That was the point. I swear to god it's like willful ignorance.karmapolizei post=18.72467.763737 said:
Games Will Never Be As Deep
- Thread starter Imitation Saccharin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
...
...*picks up Bioshock.*
...*points at Bioshock.*
...*looks smug.*
As has already been said, your definition is awful;
There are paintings of a singular cow in a plain, empty hill. Strikes no deep emotional response within us, but it is paint on canvas, created by an artist - it is art.
Your definition SHOULD have been; a personal expression through the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements.
At which point, Idirect you to video games. In particular, how they very easily meet this criteria.
Games can be art.
Some art is more expressive than some games, and vice versa - I'll take Bioshock over a cow in a field, for example.
Fallacious premise is fallacious.
...*picks up Bioshock.*
...*points at Bioshock.*
...*looks smug.*
As has already been said, your definition is awful;
There are paintings of a singular cow in a plain, empty hill. Strikes no deep emotional response within us, but it is paint on canvas, created by an artist - it is art.
Your definition SHOULD have been; a personal expression through the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements.
At which point, Idirect you to video games. In particular, how they very easily meet this criteria.
Games can be art.
Some art is more expressive than some games, and vice versa - I'll take Bioshock over a cow in a field, for example.
Fallacious premise is fallacious.
No just watching Top Gear about a car that is officially a piece of art due to its horrible drivingj-e-f-f-e-r-s post=18.72467.763143 said:
Games, including video games, can create "deep emotional resonance" with characters ("plural"). I'd say that the medium of video games, consequently, can fit the definition of "art" that was given.
It is possible to restrict the definition of "deep emotional resonance" until it implies all kinds of things about how specifically that resonance has to be created, to the point that games will cease to fit that definition. However, at that point you'd be stuck with a concept that excludes works from pretty much every other medium as well.
-- Alex
It is possible to restrict the definition of "deep emotional resonance" until it implies all kinds of things about how specifically that resonance has to be created, to the point that games will cease to fit that definition. However, at that point you'd be stuck with a concept that excludes works from pretty much every other medium as well.
-- Alex
To meet that definition is to willingly create, through media, a personal view, emotion, desire, ambition, fear or love, or simply a beautiful idea - do tell me how every act an individual commits, from walking down the street to taking a piss, falls under that category.Taxi Driver post=18.72467.764237 said:
Key words you didn't read; personal expression, conscious production, arrangement.
People need to realize that art is not pretty pictures and decorated landscapes, it is a piece that somebody makes by desire to express something. I got into an argument with a friend over that World of Warcraft is not art at all and Bioshock is not art because it has lots of statues in it. Than he replied with the fact that Warcraft has lots of pretty plants and landscapes people have designed. Though people didn't make Warcraft to show their talents and opinions, they did it for the monies.
Yep nobody crafted the world of Bioshock to create a feeling in the audience of the product. whereas this http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7633000/7633386.stm shit is ART! lots of different shades of black = art. A beautifully created world that conveys a story isn't (according to the rule of Art as defined by dommyboy The world class art critic or **** as he is known in the real world)Dommyboy post=18.72467.765512 said:
I would like to tackle this debate on two level. One, the definition of art. Two, the applied consenquence. As I belive both are wrong here.Imitation Saccharin post=18.72467.761745 said:
First of you define art as deep emotional resonance with characters. A both restricting and unprecise defenition. Van gougs sunflowers have no characters in it yet it is accapted as art, I have a VERY deep emotional resonance with my son, but my love for him is not art.
In case your wondering how to define art I point you this book "Art versus Nonart: Art out of Mind" which can be found at amazon.
In Art versus Non-Art, Tsion Avital poses the question: "Is modern art art at all?" He argues that much, if not all, of the nonrepresentational art produced in the twentieth century was not art, but rather the debris of the visual tradition it replaced. Modern art has thrived on the total confusion between art and pseudo-art and the inability of many to distinguish between them. As Avital demonstrates, modern art has served as a critical intermediate stage between art of the past and the future. This book proposes a new way to define art, anchoring the nature of art in the nature of the mind, solving a major problem of art and aesthetics for which no solution has yet been provided. The new definition of art proposed in this book paves the way for a new and promising paradigm for future art
However, for the sake of argument lets agree with your definiton of art. Your conclusion is odd at best. Let's even agree that games are inferior to movies. How does that mean that it should be simply abandoned as art?
Yes, the interactive repetitive elements of gameplay do not lend themselves well to linear story telling, so? They have diffrent mechanics to tell a story and to create charcters. Gordon freeman never says a word, yet in my mind he is a very strong character.
ICO created stronger characters because there was an element of risk, of the story ending badly.
To summarize, I disagree both with your original definition and your conclusions, but I want to sincerly thank for raising this important subject.
i think a lot of people have confused the definition of character to mean simbolic representations of people, specifically.
a vase in a painting of flowers IS a character. As the vase will tell a story. wether it sits on table, has flowers in it or not, etc.
lighting can be a character as well, a subtle dimmed light tells a different story from a bright obvious light.
In film or games we see the leaves of tree billowing and moving, suggesting wind. So movement can be a character as well, in moving visual media.
These are concepts used in other accepted art forms. However these elements don't necessarily make art. They are though stepping stones used in accept art media.
So games have the potential to be considered art, it is only the masses must consent for it to be so.
a vase in a painting of flowers IS a character. As the vase will tell a story. wether it sits on table, has flowers in it or not, etc.
lighting can be a character as well, a subtle dimmed light tells a different story from a bright obvious light.
In film or games we see the leaves of tree billowing and moving, suggesting wind. So movement can be a character as well, in moving visual media.
These are concepts used in other accepted art forms. However these elements don't necessarily make art. They are though stepping stones used in accept art media.
So games have the potential to be considered art, it is only the masses must consent for it to be so.
implodingMan post=18.72467.761985 said:
Did you look at that paragraph, you know the one's he was talking about? click the spoiler thing. It's a valid point, it's on topic, and it even tells you how it can't work in a movie...Imitation Saccharin post=18.72467.763537 said:
Mechanics can lead to artistic and emotionally resonative moments.
The first time playing through Patapon the music really was amazing, because the music gets better the better you play. Once you get the rythm the commands become almost unconscious and you get swept up into the music. The art style really helps too.
I think Patapon is very artistic, whereas games like Halo and Call of Duty are not.
The first time playing through Patapon the music really was amazing, because the music gets better the better you play. Once you get the rythm the commands become almost unconscious and you get swept up into the music. The art style really helps too.
I think Patapon is very artistic, whereas games like Halo and Call of Duty are not.
Clearly most people disagree with the OP's definition of the word art. Which is fine I personally don't agree with it either. But I think his broader point that games can not produce the same "deep emotional resonance with characters" as movies is worth considering.
In film and literature character is generally not shown by the way they dress, speak, look ect. That is all characterisation. Character is shown through the actions of the character.
For example
A middle-aged businessman in a clean pressed suit sits on the train flicking through the New York Times. Suddenly a man in a dirty trench coat presses a knife to his belly and whispers a threat in his ear.
Now from that we could gauge quite a bit about the businessman's characterisation. Age, rough social economic class, possible left leaning political beliefs. What happens next, how he chooses to react to the situation will demonstrate his character. The choices characters make are what define them. In a film (and in life) there is a multitude of possible actions the businessman could take. Weep and hand over his wallet, punch the mugger in the stomach, scream for help, Gandi style non-violent resistance. All of which would demonstrate something different about his character. In a game when we are presented with similar situations we are usually only given one or two options. So in many ways the characters that can be portrayed are inherently shallower. This isn't an unsurmountable problem but at the moment most games do not.
Even something as rich and interesting as Bioshock still only presents a fairly binary and simple representation of character.
Hmm that rant might have been too long.
In film and literature character is generally not shown by the way they dress, speak, look ect. That is all characterisation. Character is shown through the actions of the character.
For example
A middle-aged businessman in a clean pressed suit sits on the train flicking through the New York Times. Suddenly a man in a dirty trench coat presses a knife to his belly and whispers a threat in his ear.
Now from that we could gauge quite a bit about the businessman's characterisation. Age, rough social economic class, possible left leaning political beliefs. What happens next, how he chooses to react to the situation will demonstrate his character. The choices characters make are what define them. In a film (and in life) there is a multitude of possible actions the businessman could take. Weep and hand over his wallet, punch the mugger in the stomach, scream for help, Gandi style non-violent resistance. All of which would demonstrate something different about his character. In a game when we are presented with similar situations we are usually only given one or two options. So in many ways the characters that can be portrayed are inherently shallower. This isn't an unsurmountable problem but at the moment most games do not.
Even something as rich and interesting as Bioshock still only presents a fairly binary and simple representation of character.
Hmm that rant might have been too long.
You can stretch words to mean things far different than their original meaning but it amplifies the confusion. It requires people to buy into a new definition before they join the discussion. It's better use words in a way that people already understand. Then people can talk about the ideas instead of learning each person's unique definition for each word.imperialwar post=18.72467.768150 said:
your saying that games aren't art because of the interactivity of a player with the game since that takes away from whoever created it and what they wanted to capture. but the goal of some video games are that the interaction is done masterfully, seamlessly immersing you in the game world. what i'm trying to say is that you seem to be saying you can't watch someone play a game and call it entertaining (something that all good art is) the same way you could call watching a movie entertaining, but in my opinion if you are the one playing the game it can capture that entertainment level, making it art that is just as deep as movies, or a painting, or anything else.
The thing is, art is not defined by what the viewer takes out of it, but what the creator puts into it.rockchild17 post=18.72467.769434 said:
As a pragmatist I couldn't care less about abstract definitions of art and just call games possible art
To answer a question with a question:
How is Pong not art?
To go with the longwinded expansion:
The pure simplicity and yes or no aspect of the gameplay is surely a commentary upon society. You get points for getting a dot over the line behind the enemy. What does that line represent? What is that ball there? What would the statement of a player who consciously always misses the ball be? Maybe he likes zero. Maybe he chooses to have his opponent drop the ball into eternal oblivion to make his counter go up because he's unable to cope with the inhumanity?
Anything can be art depending on how you look at it. Anything any person chooses to present as art is art.
How is Pong not art?
To go with the longwinded expansion:
The pure simplicity and yes or no aspect of the gameplay is surely a commentary upon society. You get points for getting a dot over the line behind the enemy. What does that line represent? What is that ball there? What would the statement of a player who consciously always misses the ball be? Maybe he likes zero. Maybe he chooses to have his opponent drop the ball into eternal oblivion to make his counter go up because he's unable to cope with the inhumanity?
Anything can be art depending on how you look at it. Anything any person chooses to present as art is art.
Sadly your argument was shot down when we all realised that anything a person chooses to present as bollocks is bollocks.Vortigar post=18.72467.771349 said: