Jashin on 4/9/2008 at 16:10
BullSHIT.
Something is art because of the artIST. If the artistic intent doesn't get communicated through the work than it's not art, just stuff stringed together; intention alone is not art. If the intent is to subvert, it's not art.
Is propaganda art, art? By your definition it is. To me propaganda is propaganda.
Fragony on 4/9/2008 at 16:26
Triumph des Willens and Panzerkreuzer Potemkin are sure as hell propaganda and definatily works of art.
Jashin on 4/9/2008 at 16:31
LOL yeah, you know why? Cus we beat them. So we essentially changed its whole meaning. It no longer has any effect as a symbol cus its backers got destroyed. Does the U.S. exhibit its own propaganda as art? No.
Some propaganda stuff live on though, like the racist ones. Nazis had them, Americans had them. I'll answer that one for you. They're not art.
Fragony on 4/9/2008 at 16:43
Quote Posted by Jashin
LOL yeah, you know why? Cus we beat them. So we essentially changed its whole meaning.
Does the U.S. exhibit its own propaganda art as its originally intended? No.
No but America never made it very artistic unlike the nazi's and the russians. I am not arguing against you just wanted to throw this in for a perspective, just because it serves a purpose doesn't mean it can't be art.
But if a game would be too 'heavy', let's take Area51, we don't apreciate it when someone tries too hard we want them to stick to the game. A subtle hint is apreciated but it shouldn't distract too much. I am all for escapism.
demagogue on 4/9/2008 at 16:49
Quote:
If the artistic intent doesn't get communicated through the work than it's not art, just stuff stringed together; intention alone is not art. If the intent is to subvert, it's not art.
FFS man, whatever you think you're trying to argue, you are making this invalid, non-sequitur response to this entire discussion:
Q. Is it beautiful? *
A. It was funded by investors.
That it may be, but please at least answer the right question when you give an opinion. We're not having an economic debate on game company stockholders in this thread, we're debating game criticism, so we don't need to know about the corporate structure of a company to answer the question. Try something more like:
A2. "No, it's not symmetrical."
Then if you feel motivated you could spout off some pomo-babble like
Dicta. "The reason why it's not symmetrical, we could speculate, is because buyers in the market are alienated by symmetrical widgets, hurting sales, so investors put pressure on producers to make them asymmetrical." That's just an aside having nothing to do with the actual question at issue, but some people might be enlightened. BUT the question of beauty doesn't care
why it's asymmetrical, only that it is.
The question on the table here is, what are the aesthetic/literary merits & demerits of games with political/philosophical content vs those without?
Please answer the question before you go off into the pomobabble explaining it.
*Actually, more like "What does it say about our culture politically or philosophically?" I don't know how "art" even got into the discussion.
Jashin on 4/9/2008 at 16:55
Cus real art has no utilitarian function, it exists for its own merit. It's the immaterial within an artist made material.
If something's got a function, then it's its function first.
Matthew on 4/9/2008 at 16:56
Bollocks.
Jashin on 4/9/2008 at 16:56
Yeah, that's right.
Real art can be judged, but it can't be denied of its artistry. Stuff with function can always be denied.
demagogue on 4/9/2008 at 17:05
So the Eiffel tower isn't art? Clearly built to project French power.
The Sistine chapel isn't art?
Rembrandt's entire portfolio of religious painting isn't art?
Michaelangelo's entire portfolio of commissioned work isn't art?
Velázquez's work for the Spanish court?
Picasso's work in cubism? Or in the service of a cultural revolution?
Just who is an artist? I can't think of a single person whose work has entirely no utilitarian function.
Abstract impressionism? I'm afraid it's a staple of interior design, maybe the most utilitarian of the visual arts.
Really, give me one name...
Sulphur on 4/9/2008 at 17:05
So, in effect, you're saying that art is essentially useless. I don't get it. Why should something being 'artistic', or being 'utilitarian' be two mutually exclusive ideas?
Does an office building shaped like a tulip not qualify as art because it's an office building? Does a Ming vase not qualify as art simply because it's a vase?
