Matthew on 4/9/2008 at 17:09
Also demagogue I love you for your post before all the edits.
Jashin on 4/9/2008 at 17:10
You still don't get it, do you demagogue?
What makes something art is within it. It's not the paper, or the paint, or the stones, or the chapel - it's art that give them importance in the first place. Once the real art goes on it and people consider it art, its function is negligible. It'll be preserved and protected.
For something that's mass produced, it'll always be used.
Quote Posted by Sulphur
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?
An office building is up for debate. A Ming vase is all about its make, not its function as a vase.
Fragony on 4/9/2008 at 17:10
Quote Posted by Jashin
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.
An artist wants other to see how he sees it, that's a function as well. Art is really art when it trancends the intention, and it actually rings a bell with some. Real art, wut, a square of black for example? costs you 40.000.000 because some idiots thought a crazy russian had a point, and even crazier people bought it and actualy proved his point.
Matthew on 4/9/2008 at 17:13
Quote Posted by Jashin
You still don't get it, do you demagogue?
What makes something art is within it. It's not the paper, or the paint, or the stones, or the chapel - it's art that give them importance in the first place. Once the art goes on it and people consider it art, its function is negligible. It'll be preserved and protected.
I would counter that it is what is within the piece that makes it art, not whether it was meant to be art in the first place.
demagogue on 4/9/2008 at 17:17
Quote Posted by Jashin
You still don't get it, do you demagogue?
What makes something art is within it. It's not the paper, or the paint, or the stones, or the chapel - it's art that give them importance in the first place. Once the art goes on it and people consider it art, its function is negligible. It'll be preserved and protected.
On the contrary, I agree with this 100% (although it's not "within it", it's "within us" looking at it; to be technical it's a bedrock category of human phenomenology.)
That's why you're original answer "Is it beautiful? It's funded by investors." is self-destructive.
You say yourself the outside trappings don't matter to artistic criticism, and they don't.
What matters is the criticism.
That's why I think you can give a better answer to "What about the merits of games with phil/political content?" than "They're funded by investors."
Jashin on 4/9/2008 at 17:19
Quote Posted by demagogue
On the contrary, I agree with this 100% (although it's not "within it", it's "within us" looking at it; to be technical it's a bedrock category of human phenomenology.)
That's why you're original answer "Is it beautiful? It's funded by investors." is self-destructive.
You say yourself the outside trappings don't matter to artistic criticism, and they don't.
What matters is the criticism.
That's why I think you can give a better answer to "What about the merits of games with phil/political content?" than "They're funded by investors."
No, it's not the money that invalidate art, it's the people behind the money trying to do the work of artists that does it. Industry has its own interest beyond being creative, it's this intent that invalidates it for VGs. It also creates an environment that actively discourages artist to be the best they can be. So far it has quite clearly done a great job at diminishing greatness from the brick and mortar.
I'm not sure what you're saying exactly, but that's my answer I guess.
Jashin on 4/9/2008 at 17:30
Quote Posted by Fragony
An artist wants other to see how he sees it, that's a function as well. Art is really art when it trancends the intention, and it actually rings a bell with some. Real art, wut, a square of black for example? costs you 40.000.000 because some idiots thought a crazy russian had a point, and even crazier people bought it and actualy proved his point.
LOL modern art is something. It's more subjective than ever and is often valued at the artist's namesake, not the actual work itself. A piece used to take years, decades, it can now be art if a paint can tips over.
Obvious I don't have all the answers, but I see the merit of art in its artist and the work he puts into it, and obviously the result. You can make an incomplete case for anything to be art. To me the examples of what I would consider to be art in games are few, and I don't feel that few justify many when its just so few. There are more cases of artists hard at work though.
So to conclude:
If art can be so disembodied from the spirit, like in the case of the industry, then it's not art, it's product. If a person has to convince himself that what he's doing is not art to alleviate the mental anguish of being an artist in this industry, then the stuff coming out of it is not art. Yes, many people have written this kind of article online. They're still "artists," but they're not making art so much as going through the motion of their training.
The fact that so few are allowed to be real artist is the problem.
The End
Vivian on 4/9/2008 at 17:33
Jashin, thats a personal opinion of what you consider to be valuable art. Its not a workable general definition. Like I said.
PS way to wade right in there like a foundation-year dickhead.
Fragony on 4/9/2008 at 17:35
Quote Posted by Jashin
Obvious I don't have all the answers, but I see the merit of art in its artist and the work he puts into it, and obviously the result. You can make an incomplete case for anything to be art. To me the examples of what I would consider to be art in games are few, and I don't feel that few justify many when its just so few. There are more cases of artists hard at work though.
Well I am actually with you, and go even further because there isn't really anything in gaming that I would consider art, Shadow of the Collosus comes close and so does Okami but then again it's the game holding them back. But you can't deny that every medium has what it got to grow into it, I just have yet to see it but to completily dismiss it's possiblities doesn't sound like a very playfull take on these things, and a playfull mind is what art needs. Not me, I hang it on the wall. But I would love to be surpried.
icemann on 4/9/2008 at 17:42
Its all the eye of the beholder. What one considers to be a "great looking" game changes more and more as time goes on, and what games are capable of looking like improves more and more as the technology and tools available continue to improve.
To me seeing games go from text based to blocky sprites going around a screen (ie Pitfall or Space Quest) was considered "great" for a long while. Later you had the transition from 2d platformers to FPS games. And later again FPS games transition from using 2D sprites to full 3D objects (ie Quake, Chasm). And with each transition our view of what was great changed. All in how you see things. For me atleast I dont believe that you can say that this or that game from todays generation of games are more artistic than this or that game from a previous generation, as people did the best they could with the tools and technology that was available to them. If you read up on the stuff its really quite facinating of the programming tricks used to pull off scrolling backgrounds and multiple colors on screen at once back when the technology had much greater limitations.
