Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411281 Posts in 69324 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 10:50:17 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignHow something that has design in it's name can be considered an art?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Print
Author Topic: How something that has design in it's name can be considered an art?  (Read 5642 times)
thersus
Level 0
***


Sometimes I'm grumpy, sometimes I'm not.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2013, 02:27:08 PM »

You've mentioned academic research into synthesis of narrative and gameplay a few times. Do you know of any specific articles on the subject? I'd be interested in reading about it. I figure there's no better way to look into how that can be done than to give it a shot myself, so any existing theory on the subject would probably be helpful.

The first thing that came to mind is this edital of a seminar that happened here in Brazil a while ago - it was the fourth edition, I think it occurs every two years. This one was in 2011. Hope you understand portuguese or know some good translator (better translate the page, and see if some title catches your attention, then translate the pdfs): http://aplicweb.feevale.br/site/hotsite/default.asp?intIdHotSite=126&intIdSecao=4833&intIdConteudo=47360
I'm citing this edition specifically because I was there wathcing the work groups and saw the kind of discussion that I mentioned early. Looking at the papers references section is aways a good idea, too.
Logged

Alec S.
Level 10
*****


Formerly Malec2b


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2013, 02:37:22 PM »

Games don't have to be narrative driven to be art, and not all art is about encodings some meaning into a piece.  Art can be primarily aesthetic or emotional, as in a Romantic classical piece, a piece of Abstract Expressionist art.  I would say this is also true for tetris.

Art can also attempt to capture and portray some element in life (just as a painting can capture scenery or a face).  In this case it will probably still convey some position on its subject matter, just as two paintings of the same face could convey different emotions.  Two most enduring works of art in the medium of games, Chess and Go, both are portrayals of warfare, but they say different things about war through their rulesets.
Logged

siegfried
TIGBaby
*


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2013, 02:38:43 PM »

Quote
I feel like one of the main reasons that games are still struggling as an art is that people seem to feel like there's a distinction between gameplay and narrative.

story is the name we give to a game in which the player does nothing but observe what everyone else is doing. so the distinction between stories and games -- the sole distinction -- is that stories are based on spectator role and games are based on actor role. so video games do not really tell stories -- they are simply stories++ (and if you simply watch them played by someone else they become mere stories.)

Quote
This morning, I was thinking, does abstract game mechanics, without a theme for them, can convey messages?

anything can carry messages e.g. my poop carries all sorts of messages about me, doctors know that very well.

Quote
You've mentioned academic research into synthesis of narrative and gameplay a few times.

let's say that by narrative you mean story and by gameplay you mean mechanics. you imply that they are hard to synthesize but i find this strange since it's very easy for me to demonstrate that stories are games and thus, mechanical. but i need a sample of a story in order to do that which im too lazy to find right now so maybe another time.

so let's try the short explanation: in stories we make decisions but we do not act them.

Quote
Art doesn't exist and yet everything is art

listening not to me but to logos admit that all is one.
Logged
thersus
Level 0
***


Sometimes I'm grumpy, sometimes I'm not.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2013, 02:41:56 PM »

I think we are going nowhere in this discussion since the beginning lol
Logged

TheLastBanana
Level 9
****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2013, 03:55:13 PM »

let's say that by narrative you mean story and by gameplay you mean mechanics. you imply that they are hard to synthesize but i find this strange since it's very easy for me to demonstrate that stories are games and thus, mechanical. but i need a sample of a story in order to do that which im too lazy to find right now so maybe another time.
You can argue that a story is a game without interaction. You can also argue that a novel is a movie without visuals and audio, or that paintings are poetry without words. I don't think those are really useful descriptions, though — it's just a way of trivializing the issues at hand. Each of those art forms has a unique way of expressing itself (an artistic "language") which has been developed over several centuries, and, at least in my opinion, what makes each art form interesting is not the similarities to other art forms, but the differences.

My point is that video games have only existed in their current form for less than a century, and that their language is still developing. As such, bringing together a game's story and play mechanics together to create one cohesive meaning is, while theoretically possible, still not something that I feel has been accomplished satisfactorily. Yes, technically, every single game (or, as you argue, every single story) does this in one way or another. You can interpret meaning from just about anything. But from the point of view of a creator rather than a beholder, I don't think the problem is quite as trivial as you suggest. I feel like the stance that games let you have infinitely many meanings is a bit of a cop-out; there's potential for more than that. That said, creating game mechanics which are simultaneously intentionally meaningful and entertaining is not necessarily an easy task.

Granted, as Alec pointed out, "encoded" meaning doesn't always have to be present in art, and I agree with him. Again, I'm not saying that this is the only way to create art, which is why I've avoided trying to define art. I'm just looking at one unique aspect of games  (play mechanics) and discussing how it can be used to produce one effect which is commonly discussed in art (meaning). Perhaps that's out of place in this topic, and if that's the case, then I apologize for bringing it up.

Also, thersus, thanks for the link! I'll have to take a look at it once exam season is over. Hopefully Google Translate won't butcher the articles too much. Cheesy
Logged
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 21, 2013, 04:32:39 PM »

Games don't have to be narrative driven to be art, and not all art is about encodings some meaning into a piece.  Art can be primarily aesthetic or emotional, as in a Romantic classical piece, a piece of Abstract Expressionist art.  I would say this is also true for tetris.
yeah that's true and i don't like how these "games as art" discussions often boil down to "meanings" and "messages".
Logged
antoniodamala
Guest
« Reply #26 on: April 21, 2013, 05:16:16 PM »

Semiotics, everyone.
Logged
JulioRodrigues
Level 0
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 21, 2013, 06:52:12 PM »

yeah that's true and i don't like how these "games as art" discussions often boil down to "meanings" and "messages".

Why you don't like that? And why do you think that this situation often repeats from time to time?

And another question for Alec S. How can something meaningless (for the observer) evoke any emotion?
Logged
ink.inc
Guest
« Reply #28 on: April 21, 2013, 07:03:22 PM »

everything is meaningless

emotions are the byproduct of chemical reactions in our brain

*farts profusely into the sunset*
Logged
Leon Fook
Level 5
*****


Ohh hi, or something like that.


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2013, 07:42:34 PM »

Do art really need to evoke emotion, then they only can be called "art"? Because it's certainly bug me that people keep saying that art has to have a meaning to be called art.
Logged

TheLastBanana
Level 9
****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2013, 08:28:45 PM »

yeah that's true and i don't like how these "games as art" discussions often boil down to "meanings" and "messages".
I guess I can sort of see where you're coming from. I don't think art necessarily has to have meaning, so of course it doesn't have to be the defining factor that separates art from... whatever the opposite of art is? Some of my favourite movies and games have been purely for the sake of entertainment, and I don't think that makes them any less art.

That said, you can't deny that people will always try to interpret art, regardless of whether or not it has any intended meaning. Even if you didn't mean to include one, people are going to find a meaning or a message. It seems kind of odd to just dismiss that. If people are going to look for a message anyway, it makes sense to me to look into how best to convey one that you actually believe in rather than leaving your audience to (mis)interpret your work. Of course, if you're not intending to include a message, then nobody's forcing you to do so, either.

Like, if somebody were trying to prove that games aren't art using "lack of meaning" as their sole point of evidence, then I understand why you'd say that, but it seems like a legitimate thing to discuss when we're just discussing how to improve games. They don't have to have meaning, but that still can have meaning.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 08:35:07 PM by TheLastBanana » Logged
Acccent
Level 0
**


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 22, 2013, 06:10:19 AM »

About "a story is a game without interaction": I encourage you to check this out, as soon as it's back up...

As was obvious from the start of the thread, we are falling back on the tired questions that basically serve no purpose: "what is art", "what are games", etc.
It's fitting that there was recently, and it's still happening I guess, this debate on formalism. My take on it is that, like with pretty much everything, trying to label games will only add useless barriers. Like Graham said, "games are whatever you want them to be."

I think we are going nowhere in this discussion since the beginning lol

I think a more interesting line of questioning would be to examine games individually and try to find out whether they manage to accomplish what they set out to do, how closely they match their perceived intentions (and how such perceptions vary between players) and what each individual experience evokes (ie. discuss meaning in the sense of "whatever's conveyed", not necessarily a "message".)
Logged

JulioRodrigues
Level 0
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2013, 06:17:10 AM »

Accent, I think that's very interesting too. If I'm not mistaken, this is a semiotic study of games. Maybe thersus can correct me on this one.
Logged
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2013, 07:05:40 AM »

yeah that's true and i don't like how these "games as art" discussions often boil down to "meanings" and "messages".
I guess I can sort of see where you're coming from. I don't think art necessarily has to have meaning, so of course it doesn't have to be the defining factor that separates art from... whatever the opposite of art is? Some of my favourite movies and games have been purely for the sake of entertainment, and I don't think that makes them any less art.
i'm not talking about a dichotomy between "meaning" and "entertainment" necessarily and i'm not dismissing the idea of meaning. i'm just pointing out that "meaning", or more specifically a "message" of some sort doesn't necessarily equal "art" as in "high art." what's the message of a piet mondrian painting?

you could even argue that "messages" can be kitsch if they're too banal, obvious or forced. that's an aspect that is missing from many threads like this imo.

tho i think the reason why games as art debates boil down to meaning so often is that games have been good at being "abstract" for the longest time and now people want to test if they can be expressive too.

Logged
gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: April 22, 2013, 09:03:34 AM »

what's the message of a piet mondrian painting?

Quote
I construct lines and color combinations on a flat surface, in order to express general beauty with the utmost awareness. Nature (or, that which I see) inspires me, puts me, as with any painter, in an emotional state so that an urge comes about to make something, but I want to come as close as possible to the truth and abstract everything from that, until I reach the foundation (still just an external foundation!) of things… I believe it is possible that, through horizontal and vertical lines constructed with awareness, but not with calculation, led by high intuition, and brought to harmony and rhythm, these basic forms of beauty, supplemented if necessary by other direct lines or curves, can become a work of art, as strong as it is true.

Quote
Unlike the Cubists, Mondrian still attempted to reconcile his painting with his spiritual pursuits; and, in 1913, he began to fuse his art and his theosophical studies into a theory that signaled his final break from representational painting.

Quote
a close examination of this painting begins to reveal something of the artist's method.[original research?] Mondrian's paintings are not composed of perfectly flat planes of color, as one might expect. Brush strokes are evident throughout, although they are subtle, and the artist appears to have used different techniques for the various elements.

The black lines are the flattest elements, with the least amount of depth. The colored forms have the most obvious brush strokes, all running in one direction. Most interesting, however, are the white forms, which clearly have been painted in layers, using brush strokes running in different directions. This generates a greater sense of depth in the white forms, as though they are overwhelming the lines and the colors,

Most early abstract stuff came from a philosophic and spiritual origin, unlike modern abstract stuff who are abstract for the sake of it.
Logged

s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: April 22, 2013, 09:20:55 AM »

yeah i know that but a grounding in philosophy is not a "message"
Logged
gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: April 22, 2013, 09:26:42 AM »

Fair point, in a "common sense".
Logged

s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: April 22, 2013, 09:45:31 AM »

i'm using message in the specific sense of a relatively unambiguous, straightforward meaning that is embedded directly in the work. mondrian was inspired by religion and his work deals w/ religion but the "message" of a mondrian painting isn't that "god is great" or whatever.
Logged
Alec S.
Level 10
*****


Formerly Malec2b


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 22, 2013, 10:13:11 AM »

yeah that's true and i don't like how these "games as art" discussions often boil down to "meanings" and "messages".

Why you don't like that? And why do you think that this situation often repeats from time to time?

And another question for Alec S. How can something meaningless (for the observer) evoke any emotion?

yeah that's true and i don't like how these "games as art" discussions often boil down to "meanings" and "messages".
I guess I can sort of see where you're coming from. I don't think art necessarily has to have meaning, so of course it doesn't have to be the defining factor that separates art from... whatever the opposite of art is? Some of my favourite movies and games have been purely for the sake of entertainment, and I don't think that makes them any less art.

That said, you can't deny that people will always try to interpret art, regardless of whether or not it has any intended meaning. Even if you didn't mean to include one, people are going to find a meaning or a message. It seems kind of odd to just dismiss that. If people are going to look for a message anyway, it makes sense to me to look into how best to convey one that you actually believe in rather than leaving your audience to (mis)interpret your work. Of course, if you're not intending to include a message, then nobody's forcing you to do so, either.

Like, if somebody were trying to prove that games aren't art using "lack of meaning" as their sole point of evidence, then I understand why you'd say that, but it seems like a legitimate thing to discuss when we're just discussing how to improve games. They don't have to have meaning, but that still can have meaning.

CA Sinclair pretty well summed up my point about meaning in art in the above post.

There's an Edgar Allan Poe quote which I think is relevant.

" For my own part, I have never had a thought which I could not set down in words, with even more distinctness than that with which I conceived it...There is, however, a class of fancies, of exquisite delicacy, which are not thoughts, and to which, as yet, I have found it absolutely impossible to adapt language."

Art can have a concrete "meaning", but it will always be less than the art as a whole, as art has the ability to convey what can't be put down in words (Even in a purely word-based medium, there is plenty "between the lines").  It's why many artists won't explain what the meaning of their art is (case in point: 

).  Because it can't be explained without removing some basic essence from it.  The fact that art can be interpreted differently by different people can be part of that essence.
Logged

Acccent
Level 0
**


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 22, 2013, 10:29:56 AM »

Art can have a concrete "meaning", but it will always be less than the art as a whole, as art has the ability to convey what can't be put down in words (Even in a purely word-based medium, there is plenty "between the lines").  It's why many artists won't explain what the meaning of their art is (case in point: 

).  Because it can't be explained without removing some basic essence from it.  The fact that art can be interpreted differently by different people can be part of that essence.

Exactly.

In a somewhat related way, I think it's very interesting to examine Super Hexagon in the context of this discussion. How do you explain what Super Hexagon is about? How do you relate what you feel when you play it? You simply can't. The game is so pure and intense that it's pretty undeniable that it has a 'meaning' (again, I'm using that word to refer to all the emotions and feelings and ideas and opinions that you get out of it, not just a "message" or a "morale") - but it's also highly probable that this meaning is different for every player. Jenn Frank wrote about how, to her, it evoked concepts of life itself, and I think that was shortly after her mother died, so that's a strong meaning but it's also one that's obviously very personal, and that's what makes games, and art in general, interesting to study and make.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic