next »

[Craig Stern]

Yeah, I think the idea is that undeniably good art is often created by complete cretins, so we either have to say:

a) the artist's intentions aren't very important, or
b) this undeniably good artwork isn't actually good at all because it was created by a cretin with stupid intentions.

Viewed in this light, it seems pretty stupid to say b).

I disagree. In the face of silence or even a denial of doubtful sincerity, we can infer sometimes that an artist has unintentionally produced a work with deeper symbolic meaning. But what makes the artist worthy of praise is that he has made the required connections in his/her mind, subconsciously or consciously, that result in a work with merit. That's the criterion, not whether the artist is a good person or a cretin.

There is no room for doubt here, however, because Sigvatr has dispelled it. There is no way we can reasonably continue to view Muslim massacre as a parody, knowing full well that it is nothing more than a juvenile attempt at angering people by blindly provoking simmering racial tensions. You can delude yourself into thinking that it is still somehow a meritorious work, but I choose not to do so myself.

[googoogjoob]

Are you all seriously comparing this kid to Dali?

Comparing the relation of his intents and attitudes to his art to the relation of Dalí's intents and attitudes to his art.

[Bennett]

I disagree. In the face of silence or even a denial of doubtful sincerity, we can infer sometimes that an artist has unintentionally produced a work with deeper symbolic meaning. But what makes the artist worthy of praise is that he has made the required connections in his/her mind, subconsciously or consciously, that result in a work with merit. That's the criterion, not whether the artist is a good person or a cretin.

First of all, we're consuming art, not artists. So I don't care whether the artist made the required connections in his mind. If a work has unintentional symbolic meaning, it still has symbolic meaning.

Secondly, symbolic meaning is something we recognize in the world, it's not something that is independently existing in the world. If there were no humans, there would be no symbolic meaning.

There is no room for doubt here, however, because Sigvatr has dispelled it.

Doubt wouldn't help, because it's irrelevant what Sigvatr thinks his game is about. It's not that we can make our own interpretations when there is doubt, but an author's statement invalidates those interpretations. It's the reverse - the author's statement is totally irrelevant.

I resisted this idea very strongly when I first encountered it, but I now see that the alternative is to think that we are judging artists rather than art, which is backwards.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

Cause art have feelings too.

[Mipe]

Massacring muslims is art?

[azeo]

I've always found the belief that "doing anything you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" is rather simple and unrealistic. As usual, it all depends upon definitions, but I've found that people are often horrible judges about what does and doesn't affect (effect? new grammar lesson, go!) other people's lives. Usually it gets turned into something big about freedom of speech or of the similar like, however I find human judgment will always be flawed in this aspect. So we have different parties in this thread arguing their viewpoint on whether he should have the go-ahead to, hypothetically, release a game about rape in a McDonalds, with people pointing out that he doesn't intend harm and others pointing out that it will harm. So yea, all about definitions guys. Also, is there still a link up somewhere? Not that I want to play it, its just you said you took it down but weren't able to purge all the links, but I'm wondering if for the sake of this discussion you will put it back up?

No, I don't have you. In fact, see my other (2000 word) post about another troll.

[raiten]

Doubt wouldn't help, because it's irrelevant what Sigvatr thinks his game is about.

I agree wholeheartedly. I also think Muslim Massacre is the game that best defines 2008 in gaming.

[Super Joe]

games arent art but this one is

[Mipe]

Uwe Boll movies are art, too.

[shig]

so um

did this guy get warned for trolling or something

because seriously

[Alex May]

Who's that shig?

[Corpus]

are there rules about who you can and can't compare people to now?

because that would be pretty stupid, right?

[shig]

Who's that shig?

 










ALTERNATE, SERIOUS REPLY: Just some guy who posts on the Indie Brawl project sub forum.

[Paul Eres]

too much to respond to above that was addressed to me, so some quick responses

- shade: psychology isn't a monolith or even a thing, psychology can't be right or wrong, there are different schools of thought and so many divergent theories that the idea that it's right or wrong makes no sense, that's like asking if philosophy is right or wrong

- bennett: psychology isn't part of the medical industry, which itself isn't a monolith; psychiatry is, but psychology isn't psychiatry

- icenine: it's cause super joe and i are two of the more contrarian people on this forum, due to coming from different subcultures; most of the other people are just people who play a lot of games and like to make them and come from the gamer/programmer/geek subculture, but there are other subcultures out there; and people who have different beliefs stick out more even though they would not stick out on forums more in line with their beliefs

- lurk: yes, seriously: i'd be all for more rape games. it'd at least be a change from all the murder games (like 90% of them) and no worse morally by comparison. and yes, if he makes a rape game that's as good as muslim massacre in its gameplay, sure, i'll write about it on my site. just like i write about other games i like. i mean, derek yu wrote about this game on the frontpage of tigs, are you saying he was wrong to do that?

- azeo: it's exactly because people are bad judges of what does and doesn't affect other people's lives that people shouldn't harp on others for doing things differently than they do it: cause maybe the other guy is right and you're wrong, since people are bad judges of what action causes what long-term effects (since the chain is so complicated): only in *very* direct cause-effect relations can you say that a cause was bad because its effect was bad, in more nebulous cause-effect chains with millions of effects to a cause, it's impossible

[Valter]

One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dalí is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other.

I'd say that one problem with this argument is that Dali's personality no longer lives on, while his art does. This is a very important distinction.

1000 years from now, some data miner living off of alpha centauri may dig up this game and find that it's an excellent satire of the panic that surrounded the Middle East at the time (Jesus Christ, writing future-past tense is annoying). The key part is, his stupid analysis and claimed hatred of humanity might not be there.

So the game will end up being praised for the thing that most people here thought it had been in the first place: a political statement.

You might remember that most artists become famous long (and sometimes very long!) after they're dead. This might be because of the fact that nobody liked them when they were alive because they were all generally dicks/assholes/just-plain-weird. Everybody needed time to forget about them before their artwork could be rediscovered and praised.

So, I'd say that the artist's intentions do have a serious impact on their works, while those intentions are still around.