391 réponses à ce sujet

[SpamBot2000]

JamesFaith wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Hmm... I might as well add this Hideo Kojima reply to the question "Are games art?":

"No. At least not in a traditional sense. Games need to be interactive and provide a service to the consumer. Therefore, the creator never has complete artistic control. For example, in modern art, an artist may create a sculpture of a car with a square steering wheel in order to make a statement. In the world of art, this is fine, since the viewer never needs to actually drive the car. However, that level of expression is limited in the medium of games, where the user must interact with the final product. Games may consist of many artistic elements in terms of the visuals and the audio in the game; the final product is not art."

(My italics)

Personally, I wouldn't even go this far. But surely Kojima knows a thing or two about this subject.

Yes, videogames aren't art in traditional sense. They are new form art based on new technology so they can't be same are other form of art.

I don't remember source but in one discussion about new form art I saw nice old quote from critic about photographies. I canť write it exactly (translation from French to my language and now to English), but it was someting like that:

"Photography will never become art. Camera is just copying machine, there is nothing artistic about pointing it on someting."

And voilá, photography is widely acceped as art today.  

That may well be, but the statement I quoted is by a respected practitioner of the form, not some random critic. Therefore it merits some consideration. As I said, I'm not too sure I agree myself, but surely the issue is a little more complex than the industry wannabes in the media and blogs would have you believe.

[Wayning_Star]

How much 'hands on' fan manipulation, should Artists present with their master pieces?

[dreamgazer]

Wayning_Star wrote...

How much 'hands on' fan manipulation, should Artists present with their master pieces?

I've noticed that this is a tricky question to ask around these parts, since some buy into the idea of game developers being "commissioned artists". 

[JamesFaith]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

That may well be, but the statement I quoted is by a respected practitioner of the form, not some random critic. Therefore it merits some consideration. As I said, I'm not too sure I agree myself, but surely the issue is a little more complex than the industry wannabes in the media and blogs would have you believe.

And my opinions are by big part based on one interesting disscusion where both art critics and game developers were presented, even one guy from National galery, just no big boss, and they mostly agreed that right now videogames leaving era, which one guy called pre-art, and becoming new form of art.

But you are right, this is complex problematic.   

[CronoDragoon]

Hideo Kojima wrote...
"No. At least not in a traditional sense. Games need to be interactive and provide a service to the consumer. Therefore, the creator never has complete artistic control. For example, in modern art, an artist may create a sculpture of a car with a square steering wheel in order to make a statement. In the world of art, this is fine, since the viewer never needs to actually drive the car. However, that level of expression is limited in the medium of games, where the user must interact with the final product. Games may consist of many artistic elements in terms of the visuals and the audio in the game; the final product is not art."

These qualifications seem a little arbitrary to me. Is he claiming that interactivity precludes games from being art? If so, do we claim that since The Iliad and the Odyssey were originally orally expressed stories told primarily in Greek taverns and such can't be considered art? I say this because it's widely known that the stories often changed depending on who was listening in the tavern at the time - often family names of those in the tavern would be included in the account of Greek troops that participated. Theater, similarly, can have this give-and-take atmosphere.

I don't see it. But defining art is mostly a hopeless exercise and becomes largely about semantics.

[Wayning_Star]

Are video games just (to be) messages in a bottle tho?

[JamesFaith]

CronoDragoon wrote...

These qualifications seem a little arbitrary to me. Is he claiming that interactivity precludes games from being art? .

You are right, because we already have interactive books. Sure, gamebook aren't some "high art" but they exist.

And anyone hear about interactive movie Kinoautomat? 

[Spartas Husky]

JamesFaith wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Sad thing is... they could have brought most of their base back if they had spent a fraction of the effort they put into Omega and Citadel into actually fixing the ending. Would have cost less too.

Oh well.

Who's to say that this magical new ending would be any better, though, and who's to say that people would actually buy a new ending?

Yeap.

There was no consensus about this mythical better ending, just incoherent hitparade of I donť like and I personally want, both often claimed to be objective facts. 

No consensus?

I dont know maybe for one the massive criticism of not following their own literary rules would have yielded something better.

Is not rocket science, it isn't about concensus. So as long as you follow the rules and themes that the series was founding you are bound to please the majority of the base. After all they have stuck with you this far because conciously or not they agree with character development, literary continuity and the immortal hero/ine prevaling over the impossible.

So as long as whatever ending is follows those rules it will be successful. Is not about 1 ending or 2, all they have to do is follow the blueprint they themselves came up with. Stepping away from it is what made the ending what it was... although that was 1 guy stepping away from it but the point remains.

[chemiclord]

Spartas Husky wrote...

No consensus?

I dont know maybe for one the massive criticism of not following their own literary rules would have yielded something better.

Is not rocket science, it isn't about concensus. So as long as you follow the rules and themes that the series was founding you are bound to please the majority of the base. After all they have stuck with you this far because conciously or not they agree with character development, literary continuity and the immortal hero/ine prevaling over the impossible.

So as long as whatever ending is follows those rules it will be successful. Is not about 1 ending or 2, all they have to do is follow the blueprint they themselves came up with. Stepping away from it is what made the ending what it was... although that was 1 guy stepping away from it but the point remains.

The consensus extended to "FIX IT."  Once you tried to get into exactly WHAT "fixing it" entailed, the entire consensus fell apart, often with demands that mutually excluded what another group wanted.

"Fixing" the ending beyond what the EC provided and satisfied even a simple majority of the fanbase would have required damn near a total rewriting of ME3 as a whole (if not much of the trilogy)... because the cracks in the narrative that lead to the gaping pit of an ending start well before then.

Modifié par chemiclord, 28 mars 2013 - 08:56 .

[Wulfram]

If I pay an artist for a painting and then that painting turns out to be both rubbish and not what was promised, I feel entitled to ask for it to be changed or for a refund.  Being Art does not stop something from being bad.

And I think notions of artistic purity sit poorly with things like DLC

Modifié par Wulfram, 28 mars 2013 - 09:00 .

[robertthebard]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Hmm... I might as well add this Hideo Kojima reply to the question "Are games art?":

"No. At least not in a traditional sense. Games need to be interactive and provide a service to the consumer. Therefore, the creator never has complete artistic control. For example, in modern art, an artist may create a sculpture of a car with a square steering wheel in order to make a statement. In the world of art, this is fine, since the viewer never needs to actually drive the car. However, that level of expression is limited in the medium of games, where the user must interact with the final product. Games may consist of many artistic elements in terms of the visuals and the audio in the game; the final product is not art."

(My italics)

Personally, I wouldn't even go this far. But surely Kojima knows a thing or two about this subject. He at least has a body of work as proof of his engagement with the question.

So a medium that contains artistic elements isn't art.  Isn't that sort of contradictory?  If he'd given me that answer in a face to face interview, that would have been my next question.  However, I'd like to address the complete artistic control issue by simply saying; "what was that guy smoking when he gave the interview", and, "can I have some of it"?  Frankly, he has 0 credibility.  Any moron can accidentally paint a masterpiece, does this mean they are now an expert on the subject?  Note that I'm not implying that the author of the quote is a moron.  I know next to nothing about him, barring he said some really silly ****, and got it published on BSN to counter artistic integrity.  Frankly, nothing said here makes me think "oh my, an expert on what defines art has spoken, and I should heed every word he ever says".

[JamesFaith]

Wulfram wrote...

If I pay an artist for a painting and then that painting turns out to be both rubbish and not what was promised, I feel entitled to ask for it to be changed or for a refund.  Being Art does not stop something from being bad.

And I think notions of artistic purity sit poorly with things like DLC

Well, there is quite difference between art commissioned by one specific man with specific and voiced demands and art targeted on huge group of anonymous buyers with uknown, but certainly different demands and tastes.

But I agree art can be both good and bad, it is one of its primal features - subjectivity.

[Spartas Husky]

JamesFaith wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

If I pay an artist for a painting and then that painting turns out to be both rubbish and not what was promised, I feel entitled to ask for it to be changed or for a refund.  Being Art does not stop something from being bad.

And I think notions of artistic purity sit poorly with things like DLC

Well, there is quite difference between art commissioned by one specific man with specific and voiced demands and art targeted on huge group of anonymous buyers with uknown, but certainly different demands and tastes.

But I agree art can be both good and bad, it is one of its primal features - subjectivity.

Funny thing is... a game is a product above all.

[Wulfram]

JamesFaith wrote...

Well, there is quite difference between art commissioned by one specific man with specific and voiced demands and art targeted on huge group of anonymous buyers with uknown, but certainly different demands and tastes.

True, but I'd argue that these differences are ones of practicality more than principle.

My point is that art is not inherently more sacrosanct than another product.  I have no problem with considering the endings art, I just consider it really bad art, and don't consider it an argument not to change them.

Though the creators opinion is somewhat relevant.  I'd have some respect for a carpenter who refused to change a chair he made because he thought it made it a worse chair.  But I'd also expect said carpenter to deliver a chair with the features promised.

[JamesFaith]

Spartas Husky wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

If I pay an artist for a painting and then that painting turns out to be both rubbish and not what was promised, I feel entitled to ask for it to be changed or for a refund.  Being Art does not stop something from being bad.

And I think notions of artistic purity sit poorly with things like DLC

Well, there is quite difference between art commissioned by one specific man with specific and voiced demands and art targeted on huge group of anonymous buyers with uknown, but certainly different demands and tastes.

But I agree art can be both good and bad, it is one of its primal features - subjectivity.

Funny thing is... a game is a product above all.

Same as most work of Mozart, Bach, Vivaldi... Or work of Alexandr Dumas or Jules Verne.  

They created art which was accepted as product by society and was source of their money.

Prouct and art aren't mutually exclusive. 

Modifié par JamesFaith, 28 mars 2013 - 09:21 .

[Spartas Husky]

Wulfram wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Well, there is quite difference between art commissioned by one specific man with specific and voiced demands and art targeted on huge group of anonymous buyers with uknown, but certainly different demands and tastes.

True, but I'd argue that these differences are ones of practicality more than principle.

My point is that art is not inherently more sacrosanct than another product.  I have no problem with considering the endings art, I just consider it really bad art, and don't consider it an argument not to change them.

Though the creators opinion is somewhat relevant.  I'd have some respect for a carpenter who refused to change a chair he made because he thought it made it a worse chair.  But I'd also expect said carpenter to deliver a chair with the features promised.

Lol The endings I consider lazy art. Things that make you feel good that take little thought into it.

Like Throwing a bucket of paint to the wall, and telling you is art. It sure is, not a very thought driven piece of art though.

The endings in Mass Effect remind me of those psychiatrist cards with black blobs. That is what Casey did for the endings "this is a blob... what do you see for your ending".

[sharkboy421]

OP I responded on your blog site but I figured I'd share my opinion here as well. 

My issue with the ending has nothing to do with it being art or not.  For me the ending simply not appropriate for Mass Effect.  Even with how polished the EC was it did not change my feelings that the endings were just not Mass Effect.

[Dreadcall]

Ah we're back to the art defense again. All that can and should be said on the matter was said a year ago. Why bother to bring this up again?

[darkway1]

I think you miss a very important point OP...........your not dealing with "art",your dealing with commercial art,which is some thing totally different.........a commercial artist works to spec....meaning time and money are very valid factors.

A video game is a creative product.....it has a budget and a deadline.......so basically if you don't have the money to create some thing .....it doesn't get created......same goes for the deadline......and I believe Mass3's ending fell victim to these factors.....remember the original ending.....it was terrible,it felt bolted on,it was clearly unfinished.

If there is an issue to be debated,it's not whether an artists vision should be accepted or not......it's more to do with allowing the artist to complete what they already started............the way I see thing's is that Bioware didn't decide to end work on the game......the deadline/budget did......should that be the way of thing's?

[F4H bandicoot]

Art is not necessarily good..

[Eterna]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

Art is not necessarily good..

Art is subjective.

You either like it or you don't. IF you don't like it then its asinine to claim it is factually bad. 

[spirosz]

dreamgazer wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Claiming to be an artist doesn't make you one.

Don''t ****** in my ear and tell me it's rain.

When did they claim to be artists?

[Wulfram]

Eterna5 wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

Art is not necessarily good..

Art is subjective.

You either like it or you don't. IF you don't like it then its asinine to claim it is factually bad. 

Is it asinine to say that this is factually better than this?

[Eterna]

Wulfram wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

Art is not necessarily good..

Art is subjective.

You either like it or you don't. IF you don't like it then its asinine to claim it is factually bad. 

Is it asinine to say that this is factually better than this?

Yes actually. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 28 mars 2013 - 09:45 .

[Spartas Husky]

Eterna5 wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

Art is not necessarily good..

Art is subjective.

You either like it or you don't. IF you don't like it then its asinine to claim it is factually bad. 

Well, throwing a bucket of paint to the wall I consider art.

Like Bioware did with the endings, many people will see many things. Some think is good, some think is bad.

Regardless you cant deny the fact that it took little brain power to lift your arms and throw the paint towards the wall.

It is art, just lazy ass art.