Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And again, I'll point out that HL was a purely run of the mill FPS that didn't significantly innovate anywhere in terms of gameplay of the genre. The COD/MW franchises keep cranking out new iterations of the same game because the people who play them are after flashy graphics and the ability to shoot another guy online with a rifle. They have to keep making new iterations of the same game with minor improvements because if they don't the person who does will capture market share quickly because there's nothing holding the gamers to that title. They don't care about it.

I guess the point is all shooters are nearly identical in gameplay and storytelling. The same reasons why each CoD, as similar as they are, is successful is why any shooter is successful. They seem to succeed not by setting themselves apart but by imitation. Half Life is no different, it has the same quality of gameplay as most (successful) shooters which include: paper thin story, good controls/mechanics, and decent AI. Successful shooters do well because the same people keep buying them. In other words shooters don't have to set themselves apart to be successful, it's the most stagnant genre.

And I'm not confusing style and presentation, I'm adding them to the discussion. I'm not trying to say that the storylines in HL or Deus Ex were equivalent to War and Peace, they are at their heart just extra long action movies, but there is a story there that is far more complex than, "Shoot the XXXX" and that's one of the things that separates them from the games that are actually just, "Shoot the XXXX" style games like Doom or Quake. Style and presentation were brought in because this seems to have morphed into a discussion about art and at least in the case of HL the production values were one of the things that set it apart from its roots in Quake but far from the only thing.

If you're asserting that the stories of HL and Deus Ex are not that spectacular, then we are in agreement. I would however say that these stories are only marginally more complex than "Shoot the XXXXX", like an entertaining action film as you said. HL does separate istelf from the rest of the genre through style, setting, atmosphere, and so on. A video game can create an immersive atmosphere better than any other medium, and if two games have identical gameplay this is the next area to evaluate when making any sort of critical comparison. However this sense of style or atmosphere is different from a story. Take Oblivion for example, there's a lot of effort and imagination put into the world making it more engaging and real, as it were. However, the story is simply "demons are coming, you gotta kill em". In other words it's "Shoot the demons (with a bow)".

Read what Melissa wrote, consider that her entire argument had been about art to that point. Hats brings in the specific field of Aesthetics. It is entirely possible that Melissa did not catch the Aesthetics inclusion and continued talking about art. I pointed out that Melissa probably needs to re-read what he wrote and consider it and is no more right in this case than Hats. It went from a somewhat interesting thread about characters, and artistic value of games to Melissa and Hats smashing their faces against their respective brick walls for three pages over one rather simplistic misunderstanding.

She did ask what the definition of art was, but perhaps we shouldn't go much further into that side of the thread.

BioShock was a work of art.

Really? If you want the kind of stuff that Bioshock tried to convey why not just read Ayn Rand, then promptly kill yourself for having read Ayn Rand. Or better yet go to the wikipedia page on Objectivism, because it's about as deep Bioshock went into the subject.

However, the setting, style, and mood of Bioshock was stellar, which is more important to a game than it's story, because you can get good stories in books and movies, but finding truley engaging, immersive atmopsheres is hard to find in other mediums.

That's what I mean. Rapture was like another world. Although we get to see it in its dark age I loved it.

I don't think good presentation is what constitutes art. Though perhaps Bioshock, may have come the closest to being art, but only scratched the surface of the themes it was dealing with. And that's more than enough exposition for a video game, couple that with fun gameplay and you get why Bioshock was so successful.

asimo77 wrote:Really? If you want the kind of stuff that Bioshock tried to convey why not just read Ayn Rand, then promptly kill yourself for having read Ayn Rand. Or better yet go to the wikipedia page on Objectivism, because it's about as deep Bioshock went into the subject.

However, the setting, style, and mood of Bioshock was stellar, which is more important to a game than it's story, because you can get good stories in books and movies, but finding truley engaging, immersive atmopsheres is hard to find in other mediums.

Indeed, it's really the setting and atmosphere of a game that makes it something I want to play. Hence my love of the Total War series; they do make you feel like a Roman general/shogun commander/whatever to play.

Total war might be my favorite RTS series ever. I always felt underhwlemed by controlling just 100 or so guys in other RTS's. But when you get 1000's of doodz it feels like a real army.

asimo77 wrote:I don't think good presentation is what constitutes art.

I don't think art needs to dramatically effect society.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that it takes more artistic talent to create a good, immersive game the likes of Bioshock than it does to make a painting or sculpture.

agreed. Like I said before, Art doesn't need to be earth altering.

Paintings and sculptures aren't automatically art either. Though I think the Sistine Chapel was probably a wee bit harder to create than Atlas Shrugged the game.

If something isn't "earth altering" then in the long run you could say it's pointless, which sounds snobbish I guess, but that's beside the point.

Again I think Kant has got a few things right in his definition: "a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I think you might be making the assumption that I beleive what is classically considered as art, such as paintings, scupltures, theatre, and other older forms of expression are the only things considered art.

That isn't true, I think nearly any medium can become artful, it just takes a while.

Art.

That's rather silly. So only old stuff can be artistic.

"Also I think you might be making the assumption that I beleive what is classically considered as art, such as paintings, scupltures, theatre, and other older forms of expression are the only things considered art.

That isn't true, I think nearly any medium can become artful, it just takes a while"

I just said that isn't true. It's not my fault the industry is more concerned with making money than making art right now. Do you think cinema was immediatley an artform. Also there's no reason to continue this thread Wrexosaur summed it up pretty well.

Your honesty and reasoning has been quite refreshing, asimo. Thanks for the interesting read.

@Melissia

It's not actually that silly. While there are many styles of art which can be reasonably considered "anti-art", they are art because of the amount of time and energy expended to make them recognizable.

Perhaps that is all it is, but one can easily argue about how much time is involved in such a change. Intellectualizing art kind of bugs me to be honest. Nothing ruins my experience of a work of art more than a group of people discussing why it is art. I just want to enjoy it. Call me crazy, but whatever.

Not hating, just expressing my opinion of art critics in general, and I certainly don't consider the entire community to be so... well, annoying really. There is a certain point, as is the case with developing something into an art, where intellectualism really does ruin the experience. It breaks it into pieces and attempts to remove the ability to have a personalized experience. Much of what I have read concerning the study of aesthetics, while not necessarily wrong, is incredibly leech-like. I understand it is a profession, but it bugs me that some critics have so much goddamn influence.

Meh.

More art.

I wasn't referring to your post when I said that, but Asimo's.

"Your honesty and reasoning has been quite refreshing, asimo. Thanks for the interesting read."

Oh well I never expected this from the internet! I'm quite flattered, thanks.

Coincidentally your pics have also been quite refreshing!

Melissia wrote:I wasn't referring to your post when I said that, but Asimo's.

I understand that, and I also understand your position on this subject. Overall, I am really ambivalent about much of what is discussed concerning art when it strays from the study of technique far into the realm of abstract interpretation combined with professional analysis. I don't call it being open minded, rather, I consider it the reason that I enjoy art.

My definition of art is rather open-ended, but it is definitely hard to argue against someone who really studies the intellectual side of that subject. If you really take the time to read through some analysis you will find that most critics aren't employed for no reason, especially when you consider how territorial they are. They maintain their positions by happenstance on some occasions, but mostly it really does boil down to intelligence and skill. Some will manipulate the market, and it is hard to argue that the vast majority aren't in that "some". I'm not sure how much it really matters when you take a look at most successful artists. They are also employed because they are really quite good at what they do, no matter how you want to define what that is.

asimo77 wrote:Oh well I never expected this from the internet! I'm quite flattered, thanks.

Coincidentally your pics have also been quite refreshing!

Good times.

I don't think there needs to be any time elapsed for a new form of art to actually be artistic.

Art does not need to be complex or have a deeper meaning, indeed, simplicity is often an important aspect of some of the more famous and beautiful pieces of art.

bedtime now, you guys will have to somehow figure out what art is without my infinite, unending, undeniably awesome wisdom.

Good luck biscuitheads, you'll need it!

P.S. I wonder if Wrexosaur will recant his compliment after this

Melissia wrote:I don't think there needs to be any time elapsed for a new form of art to actually be artistic.

Art does not need to be complex or have a deeper meaning, indeed, simplicity is often an important aspect of some of the more famous and beautiful pieces of art.

Maybe, maybe not. Many pieces of art that appear simple have an awful lot of experience and technique behind them. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that many of them started as doodles of some kind. Not that it makes much sense to me to separate the doodle from the final concept, though.

There does need to be time involved in the establishment of a new art form, and for no reason beyond necessity. Art critics are in many ways a defense for the art community whether they like it or not. While the defense may also be mildly detrimental it is not possible to establish oneself as an artist without standing on the shoulders of your predecessors. Art critics in their own way, protect those before you, and what the art community is capable of. Not that I am saying they are benevolent, but they do serve a purpose within the field when you take the whole picture as it stands.

asimo wrote:bedtime now, you guys will have to somehow figure out what art is without my infinite, unending, undeniably awesome wisdom.

Good luck biscuitheads, you'll need it!

P.S. I wonder if Wrexosaur will recant his compliment after this

That simply raises the question of what a biscuit is... and the fact that I can't find any good biscuit heads.

I'll take a shot.

Melissia wrote:I don't think there needs to be any time elapsed for a new form of art to actually be artistic.

This is extremely hard for people to understand because art is not really a concept in pop culture but rather a label. I think there is an explanatory note on this Art Label. It reads: "things that are safe to ignore." Things that are not safe to ignore, however, get the third degree as garbage, filth, commercialism, pretension, blasphemy, etc, etc, etc until they lose enough of their vital relevance to be "art."

Asimo, something that might help your argument would be to take widely recognized pieces of "art" and explain precisely why they would be considered art under your definition.

For instance the David by Michelangelo. It's an amazing piece of sculpture but going by your definition it has to say something and influence the culture. I don't really see how it's saying anything besides being a very well done religious decoration and I don't really see how it's had any influence on the culture outside of possibly influencing other sculptors. I consider it art but going by your definition... I don't really see how it is. Same thing with Monet or Pollock. I love both those artists but looking at much of what they've done I'm not seeing the message or the cultural influence that you seem to indicate would make them actual art. When I look at their works I'm not hearing a message or feeling my thinking shift, except maybe to buy a print in the gift shop. They are aesthetically pleasing, interesting to look at, their techniques are fascinating and then end result is to me art.

Some clarification with real world examples would go a long way towards expressing your point.

Melissia wrote:
Art does not need to be complex or have a deeper meaning, indeed, simplicity is often an important aspect of some of the more famous and beautiful pieces of art.

I would agree that works of art do not have to be complex, and yes, simplicity can be the key to the beauty and poignancy of a work.

But simplicity does not necessitate a lack of meaning.

Art without meaning is not art.

In fact, creating something that evokes emotion and meaning; that resonates deeply within those who see it, read it, or listen to it, while maintaining a sense of simplicity, is one of the hardest things to do. The idea that art does not need meaning or that simplicity involves a lack of meaning, is simply wrong.

Also, simplicity in appearance, especially in regards to art, often belies underlying complexity.

For example: The Road not Taken, by Robert Frost. It is not bewilderingly complex, as some poetry can be, nor is it describing anything particularly esoteric or outwardly profound. The rhyme scheme is simple and elegant, and there are no confusing schemes or tropes to slog through to get to the meaning of the poem. It is as straight-forward as you could possibly ask for.

Read literally, the speaker is simply relating a personal experience. But if you look past the simplicity, if you read for a deeper meaning, you will find far more contained within the lines of that poem than you would with a simple cursory reading.

The beauty of it is in the idea that behind a simple exterior, there can be profound and complex meaning.

That is the elegance behind the idea of simplicity.

Simplicity for simplicity’s sake is just that. Simple.
It is simplicity in appearance with complexity beneath the surface that should be striven for.
That is what makes simplicity elegant and beautiful.

Melissia wrote:
In fact, I would go so far as to say that it takes more artistic talent to create a good, immersive game the likes of Bioshock than it does to make a painting or sculpture.

Go jump down an elevator shaft.

Who do you think the gaming companies that make games like Bioshock hire to create the game?
Artists.
Painters, sculptors, they hire artists to create what you love about your games.

They hired artists to paint and draw and sketch out the world the game takes place in.
They hired artists to create three dimensional models and sculptures of the characters.

The artistic talent that it takes to create paintings and scultptures; the talent that you're knocking; is the the SAME artistic talent that is behind the games.

The game itself is not a work of art. The game is nothing but a product. It is entertainment, designed to give you something to do for a few hours, and designed to make the gaming company money.

The art is what goes into the making of the game.

"That simply raises the question of what a biscuit is... and the fact that I can't find any good biscuit heads"

The fact that you can't figure out what a biscuithead is only proves you guys need my infinite, unending, undeniably awesome knowledge to guide you!

@ Manchu, I'm not going to lie I don't really know what you just said but my guess would be: art is safe to ignore and everything else is just trash anyway?

@ Tyyr First let me just mention that I have never taken a class on Art History, Art Appreciation, Aesthetics, or any of that kinda stuff (and honestly I never want to), so when I think of art, I usually think in literay terms, so my examples of art would be all the great classics and so on.

Asking about scupltures, paintings and visual arts is probably a question fo Aesthteics. However, as one philosopher put it, (and I can't remember his name unfortunately) the visual arts can be classified as beauty rather than "art". Beauty is related more to eroticism and is tied to our physiology. Or in other words, what we find empirically attractive is due to our biological/sensual urges.

I would imagine that Michelangelo's David, Monet's work, and other paintings, and what have you could be considered art because they represent artistic movements/trends of their time and have become icons of their respective time periods. Not only are they quintessential examples of what art was back then, they are symbols of the idea of art today. However that would mean all symbols could be art, which I don't think many people would agree with.

Honestly I would categorize most of those under the beauty definition, they simply please the senses, entertainment for your eyes. So maybe they aren't art?

Also I think the burden of proff would be on you guys, no? Provide a significant amount of examples of which games are art and why. Personally I don't think there are many.

Like I said, art related philosophy is far from my area of expertise, but if you want to talk about ethics then we---wait nevermind, never talk about ethics on the interent!

Also it's possible that these seemingly simply aesthetically pleasing works have actual cultural value, and thus still fit my definition. But you would need to talk to an expert in the field to determine that. Not having studied the field it's very possible that I am unaware of the real significance of these pieces. Video games on the other hand is a far easier subject to casually study possibly because it is so new, and I feel qualified, and so are the rest of you guys, in making judgements and assertions about the industry.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Art does not need to be complex or have a deeper meaning, indeed, simplicity is often an important aspect of some of the more famous and beautiful pieces of art.

I would agree that works of art do not have to be complex, and yes, simplicity can be the key to the beauty and poignancy of a work.

But simplicity does not necessitate a lack of meaning.

Art without meaning is not art.

In fact, creating something that evokes emotion and meaning; that resonates deeply within those who see it, read it, or listen to it, while maintaining a sense of simplicity, is one of the hardest things to do. The idea that art does not need meaning or that simplicity involves a lack of meaning, is simply wrong.

Also, simplicity in appearance, especially in regards to art, often belies underlying complexity.

For example: The Road not Taken, by Robert Frost. It is not bewilderingly complex, as some poetry can be, nor is it describing anything particularly esoteric or outwardly profound. The rhyme scheme is simple and elegant, and there are no confusing schemes or tropes to slog through to get to the meaning of the poem. It is as straight-forward as you could possibly ask for.

Read literally, the speaker is simply relating a personal experience. But if you look past the simplicity, if you read for a deeper meaning, you will find far more contained within the lines of that poem than you would with a simple cursory reading.

The beauty of it is in the idea that behind a simple exterior, there can be profound and complex meaning.

That is the elegance behind the idea of simplicity.

Simplicity for simplicity’s sake is just that. Simple.
It is simplicity in appearance with complexity beneath the surface that should be striven for.
That is what makes simplicity elegant and beautiful.

Melissia wrote:
In fact, I would go so far as to say that it takes more artistic talent to create a good, immersive game the likes of Bioshock than it does to make a painting or sculpture.

Go jump down an elevator shaft.

Who do you think the gaming companies that make games like Bioshock hire to create the game?
Artists.
Painters, sculptors, they hire artists to create what you love about your games.

They hired artists to paint and draw and sketch out the world the game takes place in.
They hired artists to create three dimensional models and sculptures of the characters.

The artistic talent that it takes to create paintings and scultptures; the talent that you're knocking; is the the SAME artistic talent that is behind the games.

The game itself is not a work of art. The game is nothing but a product. It is entertainment, designed to give you something to do for a few hours, and designed to make the gaming company money.

The art is what goes into the making of the game.

That makes no sense. So once the art becomes interactive it ceases to be art? Fortunately, you Ebert are in the minority these days.

"The art is what goes into the making of the game."

That's more like craftmanship, which takes an admiarble amount of effort and work no doubt, but I think it has been separated from art (except in our dictionaries) Expanding on that you coud say the visual arts are also craftmanship pieces.

Modquiisition on. This thread has been reported (again). Private warnings have been given. Lets remember Rule #1 please.

asimo77 wrote:"The art is what goes into the making of the game."

That's more like craftmanship, which takes an admiarble amount of effort and work no doubt, but I think it has been separated from art (except in our dictionaries) Expanding on that you coud say the visual arts are also craftmanship pieces.

I don't separate craftsmanship from art.

A beautiful house is a work of art. It also needs to be functional. A beautiful house that is nonfunctional is worthless and nobody wants it. A gorgeous car is a work of art. It also needs to be functional, because almost nobody wants a car that goes nowhere. A master-work gun is a work of art. It also needs to be functional, even if it's never going to be used.

Just because something is functional does not mean it is not art.

What I mean by craftsmanship is that it's like a trade. Functionality doesn't necessarily have to be taken into account. A (good) sculpture is considered art traditionally and has no functionality.

Also if something's purpose/function is to entertain then it's art? I think there are plenty examples of entertaining but unartful things.

I just don't see where functionality came from, I meant craftsmanship more like a trade. Think of the models we paint and glue, we could loosley be considered artisans/craftsmen, the models have no real function outside of gaming/entertainment and aren't really art.

Also I can't believe this thread keeps getting reported, things seemed pretty civil for the past few posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK nvm just re-read "go jump down an elevator shaft"...

asimo77 wrote:Also if something's purpose/function is to entertain then it's art?

Yes.

A beautiful piece of art is entertaining (in the classical sense). For example, in times past many parties were thrown at an artist's studio, so that guests could come and look at the artwork and be entertained by the works of art they saw there.