Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1387155 Posts in 66522 Topics- by 59076 Members - Latest Member: kaikecarlos

January 21, 2021, 01:02:54 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGamesVideo Games, High Art, Roger Ebert & the Cultural Ghetto
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Print
Author Topic: Video Games, High Art, Roger Ebert & the Cultural Ghetto  (Read 5367 times)
Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 on: December 30, 2019, 10:20:42 AM »

You're switching between talking about art broadly and Art worthy of inclusion in some kind of canon.
The best one for the former I've seen is contained in a post by rinkuhero that I can't find but goes something like "art is something created with the sole purpose of being experienced by the senses" (which would also include elements of objects with other utility, like the print on a shirt). Philosophy still hasn't figured out a definition that completely works but can we agree on something like that for our purposes? cuz I really thought this was about the more interesting subject of capital A Árt.

So yeah ok with that out of the way: I'd say if a piece of art has the power to create that *general* response in many people, that it's something that it stays on your mind for years, it must have hit on something pretty substantial.
Do you know of any piece of art that actually tends to traumatize people though? I haven't seen Serbian Film but that sounds like a candidate.

There's another problem here however: if good art conjures strong emotion and engages the mind then what about stuff very cheaply evoking "lower" responses. Just film yourself kicking a dog and you're gonna stirr lotsa emotion. Where does porn fit into this? Obviously how powerful the reaction is can't be the only thing to go on. Is there a ranking of what kind of emotions and thoughts good art stirs?
Some people are more easy to stir than others (kids most obviously) do we need to get into the kinda creepy territory of ranking the sort of person that is moved by a piece of art?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2019, 10:28:54 AM by Schoq » Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
michaelplzno
Level 7
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #61 on: December 30, 2019, 10:45:40 AM »

You're switching between talking about art broadly and Art worthy of inclusion in some kind of canon.
The best one for the former I've seen is contained in a post by rinkuhero that I can't find but goes something like "art is something created with the sole purpose of being experienced by the senses" (which would also include elements of objects with other utility, like the print on a shirt). Philosophy still hasn't figured out a definition that completely works but can we agree on something like that for our purposes? cuz I really thought this was about the more interesting subject of capital A Árt.

Yes, sorry for the confusion, I call that kind of garbage tactic "Pizza Semantics" where you mess around semantically in a sort of slight of hand. I do it unintentionally just because I'm a butt.

rinkuhero's definition is good, my definition is a bit more narrow as I wouldn't consider a Big Mac art even though it qualifies in that one. I still like an addendum about the duality of emotion and logic being expressed as a refinement.


So yeah ok with that out of the way: I'd say if a piece of art has the power to create that *general* response in many people, that it's something that it stays on your mind for years, it must have hit on something pretty substantial.
Do you know of any piece of art that actually tends to traumatize people though? I haven't seen Serbian Film but that sounds like a candidate.

I've heard that Sylvia Plath isn't what I would say traumatizing but sort of encouraging a suicidal ideation which I would love to write a definition of art that precludes such things. I don't know Serbian Film and based on the context here I wouldn't want to.

There's another problem here however: if good art conjures strong emotion and engages the mind then what about stuff very cheaply evoking "lower" responses. Just film yourself kicking a dog and you're gonna stirr lotsa emotion. Where does porn fit into this? Obviously how powerful the reaction is can't be the only thing to go on. Is there a ranking of what kind of emotions and thoughts good art stirs?
Some people are more easy to stir than others (kids most obviously) do we need to get into the kinda creepy territory of ranking the sort of person that is moved by a piece of art?

We agree here: there are pornos that fit the definition of "create that *general* response in many people" IIRC the Kardashians are associated with that. But its pushing it to even definitionally consider what they do art.

In terms of Art with an A, that is simply whatever is codified by the people who have money, power, and access to the privileged of being heard and seen by the masses. No? There is a lot of dogma associated with the process of codifying something as an Art but at this point it seems that the works that are chosen are mostly Garbagé with a capital G as in the Banana video.

But if you are saying Art with an A is simply a version of art with an a but that stirs up a big commotion, I disagree because twitter beefs would be definitionally Art with an A and I guess I just don't want that to be true.
Logged

Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #62 on: December 30, 2019, 11:32:01 AM »

this is a dumb time passing discussion but that last paragraph sparked a thought that seems really useful hold on gotta make dinner brb
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #63 on: December 30, 2019, 02:29:44 PM »

Right, so no, I didn't say big commotion = canon worthy and it's 100% impossible that you actually interpreted it that way (why do I have to start every post this way stop)
A twitter beef isn't art because it's just people arguing. Not everything a human creates is art and not everything a human does is performance art.

but what if it's not just an argument?

let's say the beefiest twitter beef of the last ten years was actually secretly staged as an art project. that calls for a reevaluation of the reaction to the same thing but with a knowing audience right? cool I agree makes sense, and then it still probably isn't good art so where is this going?

I'm not sure but what it made me think about was whether it's "cheap" to hook your work onto real events to create impact. Grave of the Fireflies, 12 Years a Slave, and The Pianist all made me cry and think a lot about humanity. But would they have, had they not been based on real events? Is this cheating at art??
Would the Afghan girl photo be as much of a gut punch to look at if it were a model in a studio?
heckers are oil paintings that depict grand and thought provoking events from mythology and shakespeare and history and whatnot cheating too, since it's all fan art hinging on external knowledge for much of its impact instead of standing on its own?
This is a ridiculous line of inquiry but there's definitely something here I wanna sit on.
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
michaelplzno
Level 7
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 on: December 31, 2019, 01:48:00 PM »

When you examine the semantics of art definitionally you have to think "Does a real tragedy count as art?" I say no otherwise the evening news is an art piece. I hate the "Does it make me cry?" test personally but that's just me. I admit my view of art is somewhat backwards:





and of course then the reveal out of context:



Logged

michaelplzno
Level 7
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #65 on: December 31, 2019, 02:06:27 PM »

In terms of not understanding, its partially examining the implications of what you say. If you argue definitionally that "art makes you cry" for example then you are implying that great art makes you cry greatly. Otherwise its a very confusing definition: art makes you cry but the really good stuff only really makes you cry a tiny bit and actually makes you laugh a lot more than cry. I get that could be what you are saying, but you need to explicitly state that if your definition isn't the path to making good art.

Just to lighten the mood here is a self portrait I did in a "neo-cubist" style called "d*ckhead" :

Logged

Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 01, 2020, 07:57:17 AM »

you're not examining implications though because nothing I said implies that big cry must mean big art


Quote
I'm not sure why that's @me
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
michaelplzno
Level 7
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #67 on: January 01, 2020, 09:19:56 AM »

Its not @you, the first bit of the post where I @ed you was, but then I was talking more generally. You don't have to reply if you don't want.

Re inference vs implication:





If you are defining art as X, then you imply that big art is big X

In the 2010s there was a big movement to say art makes you cry, so there was an implication that big art makes you cry bigly, hence my example of the sad puppy commercials.

rinkuhero says that art is something created with the sole purpose of being experienced by the senses, which implies that a very sensual piece is quintessentially art, hence my example of a big mac or the tickle machine.

You @schoq seem to be saying that art engages your whole mind, so we have to examine if big art engages your whole mind in a big way, like a trauma.

But perhaps I'm just inferring things you don't mean to imply, you say that your definition doesn't actually serve as a metric to decide what is good or not. Shouldn't it? If the definition of art is that art "colorful" but in the end a drawing of a rainbow is bad art why must we separate the meaning of the from the direction we must go to make good art? Wouldn't that mean its a bad definition?

And just to be clear, this is for anyone: do you think a definition should at least provide a guide rail to finding the good stuff or is it completely divorced from the metrics of what creates quality work?
Logged

Golds
Loves Juno
Level 9
*


Juno sucks


View Profile WWW
« Reply #68 on: January 01, 2020, 02:54:35 PM »




my favorite kind of high art is any piece of fiction or creative depiction that successfully communicates a mood—any kind of mood in any kind of setting. that's the stuff I like.
Logged

@doomlaser, mark johns
michaelplzno
Level 7
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #69 on: January 03, 2020, 05:10:27 PM »

Interesting pieces, mood is definitely something art can communicate. And the overwhelming melancholy or coming storm are definitely relevant to me. If that's your definition a lot of games count, to some extent even CSGO communicates a mood, a sort of tension and anxiety. Would you say that Mondrian communicates a mood too?
Logged

velocirection
Level 2
**


Your favorite pizza raptor game developer


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: January 04, 2020, 11:29:44 PM »

@golds, Oh yeah I remember seeing that painters work, the second one. He does some nice crotch bulges~
Logged

https://twitter.com/velocirection
(WARNING- NSFW, 18+! Adults only!)
Golds
Loves Juno
Level 9
*


Juno sucks


View Profile WWW
« Reply #71 on: January 05, 2020, 04:42:33 PM »

Would you say that Mondrian communicates a mood too?



Sure. It's a kind of bright abstract composition, but it certainly sets a tone. Very pure, but also playful. In general, though, I think a lot of art lies on a continuum between conveying mood on one end, to more formal composition on the other.
Logged

@doomlaser, mark johns
ProgramGamer
Administrator
Level 10
******


aka Mireille


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: January 06, 2020, 04:59:23 AM »

I think something has to be created deliberately as art to a certain degree in order to count as such. For example, a real life tragedy (such as the currently ongoing Australia fires) can't count as art because it's not created intelligently, it's simply an event incidental to the state of the world. However, a game about fighting forest fires (such as Firewatch) does count as art because it's deliberately created to evoke specific feelings associated with being a firefighter.
Logged

Golds
Loves Juno
Level 9
*


Juno sucks


View Profile WWW
« Reply #73 on: January 06, 2020, 09:01:35 PM »

I think something has to be created deliberately as art to a certain degree in order to count as such.

I tried to emphasize this in my short GDC talk. Art is something that people do, and the medium is irrelevant. It's the act of making art that defines it. Whether it is any good or not is up to the audience.
Logged

@doomlaser, mark johns
michaelplzno
Level 7
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #74 on: January 09, 2020, 07:13:34 PM »

Just to sum up:

"Something people do" is a good criteria, expressing mood, communicating. These are all parts of a good idea for it.

If we are playing dictionary, things to avoid counting as art: everything in existence, nothing at all, irl tragedy or trauma. Art should not be toxic by definition, and it is a slippery slope to start saying "oh this game is art, so its ok to do <x>" I wouldn't want an interactive experience where someone jumps out and hits you with a bat to be considered art, even though by a lot of people's definitions it would. Part of why I hate the "EMOTION" definitions is that they elevate those horrible experiences to something, is the right word, sublime? "After this surprise baseball bat game you will never be the same, it is a transformative experience!" NO.

I like to separate out craft from art, saying that artists must definitionally be master craftsmen. I *object* to people who say "it doesn't matter that there is no technique to what I did, its Art" because I generally object to the postmodern movement that there is no objective truth. I'm told being an objectivest is a dirty word, and I value subjectivity too. But there is a limit to how many foolish opinions I can be subjected to before I call bullshit.

And to balance things out, I also like to avoid the "art dictator" definitions where being an artist means outranking the audience, so even though I value technique I'm not gonna go for this kind of thing:





"The Producers" caricature of an artist as some kind of totalitarian was pretty spot on of what I see in a lot of people who want to wear the artist mantle.

The play between emotion and logic will always fascinate me as a spawning ground for artistic thought.
Logged

litHermit
Level 1
*


1


View Profile WWW
« Reply #75 on: January 12, 2020, 10:15:12 AM »

From my understanding of sublime it would sooner be a meticulously executed juxtaposition of logic and emotion (sublime is about greatness). While a "shocking, overly emotional" piece falls firmly into kitsch.

That said, I personally like it when my emotions are stirred, and seek that out. But just because something was designed to tug at my heartstrings doesn't mean it will leave me in awe or add some generosity to my life, which I expect from art to do.
Logged

michaelplzno
Level 7
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #76 on: January 12, 2020, 05:17:28 PM »

Well greatness is something I have a bit of an understanding of: if art is to be "great" to be art, that is quite a non-definition as we could say that the biggest ball of twine is great: as far as balls of twine go it is truly the greatest, but I hardly would call the biggest ball of twine art. In fact greatness, a property bestowed on a work by an audience, is more of an award than an inherent property of anything. And so I would assume with subliminity. The one thing I do like is the implication here that we are saying an audience must decide a work is art, just as an audience must decide if something is great, but then of course then we have pedants like Ebert who will simply dig in their heels just because they can, perhaps even for petty political gain and spurious reasoning. Also when gamers go around saying something is "not a game" do we let them have the final say on that? Or as Franz Liebkind of The Producers would say, as the authors we outrank them?

Just to continue on the pizza semantics: what I'm arguing for is a little more than juxtaposition, where emotion and logic exist as opposites, combined but still in opposition, compared and contrasted; but rather to take the two opposites and create something entirely new from the totality of both. A synthesis is what I'm looking for. The art that I love does this, those works have formal logical structure, but exhibit, express and evoke emotion, all in one cohesive work.
Logged

Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #77 on: January 12, 2020, 05:58:28 PM »

"something has to be experienced by someone before it is possible to decide whether it's good" wow guys really ground-breaking intelligent and meaningful discussion about art really making strides here figuring things out together

you're on square one if you're not even touching why it's different when something is great according to an audience of people that know everything about the history of the medium and genre of the work vs an audience of dumb children


is there such a thing as meaningfully moving the artform forward, redefining previous works in retrospect, becoming a reference point for future works? doing something nobody before could achieve, in a way that objectively deserves some special recognition (or a place in a canon if you will)?

"I don't know?? I guess there's just no way of saying ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "
- this thread's participants
« Last Edit: January 12, 2020, 06:17:29 PM by Schoq » Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
litHermit
Level 1
*


1


View Profile WWW
« Reply #78 on: January 13, 2020, 06:36:19 AM »

Well greatness is something I have a bit of an understanding of: if art is to be "great" to be art, that is quite a non-definition as we could say that the biggest ball of twine is great
You're mixing up art in general and the sublime in art. Additionally you're building a strawman to argue your point.

Not all art resonates with everyone or is understood by everyone. Renaissance paintings go over my head as I'm oblivious to the form and its history. I just usually can't see (or be bothered to see) in them what someone who has been studying the same for over a decade sees. Which is pretty much what Schoq says in his comment about "dumb children".
This still doesn't make me think renaissance paintings have no artistic value.
Logged

Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #79 on: January 13, 2020, 08:38:39 AM »

Well greatness is something I have a bit of an understanding of: if art is to be "great" to be art, that is quite a non-definition as we could say that the biggest ball of twine is great
You're mixing up art in general and the sublime in art. Additionally you're building a strawman to argue your point
that about sums up this thread for the last few pages
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic