next »

[agj]

There is a common misconception among video game players and makers, it seems, that 'art' games must contain a meaning which must be comprehended through play. This is sometimes the case, indeed (in the form of codified allusions and such), but more often than not, in art, it is not. There is a confusion between meaning and intent. The former is extracted from the end product, and it constitutes a morale of sorts. The latter, on the other hand, comes prior to the creation (or is formed during that process), and suggests a form for the product, which may not reflect at all the conceit after all is finished.

I am a designer (graphic designer, specifically). What we do, in our field, is to make sure that things communicate what they're supposed to communicate, and serve the purpose they're supposed to serve, as best as possible. This is a very clear objective that can be measured in some fashion. For a work of art, it often does not work this way; the product may not serve any specific purpose at all, or it may be confusing and allow for multiple, conflicting interpretations. This is why, in art, studying the process is as important as the result: when you have something as simple as a suprematist painting (see below), which 'even a 5 year old could make', what is important is not the end result, but how we got there and what it means in that context.



(Side note: From what I understand, suprematism was the culmination of a certain trend, that had been gestating with expressionism, cubism, and other 'isms', of transporting reality to the canvas in a way that wasn't exactly faithful to what the eye perceives. In suprematism, the canvas is its own, separate space where new rules emerge--possibly an escape from the chaotic reality of the world war. There is, obviously, no 'morale' to the painting shown above.)

[Gimym TILBERT]

But a 5 years old could not have made it, the way it is balanced show great care and knowledge about composition. This is not sloppy art here.



At least graphic designer can bring communication back in the process 

[TwilightVulpine]

I don't know. It's hard to judge something by its intent when the process of creation is not presenced. Even when informed of such intent later, it's hard to distinguish it from pretentiousness.

[agj]

No one said it's easy to appreciate art: it demands you actually know a bit about it. And I see no value in classifying stuff on whether it's pretentious or not--it is, more often than not, just a facile way of dismissing a particular work.

At any rate, intention should not be confused with an excuse; I see it more akin to a cause, not a justification. I get the feeling that some people use it as the latter, sometimes, and this comes off as pretentious.

[Gimym TILBERT]

Also the messenger should not be confuse with the message. The point is not whether or not it's pretentious, but how i can actually expend from that. I always feel end up conversation because it's pretentious because they feel insecure with something deviating their norm 

[Chris Whitman]

"Pretentious" is yet another perfectly reasonable word lost to American-style anti-intellectualism. Art is only pretentious if you don't mean it. As ridiculous or overambitious as your ideas might be, they aren't pretentious if you're absolutely serious.

[TwilightVulpine]

Not all art deviating of the norm is actually pretentious. The term is overused.

What I meant is that when I have to judge a piece of art based on its alleged intent, rather than the result, it's difficult to be sure the intent existed during the creation, if I did not presence it. If the alleged intent is something the artist came up with after the fact, it's just pretentiousness. Like agj said, it's an excuse, not an intent.

There is no problem in creating art outside the norm. In fact, I believe it's better than making more of the same. But I can't be expected to appreciate a piece of art if I can't observe it's value. If the value isn't in the result and all I can see is the result, it's not a surprise if I end up not appreciating that piece of art.

[moi]

"Pretentious" is yet another perfectly reasonable word lost to American-style anti-intellectualism. Art is only pretentious if you don't mean it. As ridiculous or overambitious as your ideas might be, they aren't pretentious if you're absolutely serious.

I think you got it perfectly cornered here.

[Josiah Tobin]

If the alleged intent is something the artist came up with after the fact, it's just pretentiousness. Like agj said, it's an excuse, not an intent.

I very much disagree! Often times I'll just be creating something that appeals to me in some inexplicable way or feels 'right' without making much sense, and only realize a meaning for it after it's done or near the very end of the creative process. In fact, most songs I write are done this way. I certainly don't think intent, meaning, whatever, needs to be present from the very start. All I need from the beginning is the knowledge that I'm 'feeling' what I am creating. (hopefully that doesn't make me sound like too much of a hippie, but y'know, guilty as charged)

~Josiah

[agj]

That's totally a way to do things, and in fact a preferred way of mine. But isn't it intent, in a way? It's part of the process; you choose to make it that way, not another, so it's a choice, and it shapes the product.

If you get too serious making up 'meanings' for the result of such a process, though, don't be surprised when people don't buy into it. :)

[Josiah Tobin]

Yeah, I suppose you're right. It's a tough call. (Oh, and usually I don't try too hard to force a meaning after the fact, I was referring to it more kind of jumping out at me as obvious once things start coming together)

~Josiah

[SirNiko]

Asteroids has simple art, but it's not considered pretentious because it serves another purpose, to facilitate play. The logo Neoshaman posted is simple (a five year old could create that) but that's just an image to represent the company, not the company or the product.

The art displayed by agj is just that: it is the art, the whole product. If you are either unsure or disbelieving of the artist's intent, the whole thing fails.

As a graphic designer, I think you get some leeway because what you are creating is part of a whole. It's okay if your graphics don't have any meaning to them because there are other places where (hopefully) the overall game will derive some meaning.

A designer creates some media (game, art, music) that is relatively simple. The designer genuinely put intent into it (so it isn't pretentious) but everyone who consumes that media fails to see that intent, and informs the designer that his intent is unclear or believed to be nonexistant. The designer ignores this, and continues to create similar products that have real intent but that intent is not communicated. Is this pretentiousness? What is this?

Having intent is not enough. If you can't effectively communicate that intent, it is worthless. If you are forced to argue your intentions to your audience, you're indistinguishable from the truly pretentious designers.

-SirNiko

[agj]

Just to clear any confusions: When I used the word 'art' I didn't use it to mean 'visual art', but the broader scope of it.

Intent is not a message to be communicated, is my point. Sometimes, things get made because of something rather than to achieve something. A game could be the result of the creator's reflections on a certain event (like a catastrophe, or a break-up), but without trying to be prescriptive, or descriptive, with its audience. Some may get where the author's coming from, some may not, but it was never an objective to get people to understand something.

[LemonScented]

I've never really understood what's wrong with pretentiousness. Why not revel in it? For every gritty, down-to-earth or "real" piece of artistic expression (in any medium) that entertains or inspires me, there are also things that are pretentious, self-obsessed, bombastic, overblown, whimsical, absurd and ridiculous. Why would that be grounds to dismiss something?

In terms of meaning and intent, I like things from which I can derive a strong and rich sense of meaning. I like them more when I have to think a bit to uncover the meaning (but not things that make me work too hard - art is entertainment, not a battle of wits between an artist and their audience). I like it even more when the art contains enough clues to the creator's intent to drive me towards meanings that include some understanding of that intent. I suppose my favourite kind of stuff also includes some playfulness in the way that it pushes and challenges the medium it was created in, that's a bit self-aware and "meta". I've seen brilliant stuff like really tactile-looking sculptures in a gallery which were discretely roped-off with signs saying "DO NOT TOUCH THE EXHIBITS". I like when context is a part of the medium.

[Chris Whitman]

I think, to rephrase and expound on agj's original point somewhat, if art is a way to deliver "meaning" to people, then it's just obfuscation or condescension.

If I had some kind of message I wanted to deliver to you, like "government is bad" or "shooting dudes is awesome," I'd just say it. Stretching that into a 4+ hour game is tantamount to hiding it, which is annoying, or beating you about the head with it, which is far more common and even more annoying.

The Lord of the Rings is my favorite example for this, because people are always like, "It's a metaphor for death," but Tolkien freely admitted that he hated analogies in writing and had no intent of writing one. It doesn't mean you can't read it that way, or that there's nothing in there to sustain the analogy, simply that it isn't constitutive of the work as a whole.

He didn't write an epic mythology in order to tell you that people die. According to his own statement of intent, he wrote it so it could be a new and truly British mythology, a capacity which it fulfills simply by existing, regardless of whether or not you get a particular phrase out of it.