12-08-2005, 07:27 AM | #61 | |
capsized.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,534
|
Quote:
And that's perfectly okay. It just got me thinking... I made the pop song analogy for a reason. While it's cool to have fun with some easy listening music and catchy tunes, music (as the established art form it is) comes in so many more different shapes and forms that are about more and something deeper than "only" (instant) fun. I guess that's what got me thinking about it.
__________________
Look, Mr. Bubbles...! |
|
12-08-2005, 09:21 AM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 466
|
I understand. But your comparison with pop music and more 'difficult' music can be applied more easily to games than you think: pop games are the big console blockbuster games like GTA, who drive on popular culture and instant, bite-sized fun, and appeal to the masses. RPG's take much longer to get into, and it's easy to give up after the first couple of hours even before you have familiarized yourself with your own character. You need some time to get 'into' a complex RPG, much like getting into jazz can be a big challenge.
I think it's impossible to get rid of the goal-oriented aspect of a game without losing the essence of what actually makes a game a game. But I can imagine there are other, unexplored ways of presenting those goals out there that have yet to be discovered and that can result in some very original and interesting gameplay. |
12-08-2005, 12:34 PM | #63 | |
Not like them!
|
Quote:
I think I'm offended. By the way, I think it's the wrong approach to think of art as greater than entertainment. They're two different types of quality. Artistically speaking, 2001: A Space Oddysey is a masterpiece whereas James Bond is trash, but if we're talking about sheer fun then James Bond is the superior. Last edited by MoriartyL; 12-08-2005 at 12:47 PM. |
|
12-08-2005, 12:41 PM | #64 | |
Not like them!
|
Quote:
Oh, and by the way, I absolutely do not see the resemblance of, say, Zelda, to Pong. |
|
12-08-2005, 02:49 PM | #65 | ||||||
Gaming Art Historian
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 144
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, please stop putting words in my mouth. I am not implying that you consider things inferior if you didn't call it "art", I am simply saying that there is more to determining the validity of a work of art than just pure, subjective opinion. There is nothing "superior" about the way we go about doing things in the art community, and quite frankly those of us that do have that superiority complex I DESPISE. Quote:
Your comparison of Mona Lisa and GTA3 is poor because those are two completely different things in different time periods. Keep in mind, that everything that's established as "art" these days has deep roots in history: paintings, architecture, theatre, dance, sculpture, and only just recently... cinema. I'm sure given time, video games will probably transcend its current niche in society and be accepted as "art" as well. It's just that video games are still very much a new phenomenon, and people are not sure what to make of it yet. Also, as I said in my previous post... it's NOT because someone important brainwashed the public to believe these things are art, the approach to determining these things is actually quite complicated. Most importantly, how it fits into society during its time, and how it fits into society over the course of time. Sure, the words dictating that these things are "ART" probably came from the mouth of an important person at some point, but these are not all baseless conjectures. Yes, I'll agree with you that it DOES happen, but most of the time when something is labeled as art... there's firm ground beneath it based on many factors. That's what our job is as art historians - to assess this firm ground and bolster it, and that is exactly why I got offended because you're implying that our job is obsolete. Quote:
Quote:
For what it's worth, I absolutely hate modern art and abstract art, despite me being an art historian. I really don't think the general public accepts things that are "art" to be superior either. The majority of "artists" these days are struggling to push their crazy abstract ideas onto the public, and aren't very successful in doing so. Interpretive dance always gets made fun of. The majority of people will rather go to the movies than to the ballet or opera. Not to mention the abstract sculptures and paintings folks... they're just downright nutty in the eyes of the general public. As Jeysie said, quality does not equal art, and yes there can be good art and bad art. Thanks for the nice debate, it's a welcome departure from writing up final exams |
||||||
12-08-2005, 03:58 PM | #66 | |||
Diva of Death
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Peace & Luv, Liz
__________________
Adventures in Roleplaying (Nov. 19): "Maybe it's still in the Elemental Plane of Candy." "Is the Elemental Plane of Candy anything like Willy Wonka's factory?" "If it is, would that mean Oompa Loompas are Candy Elementals?" "Actually, I'm thinking more like the Candyland board game. But, I like this idea better." "I like the idea of Oompa Loompa Elementals." |
|||
12-08-2005, 04:19 PM | #67 | |||
Gaming Art Historian
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 144
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
12-08-2005, 04:41 PM | #68 | ||
Diva of Death
|
Quote:
It's kind of like how in English class you had to read all the books that were considered "classics", and your teacher would wax on about how they were shining examples of literature and all that jazz, yet most of them were boring as hell to read and you'd rather have a cheesy pulp novel that's more fun, even if it isn't a "classic". (Not to say that all classics are boring, far from it, but... well, for instance, I am convinced that forcing us to read Hemingway is simply legal torture of students...) Same thing with "art"... the general public thinks that stuff that is art is superior and to be cultured you have to develop an appreciation for looking at it... even if you don't like some of it and you'd rather be looking at something more flashy that isn't "art". In addition, the general perception among the general public is that to admit to liking a creative work that isn't labelled art makes you uncultured and shallow. (Or conversely, saying you think that something that is labelled art is completely boring.) Quote:
Peace & Luv, Liz
__________________
Adventures in Roleplaying (Nov. 19): "Maybe it's still in the Elemental Plane of Candy." "Is the Elemental Plane of Candy anything like Willy Wonka's factory?" "If it is, would that mean Oompa Loompas are Candy Elementals?" "Actually, I'm thinking more like the Candyland board game. But, I like this idea better." "I like the idea of Oompa Loompa Elementals." |
||
12-08-2005, 06:24 PM | #69 | |||
Gaming Art Historian
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 144
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let me offer you another piece of my mind, though. When I see a Renaissance painting that many others consider to be "boring" and bland, I think otherwise. This has always been the case for me, even before I knew anything about art. It wasn't because some important person said "this is a masterpiece, so love it!". For some reason, when I see a Michelangelo or Raphael my heart just sets aflutter with excitement. That's why I got into art history, because of my natural affinity for the subject matter. Does that automatically make me more superior and cultured compared to everyone else? Hell no. So you see, there will always be people out there that simply like the boring artsy-fartsy stuff for what it is, just like how there are people who looovvee that abstract art while people like us just loathe it. Are they superior to us and more cultured? Is their artwork really that superior in quality? Not in my mind, at least. We're living in a world where the criteria for defining art is quickly getting blurred by all that is going on around us, and the only thing that I as an art historian can rely on, is history. |
|||
12-08-2005, 06:24 PM | #70 | ||
Gaming Art Historian
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 144
|
So with that said, I'd like to address your question:
Quote:
Quote:
Now back to games, video games tell a story and engages the audience in no other way that can be achieved by paintings, sculptures, architecture, literature, music, theatre, cinema, dance, or any other art form. It both actively forces the viewer as well as invite the viewer to participate in its presentation, and a combination of visual, aural, and tactile stimulation invade the senses all at once. This is a degree of art stimulation that cannot be matched by any other type of art form. In regards to its historical context, video games still hold its own merit. Although relatively new, it has accomplished in a short span of time what other art forms can only dream of. Since the time of its introduction, video games has captivated audiences of all ages, evoked emotion, aroused controversy, been in the news, been the subject of criticism, been the subject of praise, have been "commissioned" by some rich, powerful party, and have been independent developments. All these are similarities that video games share with some of the timeless masterpieces that we consider to be "art". Most importantly, video games have influenced society as well as have been influenced by society in very large, consequential ways. It has also maintained a steady progress and held its own throughout the course of history (however short it may be). Personally I believe video games to be an art movement in itself, which is probably why I love how Nintendo's next-generation console is so appropriately titled "Revolution". But meh take all this with a grain of salt because that's just my opinion, and I don't know if you want to consider it "professional" Gah I think I typed too much already, had to split the post into two posts I think there's more I want to say but this should be sufficient for now. Hope that's enough for you to chew on for now |
||
12-08-2005, 06:58 PM | #71 | |
Diva of Death
|
Quote:
Now that you've defined it, I will say that "connoisseurship" is something I've seen as an issue... indeed, I think it's probably at the heart of why we even bother to debate this topic, both in humble message boards and in courtrooms where judges ask "Do games have artistic merit?" If "art" wasn't such a loaded term in public opinion, I doubt the general public would fuss much over whether games were art or not... or at least, probably not in the same manner. (Of course, I think the absolute center of the matter is that something that is "art" tends to get more of a free pass to be uncensored and subject to "free speech" rights as opposed to "non-art", but that's its own discussion, I think.) Thank you very much for your thoughts on the matter... labelled as "professional" or no, it's interesting to hear the opinion of someone who's studied this sort of thing. Peace & Luv, Liz P.S. To jaunt back to the earlier title-dropping bits briefly, I wish somebody would just lock a sufficiently open-minded judge into a room with Planescape: Torment and a PC and make them play the game to the end... that might clear up the matter.
__________________
Adventures in Roleplaying (Nov. 19): "Maybe it's still in the Elemental Plane of Candy." "Is the Elemental Plane of Candy anything like Willy Wonka's factory?" "If it is, would that mean Oompa Loompas are Candy Elementals?" "Actually, I'm thinking more like the Candyland board game. But, I like this idea better." "I like the idea of Oompa Loompa Elementals." |
|
12-08-2005, 07:35 PM | #72 |
Gaming Art Historian
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 144
|
Indeed, perceptions of quality and perceptions of entertainment don't always coincide, and I doubt that it ever will be homogenous. There are too many different opinions out there to ever reach a general consensus, I think... but at least we can be idealistic and er... optimistic, I guess? At the very least, we know that the few times that quality and entertainment go hand-in-hand will be deeply appreciated; maybe in that respect we're "connoisseurs" in our own way
Thanks for such a great discussion , and for thinking that my opinion has some merit to it |
12-09-2005, 05:35 AM | #73 | |
capsized.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,534
|
Quote:
I was talking about the basic structure that every game has... But perhaps it doesn't matter that much. Perhaps.
__________________
Look, Mr. Bubbles...! |
|
12-09-2005, 10:32 AM | #74 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 466
|
Quote:
You, as a professional art historian, try to match things against a complex definition of art, much like one could study objects and decide if they can be called 'food' or not. That's a useful occupation, and in that context I don't really mind the use of the word 'art' at all. What I was revolting against is the use of the word 'art' by common people to call something superior to something else. I'm sure you, especially with your background, know very well that a lot of people who are not at all educated in arts just (ab)use the word to insult certain forms of expression and entertainment. I'm talking, for example, about those rich snobs who only buy paintings and go to galleries just because it's art and not because they like it, and refuse to occupy themselves with television (or games) because it's below them. I'm also talking about the people who haven't really thought a lot about it (and haven't had a discussion like this), and just accept that paintings are in fact superior to games, only because someone labeled it art, even though that label might have nothing to do with quality or entertainment value at all. It might sound a little weird to you, since you're probably surrounded by people who are educated in arts, but if I talk to friends about art they really haven't had any deep thoughts on it. Quote:
Last edited by Phantom; 12-09-2005 at 10:39 AM. |
||
12-09-2005, 02:45 PM | #75 | |
Gaming Art Historian
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 144
|
Quote:
Thank you for understanding, and I'm sorry for jumping the gun on getting all defensive. I hope we're all a big happy family again Now that we're on the same page, yes I do know where you're coming from and let me just say... I despise the people that abuse the term "art" too. I'm not sure how we can solve this "connoisseurship" problem we have because it's so ingrained in society, but at least each of us can go about educating those that are willing to learn. I guess I'm lucky because college students are usually willing to learn. Now those rich snobs that go to galleries just for the sake of going to a gallery... I'm not sure if any of them are ever willing to understand "art" (perhaps a few, but still probably one in a million), and there's probably nothing we can do about it. Perhaps that's another reason why we detest them, because of their uncompromising attitude. And that attitude poses a very real threat to the true advancement of art, and that's probably why video games are still not considered to be an art form. That's probably why all these debates are going on, and why folks make a huge fuss over topics such as "are game art?" (as Jeysie stated). You've brought to the table a very real issue, Phantom, and thanks for clarifying that up. This has been most edifying y'all, thanks |
|
12-11-2005, 05:13 AM | #76 | |
Not like them!
|
Quote:
|
|
12-11-2005, 05:17 AM | #77 | |
Not like them!
|
Quote:
|
|
12-14-2005, 04:36 AM | #78 | |
OUATIJ Creator
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,640
|
Quote:
|
|
12-14-2005, 04:37 AM | #79 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 6,409
|
Quote:
__________________
...It's down there somewhere. Let me have another look. |
|
12-14-2005, 04:59 AM | #80 | |
OUATIJ Creator
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,640
|
Quote:
|
|
|