AuthorTopic: Official Off-Topic Thread  (Read 257212 times)

Offline Evan

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 317
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Marv-O
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #410 on: August 12, 2008, 02:09:31 pm
The biggest factor in determining whether or not something is art is intentionality. If the maker had something in mind when they made the piece that was beyond "I'm going to make a football game," then it has a good chance of being art. There are other factors, but none of them seemed as critical as that one. Selling games is a factor, but it clearly can't be that big of a factor, because thousands of awful games get made every year. Shoot, the other day at GameStop, they were throwing out a pile of PC games that weren't selling, one of which was an Italian wedding-planning game. If sales were the only thing that the creators had in mind, then they obviously wouldn't have put that game out there.

The main point is this: if the artist/creator had an intention in making the game that was beyond a desire to make the game itself, then it is art. If the intention is solely to evoke a response from the viewer, that's fine, and is the basis of most shock art. The art can not be created by someone who wouldn't understand intention, however. For example, the elephant who paints pictures is a novelty, but could not be considered in artist, because it has no concept of intention, and furthermore, would not paint outside of captivity. Similarly, pieces of art that are made by computers could not be considered art. I'm not talking about digital art, but rather computers that compose music or design art based on computer programs. While the programs themselves can be extremely complicated, they do not create "art" because there is no intention.

There is a world of difference between what is considered "art," and what is considered a "craft." That is not to say that something that is a "craft" is inferior to a work of art; a photo-realistic rendering of a face, a la Chuck Close, is much more appealing to me than a canvas painted a solid color. Not to say that Chuck Close has no intention, and that it is not art, but something can be aesthetically pleasing and still not be "art." Once again, however, Chuck Close was an example (and my favorite artist) and by no means do I intend to diminish his art in any way. What I'm saying is, the physical work of art itself is simply a means to express a message, yet can never be separated from the message. Similarly, the message attached to the art is what gives the art meaning; if separated, both lose meaning.

So to tie it back: if the creators of video games have intention in creating said video games, and they are able to evoke a response, than they should be considered art, without a doubt.

Offline JJ Naas

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • My Deviantart page

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #411 on: August 12, 2008, 02:54:45 pm
So to tie it back: if the creators of video games have intention in creating said video games, and they are able to evoke a response, than they should be considered art, without a doubt.

I think I agree with many points here. But.. The product could also be horrendous crap in terms of execution or the creator, despite his grand intentions, might not be a very groundbreakingly imaginative person. And there's a lot of middle ground as well. Are all games by Peter Molyneux art? Jeff Minter speaks like he's a true auteur, but I'm not that convinced.. his blog is awesome though. http://stinkygoat.livejournal.com/  Miyamoto has at least never claimed to do art, but to entertain.
 
In the mainstream video game industry (like also in the movie industry) there are not that many creators with a full control over the project, the producers usually have their say as well.

Offline Rox

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 591
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #412 on: August 12, 2008, 03:59:40 pm
Oh, come on, everything Yak (Minter) touches turns to art! Migraine-inducing hippie-style art, but still art.

I admire that dude so much.

Offline MrMister

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Karma: +0/-3
  • meltymorph
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #413 on: August 12, 2008, 05:56:07 pm
there's also a truckload of art that is all about reproduction.  you can't throw out printmaking!
the original meaning of its creation was to express something, though.
it might be a one shot deal

Offline Cure

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 565
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2621.htm
    • facebook.com/logantannerart
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #414 on: August 12, 2008, 07:00:56 pm
You can't say "this is about making money, so it's not art".  That's nonsense.  This isn't some fantasy world where artists don't care about money or need to make a living.
Even mass-produced things can be art.  Though it's not like art has these strict guidelines, we're dealing with a very subjective definition here.
And videogames can be extremely expressive, I fail to see how one can consider them not to be art.  Because they're interactive?  Which would help the case for art, rather than hurt it.
The original reason much art is produced is to make money, but that doesn't mean it can't be expressive in the process.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 07:04:41 pm by Cure »

Offline The B.O.B.

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 699
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • currently losering it up...
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #415 on: August 12, 2008, 08:09:58 pm
about the videogames topic:...meh.

I'm I the only one watching the Olympics? Don't know about you guys, but this is the first time I've actually been so into watching it. USA is DOMINATING the water sports. It's kinda' fun to see if Phelps in company will make the 8. Also, we gave China a small run for their money in the high bar. I swear, they make look as if they can do a 450 on request, and without a sweat. Amazing...

Also, Women's Volley ball: yum...
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 08:11:58 pm by The B.O.B. »
my back hurts...

Offline MrMister

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Karma: +0/-3
  • meltymorph
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #416 on: August 12, 2008, 09:11:44 pm
I'm not talking about the game actually selling well or being mass-produced, I"m talking about the reason for it's existance. To sell. I think a video game could have componants to it that ARE art, but just not very good art. Like a 3D model, or the script.

also amnerika is farkin shredding everyone at the olympics. damn amelicans..

e: there are exceptions to  video game art being terrible,  like the character designs inPsychonauts or somethin.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 09:15:09 pm by MrMister »
it might be a one shot deal

Offline Cure

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 565
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2621.htm
    • facebook.com/logantannerart
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #417 on: August 12, 2008, 09:36:19 pm
The reason for the existence of much art, however, is TO SELL.
If nobody bought artwork, believe me, there'd be more than a slight drop in the number of people producing it.
I'm not saying all videogames are art, but I'm saying that they CAN be.  Art is more of a "why" than a "what" for me.

And I, for one, am not watching the Olympics (starring Michael Phelps as America's golden boy).  Never really interested me, despite the ads and hype.

Offline Rox

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 591
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #418 on: August 12, 2008, 10:39:23 pm
If the reason for video games' existance would be to sell, why do we have crazy awesome experimental titles like Otogi, Jet Set Radio, and aforementioned Space Giraffe? Space Giraffe especially was made to be as non-casual as possible, I recall Jeff Minter stating. The whole game is working against you as a player. The graphics don't even help you understand what's going on, in fact, they make it even worse. The vast majority of everyone who's ever seen the game has been insanely turned off by it - because he wanted to make a new type of game, not caring that it wouldn't sell. That's why he managed to make it the minimum game price on XBL Arcade, too, even though half of the games go for twice as much.

And then there are free games. You know... free games. Games that people WOULD pay for, but the developer has no intention of making any money off. Related to the artsy thing, I'm reminded of The Endless Forest which is a flimsy online social game made in a program called Quest3D. Apparently, it's still going strong despite it having exactly no gameplay at all, still getting updates from the makers and still getting new players. And it's online, for free.

I want to believe most game designers really just want to make games that are cool to play. Or maybe just make games for the fun of creating them. Like how artists just want to make art. Sometimes, not even for people to look at, but just to get it done and feel good about it. Most musicians don't play to make money, either. Heck, even programmers like to work just for the fun of creating things, from what I've seen with the guys I've worked with.

Put those together and you have a development team. Of course money has to be an equation, because when people want to do something so big that takes so long, they can't just quit their normal jobs and live on the street while working on it. In such a case, the result would probable be one of them awesome indie games you can download for free off obscure websites. But that could lead to the development of a company, so these guys could create their dreams every day. And with a company comes the need for income to keep it running. With that need comes the desire for people to pay for their hard work so they can keep doing what they love. The more money they can get, the better, because then they could maybe even expand and hire people to make even grander creations.

And now, today, digital distribution is actually changing that. With things like PSN and XBL Arcade, indie guys get a chance to actually sell their tiny creations online and earn a little bit of money for it, and getting a larger audience to enjoy their work. So the trend is kinda reversing a little to where smaller teams need less money to actually get games published. And that's awesome.

But I strongly doubt that anyone would ever get into making games for the money. There are many safer bets to make if you're in it to get rich.

Offline ptoing

  • 0101
  • ****
  • Posts: 3063
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • the_ptoing
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2191.htm
    • View Profile
    • Perpetually inactive website

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #419 on: August 12, 2008, 10:48:29 pm
I'm not talking about the game actually selling well or being mass-produced, I"m talking about the reason for it's existance. To sell.

You are simplifying here. Games are made because many people like to play games and thus it is a market. Just like people like to listen to music or read books or whatnot. If not most or many people would like doing something there would be less of it. It's all about demand and such. Also, of course big companys, many small ones as well do not give their stuff away for free, they SELL IT because they worked fucking hard on it in many cases and need to feed themselves and families. It's not that simple.
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.