|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Toups
tyranically banal
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Location: Ebon Keep
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm |
  |
|
| Hot Stott Bot wrote: |
| Ben Reed wrote: |
I'd buy that video games are art in the "creative expression" sense but I don't know that I would call them art in the CONVENTIONAL sense, simply by virtue of the experience they impart onto the player is determined by ACTIVE PARTICIPATION -- by actively changing the state of the game in a way that will inevitably unique from someone else's experience -- but at the same time, their aesthetic experience, unlike a physical art form such as dancing or music, is not completely generated by the participant. Even if you're playing a cover song, you're doing it through the agent that is your own instrument, held in your own hands and controlled by you -- even if you pick up Brian May's own Red Special, the music coming from that guitar is ALL YOU unless you are Brian May himself.
Case in point: when two guys look at one of Michaelangelo's frescoes, they don't LITERALLY see completely different naked Greco-Roman people doing the pull-my-finger gag -- it's always God and Adam, and by definition you go from there. When two guys go to see Lord of the Rings at the same theater, one of them doesn't see a musical finale to the crumbling of Sauron's tower, excellently choreographed and with very impressive footwork on the part of Ian Holm as Bilbo. |
Oh?
If I view a movie in the theare, with someone talking loud, sitting on the right side of the second row, I most certainly do get a different sensory experience than someone watching it on DVD, pausing frequently for their friend who has been drinking too much and keeps needing to go to the bathroom.
How is this difference in sensory experience somehow not the same as the different experiences of two people playing the same videogame?
Of course, the degree to which the experiences vary from person to person when watching a movie is controlled by the creator, but isn't the same true of videogames?
This argument doesn't really hold up. |
The difference is that these variations in how you might see a film or a play or whatever else are incidental, where the variations in a game experience are by design.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
 |
SplashBeats
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:52 pm |
|
|
| Pikachu wrote: |
Ben Reed has this flashing avatar that prevents me from reading any of his posts. It is quite annoying.
edit:
oh thank god, new page. |
Pikachu, why do you fear SUPER ASIA? |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Hot Stott Bot
banned
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:50 pm |
|
|
| Mister Toups wrote: |
| The difference is that these variations in how you might see a film or a play or whatever else are incidental, where the variations in a game experience are by design. |
Most television (and many movies) these days are designed so that they can be paused, rewound, started half-way through, etc., etc. and still be satisfying experiences due to the advent of PVRs and DVDs!
That's not incidental!
What if I were a movie director and designed my movie carefully with the awareness that some people are watching on the left side and some on the right side? Or with the awareness that I am targetting different possible audiences (as most movies are, in fact!)?
Do those movies suddenly lack the potential to be art?
Trying to argue that something is not art because the intentions of the creators vary unilaterally across the medium is probably no good! |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Toups
tyranically banal
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Location: Ebon Keep
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:21 pm |
|
|
| Hot Stott Bot wrote: |
| Mister Toups wrote: |
| The difference is that these variations in how you might see a film or a play or whatever else are incidental, where the variations in a game experience are by design. |
Most television (and many movies) these days are designed so that they can be paused, rewound, started half-way through, etc., etc. and still be satisfying experiences due to the advent of PVRs and DVDs!
That's not incidental!
What if I were a movie director and designed my movie carefully with the awareness that some people are watching on the left side and some on the right side? Or with the awareness that I am targetting different possible audiences (as most movies are, in fact!)?
Do those movies suddenly lack the potential to be art?
Trying to argue that something is not art because the intentions of the creators vary unilaterally across the medium is probably no good! |
I'm not the one arguing that this doesn't make them art. But it's a significant different between the mediums that shouldn't be dismissed!
To put it another way -- variance between experiences is at the very heart of game design, regardless of genre. This isn't really true of films, which, aside from incidental things (which the filmmaker may or may not accommodate while filming), are generally the same experience for everyone who views them.
There are exceptions, yes, but it doesn't change the rule.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
crawling in his skin
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Chicago via St. Louis
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Hot Stott Bot
banned
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:55 am |
|
|
| Mister Toups wrote: |
| I'm not the one arguing that this doesn't make them art. But it's a significant different between the mediums that shouldn't be dismissed! |
Sure, I'll accept that.
Just like how the fact that movies have motion and photography doesn't is a significant difference that shouldn't be dismissed. I feel that difference (movies and photography) has a dramatic effect on the types of things the two mediums are able to convey!
(Though I don't think it has anything to do with "what is art?".)
| 2ps wrote: |
| To put it another way -- variance between experiences is at the very heart of game design, regardless of genre. |
I'm not sure I buy that!
Why do you say that? In fact, I'd say most games are designed specifically to avoid variance. You always want to make sure that "everyone" or "the average user" gets to see the same things and has the same difficulty curve, etc., etc. -- anything else would be an inefficient use of production time! You don't make something so that a only a small percentage of people can experience it.
| Toups wrote: |
| This isn't really true of films, which, aside from incidental things (which the filmmaker may or may not accommodate while filming), are generally the same experience for everyone who views them. |
I still don't buy that they're "generally the same experience for everyone". I think the difference in audience effects the experience dramatically, and that's essentially the same thing as the variance in experience of videogames.
I mean, just because (unlike videogames) there's no (major) variance of the actual picture and sound itself doesn't make the variance of experience that occurs at the psychological level any less important or impactful.
=============================================
Also, in many ways, there's no variance in videogames. I mean, the rulesets and the data that is stored on the disc is exactly the same for everyone getting it!
If film can be said to be invariant because the picture and sound on the film is the same for everyone, how come videogames can't be said to be invariant because the data on the disc is the same for everyone? |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ben Reed
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: charge b, f + P
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:17 am |
|
|
| Pikachu wrote: |
| Ben Reed has this flashing avatar that prevents me from reading any of his posts. It is quite annoying. |
The brilliant light of Master Asia's aura obliterates the weak and the unworthy. None shall be spared.
| klikbeep wrote: |
| Video games might not be art, but they are certainly better than art. Take the Mona Lisa (considered by many to be the most important work of art). |
I dunno about that...
| Quote: |
| Although certainly pretty in its own right, that prettiness is locked within a static form . . . no amount of effort on the part of the viewer can change its smile, or adjust its hair color, or make it talk to you. |
The way I see it passive media and active media are two sides of the same coin. Sure the Mona Lisa will always feature the same subject, in the same setting, in one static instant of time, but really it's those momentary glances that in many ways allow us just as much freedom of interpretation and individuality of experience than active participation. We are only looking at ONE INSTANCE, one infinitesimally brief snapshot of this woman's existence -- as the viewers, we are given complete freedom to make whatever inferences we wish about her past, her present, her future, what she's thinking, what she's feeling, who she is as a human being or a universal entity.
There is a place for that kind of experience in human perception as well -- saying that video games or art are better than the other is to grossly oversimplify the issue. This topic is fundamentally subjective -- there is no room for absolutism on this matter. (Unless it's God Hand. If you don't like God Hand, you are WRONG.)
| Quote: |
| So while games may not be Art (I HATE THAT TERM SO MUCH) they are a lot better than it for the reasons above, a new paradigm for us all. |
This was what I was getting at, in a nutshell...except for the comparative judgment. We are not dealing with art in the conventional sense. We are dealing with something fundamentally new here, and I believe we must treat it as such.
| Hot Stott Bot wrote: |
Oh?
If I view a movie in the theare, with someone talking loud, sitting on the right side of the second row, I most certainly do get a different sensory experience than someone watching it on DVD, pausing frequently for their friend who has been drinking too much and keeps needing to go to the bathroom.
How is this difference in sensory experience somehow not the same as the different experiences of two people playing the same videogame? |
For the purposes of my argument, I considered basically all outside influen ce -- i.e. the nature of the audience, the circumstances of the viewing/playing, and other externalities as irrelevant. I made my argument from the standpoint of a completely self-contained experience, namely, the player/artist themselves completely isolated from all external influence, where nothing matters but the raw experience of the media itself.
This is not to say that such externalities are irrelevant in practice -- that is certainly not the case. Surely I would think differently of Street Fighter II had I never indulged in the multiplayer aspects, or explored the competitive community associated with it. But we're not dealing with externalities here. I am looking solely at the "meta" of the issue.
| Quote: |
| Of course, the degree to which the experiences vary from person to person when watching a movie is controlled by the creator, but isn't the same true of videogames? |
The reason I disagree with this statement is twofold, and directly analogous to my original argument. First of all, unlike a "passive" media such as film, painting, or television (i.e., you sitting down and viewing them), what you get out of a video game is directly correlated to what you put into it. You may not "get" a film like Brazil, but that is due not to your ability to actually ENGAGE in the medium (namely, by viewing it), but to your subjective approach to thinking about the medium. There is nothing PHYSICALLY opbstructing you from watching the whole of Brazil from beginning to end unless your DVD player dies on you. In a video game, you cannot make wholly legitimate (though not wholly ILLEGITIMATE, in many cases) claim to have experienced the entirety of a game such as God Hand (deliberately playing favorites here) unless you have played the entire game from beginning to end. Until you can clear the barrier of actually being able to "finish" the game, or at least play enough of it to get a clear and objective view of how the aesthetic and systemic elements mesh with each other, you cannot render total judgment on the game.
Secondly, unlike "active" "art" such as music or dancing, while you are a wholly active participant and ability DEFINITELY plays a role in your experience, you are not wholly in control of the rules of the game. If you find a particular song too difficult to play, or a particular musical genre not to your liking, you have complete freedom to play a different song, switch genres, pick up a different instrument, do whatever, at ANY point you wish. Within a video game, you are given specific control of assigned elements of the game, and short of altering the game's actual substance, you will always be confined by those restrictions. Your ability to change the "rules of the game" are unalterably limited.
Again, I am CERTAINLY not making the case that video games are an unworthy medium, or in any way inferior to what we consider "art". I simply believe it's a bit too easy to simply take affront to the perceived assertion that "OH MY GOD VIDEO GAMES AREN'T ART, HOW CAN YOU TELL ME I HAVE BEEN PLAYING A LIE?!?" without taking a calm step back and REALLY looking at what makes video games special. It is easy to SAY that high-concept games like Shadow of the Colossus constitute ART by virtue of aesthetic elements, but I believe too many people fixate on the asesthetic and stylistic elements of video games and more or less ignore the role that technical aspects play. (Think for just a second -- would anyone have cared about the classic yellow design and quirky sound effects of Pac-Man had it not been a functional, entertaining game as well?) They fixate too much on the "video" to the detriment of the "game" -- you cannot have a "video game" without considering both facets.
All I ask for is a broadening of perspective on the issue. Unless we're talking about God Hand.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ben Reed
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: charge b, f + P
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:26 am |
|
|
P.S. Pikachu, I will make you a deal.
If you can find me a good, standard avatar-sized portrait of Gene from God Hand (or Shannon, or the gay leopard-twin midbosses, or Olivia in the bathtub wielding the axe...I am not terribly picky), I will promptly retire Master Asia so that you don't have to look at him anymore.
I would prefer the concept art from the manual or something similar, but a very clear, close-up screenshot cropped to appropriate size would also suffice. A hilarious facial expression is a must as well.
I have looked myself on Google and 4chan for a worthy image, but to no avail. Perhaps you will provide the answer that I seek.
Cheers and crumpets,
Benny
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Hot Stott Bot
banned
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:39 am |
|
|
| Ben Reed wrote: |
| Hot Stott Bot wrote: |
Oh?
If I view a movie in the theare, with someone talking loud, sitting on the right side of the second row, I most certainly do get a different sensory experience than someone watching it on DVD, pausing frequently for their friend who has been drinking too much and keeps needing to go to the bathroom.
How is this difference in sensory experience somehow not the same as the different experiences of two people playing the same videogame? |
For the purposes of my argument, I considered basically all outside influen ce -- i.e. the nature of the audience, the circumstances of the viewing/playing, and other externalities as irrelevant. I made my argument from the standpoint of a completely self-contained experience, namely, the player/artist themselves completely isolated from all external influence, where nothing matters but the raw experience of the media itself.
This is not to say that such externalities are irrelevant in practice -- that is certainly not the case. Surely I would think differently of Street Fighter II had I never indulged in the multiplayer aspects, or explored the competitive community associated with it. But we're not dealing with externalities here. I am looking solely at the "meta" of the issue. |
See, I just think this is totally absurd.
You can't isolate a piece of media from those externalities. Media is created wtih the externalities in mind. They're an essential part of the experience!
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Of course, the degree to which the experiences vary from person to person when watching a movie is controlled by the creator, but isn't the same true of videogames? |
The reason I disagree with this statement is twofold, and directly analogous to my original argument. First of all, unlike a "passive" media such as film, painting, or television (i.e., you sitting down and viewing them), what you get out of a video game is directly correlated to what you put into it. You may not "get" a film like Brazil, but that is due not to your ability to actually ENGAGE in the medium (namely, by viewing it), but to your subjective approach to thinking about the medium. |
I don't see the difference here.
I think if someone doesn't "get" a film then they have failed to engage the medium. Simply having a movie play for you on a screen isn't enough to engage the medium. The audience is required to have a certain amount of knowledge and viewing skills to be capable of watching a movie! Not anyone can watch just any movie, and I don't think this is very different from how not anyone can play just any videogame, even though it might be more obvious for videogames.
| Quote: |
| There is nothing PHYSICALLY opbstructing you from watching the whole of Brazil from beginning to end unless your DVD player dies on you. In a video game, you cannot make wholly legitimate (though not wholly ILLEGITIMATE, in many cases) claim to have experienced the entirety of a game such as God Hand (deliberately playing favorites here) unless you have played the entire game from beginning to end. Until you can clear the barrier of actually being able to "finish" the game, or at least play enough of it to get a clear and objective view of how the aesthetic and systemic elements mesh with each other, you cannot render total judgment on the game. |
Aside from my previous point, you could argue that the barrier you describe isn't a "barrier to the media" but the media itself. Learning to clear that barrier and your inability to do so is a part of the experience!
If you are too good or not good enough at playing the game that your experience meshes with what the creator intended, then you simply can't enjoy the movie in the same way that someone without the prerequisite viewing history can't enjoy certain movies...
You could practice over and over until you were good enough to play through God Hand. Or maybe you're just not physically capable of ever being that good?
Well, a child isn't going to be physically capable of understanding the complex emotional and romantic situations in something like a Wong Kar-Wai movie either...
I don't see the difference.
| Quote: |
| Secondly, unlike "active" "art" such as music or dancing, while you are a wholly active participant and ability DEFINITELY plays a role in your experience, you are not wholly in control of the rules of the game. If you find a particular song too difficult to play, or a particular musical genre not to your liking, you have complete freedom to play a different song, switch genres, pick up a different instrument, do whatever, at ANY point you wish. Within a video game, you are given specific control of assigned elements of the game, and short of altering the game's actual substance, you will always be confined by those restrictions. Your ability to change the "rules of the game" are unalterably limited. |
That constraint is exactly one of the things I'm trying to point out. The fact that the rules are set and create a set experience is exactly why videogames can create a consistent experience for the player when you consider that the rules themselves are part of the media...
| Quote: |
| Again, I am CERTAINLY not making the case that video games are an unworthy medium, or in any way inferior to what we consider "art". I simply believe it's a bit too easy to simply take affront to the perceived assertion that "OH MY GOD VIDEO GAMES AREN'T ART, HOW CAN YOU TELL ME I HAVE BEEN PLAYING A LIE?!?" without taking a calm step back and REALLY looking at what makes video games special. It is easy to SAY that high-concept games like Shadow of the Colossus constitute ART by virtue of aesthetic elements, but I believe too many people fixate on the asesthetic and stylistic elements of video games and more or less ignore the role that technical aspects play. (Think for just a second -- would anyone have cared about the classic yellow design and quirky sound effects of Pac-Man had it not been a functional, entertaining game as well?) They fixate too much on the "video" to the detriment of the "game" -- you cannot have a "video game" without considering both facets. |
And the same is true of movies, plays, television, music, etc., and most media. It all has its functional elements, and I don't think that having a funcitonal element precludes the notion of "art".
Last edited by Hot Stott Bot on Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
remote
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:40 am |
|
|
Ignoring aderack's totally figured out definition of art (which I mostly agree with, as per my prior "the thing you love is not love" statements), I thought this was worth throwing in here:
| Quote: |
| Not long ago, I asked the New Yorker's senior theatre critic, John Lahr, what he thought of videogames. They were, he said, "a sign of the nihilistic times". Julie Burchill disagreed. "They are too much fun to be art," she told me. Of course, as we know, videogames are a nihilistic waste of time, and they're fun, and they art, too. |
From Tim Guest's The Guest Column in the recent issue of Edge. He goes on to talk about Marc Laidlaw, HL2, Second Life, how videogames are expanding the possibilities of storytelling and expression, etc. He ends the article with a quote from Steve Russell, creator of Spacewar, who does not play videogames.
| Quote: |
| "It's the people who make the games who have the most fun of all." |
_________________
letterboxd | last.fm | steam |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
DarwinMayflower
Joined: 17 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:53 am |
|
|
| Ben Reed wrote: |
The reason I disagree with this statement is twofold, and directly analogous to my original argument. First of all, unlike a "passive" media such as film, painting, or television (i.e., you sitting down and viewing them), what you get out of a video game is directly correlated to what you put into it. You may not "get" a film like Brazil, but that is due not to your ability to actually ENGAGE in the medium (namely, by viewing it), but to your subjective approach to thinking about the medium. There is nothing PHYSICALLY opbstructing you from watching the whole of Brazil from beginning to end unless your DVD player dies on you. In a video game, you cannot make wholly legitimate (though not wholly ILLEGITIMATE, in many cases) claim to have experienced the entirety of a game such as God Hand (deliberately playing favorites here) unless you have played the entire game from beginning to end. Until you can clear the barrier of actually being able to "finish" the game, or at least play enough of it to get a clear and objective view of how the aesthetic and systemic elements mesh with each other, you cannot render total judgment on the game. |
I find this a problem because the same could be said about art in general. If following your interpretation of total judgement of a game could be also attributed to a film. It's like saying that unless you consider all possibilities of existence for the film from a variety of opinions, that you cannot render a total judgement on a film like Brazil because you might have missed something. At least with some video games they will give you a 100% rating on discovering everything there is to discover.
| Quote: |
| Secondly, unlike "active" "art" such as music or dancing, while you are a wholly active participant and ability DEFINITELY plays a role in your experience, you are not wholly in control of the rules of the game. If you find a particular song too difficult to play, or a particular musical genre not to your liking, you have complete freedom to play a different song, switch genres, pick up a different instrument, do whatever, at ANY point you wish. Within a video game, you are given specific control of assigned elements of the game, and short of altering the game's actual substance, you will always be confined by those restrictions. Your ability to change the "rules of the game" are unalterably limited. |
I disagree because with this statement because there's a bias. It's like you're giving music and dancing far too broad an ability to change the rules whereas you're getting too specific about video games' limitations. The problem I find is that yes you can change whatever song you want to play or whatever genre you want to switch over, but the same can be said of video gaming as a whole. Tired of Zelda? Try Okami. Tired of fetch quest games? Play some R-Type. Tired of shooters? Try out God Hand. The thing with the song being too difficult to play, even if you have the ability to switch to another song...that song will still remain in the same rigid format in which you have to play in order actually play it correctly. Much like any game that is too difficult to play and you decide to switch to another different game. Sure you could possibly play the song slower or a more simplified version of it; but how is that any different than...say playing RE:4 with the knife only or using the infinite rocket launcher?
The same variety of choice in music or dance as active arts could be applied to video games. Seeing people abuse glitches such as AHVBx3, the 3rd Collosus sword leap glitch in SOTC and snaking in Mario Kart DS, shows that video games could bend the rules as much as any dance or music routine while still being the same game and/or genre.
| Quote: |
| Again, I am CERTAINLY not making the case that video games are an unworthy medium, or in any way inferior to what we consider "art". I simply believe it's a bit too easy to simply take affront to the perceived assertion that "OH MY GOD VIDEO GAMES AREN'T ART, HOW CAN YOU TELL ME I HAVE BEEN PLAYING A LIE?!?" without taking a calm step back and REALLY looking at what makes video games special. It is easy to SAY that high-concept games like Shadow of the Colossus constitute ART by virtue of aesthetic elements, but I believe too many people fixate on the asesthetic and stylistic elements of video games and more or less ignore the role that technical aspects play. (Think for just a second -- would anyone have cared about the classic yellow design and quirky sound effects of Pac-Man had it not been a functional, entertaining game as well?) They fixate too much on the "video" to the detriment of the "game" -- you cannot have a "video game" without considering both facets. |
Originally paintings have been commissioned to provide a visual record of an event or the existence of particular human being. It was only after a long period of time with the invention of photography that the function of painting was wholly changed and made obselete as a metheod of record. So the idea of focusing on the aesthetic of a video game and ignoring some of the more technical aspects of playing it seems totally acceptable considering that various amounts of art pieces were more function than art in the first place. However I think that being pleased by the aesthetic of any medium has a lot to do with a product or piece being a result of very good function. SOTC had some amazing animation for the characters which put Zelda:TP's stiff Link running animation to shame. And it's that ability of function that makes the game to enjoy aesthetically.
However I do agree with you statement how we have to step back and reanalyze what video games as art means. Like I said in my post in the last page, it's only when video games stops mimicking other art mediums and focus more on what makes it a gaming medium that I think it would truely attain artistic merit. Otherwise then, it's just something posing as art as opposed to being art. That's why as an art student myself so long ago, I have a more moderate approach to viewing art. I can be the pretentious art fag, anaylyze/bullshit critiques and roll with the rest of the art students and I fucking love it. However from time to time, I do step back take a look at it from a realistic point of view and realize that hey, "This isn't art, it's crap." Which brings up the point that perhaps the first step to considering video games an art, is that you have to enjoy or have an interest playing them in the first place. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
JamesE
banned
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:36 pm |
|
|
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:23 pm |
|
|
| antitype wrote: |
| "a sign of the nihilistic times" |
A part of me yawns and a part of me laughs, whenever I hear someone say something along those lines.
_________________
      |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
JamesE
banned
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:08 pm |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Not long ago, I asked the New Yorker's senior theatre critic, John Lahr, what he thought of videogames. They were, he said, "a sign of the nihilistic times". Julie Burchill disagreed. "They are too much fun to be art," she told me. Of course, as we know, videogames are a nihilistic waste of time, and they're fun, and they art, too. |
I'd like a game where I can punch Julie Burchill in the cunt. I will call it Hyper Juile Burchill Cuntpuncher Extreme 2020: The Final Fight.
Fucking loathe that insane cow |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
icycalm
banned
Joined: 17 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:17 pm |
|
|
| Ben Reed wrote: |
P.S. Pikachu, I will make you a deal.
If you can find me a good, standard avatar-sized portrait of Gene from God Hand (or Shannon, or the gay leopard-twin midbosses, or Olivia in the bathtub wielding the axe...I am not terribly picky), I will promptly retire Master Asia so that you don't have to look at him anymore.
I would prefer the concept art from the manual or something similar, but a very clear, close-up screenshot cropped to appropriate size would also suffice. A hilarious facial expression is a must as well.
I have looked myself on Google and 4chan for a worthy image, but to no avail. Perhaps you will provide the answer that I seek.
Cheers and crumpets,
Benny |
dude, i just cant be bothered... |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:18 am |
|
|
| MrNash wrote: |
| By definition games are art. They're forms of creative expression. Period. |
I've seen this appear as a problem, and it's an interesting split between two different definitions of art that I've not encountered before. At least, not this intensely.
Position A: Art selectively exists via various media. This means that a good painting is art and a bad painting is not art.
Position B: All media are art. Good instances of those media are good art, and bad instances of those media are bad art.
Am I getting this right? Because I'm trying to understand the state of the conversation. (And I mean "the state of the conversation writ large," of course—not just "the state of the conversation on SB.)
I took an Aesthetic Philosophy course my freshman year in college, and I've been in love with the branch of philosophy ever since. Beauty and people's uncanny ability to evoke its experience—as well as our ability to experience apart from deliberate stimulation—these are the most amazing things in the world to me.
| MrNash wrote: |
What people are really getting at when discussing "games as art" is whether or not they can be defined as high culture. Here's a quick rundown of the French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, and his studies into high and low culture:
http://www.jahsonic.com/PierreBourdieu.html |
Thank you for this link! I'll check it out.
It's unfortunate that the descriptor "French" immediately puts me on my guard. I would say something like, "I wish the Germans were considered the cutting edge of Continental high culture—or someone, just not the French." But then I remember that old Germany tried to become the cutting edge of Continental culture with the cutting edge of a bayonet, so it seems less politic of a desire.
I just wish the French weren't so goddamn frou-frou in their scholarship.
| klikbeep wrote: |
Video games might not be art, but they are certainly better than art. Take the Mona Lisa (considered by many to be the most important work of art). Although certainly pretty in its own right, that prettiness is locked within a static form . . . no amount of effort on the part of the viewer can change its smile, or adjust its hair color, or make it talk to you.
Flash-forward to video games. Now you are the artist, solving puzzles and powering up your character to gain the advantage. The tools of the trade (workstations, voice actors, chiptunes, etc) are used effortlessly to do this. |
I read this after I had finished reading James Fenton's essay "Men, Women, and Beasts," and there's a really good excerpt in there by D. H. Lawrence. It reads:
"The perfect rose is only a running flame, emerging and flowing off, and never in any sense at rest, finished."
And I thought, "My God, this is how I think art works." The irony, of course, is that the running flame and the emerging and the flowing off are all cognitive experiences applied to the work by the audience. I think there's a necessary displacement, though, that sacrifices philosophical honesty for the sake of aesthetic honesty: unless we really posit the weight of our experience upon the object in question, we're participating in little more than arty narcissism.
Lemme give an example. Earlier this week, I got Mozart's piano sonata K331. I don't mean that I acquired it, but the order and movement and variation suddenly made sense. The thematic progression became evident as an abstract narration of emotion that used the theme for bones, and suddenly the music changed from merely present and pretty—but necessary, muscular, and very much earned.
What am I to do when I consider the experience? Do I lay the weight of epiphany upon the work or myself? Philosophically, I'd have to say that I cognitively applied the muscle on the thematic bones in order to establish meaning. Aesthetically, though, this doesn't really work. The power of the experience lies (or at least requires) that the music have remained static and unchanged—that I have the sense that I have, somehow, entered into a more right relationship with the music—and that I have discovered something that I, previously, was not.
I think that a certain kind of interactivity defeats all of this. Cognitive interaction is necessary to discover beauty, but physical interaction reduces the whole thing to an exercise in bland gratification.
I was excited to discover my girlfriend, who is beautiful and loves me. I would be less excited if I had cobbled her from a template.
I don't think it's freedom-hating to suggest that part of our best experience involves submitting to forces that we do not control.
| klikbeep wrote: |
I think art is just a boring thing for farts in turtlenecks who walk around in museums or whatever. I had to do this thing in a museum for school once and I just about wanted to die it was so boring. Jesus. "Somejerk Blahstein painted the Whatever in 1773 with oil paint and blah blah blah." Assholes.
Speaking as a gamer, I think we're moving beyond art -- way beyond -- and so to even use Art as a label does us all a disservice. |
I don't understand this very well. It sounds like you dislike the term "art" because it reminds you of some people you don't like.
By contrast, I like the term "art" because it reminds me of experiences that I loved.
This sounds like rejecting church doctrine because you didn't like the phoneys in Sunday school, without actually drawing a relationship between yourself and the tenets of faith.
I don't understand why people hate art—rather, hate the idea of art—and want to best it with technology.
| DarwinMayflower wrote: |
| Once video games depart from mimicking other art mediums, such as film, and manage to truely embrace the video game nature and the eventual evolution of it...then perhaps it might be respected as art or even beceome something entirely different. |
I agree with this completely.
Though I'd like to add (without being deliberately snarky toward you, DarwinMayflower) that the notion of "videogame criticism" will become a lot more credible when its professionals demonstrate versatile experience with traditional arts.
I mean, shit, do you know what it sounds like when every person who talks about videogames-as-art only compares them with films-as-art? It sounds like a bunch of dejected film students who don't see anything interesting being done in film, so they're moving onto videogames as "the next revolutionary thing." Nevermind the whole history of human culture and civilization that preceded it!
Art is an act of psychical necessity. It is imperative. I translate Old English poetry and prose. These were written by (almost always) men who would live very short lives—by men whose reckoning of value in life was how well one died—by men who would likely die from sickness, frost, or political enemies. And, even though their daily existence gave them every right to drop everything and embrace nihilism, they wrote poetry to give themselves pleasure and to discover some meaning in their lives that extended beyond the blunt slap of a prow on frozen waves and blood on the deck.
In other words, I think that anyone attempting to establish videogames as art will need to seriously invest him(her)self in putting videogames in the context of human cultural history. It's a big task! I'd like to see it done, and maybe help a little in my own way.
| Ben Reed wrote: |
| We are dealing with something fundamentally new here, and I believe we must treat it as such. |
I disagree. (Largely for the reasons explained above.) 99% of post-modern philosophy and critical theory is based on the fallacious idea that "we're dealing with something fundamentally new here," ignorant of the fact that many (almost all) of our current issues have been recognized and addressed (however insufficiently) by philosophers past.
I really think we'll do much better if we accept that we're our parents' children. (Metaphorically speaking.)
(Hell, literally, too, some of us.)
| Hot Stott Bot wrote: |
| And the same is true of movies, plays, television, music, etc., and most media. It all has its functional elements, and I don't think that having a funcitonal element precludes the notion of "art". |
Other than my philosophical problems with games' functionality (briefly explained above), I've got a personal one. I think a lot of other people share this, too.
I have certain expectations of functional experience. They are two in number!
(1): I will learn a practical skill from the experience. This is an immaterial benefit.
(2): I will have something to show for the experience. This is a material benefit.
Videogames don't do either, and the functional experience becomes (mostly) cognitive clutter after I'm finished with the game.
Example: I am currently building a Mosin Nagant sniper rifle. I will probably pay—total—$100 for the parts needed to build the rifle. I currently have almost all of the bolt assembly built, and I have practiced assembling and disassembling it several times. The work has given my hands a feel for the proportions of the parts, and it has familiarized me with the mechanical processes that will occur very very quickly at a very very near distance from my head when I use the rifle.
This functional experience will teach me patience, actual hand-eye coordination, and it will allow me to experience the pleasure of sharp-shooting at targets: a rural, domestic art.
Why should I invest time, energy, and money in a videogame that will require the same level of work, but that will not reward me with the same material or immaterial benefits as would building a rifle?
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
boojiboy7
narcissistic irony-laden twat
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: take me on a blatant doom trip.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:43 am |
|
|
| Adilegian wrote: |
It's unfortunate that the descriptor "French" immediately puts me on my guard. I would say something like, "I wish the Germans were considered the cutting edge of Continental high culture—or someone, just not the French." But then I remember that old Germany tried to become the cutting edge of Continental culture with the cutting edge of a bayonet, so it seems less politic of a desire.
I just wish the French weren't so goddamn frou-frou in their scholarship. |
God, I am with you here. The current head of my grad program is in love with the French, which means I end up readinga decent amount of French criticism. Some of it just is bullshit, which is fine, and occasionally I find something I really like, a little idea that is fun or interesting, but it usually takes some time decoding it because the French seem, as a culture, to refuse to ever just say what the fuck they mean. I know some of it is translation issues, but a lot of it certainly seem to be from the original writing.
Now, as for the viability of the ideas, well, yeah, not always great. Like I said, fun and interesting occasionally.
| Adilegian wrote: |
Though I'd like to add (without being deliberately snarky toward you, DarwinMayflower) that the notion of "videogame criticism" will become a lot more credible when its professionals demonstrate versatile experience with traditional arts.
<ellipses>
In other words, I think that anyone attempting to establish videogames as art will need to seriously invest him(her)self in putting videogames in the context of human cultural history. It's a big task! I'd like to see it done, and maybe help a little in my own way.
|
The more I work on SH2 as some sort of work to examine (which as of now consists of a lot of notes I take and random thoughts in my head that will hopefully become more concrete over the course of this week) the more I realize that you are exactly right on this Adilegain. Just the issues of this game alone are not merely ones of film (though as a game it iclearly owes a large debt as such) but involve the psychology of the player him/herself, as well as issues of realism in videogames (which got me thinking on this project in a different way, since I am taking a seminar on literary realism right now) and possibly a whole bunch of other stuff.
I was initially approaching this project from a pretty much literary perspective, and that isn't going to work, simply because games don't work as that. I mean, there is part of that there, but there is a lot of other stuff going on that that approach can't encapsulate. It kinda makes doing this seem like a lot of work, but it interesting in that I am going to have to place the game in a lot more context than merely arguing about a piece of literature. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
DarwinMayflower
Joined: 17 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:30 am |
|
|
| Adilegian wrote: |
| DarwinMayflower wrote: |
| Once video games depart from mimicking other art mediums, such as film, and manage to truely embrace the video game nature and the eventual evolution of it...then perhaps it might be respected as art or even beceome something entirely different. |
I agree with this completely.
Though I'd like to add (without being deliberately snarky toward you, DarwinMayflower) that the notion of "videogame criticism" will become a lot more credible when its professionals demonstrate versatile experience with traditional arts.
I mean, shit, do you know what it sounds like when every person who talks about videogames-as-art only compares them with films-as-art? It sounds like a bunch of dejected film students who don't see anything interesting being done in film, so they're moving onto videogames as "the next revolutionary thing." Nevermind the whole history of human culture and civilization that preceded it! |
No snarkiness detected at all. But it does make me wonder how my suggestion for the direction for video games to be perceived as art should proceed or what it's final product shall be. I don't have the answer, I just know the direction it should take. And I wonder if we as gamers would benefit from the advancement of video-games into art or if we'll encounter something that would kill the industry outright.
My suggestions is partially rooted in being an aging gamer, that useless cinemas (or the "art" content of video games) are making games unplayable for me at times. I tried to play FF10 only to quit/return the rental after finishing the excessive prologue portion of the game. I don't know, perhaps I'm just too old or have too little time to enjoy these games as I once was. However I still love games even as they are now; as "faux-arty" as they seem to be.. I love SOTC, FF6 and the MGS series is just great.
However you do bring up a good point with the failed film students. In order for video games to advance artwise, we do need more traditionally art aware people in the industry. However this does bring up an interesting chicken and the egg predicament. Should video game criticism's crediblity change in order to change the credibility of video games? Or should the video games change before the credibility of video game criticism advances? In the end whether video games would actually reach that high enough of a position to be considered art, the future has the potential to offer a lot. Whether it's something to be excited or feared remains to be seen. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
klikbeep
Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:45 pm |
|
|
Another way that video games are better than art is how when you collect stuff in video games, you can get more stuff. For example, in Tony Hawk, if you collect all the video tapes you can unlock previously inaccessible portions of the game. Art comes up short again in this area: no matter how much stuff you collect (and most art doesn't allow you to do this at all) you can never see more than what is right there in the first place.
Probably no artists have thought about doing something interesting like that, because they were too busy shopping at expen$ive fashion stores for glasses and eating fish eggs or some shit and going "oh look at me, buy my art so I can make money, la la." I make an exception for fan-based art based off of games because that actually adds something to the game experience (i.e. more depth and deeper analisys of the game/characterizations) |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Maztorre
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:57 pm |
|
|
My art is called egocentric-soft-porno.
Or maybe it's just narcissism...
My one and only subject
Goes from something like anything but
Me-ism
Wouldn't it be easier for Beardsley?
He could drop the paintings,
And photograph his penis.
Or take pixxx of the chicks...
Yeah, you know what I mean...
Wouldn't it be better for Escher?
He could drop the math
And make it happen on his mattress
2 girls and a cam!
3 girls and a cam!
You put a dog there and you got polaroid scat
I ain't no artist
I am an art-bitch
I sell my paintings to the men I eat
I have no portfolio
and I only show
Where there's free alcohol
I am so hardcore
I sell my crap and people ask for more...
Call me revolutionary
I poo on a plate and get it published on visionaire.
What I do, is called art-shit.
And don't you dare make fun of me
Cuz everything I do was featured on the pages of i-d!
I ain't no artist
I am an art-bitch
I sell my paintings to the men I eat
I have no portfolio
and I only show
Where there's free alcohol
I ain't no artist
I am an art-bitch
I sell my paintings to the men I eat
I have no portfolio
and I only show
Where there's free alcohol
Lick lick lick my art-tit
Suck suck suck my art-hole |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:51 am |
|
|
Back!
| boojiboy7 wrote: |
| The current head of my grad program is in love with the French, which means I end up readinga decent amount of French criticism. |
You might have written this before, but I'm curious: which discipline are you seeking your grad degree under?
| boojiboy7 wrote: |
| I know some of it is translation issues, but a lot of it certainly seem to be from the original writing. |
Yeah, I hear this. A friend of mine once explained why this is, but I have forgotten the exact reason. It has something to do with the French culture's means of presenting itself.
| boojiboy7 wrote: |
| Now, as for the viability of the ideas, well, yeah, not always great. Like I said, fun and interesting occasionally. |
I'm with you on this, too.
| boojiboy7 wrote: |
| The more I work on SH2 as some sort of work to examine (which as of now consists of a lot of notes I take and random thoughts in my head that will hopefully become more concrete over the course of this week) the more I realize that you are exactly right on this Adilegain. Just the issues of this game alone are not merely ones of film (though as a game it iclearly owes a large debt as such) but involve the psychology of the player him/herself, as well as issues of realism in videogames (which got me thinking on this project in a different way, since I am taking a seminar on literary realism right now) and possibly a whole bunch of other stuff. |
I'm really interested to see the direction you take this work. I started playing SH2 again in honor of FKW, but I wasn't able to get past the entrance to the apartments. I'm a little too easily spooked these days.
The environment is just... it uses the natural world in ways that wholly support the industrialism of the Otherworld, and that sort of dilapidation strikes a sharp key with me. For example!
Also, seeing this red wall upon entering Silent Hill totally makes me feel as though I'm entering the Black Lodge from Twin Peaks.
I also like how the fetishism in the Silent Hill games seems to relate to anthropological work in those fields. Reading Frazer's The Golden Bough opened up a different level to appreciate a lot of the stuff that's happening in the games. The section in The Golden Bough dealing with fetishistic handling of umbilical cords, for example, made a huge chunk of Silent Hill 4 more comprehensible.
| boojiboy7 wrote: |
| I was initially approaching this project from a pretty much literary perspective, and that isn't going to work, simply because games don't work as that. I mean, there is part of that there, but there is a lot of other stuff going on that that approach can't encapsulate. It kinda makes doing this seem like a lot of work, but it interesting in that I am going to have to place the game in a lot more context than merely arguing about a piece of literature. |
Yeah, this is one of the ways in which I think that serious work in videogames is going to need to develop an internal vocabulary. (I think someone posted a thread about this earlier.) One of the deficiencies of much post-structural criticism (in my point-of-view) is that it consistently applies the same cognitive approach to media that ultimately get treated the same, despite the fact that they're different in their parts. In the end, it seems to serve little more than to validate the critical slant (or the critic) rather than enlighten anyone about the work.
I think that the dual ends of criticism ought to be (1) to indicate what made things are good and (2) to explain why those made things are good. "The Age of Criticism" is, I think, a name applied to our time because the lines between artist and critic have become blurred to the point that the critic can seem as aesthetically generative as the artist. (Most times, of course, criticism only generates more criticism.)
Anyway, I think that your work in this regard would be valuable. Right after I played SH2 a bit, I lamented to my girlfriend that the term "mature game" only ever means "a game in which you see lots of gore or sex, or in which you deal drugs." Of course, mature people don't usually dally in those affairs; they think abstractly and from experience. I think the GTA games are almost totally shit, and I'd love to see a game respect my intelligence. And this doesn't mean self-absorbed RPGs (looking at you, Xenosaga) that attempt to invert notions of Western iconography.
| DarwinMayflower wrote: |
| But it does make me wonder how my suggestion for the direction for video games to be perceived as art should proceed or what it's final product shall be. I don't have the answer, I just know the direction it should take. And I wonder if we as gamers would benefit from the advancement of video-games into art or if we'll encounter something that would kill the industry outright. |
I think this is spot-on. The thing is, criticism only generates artistic creation when it poses a challenge to an artist on the terms of his craft. When you get down to the level of craft, the idea of "art" becomes a little more superfluous because it's generally out of the person's control. You devote yourself to your craft, and sometimes art comes of it. (So I think.)
In poetry—when in workshops, when showing my poems to friends, and when looking at friends' poems—we don't invoke the name of art when we help each other. Rather, we ask of ourselves, "How can this poem be better?" You can change craft; art comes as it will. So, in context of games, the question changes from, "How can we make games more artistic?" to "How can we make games better?"
This is a question that I doubt will get many real answers on the level of corporate sponsorship.
| DarwinMayflower wrote: |
| In order for video games to advance artwise, we do need more traditionally art aware people in the industry. However this does bring up an interesting chicken and the egg predicament. Should video game criticism's crediblity change in order to change the credibility of video games? Or should the video games change before the credibility of video game criticism advances? |
I think that a huge chunk of the problem might lie more in the current structure of the game industry. It's difficult to imagine a medium as carrying artistic potential when its strongest presence comes in the form of a money-making industry.
Almost all of the traditional arts started on the personal, local level. They later became incorporated, so you wind up with publishing houses, theater troupes, symphony hall managers, and so on. In other words, the traditional arts first existed as creative occupations before they even allowed for the possibility of administrative occupations.
Video games have developed almost oppositely. Their creative and administrative occupations developed simultaneously. Anyone who has worked in a creative field knows that the administrative wings know next-to-nothing about the sweat and blood required to work creatively.
This calls the relevance of such criticism into question. Criticism—no, good criticism—carries special importance with creators because it aims to discover the essence of a craft. Granted, critics try to discover what is good about a craft from an outsider perspective, but that outsider perspective can be very valuable to a creator who is intimate with the creative process.
Criticism has almost no relevance on the administrative levels.
Let's say—hypothetically—that serious, non-bullshit game criticism is written and read by a team of developers. They get a game idea that’s unique, and they set out to make it. Pressure from the administrative level of the company supporting their work could destroy the risky ideas that the criticism helped generate, thereby nullifying any effect that criticism could have in the first place.
Games need less trademark ownership and more personal ownership on behalf of the game creators. I think the creative atmosphere would change, which (I think) necessarily includes the relevance of criticism.
In conclusion:
By the way, Boojiboy: I've decided to try playing back through SH2 on Easy. Maybe that will help my nerves this go-round.
Anyway, I've got hardware that'll let me record movies and take screencaps, and I'm glad to help if you need a specific image captured for reference.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
