just the catholic church showing off how much power they had and how much money they could make by getting the rich lords and businessmen to buy get out of hell free absolvtions. And michealangelo worked on it cause the church payed him a lot.

Money and reward driven persuits go hand in hand, and have always done so.

Anyone who say's otherwise is really just fooling themselves into thinking that art is some noble pursuit.

Commissioning =/= mass dissemination

[Arppis]

wantedman dan wrote...

DranakShadow wrote...

Even if it's still a copy of art, it's still art. The required skills to create animations, models, ect. Is considered art. Stories are considered art. As long as it's built from imagination, it is art. Mass produced or not.

No, then it becomes a commodity with artful components. Just like I've siad all along.

So, you said no to that before. When I said it's both, and now you say that it's both?

And according to your earlier comments, movies and books aren't art either. Artists have to sell their works too to live.

kk :happy:

Modifié par Arppis, 03 avril 2012 - 10:17 .

[Elidor109]

xsdob 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.

the sinstine chapel is art, and the whole thing was just the catholic church showing off how much power they had and how much money they could make by getting the rich lords and businessmen to buy get out of hell free absolvtions. And michealangelo worked on it cause the church payed him a lot.

Money and reward driven persuits go hand in hand, and have always done so.

Anyone who say's otherwise is really just fooling themselves into thinking that art is some noble pursuit.

The sistine chapel is NOT art, it is a building. The design of the building is art(istic).

Building =/= art

Modifié par Elidor109, 03 avril 2012 - 10:18 .

[parrmi22]

Video games ARE art. As is pretty much any form of entertainment, really, even Nympho Hospital 5. I just don't care. These endings feel like a betrayal.

[wantedman dan]

Ariella wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Ariella wrote...

I'm sorry, but you seem to be saying that if you paid for it, it can't be art. Casablanca, Lord of the Rings (the book not the movies), West Side Story, Anything written by Mozart, Bach, etc all would come under the classification ofr commodity since they were paid for.

The fact of the matter is art is subjective and has nothing to do with dissemination or anything else.

If you paid for the access of it in its massively disseminated form, then yes, you have purchased it. The original story--written by JRR Tolkein, etc.--or the original composition of music by Mozart, Bach, etc does not lose its artful status.

Purchasing it in the massively disseminated form does. It all boils down to the ORIGINAL product.

You ever heard of a strawman. Your parsing semantics, Dan. I pay money to go see a production of Into the Woods, the art is as much in the performance, which I paid to see as in  the writing of the dialogue and music. Money has little to do with art except that it allows artists to eat and actually continue their craft. I'd suggest you reading Stephen King's On Writing, but you probably wouldn't like it because it's by a "commercial" writer, who loves the language.

Good Lord. I break down the examples given to me by others and I get called the straw man. As I've said before--semantics comprises a large part of our understanding of meaning.

Paying to see a live performance is not in any way the same as seeing a massively disseminated movie. Maybe it's you who needs to learn what a strawman is.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 03 avril 2012 - 10:21 .

[xsdob]

And all of you have already lost this fight, the Smithsonian already has an entire exhibition on the art of video games going on right now covering 4 games from every gaming platform and games that have revolutionized the industry. And mass effect 2 is part of the exhibition, so your argument of mass effect not being art is invalid.

find out more from oancitizen, that guy with the glasses official artsy movie and fine art expert,

http://thatguywithth...eo-games-as-art

[xsdob]

Elidor109 wrote...

xsdob 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.

the sinstine chapel is art, and the whole thing was just the catholic church showing off how much power they had and how much money they could make by getting the rich lords and businessmen to buy get out of hell free absolvtions. And michealangelo worked on it cause the church payed him a lot.

Money and reward driven persuits go hand in hand, and have always done so.

Anyone who say's otherwise is really just fooling themselves into thinking that art is some noble pursuit.

The sistine chapel is NOT art, it is a building. The design of the building is art(istic).

Building =/= art

The ceiling is art than, and that was made to show off power and money that the church could spend.

[DranakShadow]

Maria Caliban wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Personally, I just laughed at  Fatal and proceeded to ignore him. I've never said that BioWare shouldn't listen to feedback, and if he had been more familiar with my posts, I guess he'd know that in the past I've said that the idea of alternative endings is fine and that there is precedent for game endings to be changed/altered/added to (per Broken Steel).

However, the game is much more than just a commodity and I find the OP trying to pass it off as being exactly the same situation as an office productivity program, etc. is ridiculous, along with the blanket statement that the game is not art.

P.S. I work in Adobe InDesign CS5.5, so I'd happily give Adobe some feedback on footnoting options after dealing with a manuscript that was giving me trouble the other day like how it was exceptionally inconvenient.

The problem is that some people still have a romantic, almost sacred view of art. If Mass Effect was art then it would be sacrosanct and above criticism. Also the creators could only be living out of cardboard boxes and subsisting on Ramen noodles.

Ergo, Mass Effect can't be art because that conflicts with their desire for a different ending.

Except it's still not above criticism. I could understand something that -can't- really be changed or altered so easily.. like, say... a statue, but movies, games, and books can all be altered.

[wantedman dan]

xsdob wrote...

And all of you have already lost this fight, the Smithsonian already has an entire exhibition on the art of video games going on right now covering 4 games from every gaming platform and games that have revolutionized the industry. And mass effect 2 is part of the exhibition, so your argument of mass effect not being art is invalid.

find out more from oancitizen, that guy with the glasses official artsy movie and fine art expert,

http://thatguywithth...eo-games-as-art

read my response to the last guy who brought up this topic.

 

[avonkorff]

wantedman dan wrote...
I'm glad you substantiate your intellectually deep and enthralling arguments off of a five-minute skim of a Wikipedia article, no less.

I never claimed my argument was intellecutally deep or enthralling (ie: shamefully went to Wikipedia; reread my post if you missed this). You obviously don't respect my viewpoints, nor the support I provided for said viewpoints, but I'll respond with some final thoughts. 

The fact is that I simply don't believe the developers, writers, and execs of any game developer responsible for games such as Mass Effect (games driven by a unique, enthralling fiction with artistic elements, as you have cited) choose to pursue production of their games purely for the expressed purpose of mass distribution and mass consumption. Breadth of mass consumption of video games these days is (in my opinion) a byproduct of the artistic vision and qualities of a game.

Obviously a market demand for entertainment exists, but I'll say it again, mass consumption is a linch pin in mass media art production. Companies like EA buy companies like Bioware because companies like EA want to make money. Bioware is a business, and was a self-sustaining business before being purchased by EA. Just because a product from Bioware is intended to provide entertainment and be disseminated to the masses, and anyone who wants to pay 60-70 dollars to have acces to it, does not decrease the artistic value, or qualitative differences within the medium of the final product. 

The Dark Knight Rises is a commodity to Warner Brothers Pictures as it represents a product to be mass marketed and released for mass consumption, however it is quite obviously an artistic endeavour on the part of the actors and of Christopher Nolan; the ones actually creating the film. 

Bloomsbury Publishing views the Harry Potter book series as a commodity, and a brand, for mass consumption that provides the public with entertainment. J.K Rowling however embarked on an artistic endeavour to create the fiction. 

Big Machine may view Taylor Swift's music as commodity, a means to profit, and given the unique nature of the music industry, will undoubtedly have some say in the marketting of the artist hereslf. However small it may be, Taylor Swift has a creative voice and it is represented through her music (whether it be the vocalization of a line written by a songwriter she's never met, or the lyrics of a song she's written herself). 

It is both the prodcess of creation, and the nature of the birth of an idea/creative process, that defines something as art.

If you record an album for the sole purpose of record sales with absolutely no interest in fostering an artistic process, than your product should be deemed a "comodity". If you record an album that fosters some modicum of artistic integrity with the knowledge that it will be consumed, purchased, and disseminated amongst a certain group of people, I believe it should be called art. The same goes for video games, film, and literature in my eyes.

It is the INTENT of the creator that matters when calling something "art" or "commodity". If Bioware planned to create an elaborate trilogy of games to increase their profit margin, and made promises/design overhauls to games specifically to increase their profit margin, then no Mass Effect games aren't art. For this very reason, Madden 2012 isn't a piece of art. For this very reason, a lot of music isn't art. For this very reason, films like "No Words" with Eddie Murphy can't be qualified as art....Why? Because the intention of the creator was simple: Financial Gain via mass distribution and consumption. 


Entertainment is the commodity. 
Art is entertainment. 
The intention of the creator is what defines the piece as one or the other. 

Modifié par avonkorff, 03 avril 2012 - 10:29 .

[Ariella]

Elidor109 wrote...

xsdob 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.

the sinstine chapel is art, and the whole thing was just the catholic church showing off how much power they had and how much money they could make by getting the rich lords and businessmen to buy get out of hell free absolvtions. And michealangelo worked on it cause the church payed him a lot.

Money and reward driven persuits go hand in hand, and have always done so.

Anyone who say's otherwise is really just fooling themselves into thinking that art is some noble pursuit.

The sistine chapel is NOT art, it is a building. The design of the building is art(istic).

Building =/= art

I think there are art historians and architects who'd argue that point. However, the painting on the ceiling of the chapel is called "The Last Supper" and is a separate piece of art 9and art form)  from St. Peter's design as a building.

[wantedman dan]

Arppis wrote...

So, you said no to that before. When I said it's both, and now you say that it's both?

No. Go back to the last time I talked about final products vs. components comprising the whole.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

And according to your earlier comments, movies and books aren't art either. Artists have to sell their works too to live.

No. Go back to the last time I talked about movies and books.

And, no. Go back to the discussion about Picasso.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Art can be altered and changed and improved upon.

[DranakShadow]

wantedman dan wrote...

DranakShadow wrote...

Even if it's still a copy of art, it's still art. The required skills to create animations, models, ect. Is considered art. Stories are considered art. As long as it's built from imagination, it is art. Mass produced or not.

No, then it becomes a commodity with artful components. Just like I've said all along.

Still art, even on a legal level, as of 2011.

[wantedman dan]

avonkorff wrote...
The fact is that I simply don't believe the developers, writers, and execs of any game developer responsible for games such as Mass Effect (games driven by a unique, enthralling fiction with artistic elements, as you have cited) choose to pursue production of their games purely for the expressed purpose of mass distribution and mass consumption. Breadth of mass consumption of video games these days is (in my opinion) a byproduct of the artistic vision and qualities of a game.

Your idealism is admirable.

Obviously a market demand for entertainment exists, but I'll say it again, mass consumption is a linch pin in mass media art production. Companies like EA buy companies like Bioware because companies like EA want to make money. Bioware is a business, and was a self-sustaining business before being purchased by EA. Just because a product from Bioware is intended to provide entertainment and be disseminated to the masses, and anyone who wants to pay 60-70 dollars to have acces to it, does not decrease the artistic value, or qualitative differences within the medium of the final product.

And I'll begrudgingly repeat: mass media =/= art production.

The final product is NOT art. The components comprising it are. (another begrudging repeat) The artistic value of the components is not decreased.

The Dark Knight Rises is a commodity to Warner Brothers Pictures as it represents a product to be mass marketed and released for mass consumption, however it is quite obviously an artistic endeavour on the part of the actors and of Christopher Nolan; the ones actually creating the film. 

Bloomsbury Publishing views the Harry Potter book series as a commodity, and a brand, for mass consumption that provides the public with entertainment. J.K Rowling however embarked on an artistic endeavour to create the fiction. 

Big Machine may view Taylor Swift's music as commodity, a means to profit, and given the unique nature of the music industry, will undoubtedly have some say in the marketting of the artist hereslf. However small it may be, Taylor Swift has a creative voice and it is represented through her music (whether it be the vocalization of a line written by a songwriter she's never met, or the lyrics of a song she's written herself). 

It is both the prodcess of creation, and the nature of the birth of an idea/creative process, that defines something as art.

If you record an album for the sole purpose of record sales with absolutely no interest in fostering an artistic process, than your product should be deemed a "comodity". If you record an album that fosters some modicum of artistic integrity with the knowledge that it will be consumed, purchased, and disseminated amongst a certain group of people, I believe it should be called art. The same goes for video games, film, and literature in my eyes.

Purchasing the right to see the movie, to hear the song, to read the book makes the subject in question a commodity, regardless of whether or not it started out as "art."

It is the INTENT of the creator that matters when calling something "art" or "commodity". Unless Bioware planned to create an elaborate trilogy of games to increase their profit margin, and made promises/design overhauls to games specifically to increase their profit margin, then no Mass Effect games aren't art. For this very reason, Madden 2012 isn't a piece of art. For this very reason, a lot of music isn't art. For this very reason, films like "No Words" with Eddie Murphy can't be qualified as art....Why? Because the intention of the creator was simple: Financial Gain. 


Entertainment is the commodity. 
Art is entertainment. 
The intention of the creator is what defines the piece as one or the other.

Intent means a lot, yes. But no, entertainment is not a commodity. The item purchased to entertain is the commodity, a la Mass Effect 3.

[OMTING52601]

Arppis wrote...

And according to your earlier comments, movies and books aren't art either. Artists have to sell their works too to live.

kk :happy:

Too true, they absolutely do have to sell their work to live, if that's indeed how they plan to make a living. As such, I'd wager it behooves them to create art people actually want to buy.

Otherwise, they're one of the many 'starving artists' bemoaning how the world can't possibly understand their genius(ie ego) and don't make a dime.

By definition, if one creates an item with the sole intent of generating a profit, it cannot be wholly classified as art, but must also be classified as a product. And products will sell or not based on demand for them. If they are an unsatisfactory product, the market will either ignore them and thus send their creators out of business or demand the product be made useful, in which case the company complies and hopefully moves forward profitably, or they deny and die as a producer of said product.

This applies in any medium, regardless of any 'artistic intention'. If you're selling but I'm not buying, you can call it art all you like. I'm still not buying, but I sure will laugh when you rage at me, through a mouthful of Ramen noodles, for calling your junk, junk. FWIW, YMMV.

Not trying to be snarky or anything. You're right in that a thing can be artful and a commodity at the same time, but using 'art' as a defense for a shabby commodity, generally speaking, tends to seem more like explaining. And if you have to explain, or clarify(as in, "no, you're wrong, see, let me explain, this is what you are supposed to think, etc"), your position on something, a choice as it were, you've already lost the argument.

Modifié par OMTING52601, 03 avril 2012 - 10:36 .

[wantedman dan]

DranakShadow wrote...

Still art, even on a legal level, as of 2011.

Yes, because law is the be-all, end-all, guide of perfection.

No.

[IGSR]

DranakShadow wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Personally, I just laughed at  Fatal and proceeded to ignore him. I've never said that BioWare shouldn't listen to feedback, and if he had been more familiar with my posts, I guess he'd know that in the past I've said that the idea of alternative endings is fine and that there is precedent for game endings to be changed/altered/added to (per Broken Steel).

However, the game is much more than just a commodity and I find the OP trying to pass it off as being exactly the same situation as an office productivity program, etc. is ridiculous, along with the blanket statement that the game is not art.

P.S. I work in Adobe InDesign CS5.5, so I'd happily give Adobe some feedback on footnoting options after dealing with a manuscript that was giving me trouble the other day like how it was exceptionally inconvenient.

The problem is that some people still have a romantic, almost sacred view of art. If Mass Effect was art then it would be sacrosanct and above criticism. Also the creators could only be living out of cardboard boxes and subsisting on Ramen noodles.

Ergo, Mass Effect can't be art because that conflicts with their desire for a different ending.

Except it's still not above criticism. I could understand something that -can't- really be changed or altered so easily.. like, say... a statue, but movies, games, and books can all be altered.

I think you misunderstood.  She wasn't saying ME3 = art = above criticism. 

Art is not above criticism.

Nor is the artist obligated to fulfill any critics' demands.

[Canned Bullets]

Video games are just as much art as movies and books. It's just that the ME3 ending coutns as bad art and that art is malleable so its acceptable to change the endings. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Charles Dickens changed the endings to their books and their artistic integrity was not sacrificed, Bethesda changed the ending to Fallout 3 with the release of the Broken Steel DLC and its artistic integrity was not sacrificed.

[Ariella]

avonkorff wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...
I'm glad you substantiate your intellectually deep and enthralling arguments off of a five-minute skim of a Wikipedia article, no less.

I never claimed my argument was intellecutally deep or enthralling (ie: shamefully went to Wikipedia; reread my post if you missed this). You obviously don't respect my viewpoints, nor the support I provided for said viewpoints, but I'll respond with some final thoughts. 

The fact is that I simply don't believe the developers, writers, and execs of any game developer responsible for games such as Mass Effect (games driven by a unique, enthralling fiction with artistic elements, as you have cited) choose to pursue production of their games purely for the expressed purpose of mass distribution and mass consumption. Breadth of mass consumption of video games these days is (in my opinion) a byproduct of the artistic vision and qualities of a game.

Obviously a market demand for entertainment exists, but I'll say it again, mass consumption is a linch pin in mass media art production. Companies like EA buy companies like Bioware because companies like EA want to make money. Bioware is a business, and was a self-sustaining business before being purchased by EA. Just because a product from Bioware is intended to provide entertainment and be disseminated to the masses, and anyone who wants to pay 60-70 dollars to have acces to it, does not decrease the artistic value, or qualitative differences within the medium of the final product. 

The Dark Knight Rises is a commodity to Warner Brothers Pictures as it represents a product to be mass marketed and released for mass consumption, however it is quite obviously an artistic endeavour on the part of the actors and of Christopher Nolan; the ones actually creating the film. 

Bloomsbury Publishing views the Harry Potter book series as a commodity, and a brand, for mass consumption that provides the public with entertainment. J.K Rowling however embarked on an artistic endeavour to create the fiction. 

Big Machine may view Taylor Swift's music as commodity, a means to profit, and given the unique nature of the music industry, will undoubtedly have some say in the marketting of the artist hereslf. However small it may be, Taylor Swift has a creative voice and it is represented through her music (whether it be the vocalization of a line written by a songwriter she's never met, or the lyrics of a song she's written herself). 

It is both the prodcess of creation, and the nature of the birth of an idea/creative process, that defines something as art.

If you record an album for the sole purpose of record sales with absolutely no interest in fostering an artistic process, than your product should be deemed a "comodity". If you record an album that fosters some modicum of artistic integrity with the knowledge that it will be consumed, purchased, and disseminated amongst a certain group of people, I believe it should be called art. The same goes for video games, film, and literature in my eyes.

It is the INTENT of the creator that matters when calling something "art" or "commodity". Unless Bioware planned to create an elaborate trilogy of games to increase their profit margin, and made promises/design overhauls to games specifically to increase their profit margin, then no Mass Effect games aren't art. For this very reason, Madden 2012 isn't a piece of art. For this very reason, a lot of music isn't art. For this very reason, films like "No Words" with Eddie Murphy can't be qualified as art....Why? Because the intention of the creator was simple: Financial Gain. 


Entertainment is the commodity. 
Art is entertainment. 
The intention of the creator is what defines the piece as one or the other. 

I'm just going to say "Ah freakin' men". It's the difference between Terry Brooks becoming a writer because "it was easier than being a lawyer", and Stephen King writing Carrie in the laundry room of his first "house" never knowing if it'd get published but doing it because he loved the language loved the idea of telling the tale.

I've spent time talking to some of the people at Bioware, PMs etc (mostly the DA team but....), and I get the sense the vast majority of these people love what they do, and do it because they're driven to do so. I also get the sense they'd do it for free (in fact some of them have. When Bioware's female gamership complained about not getting a Carth kiss, David Gaider wrote a free, unofficial ending where female Revan gets her man, and Gaider's also done a more indepth version of BG2's expansion as a free add unoffical add on). So to say these guys are just in it for the money (which is the underlying complaint) is unfair. They do have vision, intergrity and the right to stand up for their work in the face of people whoaren't happy unless they're complaining they didn't get what THEY wanted.

[OMTING52601]

wantedman dan wrote...

DranakShadow wrote...

Still art, even on a legal level, as of 2011.

Yes, because law is the be-all, end-all, guide of perfection.

No.

It's only 'art' insofar as it receives 1st Amendment protection. In short, so that game producers can continue to create games with age appropriate content, like nudity and graphic violence. Pornography is also 'art' under the law, though I'm not sure most of us would call the 'home video' adult vignettes 'art'. Or maybe you would, DranakShadow, in which case, ignore me

I mean no offense, btw. I was just pointing out that art is subjective and it's cool if you don't agree with my POV.

ETA: The last paragraph got dropped or something, I apologize.

Modifié par OMTING52601, 03 avril 2012 - 10:48 .

[veramis]

I think a good analogy is when does music become noise? When does art become crap? People draw the line differently, but everyone certainly differentiates between the two, even if their reasoning is mostly prejudiced. To me, little of ME3 was art. Everything out of Javik's mouth was art, nothing out of Liara's mouth was art. And there was nothing artsy about all the human characters having movements and eye movements like husks.

Modifié par veramis, 03 avril 2012 - 10:42 .