Computer Games As An Art Form
Lazarus
"Trent" <Drumm...@aol.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:38BDBB...@aol.NOSPAMcom...
> I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
> http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
>
> "Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit
> the emotional complexity that is the root of art." I disagree.
> Fallout, Final Fantasy 7, Heroes of Might and Magic III,
> Planescape...those games left me feeling like I was truly in another
> world, much more so than any recent movie I've seen.
>
> Another quote:
> "Games have their own importance in cultural history. In his book "Homo
> Ludens"-Man the Game-Player-the Dutch sociologist Johan Huizinga writes
> that play predated religion and culture; play "creates order." On the
> other hand, he says that "solitary play" is of little consequence,
> "sharpening the mental faculties very one-sidedly without enriching the
> soul in any way." The millions sitting at their consoles and computers
> would no doubt have made Huizinga one depressed Dutchman, even if they
> were interacting with others sitting at their consoles from Munich to
> Mandalay."
>
> What does everyone else think about this?
>
> ---------> Trent
I think the guy just needs money to put food on his table.
I sincerely doubt he knows what he's talking about, or has even played any
computer games.
Robert Norton
> I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
> http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
>
> <snip>
>
> What does everyone else think about this?
He's either a liar, or he doesn't get it. I vote he doesn't get it.
Michael Frayn
Then I know that he's on crack.
Mike
Trent wrote in message <38BDBB...@aol.NOSPAMcom>...
>I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
>in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
>http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
>
>"Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit
>the emotional complexity that is the root of art." I disagree.
>Fallout, Final Fantasy 7, Heroes of Might and Magic III,
>Planescape...those games left me feeling like I was truly in another
>world, much more so than any recent movie I've seen.
>
>Another quote:
>"Games have their own importance in cultural history. In his book "Homo
>Ludens"柚an the Game-Player葉he Dutch sociologist Johan Huizinga writes
>that play predated religion and culture; play "creates order." On the
>other hand, he says that "solitary play" is of little consequence,
>"sharpening the mental faculties very one-sidedly without enriching the
>soul in any way." The millions sitting at their consoles and computers
>would no doubt have made Huizinga one depressed Dutchman, even if they
>were interacting with others sitting at their consoles from Munich to
>Mandalay."
>
>What does everyone else think about this?
>
>---------> Trent
David Dunham
<Drumm...@aol.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
> "Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit
> the emotional complexity that is the root of art." I disagree.
> Fallout, Final Fantasy 7, Heroes of Might and Magic III,
> Planescape...those games left me feeling like I was truly in another
> world, much more so than any recent movie I've seen.
I think "can't" is incorrect and should be replaced by "don't." Most
games have a pretty shallow emotional content. Hey, I enjoy conquering
the world in a Heroes of Might & Magic, but it's not like I care about
the game world or the people in it.
But then, a lot of our games are like early movies (or I should really
say, moving pictures): "Look, a train that moves!" "Wow!"
The real problem with computer games as art forms is that they are so
expensive and take so long.
--
David Dunham A Sharp david@SPAM_B_GONE.a-sharp.com
http://www.a-sharp.com/
"I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want."
"What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams
Simon Juncal
>
> I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
Saw that at Blues... decided not to bother reading the article when
I couldn't find a "reply to this article" feature or email address.
> "Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit
> the emotional complexity that is the root of art."
This sort of statement is typical of pompous art "fans" of all variety
or the stereotypical "frustrated english professor" who can't sell
novels, but none the less will discourse condescendingly to his
students about "symbolism" and "allegory", never realizing that it's
the STORY that matters not some mystical underlying uber-meaning.
Art is not some magical ON/OFF state where something is either ART
or NON-ART. People just can't get past the need to categorize and
put things like this into a special little "container", and exclude
the things they dislike from that set of genre's / collections /
definitions / interests etc.
The most pragmatic definition of art is simply; a product of
human creativity (or depending on personal philosophy even ANY
creation). Within that is everything from bad to "high" art,
utilitarian, functional, useless, ugly, greatest to least. Being
creative myself I've never accepted the idea that art 'to be Art'
must impact me in some way, emotionally or physically... I know
the Mona lisa is a fine work of art, but looking at it has never
done a thing for me, same with the vast majority of Mozart or
Beethoven's music and many others... Vivaldi and Bach have met this
(elitist and self serving) definition of Art in my case, but I
would hardly contend that Bach's work was art where Mozart's was
not. Hell Primus and Led Zeppelin have evoked this *supposedly*
definitive reaction from me; yet I recognize them all as art,
even while noting the incomparable genius of some over others.
On reflection, I have to mitigate an earlier statement:
"Furelise" has elicited this "definitive" reaction... though as
irony would have it; this was while standing in front of a
"Phoenix" coin op arcade game, hearing the piece for the first
time, via tone generators, in mono from a single speaker.
Games are a (often collaborative) art form, composed by intellectual
order and reason (rules, processes), visual art, literature, audio
and music. They are art, how purposeful / useful / good or bad is
the only thing open to question, and even that on a game by game
basis.
--
Simon co List Admin Capi...@his.com
Aka Alhazred
http://capitals.washington.dc.us/
http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/
Simon Juncal
> See? The words stay words, color stays color, and Harvey Keitel
> stay himself. Now try the original Battlezone let me know what you think.
> Sucks unbearably. Could any artistic message get lost in a mere 7 years?
> Well, my bet is that there wasn't any...
The absense of a message hardly precludes something from being art.
> Istvan.
>
> Istvan.
Correct both times
Papageno
<sju...@erols.com> wrote:
>the idea that art 'to be Art'
>must impact me in some way, emotionally or physically... I know
>the Mona lisa is a fine work of art, but looking at it has never
>done a thing for me, same with the vast majority of Mozart or
>Beethoven's music and many others...
Aaarrrgh, I hope that comment is not in regard to Beethoven's
symphonies, particularly the 1st, the 5th (the triumphal last
movement, especially), the 7th and the 9th!
>On reflection, I have to mitigate an earlier statement:
>"Furelise" has elicited this "definitive" reaction... though as
>irony would have it; this was while standing in front of a
>"Phoenix" coin op arcade game, hearing the piece for the first
>time, via tone generators, in mono from a single speaker.
>
That reminds me of something from Hermann Hesse's
_Steppenwolf_. In the dream/hallucination sequence, the hero
runs into a guy who's listening to Mozart reproduced on a
scratchy Victrola gramophone, and this guy comments on how
amazing it is that the music, despite the horrible reproduction,
still comes through and has the power to affect the emotions.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Bob Perez
at Krondor" and felt the sting of betrayal, the pain of a lost friend, or
any of the countless other emotions stirred by a good yarn embodied in a
good game. How absolutely irresponsible of Kroll to suggest that because he
has not experienced emotional impact from his sampling of games, the entire
category is incapable of achieving the result.
<shakes head in disbelief>
BP
"Trent" <Drumm...@aol.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:38BDBB...@aol.NOSPAMcom...
> I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
> http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
>
> "Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit
> the emotional complexity that is the root of art." I disagree.
> Fallout, Final Fantasy 7, Heroes of Might and Magic III,
> Planescape...those games left me feeling like I was truly in another
> world, much more so than any recent movie I've seen.
>
> Another quote:
> "Games have their own importance in cultural history. In his book "Homo
> Ludens"-Man the Game-Player-the Dutch sociologist Johan Huizinga writes
Trent
in which the author says that videogames are not art:
http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
"Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit
the emotional complexity that is the root of art." I disagree.
Fallout, Final Fantasy 7, Heroes of Might and Magic III,
Planescape...those games left me feeling like I was truly in another
world, much more so than any recent movie I've seen.
Another quote:
"Games have their own importance in cultural history. In his book "Homo
Ludens"柚an the Game-Player葉he Dutch sociologist Johan Huizinga writes
L.J. Wischik
>What does everyone else think about this?
I had been reading "Father and Sons" by Turgeniev while waiting for PS:T
levels to load. Turgeniev, one of the 'greats' of Russian literature, of
whom it is said "all of humanity can be found in his writing." In the end
I put the book down, because it was simply *lame* in comparison to PS:T.
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
Caton
>
> Trent <Drumm...@REMOVETHISaol.com> wrote:
> >What does everyone else think about this?
>
> I had been reading "Father and Sons" by Turgeniev while waiting for PS:T
> levels to load. Turgeniev, one of the 'greats' of Russian literature, of
> whom it is said "all of humanity can be found in his writing." In the end
> I put the book down, because it was simply *lame* in comparison to PS:T.
Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle computer games :)
--
Caton Little
Anthony X. Hughes
Playing Quake alone is simply to sharpen your faculties...
Until the deathmatch begins!
I'd love to frag the Dutchman. That would enrich my soul in ways he couldn't
possibly understand :o)
A. X. H.
> > "Games have their own importance in cultural history. In his book "Homo
> > Ludens"-Man the Game-Player-the Dutch sociologist Johan Huizinga writes
> > that play predated religion and culture; play "creates order." On the
> > other hand, he says that "solitary play" is of little consequence,
> > "sharpening the mental faculties very one-sidedly without enriching the
> > soul in any way." The millions sitting at their consoles and computers
> > would no doubt have made Huizinga one depressed Dutchman, even if they
> > were interacting with others sitting at their consoles from Munich to
> > Mandalay."
> >
> > What does everyone else think about this?
> >
Ashikaga
hold your breathe and here we go.
I've read that article. I think they judge it through traditional art form.
Movie has a very hard time to be recognize as art. It's not hard to
understand why, if we judge it from the standard of summer blockbusters. So
are most of the games. They do have entertainment value, but not a lot of
them have artistic value. The graphics or visual effects (eye candies) may
be wow and oohs, but most of them have no artistic value.
However, some movies (especially recent movies) have very good script
writings and using visual effect effectively to convey symbolic meanings.
Here is where the problem lies. Movie uses very different methods to show
symbols; it uses what we see, instead of spoken language (Well, sometimes.
BTW, spoken symbols in movies are usually considered as shallow ones;
radically different from how literature sends its symbols out). Because of
the difference, it takes time for normal people to see movie as a art form
(most people don't care about arts, plus most movie studios are driven by
money, so they don't help). I can ramble on and on, but you get the idea.
Movie was not accepted easily by mainstream as an art form.
Same for the computer games. When what medias (in this case is Newsweek)
see what the industry is making are FFS's, it is no surprise that they don't
see games can be art (BTW, they are not the right authority to judge what is
art, either. It's an editorial, and it requires readers' judgment to
distinguish what is believable). Let's not lie to ourselves, computer game
is not that mature yet, though I think it certainly has the potential to be
an art.
I am from the adventure group, so the few games I would (appropriately)
suggest is Gabriel Knight Series and the Last Express. IMHO, the latter is
the closest one yet to be in art form (but none lived up to the standard to
be considered as a masterpiece). Planescape, arguably to be the greatest
games ever, is a philosophical piece, but still not an art piece.
The reason I brought the movie example up is that just like movies, computer
games need to find an unique way to convey its symbolisms. Many of the
movie methods do apply to games, and some game designers have used them and
used them correctly, but only a handful of them. Obviously, most of the
money are put to improve graphics nowadays (it's not a bad thing per se),
but if the industry has the ambition to make computer games arts (instead of
cash cow), the companies' need to send their "artists" to art galleries and
filmmakers' guilds to do some post-graduate study what makes certain pieces
art and whiles others junks (but I think the industry would only consider
this as a joke; it's the money that matters to them).
I did not even talk about the music aspect of a game (but I have little
credibility on the subject; it's inappropriate for me to judge what I do not
know a lot of).
Ashikaga
"Trent" <Drumm...@aol.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:38BDBB...@aol.NOSPAMcom...
> I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
> http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
>
> "Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit
> the emotional complexity that is the root of art." I disagree.
> Fallout, Final Fantasy 7, Heroes of Might and Magic III,
> Planescape...those games left me feeling like I was truly in another
> world, much more so than any recent movie I've seen.
>
> Another quote:
Scott Shupe
>
> In article <38BDBB...@aol.NOSPAMcom>, Trent
> <Drumm...@aol.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
>
> > the emotional complexity that is the root of art." I disagree.
> > Fallout, Final Fantasy 7, Heroes of Might and Magic III,
> > Planescape...those games left me feeling like I was truly in another
> > world, much more so than any recent movie I've seen.
>
> games have a pretty shallow emotional content. Hey, I enjoy conquering
> the world in a Heroes of Might & Magic, but it's not like I care about
> the game world or the people in it.
HOMM is a bad example, if you're shooting for emotionly-moving games.
PS:T is not. I don't think that I'm alone when I say that I got a
little choked up at certain points while playing (especially when
watching my companions meet their fate in the FoR). Whether the ability
to inspire emotion makes it art or not, I couldn't say.
> But then, a lot of our games are like early movies (or I should really
> say, moving pictures): "Look, a train that moves!" "Wow!"
>
> The real problem with computer games as art forms is that they are so
> expensive and take so long.
Take so long to what? To make? How is that any different from movies,
which can also be very expensive? To play? How is that any different
from novels?
Scott
Istvan
>
>
> > The real problem with computer games as art forms is that they are so
> > expensive and take so long.
>
> Take so long to what? To make? How is that any different from movies,
> which can also be very expensive? To play? How is that any different
> from novels?
I think he meant it on a relative scale. From starting a game until
finishing it the whole technology may leap ahead so immensely that
the message may be greatly disrupted.
See? The words stay words, color stays color, and Harvey Keitel
stay himself. Now try the original Battlezone let me know what you think.
Sucks unbearably. Could any artistic message get lost in a mere 7 years?
Well, my bet is that there wasn't any...
Istvan.
Istvan.
Gary Cruse
wrote:
>I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
>in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
>http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
Trent,
If art is elephant dung on icons, feces smeared on
a lithe female body, urinating on audiences, Piss
Christ, and bullwhip handles in anusses, then be
thankful videogames aren't classified as arty.
On the other hand, the haunting melancholia of
Amber, the thrill of killing off the beast of
beasties, and the beautiful renderings of
Timelapse moved me more than a hundred
litho screens of Campbell soup labels.
Gary
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
--
Art is dangerous
Ashikaga
news:38BDDC83...@erols.com...
> Trent wrote:
> This sort of statement is typical of pompous art "fans" of all variety
> or the stereotypical "frustrated english professor" who can't sell
> novels, but none the less will discourse condescendingly to his
> students about "symbolism" and "allegory", never realizing that it's
> the STORY that matters not some mystical underlying uber-meaning.
I once wrote an responding e-mail to my English teacher and entire English
class (my English teacher is high-tech enough to have a discussion group
held over a mailing list). What I wrote was about some "housewive" (or
domestic engineerer) writers who are discriminated because nobody would
*expect* them to write decent stories. On the other hand, I know there are
also people who can only do the technical stuffs, but have hard time
lecturing. Your professor probably is the opposite (and of course, there
are also braggers).
> Art is not some magical ON/OFF state where something is either ART
> or NON-ART. People just can't get past the need to categorize and
> put things like this into a special little "container", and exclude
> the things they dislike from that set of genre's / collections /
> definitions / interests etc.
>
> The most pragmatic definition of art is simply; a product of
> human creativity (or depending on personal philosophy even ANY
> creation). Within that is everything from bad to "high" art,
> utilitarian, functional, useless, ugly, greatest to least. Being
> creative myself I've never accepted the idea that art 'to be Art'
> must impact me in some way, emotionally or physically... I know
> the Mona lisa is a fine work of art, but looking at it has never
> done a thing for me, same with the vast majority of Mozart or
> Beethoven's music and many others... Vivaldi and Bach have met this
> (elitist and self serving) definition of Art in my case, but I
> would hardly contend that Bach's work was art where Mozart's was
> not. Hell Primus and Led Zeppelin have evoked this *supposedly*
> definitive reaction from me; yet I recognize them all as art,
> even while noting the incomparable genius of some over others.
>
> On reflection, I have to mitigate an earlier statement:
> "Furelise" has elicited this "definitive" reaction... though as
> irony would have it; this was while standing in front of a
> "Phoenix" coin op arcade game, hearing the piece for the first
> time, via tone generators, in mono from a single speaker.
>
> Games are a (often collaborative) art form, composed by intellectual
> order and reason (rules, processes), visual art, literature, audio
> and music. They are art, how purposeful / useful / good or bad is
> the only thing open to question, and even that on a game by game
> basis.
Arts are subject (art critics are even more subjective). Certain things may
have emotional effect on one person, but total meaningless to others.
However, I think emotion is piece of crap, if you are on the logical side of
perspective.
************
Don't forget, less is more. (Most of the time,... probably not this time)
************
I have post a thread before about something I don't remember. One thing I
do remember is that the person told me it does not need to be complex to be
a masterpiece. I totally agree, as Beethoven's music being the best example
(I guess I have to look out for those FFS players who also love Beethoven).
My cousins mentioned the similar thing that simple is better.
You can talk to someone who use tons of big words and still get nothing out
of them, or you can talk to someone who appear to be petty and words of
wisdom are flowing out of them in every single sentence.
Art is subjective. You just sort of get the idea. Obviously, we are from
different schools of thoughts (I am from the old school). You mentioned
that literary devices such as allegory or symbolism are not as important as
the story. Well, the best way I can explain is this: those literary
devices are only there to bring out the story, and make it more meaningful.
If your professor use them to show off, no wonder his books don't sell.
They should be an integral part of the story, not an appendix, sort of
hanging there with no purpose.
If you see some artists who claim how great their works are, go ask them
what does their works mean (assume those works are abstract arts). If they
just sort of babbling or don't even know what they are talking about (e.g.,
because I like the curves and lines), you know they go directly to the
garbage can.
Same can be applied for computer games (finally, back on the topic). If the
graphics are eye candies only, then they are not art. If the story fulling
intergrate with graphics, musics and the designer's vision (think them as
the equivalent of allegory and parallelism and stuffs) to create a
meaningful composition, then it *could* be art.
That's enough preaching, I think.
Ashikaga
Quatoria
Istvan <ial...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>See? The words stay words, color stays color, and Harvey Keitel
>stay himself. Now try the original Battlezone let me know what you think.
>Sucks unbearably. Could any artistic message get lost in a mere 7 years?
>Well, my bet is that there wasn't any...
Who says Battlezone has a message? The stories in some RPG's are every
bit as engaging and moving (if they were well written) now as they
were years ago. If I was moved the first time I saw the story of a
game, if I was attached to its characters and cared what befell them,
then I'll still feel the same, now. He's painting with too broad a
brush. It's like reading a trashy romance novel and declaring all
novels to be shit. Some games are mindless pablum, just good fun. Some
games make you think. Some games make you feel. To imply that all
games = one game, and one game = all games is inane. He has not played
all games, or even a reasonable percentage, and he is therefore
utterly unqualified to make any judgement based on the limited
experience he has in the field. Like most people attempting to make
condemning, inflammatory statements, he's just looking to get paid,
and maybe get a bit of notoriety. He picked an easy target: who's
going to defend gamers in the mainstream?
--
Quatoria
Everything I've ever told you is a lie. I just lied to you, and I'm lying to you now.
http://members.tripod.com/~Quatoria/genreblind.html - Genre Blind Radio: Our Music Doesn't Suck
Quatoria
Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
> If art is elephant dung on icons, feces smeared on
> a lithe female body, urinating on audiences, Piss
> Christ, and bullwhip handles in anusses, then be
> thankful videogames aren't classified as arty.
The profane is not devoid of meaning, Gary, and what is profanity to
you may very well not be profane to me. Out of curiosity, have you
seen any/all of the art you condemn?
Maxim Popov
>
> Trent <Drumm...@REMOVETHISaol.com> wrote:
>
> levels to load. Turgeniev, one of the 'greats' of Russian literature, of
> whom it is said "all of humanity can be found in his writing." In the end
> I put the book down, because it was simply *lame* in comparison to PS:T.
>
> Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
You're comparing apples and oranges here. Besides, books aren't supposed
to be read during 1-minute breaks while playing a computer game.
Geoffrey Tobin
...
> infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll ...
>
> http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
....
> "Games have their own importance in cultural history. In his book "Homo
> Ludens"-Man the Game-Player-the Dutch sociologist Johan Huizinga writes
> that play predated religion and culture;
Is there any way of testing that assertion for human pre-history?
It's partially true for individuals: play is practice of skills
that take years to attain fruition, even for Mozart.
But play is learnt in a cultural context. So which came
first, the chicken or the egg? I suspect that play and
culture, like many natural phenomena, are dynamic
components in a nonlinear feedback process.
> play "creates order."
I've heard that assertion before, and as i reflect on it,
it appears reasonable. The mind of the new-born lacks
the connections that would enable the baby to stand,
walk, run, swim, paint. Only painstakingly are these
abilities learnt, and the learning process progresses
from the chaotic and frustrating to the orderly and
predictable.
> On the other hand, he says that "solitary play" is of
> little consequence, "sharpening the mental faculties
> very one-sidedly without enriching the soul in any way."
If the Nederlands word translated here as "the soul" has the meaning
of "die Seele" in German, then it's not equivalent to the English
usage of "the soul". So what does Huizinga mean?
Does he mean that it's only in team or competitive play that
we learn respect and cooperation? And only in multiplay that
our minds can continue to be stretched and our skills improved?
> The millions sitting at their consoles and computers
> would no doubt have made Huizinga one depressed Dutchman,
> even if they were interacting with others sitting at their
> consoles from Munich to Mandalay."
If it's intrinsic in the interface, regardless of multiplay,
then are board games also soul-destroying? Did Snap!, Euchre,
Chess and Draughts undermine Western culture?
--
Best wishes!
Geoffrey Tobin
Email: G.T...@latrobe.edu.au
WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle computer games :)
Moreover, the healthy can throw away their crutches.
"Real-world, begone!"
Paul Simpson
this kind of narrow minded inept journalism is. I ask you: what is Art?
"Holding a mirror up to nature and the world around us" or "a reflection of
the human condition" is the usual glib answer, though this is not to say
there is a grain of truth in these statements. Art is generally, at its
root, something BEYOND mere words or phrases that has a profound
significance to an individual or group of individuals - hence the constant
disagreements as to what constitutes art, and the sneering, preening
intellectualism of those who never recognise true art when it stares them in
the face. For these people, anything that cannot be discussed in flowery
language or theorised over at dinner parties cannot possibly be art, yet ask
the man in the street his opinion and it probably has a thousand times the
value of any one of these snobs. EVERY significant art form of the last 100
years has met with the same disdain by the so-called "cogniscenti", and yet
wait some time and all of a sudden what they once considered "trash" becomes
"art". Miles davis, Van Gogh, Picasso, Robert Johnson, Jimi Hendrix - all
of these artists faced this kind of reaction. I remember my first Quake
deathmatch online - I was every bit as blown away by the experience as when
I was first exposed to the works of Picasso, Hendrix et al. But for idiots
like the writer of the article mentioned, it's just too radical. The
cartoon in this link sums the whole thing up in three short frames better
than I ever could:
http://www.gamespy.com/comics/pa5.shtm
--
All the best,
Paul.
"Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Engineers
believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."
----- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle
And when the ark was finished Noah said unto Elvis, "What do you reckon?"
And Elvis checked out his own cabin and shook his head saying "poky".
And so did they knock several walls through and install a jaccuzzi.
And when it was all done Noah scratched his beard and said, "We don't have
room for all the animals now."
And Elvis perused the livestock list and in his wisdom said, "Lose the
dinosaurs."
--Robert Rankin, The Suburban Book of the Dead
"Trent" <Drumm...@aol.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:38BDBB...@aol.NOSPAMcom...
> I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
> http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
>
> "Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit
> the emotional complexity that is the root of art." I disagree.
> Fallout, Final Fantasy 7, Heroes of Might and Magic III,
> Planescape...those games left me feeling like I was truly in another
> world, much more so than any recent movie I've seen.
>
> Another quote:
> "Games have their own importance in cultural history. In his book "Homo
> Ludens"-Man the Game-Player-the Dutch sociologist Johan Huizinga writes
> that play predated religion and culture; play "creates order." On the
> other hand, he says that "solitary play" is of little consequence,
> "sharpening the mental faculties very one-sidedly without enriching the
> soul in any way." The millions sitting at their consoles and computers
> would no doubt have made Huizinga one depressed Dutchman, even if they
> were interacting with others sitting at their consoles from Munich to
> Mandalay."
>
> What does everyone else think about this?
>
> ---------> Trent
Geoffrey Tobin
...
> Movie uses very different methods to show
How would you analyze the merits of "Law and Order"
and other TV programs that are heavy on script and
hardly depend on visuals? Would McLuhan class these
as warm messages in a cool medium?
What are the symbols of Law and Order? Words?
> ... BTW, spoken symbols in movies are usually considered
> as shallow ones; radically different from how literature
> sends its symbols out).
Is that shallowness true of "The 39 Steps"?
Perhaps time makes the difference. Movies are real-time,
but novels and poems are turn-based which allows more
in-depth presentation and analysis.
> ... Let's not lie to ourselves, computer game
> is not that mature yet, though I think it certainly
> has the potential to be an art.
Is the printed word mature? If we judge it by the
overwhelming volume of magazine gossip and low-quality
books, one would judge print harshly.
Similarly, most computer games have little benefit
intellectually or emotionally, but some soar above
the pack. The best Adventure games educate and
inspire.
> I am from the adventure group,
Believe it or not, i didn't see that you were walking
the same track.
> so the few games I would (appropriately)
> suggest is Gabriel Knight Series and the Last Express.
Twinsen's Odyssey has some very serious themes underlying
its childlike appearance. Complexity of motive, public
deception, the price of collateral damage, abuse of
technology, the short-sightedness of bullying, the merits
of diversity, the value of public works, the worth of the
individual, the fragility of life, the proper care of
children, the trauma of losing friends and loved ones,
the satisfaction of helping people in need, and much more.
It's an emotional roller-coaster in which we soon appreciate
that choices can have long-term consequences.
> IMHO, the latter is the closest one yet to be in art form
> (but none lived up to the standard to be considered
> as a masterpiece). Planescape, arguably to be the greatest
> games ever, is a philosophical piece, but still not an art piece.
What would be required of a game to attain masterpiece status?
> ... the companies' need to send their "artists" to art galleries
> and filmmakers' guilds to do some post-graduate study what makes
> certain pieces art and whiles others junks ...
I can tell them that!
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> The absence of a message hardly precludes something from being art.
The message of art should be at least:
"I am remarkable: admire me or despise me."
Geoffrey Tobin
squad members.
Geoffrey Tobin
then we might as well remember that "art" means "skill"
just as "tech" means "skill".
So art and technology are the same thing, in skilled hands.
Geoffrey Tobin
...
> Same can be applied for computer games
> (finally, back on the topic).
> If the graphics are eye candies only,
> with graphics, music and the designer's vision (think them as
> the equivalent of allegory and parallelism and stuffs)
That's a thought-provoking view. So the Mona Lisa is art,
and Beethoven is art, and gymnastics is an art, but a game
about gymnastics with a backdrop of the Mona Lisa and a
Beethoven theme playing, is not art unless the pieces fit
like a gestalt jigsaw?
Charybdis
> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
As Penny Arcade said, he's talking out of his ass. I loved his statement
that Sharon Stone was sexier and more realistic than Lara Croft and
therefore the Tomb Raider series was less artistic than Basic Instinct.
Buh? Cuh? Huh? By that statement he's ruled out cartoons, paintings.....at
least, I think that was his statement, I kindof tuned him out around this
point. And if games can't count as art, doesn't that kill the worlds'
special effects houses, computer artists, web cartoonists, 3D designers and
so forth, since their techniques are often the same as those used to create
games?
And was he getting a bonus for every stupid piece of technobabble that he
was able to dream up? Blah blah blah blah blah.
- Richard
Sllim
solitary play.
Then I would point out that if I took a TV, N64, a copy of Zelda 64
and a portable generator back in time to show the Dutchman not only
would I fail to convince him it was art, but I would be luck not to
fail to convince him I wasn't a witch.
You gotta understand that the times, they are a changin'.
Now as far as the Newsweek article. I read it (I clearly need to read
it again) and as I recall I felt more like he left the argument open.
I didn't feel like he came to the conclusion that it was or wasn't
art. I think I will reread it.
But I do know this. Art is subjective. What is art to me is not to
you.
I find that the experience of going to a concert, and looking around
me and seeing people in all walks of life, from teens (and preteens
occasionally) to people my age and people much older, people like my
Father all there enjoying themselsves and putting aside there petty
differences, I find that beautiful. I find that when the performer
comes out and you can tell that he really appreciates me and us as
much as we appreciate him, and that maybe he does love us, that is
special. And when he sings certain songs that I have grown up with
and become so attached to they bring tears to my eyes, well you know
it must be Ozzy.
I would have a hard time arguing Ozzy as art in that Newsweek article.
But God knows I owe it to the man to go down fighting.
And that is how I feel about games. For me the bottom line is a few
are art. Most are not. But the occasional Zelda comes by, or Tempest
3000 or whatever and just refuses to leave my skull. It is art. To
my eyes.
And for me the bottom line is I don't give a rats ass if that person
writing that article thinks it is art or not. I guess that is the
reason I wasn't so offended. Cause I didn't care.
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:55:03 GMT, Trent <Drumm...@aol.NOSPAMcom>
wrote:
>I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
>in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
>http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
>
>"Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit
>the emotional complexity that is the root of art." I disagree.
>Fallout, Final Fantasy 7, Heroes of Might and Magic III,
>Planescape...those games left me feeling like I was truly in another
>world, much more so than any recent movie I've seen.
>
>Another quote:
>"Games have their own importance in cultural history. In his book "Homo
>Ludens"柚an the Game-Player葉he Dutch sociologist Johan Huizinga writes
Trent
>
> Trent wrote:
> >
> > I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> > in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
> I couldn't find a "reply to this article" feature or email address.
>
I desperately tried to find an email address on the site, even using a
couple search engines, but had no luck. Oh well.
By the way, in his 6 paragraph article about videogames, the only
videogame this guy actually mentions is Tomb Raider. "Any player who's
moved to tumescence by digibimbo Lara is in big trouble," he says.
Well, duh. Actually I was moved by Tomb Raider 1's beautiful
enviroments and the great score, not Lara.
--------> Trent
Sllim
<taln...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
Not only that, but to truly appreciate games now it takes more than 2
hours.
That is what makes reviewing movies so easy. If they can just sit
still for 90 minutes than bamn they can move on.
And books, please. Do you really think that book reviewers read the
whole thing?
But you have to dedicate hours and hours and hours to a good game.
Double that if it is art. Only then do you get it.
How many games have you played that you thought were good and
different and promising for the first 30 minutes only to loose there
luster 2 hours down the road.
I just started playing Zelda 64 this week. I have put in a lot more
than 2 hours in it. Probably like 4 or 6 and I still havent made it
to skull mountain. I am like so, so in the beginning it is sad. If
it was a book I would be on chapter 3.
That is why that guy cant appreciate it. He would have to put too
much in it. He would have written Zelda off long before he realized
what was going on.
Since I am on Zelda as art, here is something that is impressing me.
I am 27, I have played all the Zeldas. Okay all the American ones.
You know I spent $220 last week just because I couldnt live in a world
with a Zelda I hadnt played.
In my mind that means that Zelda is either marketing or art.
So 4 hours into it here is one of the joys that keeps putting a smile
on my face.
The sound. When you open a door there is that cheesy chime that they
play. I love that. It is the same damn chime from the first Zelda.
I just know that there is a 12 year old somewhere that is playing
Zelda64 and has never played any of the other Zeldas. And I know that
he doesnt get these occasional cheesy sounds. He probably goes to his
friends that he doesnt see what is so great about this game. That it
is all pretty and well designed, then they drop the ball with these
sounds.
That is art. When you make the decision that is against marketing,
against asthetics for experience, that is where this game is art and
others are not. Right there.
That is also the same thing I argued about earlier. That sort of art,
well unless you have played the other games is probably lost on you.
And I cant expect it not to be. I just sort of accept it and shrug
off those 12 year olds.
Speaking of Art, time for me to switch it on. See yall on the flip
side.
Alex
"Trent" <Drumm...@aol.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:38BDBB...@aol.NOSPAMcom...
> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
surface computer games (and many other types of games) appear frivilous,
one-sided affairs in which we all are a couple of Pavlovian robots hitting
red and green buttons to produce a response. Movies are the same way, for
the most part. Typical movie outing: buy ticket, buy popcorn, find seat,
stare at movie screen while a formulaic presentation of
boy-meets-girl/good-guy-vs-bad-guy/who-killed-the-butler-with-the-candlestic
k scenario plays out on the screen. There's no real thinking on the part of
the audience. Images are flashed in front of your eyes for 1.5 to 2 hours
hoping to produce some type of emotional response. If an emotional response
occurs, we dub this a "good" movie.
Would anyone doubt that good movies are art. Surely Kurosawa's "Ran" or
David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" or Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange," "2001,"
or "Dr. Strangelove" must be regarded as art. I feel that movies are the
only original artform to spring up during the past century. But in the next
century the new artform will be games. Planescape is an obvious testament to
that. When I began playing Planescape I was reading a number of famous,
award-winning Hollywood scripts, hoping to gleen some tricks for writing my
own screenplay. The first thing that struck me with the game was the dialog.
The wordplay between TNO and the various NPCs and PCs was very impressive.
I'm about 3/4 of the way through the game and still finding myself smiling
at the sheer quality of the work. This game is art. There is no question of
that in my mind. And if this game marks where future games are heading, in
terms of writing quality and artistic expression, then we are all in for
some very wondrous gaming.
--Alex
L.J. Wischik
>You're comparing apples and oranges here. Besides, books aren't supposed
>to be read during 1-minute breaks while playing a computer game.
Personally, I prefer oranges. They're more juicy and there isn't the
irritating core. It is a perfectly valid comparison, especially in the
context of the question "what is art?"
It wasn't just 1-minute breaks. For bedtime reading I didn't read F&S,
but contemplated PS:T instead. I didn't go to the kitchen and read the
book while I ate; I stuffed all the food into a big bowl so I could
mindlessly eat it while playing PS:T
L.J. Wischik
>This sort of statement is typical of pompous art "fans" of all variety
It reminds be of a pompous thespian in discussion on the radio one morning
with Melvyn Bragg (a wonderful all-round-educated person). The dumb thesp
claimed that "scientists simply don't have culture." It was because
'culture', to this thesp, meant going to plays four times a week and
saying 'you were lovely, dahling' and engaging in superficial but
deep-sounding conversations about motivations behind characters.
'Culture', to Bragg, was a shared discourse with aristic and philosophical
components.
Same thing about 'art', I suppose.
L.J. Wischik
>That's a thought-provoking view. So the Mona Lisa is art,
>and Beethoven is art, and gymnastics is an art, but a game
>about gymnastics with a backdrop of the Mona Lisa and a
>Beethoven theme playing, is not art unless the pieces fit
>like a gestalt jigsaw?
Who cares if it's art?!! I want a copy!
Peter Watson
mind(s). Whether it is an art form is purely a matter of definition, art
forms are defined by scholars for the purpose of classification. Art forms
are music, literature, opera, sculpture, poetry etc. If someone can define
to me what the essential difference between, say poetry and literature, is
then perhaps I can accept that 'Art Form' is anything more than a
definition. After all, these two examples are both nothing more than the
manipulation of words for effect.
Computer games are somewhat more complex than the 'traditional' art forms,
and hence do not fit into conventional definitions of 'Art Form'. Games
(good ones at least) are a blend of Visual Art (Painting), Moving Art
(Movies) , Music (soundtrack, but more specifiaclly interactive soundtrack,
where the music is geared to the rest of the activity), Literature (scripts
and backplots) etc. etc.
Perhaps the closest definition is 'Multimedia', but this is such a 'techno'
word that it cannot possibly be defined as Art in the mind of 'Artists' and
'Critics' (possibly amongst the most technophobic of all stereotyped
groups). Many believe that technology cannot be art, although architechture
belies that belief, who has not been moved by the sight of some spectacular
bridge accross the valley.
I prefer my own definition of 'Art', and like anyone elses definition this
must be subjective.
Art is anything created primarily to entertain.
There is no 'Good' art, there is no 'Bad' art, only art that I like, dislike
or am indifferent to. But my good art entertains my imagination, bad art
either stirs it in ways that I do not like, or stirs it in inappropriate
ways such that I fail to see the relevance, and indifferent art fails to
stir 'me' at all.
All art (as traditionally defined) is created for 'entertainment', even
religous art can be defined as such although this might just be stretching
the definition of entertainment (or maybe of religion). If you accept that,
then perhaps you can accept that all entertainment is 'art', although
perhaps not 'fine' art.
Computer games are created for entertainment (yeah, and money), therefore
they are 'art'. Just not yet recognised as an art form.
And as to the article, I'd like to pick up on the quote
"a game designer in the future who can have the social impact of a great
movie director, author or musician".
Personally, I think that moment is very close at hand, if not here already.
Look at the status accorded to such figures as Brian Reynolds, Sid Meier,
Gary Grigsby (in the context of THIS newsgroup) etc. These people are
already accorded the status (if not the wealth and recognition) of a Dylan,
or a Matisse, or a Kubrick. Their works are recognised as 'classic' by those
of us who understand the genre. I'd be the first to admit that I couln't
tell a 'good' opera from a 'bad' one, they all sound horrible to me, but
I'll accept the judgement of those who understand. Now if only they'd shut
up and accept our judgement of the things we understand.
radhurst
L.J. Wischik <ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:89lt0s$sj4$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
radhurst
Quatoria <Quat...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ew6+OGUxi=1kZ=eKOM6Xm...@4ax.com...
Ashikaga
news:38BE1FD8...@latrobe.edu.au...
> Ashikaga wrote:
First of all, come on, I did not ask a flame war.
> How would you analyze the merits of "Law and Order"
> and other TV programs that are heavy on script and
> hardly depend on visuals? Would McLuhan class these
> as warm messages in a cool medium?
>
> What are the symbols of Law and Order? Words?
Law and Order is a TV series. It is more like descriptive essay (in style)
in the sense it tells viewer about certain events and think about it. It
requires thinking and one of the better programs on TV, I have to admit.
> > ... BTW, spoken symbols in movies are usually considered
> > as shallow ones; radically different from how literature
> > sends its symbols out).
>
> Is that shallowness true of "The 39 Steps"?
Is that Hitchcock? I have to see this. But Hitchcock uses forms to portray
symbolism alot, which supports my point.
> Perhaps time makes the difference. Movies are real-time,
> but novels and poems are turn-based which allows more
> in-depth presentation and analysis.
Literalture also allow over-analysis. Which is not a bad idea, if you do
know where to draw a line. All the knowledge we gain from books (games,
movies, whatever) are ours to keep.
> > ... Let's not lie to ourselves, computer game
> > is not that mature yet, though I think it certainly
> > has the potential to be an art.
>
> Is the printed word mature? If we judge it by the
> overwhelming volume of magazine gossip and low-quality
> books, one would judge print harshly.
How many years since we have literature? You are redirecting my words.
Come on, using tabloid is not an objective comparison. We are only compare
the best of all (literature, games, musics, movies, etc). Although the word
"best" is subjective.
> Similarly, most computer games have little benefit
> intellectually or emotionally, but some soar above
> the pack. The best Adventure games educate and
> inspire.
See above.
> > I am from the adventure group,
> Believe it or not, i didn't see that you were walking
> the same track.
I believe you. Really, don't be cynical.
> > so the few games I would (appropriately)
> > suggest is Gabriel Knight Series and the Last Express.
>
> Twinsen's Odyssey has some very serious themes underlying
> its childlike appearance. Complexity of motive, public
> deception, the price of collateral damage, abuse of
> technology, the short-sightedness of bullying, the merits
> of diversity, the value of public works, the worth of the
> individual, the fragility of life, the proper care of
> children, the trauma of losing friends and loved ones,
> the satisfaction of helping people in need, and much more.
> It's an emotional roller-coaster in which we soon appreciate
> that choices can have long-term consequences.
Interesting, and I have not played the game yet. So you are arguing
Twinsen's Odyssey from literature point of view, instead of the integration
of visual arts and linguistic arts I have been proposed. If that is so,
then the judgement will taken entirely differently. Although TLE and GK's
have shown those characteristics as well.
> > IMHO, the latter is the closest one yet to be in art form
> > (but none lived up to the standard to be considered
> > as a masterpiece). Planescape, arguably to be the greatest
> > games ever, is a philosophical piece, but still not an art piece.
>
> What would be required of a game to attain masterpiece status?
Forgive me, I meant art masterpiece. They are game masterpieces already.
> > ... the companies' need to send their "artists" to art galleries
> > and filmmakers' guilds to do some post-graduate study what makes
> > certain pieces art and whiles others junks ...
>
> I can tell them that!
But they will not listen.
> --
> Best wishes!
> Geoffrey Tobin
> Email: G.T...@latrobe.edu.au
> WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
The conversation like this is often more productive than the unanimous,
conflict avoiding "group discussion."
Ashikaga
Jonathan Dalton
far more emotionally than some books. On the other hand, I think that the
*best* books will never ever be beaten by any other medium.
jon
Ashikaga
> Ashikaga wrote:
> ...
> > Same can be applied for computer games
> > (finally, back on the topic).
> > If the graphics are eye candies only,
> > the equivalent of allegory and parallelism and stuffs)
>
> That's a thought-provoking view. So the Mona Lisa is art,
> and Beethoven is art, and gymnastics is an art, but a game
> about gymnastics with a backdrop of the Mona Lisa and a
> Beethoven theme playing, is not art unless the pieces fit
> like a gestalt jigsaw?
I have never thought of circus as being an art form as much as being
entertaining. Well, I have to back myself (although I can adopt and modify
my views along the ways), anything could be art, if execute in a meaningful
manner. Is gestalt jigsaw meaningful (I am not being sarcastic, just
curious)?
> --
> Best wishes!
> Geoffrey Tobin
> Email: G.T...@latrobe.edu.au
> WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
more appropriate to use culture as in development than using culture as in
lifestyle, IMHO.
If this Bragg is accusing scientists that they don't have culture as in no
life (I assume), which Bragg is not the right authority, and therefore the
argument does not stand and it's judgmental (we all have different
lifestyles, there is no such thing as a genuine "no life").
Obviously, some would argue that I spend times arguing these stupid points
would qualify me of having no life. However, the argument is meaningful to
me, so that is not entirely true either.
I am not sure about the credibility of this Bragg person. I've never heard
of the radio program, so I cannot judge. Anyway, there are tons of people
who have time to brag without spend time thinking what they were talking
about. Don't let those people make you feel small by their supposed
intellectual superiority (if they are truly intelligent, then they don't
have to put other people down).
Ashikaga
"L.J. Wischik" <ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:89lsuk$shj$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> Simon Juncal <sju...@erols.com> wrote:
> >This sort of statement is typical of pompous art "fans" of all variety
>
> It reminds be of a pompous thespian in discussion on the radio one morning
> with Melvyn Bragg (a wonderful all-round-educated person). The dumb thesp
> claimed that "scientists simply don't have culture." It was because
> 'culture', to this thesp, meant going to plays four times a week and
> saying 'you were lovely, dahling' and engaging in superficial but
> deep-sounding conversations about motivations behind characters.
> 'Culture', to Bragg, was a shared discourse with aristic and philosophical
> components.
>
> Same thing about 'art', I suppose.
>
Brian Upton
wrote:
>
>
1.) He's right. The *best* computer games have yet to rise above the
level of melodrama. We've yet to make a _Birth of a Nation_, let
alone a _Citizen Kane_.
2.) I consider the article a challenge, not a slam.
--
"Pithecanthropus! Iconoclast! Bashi-bazouk!"
Brian Upton brian...@redstorm.com
** Opinions expressed are my own and not those of Red Storm **
Doug Jacobs
> I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
> http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
Well, what do you expect? It's Newsweek.
Anyways, I had a friend who stuided art in school - photography to be
exact. She told me of an internal debate in the art school in which some
professors felt that "modern" forms of art were not art at all. This
included photography, architecture, graphic design (ad artists), TV, film,
comics, animation, etc.
This would seem to be the line of thinking this writer has adapated.
As a software engineer, I would consider software to be an artform.
I'm sure many of you have run across a program that not only works, but
it works well. It's dependable, it's compact, it's a joy to use. That,
to me, is a piece of art. A formless idea given form and executed well -
isn't that what art is all about?
Software also encompasses other areas: literature (story, character,
conflict), art (character designs, architecture) and music. These things
are bound together with software, this intangible glue that does not
exist in the physical world.
Doug Jacobs
> If definitions have a useful part in this discourse,
> then we might as well remember that "art" means "skill"
> just as "tech" means "skill".
> So art and technology are the same thing, in skilled hands.
Is that where the word "artisan" came from? :)
Maybe I should ask my manager to change my title to "software artisan",
yeah, I like the way that sounds... :)
Anyways, this goes back to my philosophy that anything can be art.
Worker Working
interactive movie that played at near-life-like visual quality on a
Virtual-Reality-type headset would probably be pretty engrossing.
Especially if it was left open-ended so that your input changed the
story.
It's not likely to happen soon (within our lifetime?) but eventually we
will have the processor power for life-like graphics and intelligent,
script-driven dialog and AI.
The artists have already started working with this medium
(software--which is arguably in its infancy) and when they get enough
time with it there's no doubt in my mind that great works will start
appearing.
At least that's what I plan on doing once I'm financially independant.
Brian Siano
Trent wrote:
> I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
> http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
Read it: not much content to it, overall, so I suspect it's just a print
version of troll-bait. (It's one thing to say that computer games _have
not_ become art: one could argue this, and one might have a case. It's
quite another to say that they _cannot_ become art; in a world where
graffiti, rap music, and advertisements can be sondiered artful, one
should be reluctant to make such sweeping pronouncements.
A few things stuck out.
"Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit the
emotional complexity that is the root of art. Even the most advanced games
lack the shimmering web of nuances that makes human life different from
mechanical process. Interestingly, movies can transmit the sense of this
nuanced complexity where games cannot. Moviemakers don't have to
simulate human beings; they are right there, to be recorded and
orchestrated."
By this reasoning, animated cartoons are equally crippled from ever
transmitting emotional complexity.
"The digitally created medieval Japanese warriors in Kessen (one of the
first
titles made for PlayStation 2) have none of the breathing presence, the
epic
gallantry, of the knights in Akira Kurosawa's 1985 film "Ran."
True enough: but then again, one could say that none of the characters
in _2001: A Space Odyssey_ have that breathing presence, and yet,
it's one of the greatest films ever made. And considering that Kessen
probably wasn't _trying_ to be the equal of the great Kurosawa, this
is like saying that _Dumb and Dumber_ fails to be as good as _Aguiire,
the Wrath of God_.
"The top-heavy titillation of Tomb Raider's Lara Croft falls flat next to
the
face of Sharon Stone, smiling with challenging sensuality at some haplessly
macho male in "Basic Instinct." Any player who's moved to tumescence
by digibimbo Lara is in big trouble."
And any writer who's presenting _Basic Instinct_ as a benchmark for
female complexity is just fouling himself in public. Might I suggest
Juliet Stevenson in _Truly, Madly, Deeply_, or Emma Thompson
in _Carrington_ or _Sense and Sensibility_?
--
Brian Siano - bsi...@cceb.med.upenn.edu
Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics
722 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: 215-898-0901 Fax: 215-573-5325
Brian Siano
Brian Upton wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:55:03 GMT, Trent <Drumm...@aol.NOSPAMcom>
> wrote:
> >
> >What does everyone else think about this?
> >
>
> 1.) He's right. The *best* computer games have yet to rise above the
> level of melodrama. We've yet to make a _Birth of a Nation_, let
> alone a _Citizen Kane_.
>
> 2.) I consider the article a challenge, not a slam.
He's wrong, for the reasons you've just said. No computer game
has _yet_ been devised that could compare to _Citizen Kane_.
(I've seen some that could compare to _Birth of a Nation_, but that's
solely in the glorification-of-ugly-history sweepstakes. Might want to
use Griffith's _Intolerance_ as a better example.)
But Kroll's arguing that computer games _cannot_ ever reach
these heights, which makes him dead wrong.
John Gwynn
Ashikaga wrote:
> You can talk to someone who use tons of big words and still get nothing out
> of them, or you can talk to someone who appear to be petty and words of
> wisdom are flowing out of them in every single sentence.
>
You can also learn what a lot of those big words mean and go back and listen
to the former with appreciation, and revisit the latter and wonder what was up
with that!
What is art? Can't give you a reasonable definition but I know it when i
see/hear/touch/feel (appreciate) it.
Most any human from any culture at any given time are likely to be impressed
with Michelangelo's David, the Parthenon, Taj Mahal, Beethoven's 5th etc.
Jazz, Picasso, Ballet etc are a bit more esoteric requiring a grounding in
context to appreciate fully.
Computer games, if they withstand the test of time may well qualify. Who can
guess? Does it matter?
In any event I know I appreciate them...
johng
--
-------------------------------
Cast a cold eye
On life, on death,
Horseman, pass by!
-------------------------------
Knight37
>"Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't
>transmit the emotional complexity that is the root of art." I
>disagree. Fallout, Final Fantasy 7, Heroes of Might and Magic III,
>Planescape...those games left me feeling like I was truly in another
>world, much more so than any recent movie I've seen.
I've been emotionally moved by quite a few comptuer games. The writer
either hasn't played enough games, or has the emotional capacity of a
rock.
--
Knight37
"There are two kinds of spurs, my friend. Those who come in by the
door, and those who come in through the window."
-- Tuco, from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
Doctor Tongue
news:sbtgqe...@corp.supernews.com...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Trent <Drumm...@aol.nospamcom> wrote:
> > I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> > in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
> > http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
>
No shit, it's the tabloid version of "Dateline." Newsweek (and it's ilk) makes
people who can't read a newspaper feel better about their ignorance.
>
> Anyways, I had a friend who stuided art in school - photography to be
> exact. She told me of an internal debate in the art school in which some
> professors felt that "modern" forms of art were not art at all. This
> included photography, architecture, graphic design (ad artists), TV, film,
> comics, animation, etc.
>
> This would seem to be the line of thinking this writer has adapated.
>
He does seem a right short-sighted bugger. Apparantly didn't catch "Princess
Mononoke" or "Akira."
> As a software engineer, I would consider software to be an artform.
That's like saying that stretching canvas is an art form. Software is just a
tool. You can make a great tool but unless it speaks to you on a level
independent of its function then it isn't art.
> I'm sure many of you have run across a program that not only works, but
> it works well. It's dependable, it's compact, it's a joy to use. That,
> to me, is a piece of art.
But then, you are a software artiste! My grandfather used to take me to rodeos.
He was a rancher. A good roper, to him, was an artist. But a roper must first
catch the calf, then do it fast and only *then* do it beautifully.
> A formless idea given form and executed well -
> isn't that what art is all about?
>
I thought that was engineering?
> Software also encompasses other areas: literature (story, character,
> conflict), art (character designs, architecture) and music. These things
> are bound together with software, this intangible glue that does not
> exist in the physical world.
Ah, but are these not the art one can create with the tool of software. To
celebrate the pigment for the painting is not appropriate. The credit is due
the artist who chose the materials and fashioned them together. The artisan who
crafted the pigment is due some measure of credit but is not considered and
artist as his "art" must serve a function first.
BTW, what a great discussion to find on c.s.i.p.g.*!
Doctor Tongue
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Geoffrey Tobin <G.T...@latrobe.edu.au>
wrote:
> > If definitions have a useful part in this discourse,
> > then we might as well remember that "art" means "skill"
> > just as "tech" means "skill".
>
> > So art and technology are the same thing, in skilled hands.
>
> Is that where the word "artisan" came from? :)
>
> Maybe I should ask my manager to change my title to "software artisan",
> yeah, I like the way that sounds... :)
>
Now that would be appropriate! A craftsman/artisan makes beautiful things that
*do* something. I'm a huge fan of the arts and crafts movement and therefore
know something about taking pleasure from the work of skilled artisans.
> Anyways, this goes back to my philosophy that anything can be art.
>
Since art is subjective (it is, isn't it?) you may have a point here.
John Gwynn
Alex wrote:
> Would anyone doubt that good movies are art. Surely Kurosawa's "Ran" or
> David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" or Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange," "2001,"
> or "Dr. Strangelove" must be regarded as art. I feel that movies are the
> only original artform to spring up during the past century. But in the next
> century the new artform will be games.
OK So what films are art???
I have a co-worker wo swears that everything you need to know about life is not
taught in kindergarten but contained in the first two Godfather films plus
Goodfellas. ;-)
Actually The Godfather's are classics.
As is Raging Bull (without peer).
Seven Samurai, (Kurosowa deserves the attention)
City Lights (Charlie is a true popular artist),
Citizen Kane (acedemic),
Wild Strawberries (Bergman is the best Existential filmmaker period),
Dead Man (really anything by Jim Jarmusch -this is art)
Blue, Red, White (Kieslowski's trilogy is poetry on film)
Blazing Saddles ??
.....
.....
there are so many different films that are good for so many different
reasons....
Gil-galad
> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
here's what ->I<- say:
FUCK THE ESTABLISHMENT.
if i say something is art, then it fucking is. NO ONE tells me how to
think. fuck them, fuck them, fuck them, fuck them.
games are more than art, they are a reality in itself.
(sorry if you dont like my use of bad language, but i dont like to
censor myself. if reading this has caused a fellow gamer a negative
reaction then i sincerely apologize. as for everyone else - well, i dont
have to say it, do I? :) )
Robert Norton
> <snip>
> > As a software engineer, I would consider software to be an artform.
>
> That's like saying that stretching canvas is an art form. Software is just a
> tool. You can make a great tool but unless it speaks to you on a level
> independent of its function then it isn't art.
>
> > I'm sure many of you have run across a program that not only works, but
> > it works well. It's dependable, it's compact, it's a joy to use. That,
> > to me, is a piece of art.
>
> But then, you are a software artiste! My grandfather used to take me to rodeos.
> He was a rancher. A good roper, to him, was an artist. But a roper must first
> catch the calf, then do it fast and only *then* do it beautifully.
Right on the money!
> > A formless idea given form and executed well -
> > isn't that what art is all about?
> >
>
> I thought that was engineering?
Don't look now, but great engineering is art, and the engineers know it. Look at
the Golden Gate Bridge. Look at the Palm Pilot. Not everybody can appreciate every
form of art, but go ask the creators, they will tell you what they have done.
> > Software also encompasses other areas: literature (story, character,
> > conflict), art (character designs, architecture) and music. These things
> > are bound together with software, this intangible glue that does not
> > exist in the physical world.
>
> Ah, but are these not the art one can create with the tool of software. To
> celebrate the pigment for the painting is not appropriate. The credit is due
> the artist who chose the materials and fashioned them together. The artisan who
> crafted the pigment is due some measure of credit but is not considered and
> artist as his "art" must serve a function first.
There are software artist. They compose the object sets the way a painter composes
a picture. They will often work on their program even after it works perfectly,
making it more elegant internally, in ways that nobody will ever see, just for the
thrill of it. This joy of creating something beautiful to the creator is the heart
of my definition of art.
> BTW, what a great discussion to find on c.s.i.p.g.*!
It is a nice one!
Robert Norton
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:06:21 +1100, Geoffrey Tobin
> <G.T...@latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >A lot of players of X-COM cared what happened to their
> >squad members.
>
> Sure, but being emotionally involved in a game isn't tantamout to art.
>
> My feeling is that non-linear, interactive games will always have
> trouble being art. Think of Macbeth. Suppose you had a computer
> version of it that allowed you to choose whether Macbeth would kill
> Duncan, would let you fight and possibly defeat Macduff, and so on. It
> might be fun, but it wouldn't be anything like art.
What would distinguish such a work from true art?
Do you mean that the audience participates in the work? If you have a
flower in a pot, Ikebana (sp?), it is undoubtedly an art form. You can
choose the angle that you view it, and thus change the work.
Is it because the artist did not foresee that exact results? Is Venus di
Milo no longer art because her arms are broken? The artist did not
foresee that, I'm sure.
How about because the work changes in unpredictable ways? Is a Calder
mobile not art, because it re-arranges itself?
Or (worst possibility of all) do you doubt it is art because it is fun,
and true art must not be fun!
bunboy
would agree with him that games don't usually convey the quailities movies
do, but I strongly disagree that because of the technology games can't
convey that type of emotion.
Most game developers despite their beliefs that they are well rounded
individuals are mathematicians at their soul. Very very creative ones but
mathematicians never the less. They are also very young, not real worldly
in the ways of the world, and subtlety generally is not in their
vocabulary. Pacing, and tempo are almost non existent to a concept that
usually involves leveling to be able to kill something better. It is
totally foolish to say games can't do it though and who knows maybe even
better. Someone in this thread gave Last of the Orient as an exmple of
games that do it and whiole not perfect it still is a good one. By the way
does anyone know any game like it? I really enjoyed how the game progressed
with or without you (kind of U2 style). IN any event I agree Kroll is
wrong, many games have their moments but to me the real artists of gaming
are yet to break out. Everyone is still to busy playing with the
technology. I still see no reason why there can't be a Private Ryan Game,
or French Connection, Or maybe even the Sixth Sense in skilled hands. I
have no doubt most gamers are ready, maybe even a few of the fourteen year
old morons I deal with online from time to time might enjoy it.
--
Bunboy,
The people who can smile when things go wrong have found someone else
to blame.
"Trent" <Drumm...@aol.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:38BDBB...@aol.NOSPAMcom...
> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
>
> "Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit
> the emotional complexity that is the root of art." I disagree.
> Fallout, Final Fantasy 7, Heroes of Might and Magic III,
> Planescape...those games left me feeling like I was truly in another
> world, much more so than any recent movie I've seen.
>
> "Games have their own importance in cultural history. In his book "Homo
> Ludens"-Man the Game-Player-the Dutch sociologist Johan Huizinga writes
> that play predated religion and culture; play "creates order." On the
> other hand, he says that "solitary play" is of little consequence,
> "sharpening the mental faculties very one-sidedly without enriching the
> soul in any way." The millions sitting at their consoles and computers
> would no doubt have made Huizinga one depressed Dutchman, even if they
> were interacting with others sitting at their consoles from Munich to
> Mandalay."
>
> What does everyone else think about this?
>
Ashikaga
news:38BED65A...@yahoo.com...
>
> Ashikaga wrote:
>
> > You can talk to someone who use tons of big words and still get nothing
out
> > of them, or you can talk to someone who appear to be petty and words of
> > wisdom are flowing out of them in every single sentence.
>
> You can also learn what a lot of those big words mean and go back and
listen
> to the former with appreciation, and revisit the latter and wonder what
was up
> with that!
I know lots of big words, but I just use them when there is absolutely no
substitue or when the biggie is the most precise word to use (or I can just
flip through Thesaurus and use all those archaic words if I like). I also
open my dictionary a lot. Thanks for you suggestion. I did appreciate your
words, if I sounded mean, I apologize. I did mention (if you did not catch
it in the first place), this is not an open invitation for a flame war.
Nevertheless, ad hominen is not the way to argue. Negative campaign, out.
The focus of the contemporary speakers is on how to convey words
effectively, so the audience can receive the same message the speaker sent
(at least this is true in my business English class). Less is more.
Clearly, I did a lousy job on that. I guess the use of simple words are not
enough, my sentence structure perhaps is too awkward.
> What is art? Can't give you a reasonable definition but I know it when i
> see/hear/touch/feel (appreciate) it.
Yeah, everybody's perception on art is a little bit of subjective. We just
kind of believe something to be art because we generate a broad perception
internally in our mind.
> Most any human from any culture at any given time are likely to be
impressed
> with Michelangelo's David, the Parthenon, Taj Mahal, Beethoven's 5th etc.
>
> Jazz, Picasso, Ballet etc are a bit more esoteric requiring a grounding in
> context to appreciate fully.
>
> Computer games, if they withstand the test of time may well qualify. Who
can
> guess? Does it matter?
I did not argue does it matter whether the game is art or not in order to be
appreciated, I argued many games are not art or have an ambition to become
art, that's it, period. My definition on art is quite regid, I suppose.
Anyhoo..., I love a lot of games I mentioned, they are just not art by my
defintion. Let me give a more concrete example: artworks in games are art.
However, the game that includes those artworks does not become art
automatically, if it does not use those artwork in a meaningful manner.
And, I am going to adopt Robert Norton's definition (see earlier posts on
that) on art and let the standard be more general. I guess, many things are
art, just whether they are good art or bad art. I hope I made you happy.
> In any event I know I appreciate them...
I appreciate them, too.
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
"Paul Simpson" <p.r.s...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:89kmj3$fjd$1...@news.liv.ac.uk...
> This...just....my god, words can't even begin to describe how infuirating
> this kind of narrow minded inept journalism is. I ask you: what is Art?
> "Holding a mirror up to nature and the world around us" or "a reflection
of
> the human condition" is the usual glib answer, though this is not to say
> there is a grain of truth in these statements. Art is generally, at its
> root, something BEYOND mere words or phrases that has a profound
> significance to an individual or group of individuals - hence the constant
> disagreements as to what constitutes art, and the sneering, preening
> intellectualism of those who never recognise true art when it stares them
in
> the face. For these people, anything that cannot be discussed in flowery
> language or theorised over at dinner parties cannot possibly be art, yet
ask
> the man in the street his opinion and it probably has a thousand times
the
> value of any one of these snobs. EVERY significant art form of the last
100
> years has met with the same disdain by the so-called "cogniscenti", and
yet
> wait some time and all of a sudden what they once considered "trash"
becomes
> "art". Miles davis, Van Gogh, Picasso, Robert Johnson, Jimi Hendrix - all
> of these artists faced this kind of reaction. I remember my first Quake
> deathmatch online - I was every bit as blown away by the experience as
when
> I was first exposed to the works of Picasso, Hendrix et al. But for
idiots
> like the writer of the article mentioned, it's just too radical. The
> cartoon in this link sums the whole thing up in three short frames better
> than I ever could:
>
> http://www.gamespy.com/comics/pa5.shtm
>
> --
> All the best,
>
> Paul.
>
> "Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Engineers
> believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."
> ----- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle
>
> And when the ark was finished Noah said unto Elvis, "What do you reckon?"
> And Elvis checked out his own cabin and shook his head saying "poky".
> And so did they knock several walls through and install a jaccuzzi.
> And when it was all done Noah scratched his beard and said, "We don't have
> room for all the animals now."
> And Elvis perused the livestock list and in his wisdom said, "Lose the
> dinosaurs."
> --Robert Rankin, The Suburban Book of the Dead
Ashikaga
> As a software engineer, I would consider software to be an artform.
> it works well. It's dependable, it's compact, it's a joy to use. That,
> - isn't that what art is all about?
I think so, too. Except when one use the word ar" in making a program, the
word "art" is used as a practice, like applied arts.
Art is indeed a formless idea (a though, creativity or whatever) given a
form (either sculpture, on canvas, choreography or mediums such as a game or
movies). It must be execute well to be called a piece of fine art.
It's almost like how you distinguish between nursery rhymes from poems.
Sometimes a person might call his creation a poem, while others would laugh
at the attempt. Who is right? Hard to tell (especially when the critic is
a pretentious snob). The working definitions varies also, so this has
become complicated further.
> Software also encompasses other areas: literature (story, character,
> conflict), art (character designs, architecture) and music. These things
> are bound together with software, this intangible glue that does not
> exist in the physical world.
True. Bound together is the key. Sometimes certain music is great by
itself, but doesn't mix well (such as taking away the players' attention
from the story) or simply doesn't fit into the story. Other times a
mediocre school chant would work miraculously with a nostalgic setting.
Which piece would have a better chance to become art? Definitely the second
game that has the appropriate mediocre score.
Ashikaga
Ashikaga
yet. Money is more important to the industry, that is the thing that
cripples the progress (as it did for movies).
(Why are Kubrick's movies considered great? I don't get it. The Clockwork
Orange is so meaningless-sex-driven , so what's the point? Somebody tells
me.)
Ashikaga
"Brian Siano" <bsi...@cceb.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:38BED556...@cceb.med.upenn.edu...
>
>
> Trent wrote:
>
> > I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> > in which the author says that videogames are not art:
> >
> > http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a16818-2000feb27.htm
>
> Read it: not much content to it, overall, so I suspect it's just a print
> version of troll-bait. (It's one thing to say that computer games _have
> not_ become art: one could argue this, and one might have a case. It's
> quite another to say that they _cannot_ become art; in a world where
> graffiti, rap music, and advertisements can be sondiered artful, one
> should be reluctant to make such sweeping pronouncements.
>
> A few things stuck out.
>
> "Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit the
Ashikaga
Your use of indecent language could be art.
</sarcasm>
Sorry, but nothing personal against you. It is just a way to mock art
critics.
Ashikaga (BTW, I am not going to cross post anymore)
"Gil-galad" <no...@noone.com> wrote in message
news:38BF02...@noone.com...
> > I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> > in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
>
Mark Asher
<G.T...@latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>A lot of players of X-COM cared what happened to their
>squad members.
Sure, but being emotionally involved in a game isn't tantamout to art.
My feeling is that non-linear, interactive games will always have
trouble being art. Think of Macbeth. Suppose you had a computer
version of it that allowed you to choose whether Macbeth would kill
Duncan, would let you fight and possibly defeat Macduff, and so on. It
might be fun, but it wouldn't be anything like art.
Mark Asher
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> First of all, come on, I did not ask a flame war.
And i'm not flaming. These questions are serious.
> Law and Order is a TV series.
> It is more like descriptive essay (in style)
> in the sense it tells viewer about certain events
> and think about it. It requires thinking and one
> of the better programs on TV, I have to admit.
>
> > > ... BTW, spoken symbols in movies are usually considered
> > > as shallow ones; radically different from how literature
> > > sends its symbols out).
> >
> > Is that shallowness true of "The 39 Steps"?
>
> Is that Hitchcock?
ISTR so. Robert Donat played the central character.
Btw I think there's been a remake.
> I have to see this.
> But Hitchcock uses forms to portray
> symbolism a lot, which supports my point. ...
Yes, i was just hoping you had seen it,
so you could elaborate your thesis.
> > > ... Let's not lie to ourselves, computer game
> > > is not that mature yet, though I think it certainly
> > > has the potential to be an art.
> >
> > Is the printed word mature? If we judge it by the
> > overwhelming volume of magazine gossip and low-quality
> > books, one would judge print harshly.
>
> How many years since we have literature?
> You are redirecting my words.
I'm not denigrating the path you are taking,
but pointing to other ramifications. In
many respects the thousands of years of
literary development have not matured the
content of the most common material.
> Come on, using tabloid is not an objective comparison.
I didn't say tabloid. I was thinking of publications
like New Idea, Woman's Day, Who, Elle, and several
of the PC magazines.
> We only compare the best of all (literature, games,
> musics, movies, etc). ...
Yes, so is the best movie superior to the best game?
I think not.
However, i agree that games have not known a Mozart
(unless it be the author of M.U.L.E.) or a Shakespeare
(although Frederic Reynal was perhaps on the way to
becoming a Marlowe).
> > > I am from the adventure group,
>
> > Believe it or not, i didn't see that you were walking
> > the same track.
>
> I believe you. Really, don't be cynical.
Then please believe that the thought had not crossed my mind.
You are reading far too much into other people's writings.
Like those critics you mentioned who over-analyze literature.
:) See, when i send them, my barbs are direct.
Re a brief description of Twinsen's Odyssey:
> Interesting, and I have not played the game yet.
It's worthwhile. I'm surprised several in the Adventure group
hadn't mentioned TO before i did.
> So you are arguing Twinsen's Odyssey from literature point of view,
Except that it lacks the element of imagining the world
for yourself. But it is drawn so well i didn't mind that.
> instead of the integration of visual arts and linguistic arts
> I have been proposed.
By linguistic arts do you include storyline?
Games have a difficulty with Characters. In books you cannot
revisit a character in a context not intended by the author.
But in games you can meet them as often as you please, so they
soon run out of dialogue. This makes games seem less imaginative
than novels, though really it may not be so.
> If that is so, then the judgement will taken entirely
> differently. Although TLE and GK's
> have shown those characteristics as well.
Please elaborate. (I haven't played either TLE or GK.)
> > > IMHO, the latter is the closest one yet to be in art form
> > > (but none lived up to the standard to be considered
> > > as a masterpiece). Planescape, arguably to be the greatest
> > > games ever, is a philosophical piece, but still not an art piece.
This is another game i have not played.
What makes Planescape: Torment so impressive?
Does P:T run on a P-100 with 2MB video card?
> > What would be required of a game to attain masterpiece status?
>
> Forgive me, I meant art masterpiece. They are game masterpieces already.
Yes, i was asking what would raise a game to the heights
of a masterpiece of art?
> > > ... the companies' need to send their "artists" to art galleries
> > > and filmmakers' guilds to do some post-graduate study what makes
> > > certain pieces art and whiles others junks ...
> >
> > I can tell them that!
>
> But they will not listen.
Indeed, that's why the authors of junk rarely mature.
> The conversation like this is often more productive than the unanimous,
> conflict avoiding "group discussion."
Yes, but i'm not conflicting, but asking, and in between
expressing some opinions with a yet to be determined
relationship to the theme you have commenced to expound.
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> Geoffrey Tobin wrote:
>
> >A lot of players of X-COM cared what happened to their
> >squad members.
>
> Sure, but being emotionally involved in a game
Agreed so far, but it is one component of what makes
certain art great.
> My feeling is that non-linear, interactive games will always have
> trouble being art. Think of Macbeth. Suppose you had a computer
> version of it that allowed you to choose whether Macbeth would kill
> Duncan, would let you fight and possibly defeat Macduff, and so on. It
> might be fun, but it wouldn't be anything like art.
So you're suggesting that RPGs and strategy games
have a harder road towards Art than Adventure games?
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> I have never thought of circus as being an art form as much as being
> entertaining.
I haven't seen enough Circus performances recently to assess
that profession, but Gymnastics is most certainly an art form:
the best floor exercises are comparable to ice dancing, which
is one of the most beautiful and challenging arts devised.
> Well, I have to back myself (although I can adopt and modify
> my views along the ways), anything could be art, if executed in a
> meaningful manner.
It's more than meaning, it's that plus beauty plus surprise,
at least.
> Is gestalt jigsaw meaningful?
Now that it's been coined, it is. Although admittedly
a tautology, it presents a colorful image. I mean
a composite that has emergent form and meaning.
Geoffrey Tobin
Even if this were a fencing contest, which it isn't
as it seems to me we're all genuinely appreciative
of each other's contributions to the discussion,
but even if it were, the proper tactic is not to
rely on blocking but to display your skill with
the epee sans apology. That would please us best.
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> Is that where the word "artisan" came from? :)
I think so. (No smiley.)
> Maybe I should ask my manager to change my title
> to "software artisan",
> yeah, I like the way that sounds... :)
So do i. Is your work of the finest Quality?
> Anyways, this goes back to my philosophy that anything can be art.
Yes, if there is an Artist.
Are the academies, colleges and universities producing Artists?
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> Since art is subjective ...
Not entirely. Architecture of a high order is art,
but a building that lets too much or too little
light and heat in, is not.
Geoffrey Tobin
...
> Melvyn Bragg (a wonderful all-round-educated person). ...
Sounds like Australia's Phillip Adams, who is self-educated
and intelligently interested in almost everything.
Unfortunately i haven't had the pleasure to see or hear Mr Bragg,
except perhaps the once on TV.
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> If this Bragg is accusing scientists ...
It would help to read carefully. Mr Bragg is the listener
in the cited account, not the speaker. The thespian wasn't
named. (Please name him for us, Lucian. :)
Geoffrey Tobin
...
> Miles davis, Van Gogh, Picasso, Robert Johnson, Jimi Hendrix ...
I still have reservations about Picasso and Hendrix.
Who is Robert Johnson?
> ... Robert Rankin, The Suburban Book of the Dead
I liked the ark joke. Poor dinosaurs. I wonder how
Sid Meier will refloat them?
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> ... And when he sings certain songs that I have grown up with
> and become so attached to they bring tears to my eyes, well you know
> it must be Ozzy. ...
Who is Ozzy?
Music that has touched my heart most would include
Lionel Ritchie's "Hello", the "Song To The Moon" from
the opera Rusalka, Stevie Nix's "Rhiannon", the "Ride
of the Valkyries" from The Ring Cycle, and "Memories"
from Cats. A classical Chinese song, "Green Island Serenade",
has special personal significance, but i'd enjoy it in any
case.
Performance can make or break a piece of music. I probably
wouldn't enjoy a jazz rendition of "Fur Elise" (that title
is a misreading of Beethoven's handwriting, but i forget
what he actually called it), and classical orchestral
interpretations of rock music have usually been insipid.
Geoffrey Tobin
...
> I'd be the first to admit that I couln't tell a 'good' opera
> from a 'bad' one, they all sound horrible to me, ...
Many operas are let down by the libretto,
or by unintentionally ridiculous storylines.
A pity, because the music often deserves
much better, but great composers cannot
always partner great writers.
Geoffrey Tobin
...
> who-killed-the-butler-with-the-candlestick
Oh man, this reminds me: i must get home in time
to watch "Jonathan Creek".
> The first thing that struck me with [Planescape] was the dialog. ...
Good dialogue is worth its weight in precious metals,
many times over.
Geoffrey Tobin
...
> some professors felt that "modern" forms of art were not art at all.
I pity them for their incapacity to appreciate the Taj Mahal,
the palaces of Thailand, Cluny Cathedral, and the Parthenon
as it was before Lord Elgin took it apart.
> This would seem to be the line of thinking this writer has adapated.
>
> As a software engineer, I would consider software to be an artform.
> I'm sure many of you have run across a program that not only works, but
> it works well. It's dependable, it's compact, it's a joy to use. ...
I have a dream: to write software that is so elegant
that its source code is beautiful.
Geoffrey Tobin
...
> Moviemakers don't have to simulate human beings;
> they are right there, to be recorded and orchestrated."
Fairwell "Metropolis". By extension, movies that celebrate
the population rather than the individual are not art: so
there goes "Battleship Potemkin".
> By this reasoning, animated cartoons are equally crippled from ever
> transmitting emotional complexity.
Nonetheless i still get a kick out of "Krazy Kat" and Ignatz the Rat,
as well as Loony Tunes. And what about the significant use of
Daffy Duck in Babylon 5?
> ... one could say that none of the characters in
> _2001: A Space Odyssey_ have that breathing presence,
> and yet, it's one of the greatest films ever made.
So true. Except for the psychedelic scene - that wasn't art. ;)
> And considering that Kessen probably wasn't _trying_
> to be the equal of the great Kurosawa, this is like
> saying that _Dumb and Dumber_ fails to be as good as _Aguiire,
> the Wrath of God_.
I found Aguirre a mite slow. Maybe i was too young to appreciate it.
> "The top-heavy titillation of Tomb Raider's Lara Croft
> falls flat next to the face of Sharon Stone, ...
Hah! I prefer Meg Ryan, Michelle Pfeiffer and Goldie Hawn
any day. Now, a film with all three of them - only needs
a good script - on second thought, they could act out a
good movie from a lousy script.
And any writer who's presenting _Basic Instinct_ as a benchmark for
> female complexity is just fouling himself in public. Might I suggest
> Juliet Stevenson in _Truly, Madly, Deeply_, or Emma Thompson
> in _Carrington_ or _Sense and Sensibility_?
Yes please!
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> > I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
> > in which the author says that videogames are not art:
>
You certainly don't speak like the noble Gil-Galad i know.
Besides, you were verbose.
L.J. Wischik
>It would help to read carefully. Mr Bragg is the listener
>in the cited account, not the speaker. The thespian wasn't
>named. (Please name him for us, Lucian. :)
Sorry. I wasn't listening at the very start, at switched it off before the
end in exasperation.
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
Mark Asher
<G.T...@latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>Mark Asher wrote:
>>
>> Geoffrey Tobin wrote:
>>
>> >A lot of players of X-COM cared what happened to their
>> >squad members.
>>
>> Sure, but being emotionally involved in a game
>> isn't tantamount to art.
>
>Agreed so far, but it is one component of what makes
>certain art great.
>
>> My feeling is that non-linear, interactive games will always have
>> trouble being art. Think of Macbeth. Suppose you had a computer
>> version of it that allowed you to choose whether Macbeth would kill
>> Duncan, would let you fight and possibly defeat Macduff, and so on. It
>> might be fun, but it wouldn't be anything like art.
>
>So you're suggesting that RPGs and strategy games
>have a harder road towards Art than Adventure games?
Yeah, I'm suggesting that what we generally think of as art in the
written and performing world, which is what computer games are most
similar to, is tightly scripted. There isn't room for reader
interaction in Macbeth.
I'm not going to argue what art is, but what art does is hold up a
mirror that allows us to see ourselves. It helps us see what it means
to be human.
Probably the best structure for making games that can also be art is
the episodic structure of games like Half-Life and Starcraft. These
games are linear and are interrupted periodically by scripted events
or speeches that the player just watches. The player then gets to play
through the next episode. In the case of Starcraft, the player
finishes a mission and gets the story advanced further. In Half-Life
the player goes through an area and reaches a place where a new event
is triggered that moves the story forward.
I think most of us were a bit pissed off when Kerrigan was abandoned
and left to her fate in Starcraft. That was a good piece of
storytelling.
Mark Asher
L.J. Wischik
>Yeah, I'm suggesting that what we generally think of as art in the
>written and performing world, which is what computer games are most
>similar to, is tightly scripted. There isn't room for reader
>interaction in Macbeth.
Have you ever been irritated by the fact that you can tell that the plot
is about to end, merely by guestimating the number of remaining pages?
That somehow ruins some of the suspense. A solution is to stick an extra
300 pages of junk onto the end, so that simple 'number-of-pages-left'
guess doesn't work. But if these extra pages are plank, or totally
irrelevant, then the suspense is also destroyed because it is so easy to
tell that they are non-story.
The solution, then, is to write a novel and to stick an extra 300 page
'further ending' onto it: an extended ending that is plausible, and
involves the same characters. But when you're actually reading it you
will get 2/3 of the way through and discover a paragraph where it says
"the end.", and only then will you know that the rest was bogus.
This is already half way towards an interactive story. Readers will feel
that they can choose whether the story ends where it should, or whether
it should drag on.
Robert Norton
> Doctor Tongue wrote:
> >
> > Since art is subjective ...
>
> Not entirely. Architecture of a high order is art,
> but a building that lets too much or too little
> light and heat in, is not.
Some would say that Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings, which have terrible
reputation for leaking, are the most artistic.
Paul E.
Mark Asher wrote in message <38bfb2f9...@news.inlink.com>...
>I'm not going to argue what art is, but what art does is hold up a
>mirror that allows us to see ourselves. It helps us see what it means
>to be human.
I think that this element is exactly where games can surpass other media.
In reading "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" or in watching "Blade
Runner," you get to imagine what it would be like to make Deckard's
decisions. It is very involving, but limited.
In Westwood's "Blade Runner" (which is admittedly far from perfect) you get
to make the decision yourself - you have replicants in your sights and you
get to make the call on whether or not to pull the trigger, whether to warn
Lucy, whether to leave with her...
The game did some things well and some things badly. What it did well was
allowing you to "make the call" on a limited number of things which made a
*significant* difference on your place in the game world and on the outcome.
To me, this perspective - with emotional content and non-trivial
malleability - surpasses other art.
Knight37
>Games are just not yet to become art, definitely has the potential,
>just not yet. Money is more important to the industry, that is the
>thing that cripples the progress (as it did for movies).
>
>(Why are Kubrick's movies considered great? I don't get it. The
>Clockwork Orange is so meaningless-sex-driven , so what's the point?
> Somebody tells me.)
Clockwork Orange MEANINGLESS?!! This movie is ALL ABOUT meaning.
Here's a link to page with links to tons of critical reviews of this
excellent science fiction film:
http://www.mrqe.com/lookup?Clockwork+Orange
My take is that A Clockwork Orange is an exageration of existing social
conditions to an extreme in order to point them out. It is also to ask
the question: What is the cost of ridding our streets of violence? The
conditioning that Alex went through seems just a cruel as his own acts
of violence. And to me, the ending points out that the society itself
bred more violence by its very nature.
--
Knight37
"You have entered the Twilight Zone
Beyond this world strange things are known
Use the key, unlock the door
See what your fate might have in store
Come explore your dreams' creation
Enter this world of imagination"
-- Rush "The Twilight Zone"
Doctor Tongue
news:38BEE5A6...@yahoo.com...
>
<snip>
> Dead Man (really anything by Jim Jarmusch -this is art)
Sorry to harp on this but Jarmusch's last even semi-artful film was "Mystery
Train" and even that was almost suffocated by its contrivance. "Night on Earth"
was dreadful. "Dead Man" seemed like he might be returning to art but I hear
"Ghost Dog" is even worse than that shitty taxicab movie. FWIW, "Down by Law"
is the last truly artful film of the Jarmusch canon. I wouldn't even care but
that he showed such promise and has pissed it away since. Such a shame.
<snip>
Doctor Tongue
news:38BF6D7C...@latrobe.edu.au...
> Paul Simpson wrote:
> ...
> > Miles davis, Van Gogh, Picasso, Robert Johnson, Jimi Hendrix ...
>
> I still have reservations about Picasso and Hendrix.
>
> Who is Robert Johnson?
>
Haunting, humanly poignant and shit-kicking bluesman (Mississippi Delta variety)
of the 20's, 30's and 40's.
Knight37
>Have you ever been irritated by the fact that you can tell that the
>plot is about to end, merely by guestimating the number of remaining
>pages? That somehow ruins some of the suspense.
[SNIP]
>The solution, then, is to write a novel and to stick an extra 300
>page 'further ending' onto it: an extended ending that is plausible,
Yeah. Then we'd have to remember that when we were getting to close to
300 pages left that the end was near. ;P
--
Knight37
"A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
'The stars aren't aligned ---
Or the gods are malign'
Blame is better to give than receive" -- Rush "Free Will"
Knight37
>I still have reservations about Picasso and Hendrix.
Gack!? Who cares about that Picasso bloke, but Jimi HENDRIX?!!
--
Knight37
"Every gun has it's own sound. Perfect timing, small one."
-- Blonde, from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
Paul Simpson
>
>
would acknowledge that they are considered to be artists by a great many
people, and just because you don't like them doesn't disqualify them from
being "art". It's the sheer refusal to do so of the guy who wrote the
original article that just...well...got to me a bit :)
> Who is Robert Johnson?
Very early rural blues guitarist from Mississippi in the 1930s - inspired
countless other blues guitarists, and infuenced most early rock 'n' rollers
in some way. Incredibly technically gifted, and a haunting singing voice.
> I liked the ark joke. Poor dinosaurs. I wonder how
> Sid Meier will refloat them?
LOL! If you liked that quote, may I humbly suggest you check out his
novels - they're packed with stuff like this. More information is available
at
http://www.lostcarpark.com/sproutlore/
--
All the best,
Paul.
"Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Engineers
believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."
----- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle
And when the ark was finished Noah said unto Elvis, "What do you reckon?"
And Elvis checked out his own cabin and shook his head saying "poky".
And so did they knock several walls through and install a jaccuzzi.
And when it was all done Noah scratched his beard and said, "We don't have
room for all the animals now."
And Elvis perused the livestock list and in his wisdom said, "Lose the
dinosaurs."
--Robert Rankin, The Suburban Book of the Dead
Paul Simpson
>
> Ashikaga
Many thanks!
Tarant
opposite stance of the Newsweek article:
http://digitaldiscourse.exprod.com/essays/PlayingArt.shtml
Alex
"Paul Simpson" <p.r.s...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:89onto$3kk$1...@news.liv.ac.uk...
<snip>
>
> > Who is Robert Johnson?
A man who met the devil at the Crossroads. He is silky-sweet delta blues
sung with the passion of a soul bound for hell's flames. He is an American
Faust, a poet, a sage, a most beautiful gem. He would scoff at the notion of
his music being art. "It is blues, man" he'd say. "Just blues..."
But do I think the music of Robert Johnson is art....HEELLLLLLLL
YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--Alex
Doug Jacobs
> Have you ever been irritated by the fact that you can tell that the plot
> is about to end, merely by guestimating the number of remaining pages?
> That somehow ruins some of the suspense. A solution is to stick an extra
> 300 pages of junk onto the end, so that simple 'number-of-pages-left'
> guess doesn't work. But if these extra pages are plank, or totally
> irrelevant, then the suspense is also destroyed because it is so easy to
> tell that they are non-story.
Yeah, I hate when that happens. Although I've also been annoyed to get
to the end of a book, only to have the author say "Sorry, it doesn't end
here...buy my next book!"
> The solution, then, is to write a novel and to stick an extra 300 page
> 'further ending' onto it: an extended ending that is plausible, and
> involves the same characters. But when you're actually reading it you
> will get 2/3 of the way through and discover a paragraph where it says
> "the end.", and only then will you know that the rest was bogus.
How about just glue the pages into the book out of order :) Just put
redirects on the bottom of each page.
Actually, this reminds me of those "make your own adventure" books that
were popular back in the early 80s.
Doug Jacobs
>> I stumbled across this infuriating article from Newsweek by Jack Kroll
>> in which the author says that videogames are not art:
> here's what ->I<- say:
> FUCK THE ESTABLISHMENT.
> if i say something is art, then it fucking is. NO ONE tells me how to
> think. fuck them, fuck them, fuck them, fuck them.
Isn't that what Andy Warhol's attitude was?
If computer games are the new pop-art, then they are art.
Simon Juncal
> Yeah, I'm suggesting that what we generally think of as art in the
> written and performing world, which is what computer games are most
> similar to, is tightly scripted. There isn't room for reader
> interaction in Macbeth.
The presence of interactivity doesn't preclude something from
being art. I'm sorry but this sounds a bit like someone
precluding all paintings that have the color blue in them from
being art. There doesn't seem to be any sort reasoning behind
your conclusion; just an arbitrary exclusion.
> I'm not going to argue what art is, but what art does is hold up a
> mirror that allows us to see ourselves. It helps us see what it means
> to be human.
That is one thing that art *can* do.
As others have argued, and seems to be a common misconception; you're
drawing an arbitrary line which says "only good art is art"... The
same fallacy used by the author of that article... Like most everything
in life; there's no such black and white, clearly demarcated line...
Nothing you can use to state emphatically: This is art, is has crossed
over the line from *mere* handiwork, to become a reflection of the
human condition.
You and others are confusing importance, impact and purposefulness
for a simple description of a product of creativity. Like arguing
that beautiful women are *women* while ugly women are not. What's more,
what we find beautiful can be entirely subjective, however (assuming
the correct chromosomes) there's nothing at all subjective about the
actual definition of a female.
--
Simon co List Admin Capi...@his.com
Aka Alhazred
http://capitals.washington.dc.us/
http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/
Simon Juncal
>
> Geoffrey Tobin <G.T...@latrobe.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:38BF6D7C...@latrobe.edu.au...
> > Paul Simpson wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > I still have reservations about Picasso and Hendrix.
> >
> >
>
> Haunting, humanly poignant and shit-kicking bluesman (Mississippi Delta variety)
> of the 20's, 30's and 40's.
Additionally, one of the prime inspirations of some of the best
British rock bands... Among them Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones
Clapton/Cream.
Quatoria
knig...@gamespotmail.com (Knight37) wrote:
>Clockwork Orange MEANINGLESS?!! This movie is ALL ABOUT meaning.
>
>Here's a link to page with links to tons of critical reviews of this
>excellent science fiction film:
>
>http://www.mrqe.com/lookup?Clockwork+Orange
>
>My take is that A Clockwork Orange is an exageration of existing social
>conditions to an extreme in order to point them out. It is also to ask
>the question: What is the cost of ridding our streets of violence? The
>conditioning that Alex went through seems just a cruel as his own acts
>of violence. And to me, the ending points out that the society itself
>bred more violence by its very nature.
Of course, the ending to the movie is not the real ending of the book.
Clockwork Orange, the Movie, was based on the edited version of the
book first released to the US. The full book actually has Alex make a
revelation and understand why what he was doing was criminal and
wrong, which, I think, gives the story a little more soul, and
fundamentally changes the nature of the tale. It's not just a story
about society breeding violence, it's a story showing that even the
most violent and morally decrepit member of society is capable of
change.
--
Quatoria
Everything I've ever told you is a lie. I just lied to you, and I'm lying to you now.
http://members.tripod.com/~Quatoria/genreblind.html - Genre Blind Radio: Our Music Doesn't Suck
Ashikaga
csipga? How do we distinguish the two?). I think this is a better
environment for a more logical and rational discussion (people are more
mature and less likely to have certain rush in their head). I also need to
keep my promise not to crosspost anymore.
"Geoffrey Tobin" <G.T...@latrobe.edu.au> wrote in message
news:38BF661A...@latrobe.edu.au...
> Ashikaga wrote:
> >
> > First of all, come on, I did not ask a flame war.
>
> And i'm not flaming. These questions are serious.
I always read the entire post before respond, and I realized you are serious
about this. :-)
<snip>
> ISTR so. Robert Donat played the central character.
Forgive me, what does ISTR mean?
> Btw I think there's been a remake.
>
> > I have to see this.
> > But Hitchcock uses forms to portray
> > symbolism a lot, which supports my point. ...
>
> Yes, i was just hoping you had seen it,
> so you could elaborate your thesis.
Shame for me, for being a (though not avid enough) Hitchcock fan. My
brother and I was going to Stanford Theatre to see it, but apparently we
did not. I do agree I need more supports than the one I provided. This is
quite a broad subject, and perhaps too ambitious to be answered in a NG (at
least it would worth a while).
> > > > ... Let's not lie to ourselves, computer game
> > > > is not that mature yet, though I think it certainly
> > > > has the potential to be an art.
> > >
> > > Is the printed word mature? If we judge it by the
> > > overwhelming volume of magazine gossip and low-quality
> > > books, one would judge print harshly.
> >
> > How many years since we have literature?
> > You are redirecting my words.
>
> I'm not denigrating the path you are taking,
> but pointing to other ramifications. In
> many respects the thousands of years of
> literary development have not matured the
> content of the most common material.
Yeah, I agree with you. Though I think it's money that impedes the process,
like what it did for movie. Look at how many years of experience from
directors it takes for movie to mature into today's standard.
Novels used to have a thematic core that discuss certain issues (even a
popular writer like Dickens has very high standard on themes). Nowadays,
it's about enjoyment of readers and more important, $$$. I am afraid that
is the direction artists are coming from (on the other hand, it's important
to fill the stomach first, isn't it?).
> > Come on, using tabloid is not an objective comparison.
>
> I didn't say tabloid. I was thinking of publications
> like New Idea, Woman's Day, Who, Elle, and several
> of the PC magazines.
>
> > We only compare the best of all (literature, games,
> > musics, movies, etc). ...
>
> Yes, so is the best movie superior to the best game?
> I think not.
I think you have seen too little movies lately (or just the good ones).
IMO, so far, the only games I've played that could be mentioned to compete
the best of films are TLE, GKs and Planescape: Torment (perhaps Twinsen may
get in if I played it). All of the Hitchcock movies I've seen are better
than typical games. I've heard Magnolia is good (I'm yet to see it), the
Talented Mr. Ripley is intriguing, Shawshank Redemption is lovely, Contact
(good example of religious belief vs. secular belief), Blade Runner, Dark
City, Pulp Fiction, even an anime like Kiki's Delivery Service (I recently
revisited it on Disney Channel, still the charming piece I love about
growing up) are all masterpieces that put typical games into shame.
> However, i agree that games have not known a Mozart
> (unless it be the author of M.U.L.E.) or a Shakespeare
> (although Frederic Reynal was perhaps on the way to
> becoming a Marlowe).
Agreed upon. We only have Gods and Goddesses (Sid Meier, Jordan Mechner,
Roberta Williams and Jane Jensen) in game industry, but there is no true
genius (not that they are not talented, just they don't have either
consistent or sizeable outputs like Mozart, Bach, and Chopin in music or
Shakespeare and Dickens in literature).
> > > > I am from the adventure group,
> >
> > > Believe it or not, i didn't see that you were walking
> > > the same track.
> >
> > I believe you. Really, don't be cynical.
>
> Then please believe that the thought had not crossed my mind.
>
> You are reading far too much into other people's writings.
> Like those critics you mentioned who over-analyze literature.
> :) See, when i send them, my barbs are direct.
I like over-analysis. I am trained to be a business person and you are a
scientist, and that's why we walk on different tracks. Your objective is to
make observations and coming up a quantitative and empirical solution.
Whereas my objective is a generalized focus, a visionary objective for
technical people like you to carry out, and that often involve using wisdoms
and intuitions to come up a sort of blurry thingama (whether you like it or
not) and more concentrated on strategy. Unlike science, there is no single
way that would solve similar problems like a charm. The "art" of business
is often contingent upon situations and there is no one control specimen,
only variables (and almost always plural). So, in order to make a effective
strategy, a lot of times involves reading into people's minds (by writings,
conversation, etc). They do add to your wisdom, so I don't see why
over-analyze is harmful, just keep in mind that the stuffs extract from
those over-analysis are not necessarily universal truth (they are often our
biased opinions, useful only to us or a reference group, such as this NG).
> Re[ad] a brief description of Twinsen's Odyssey:
>
> > Interesting, and I have not played the game yet.
>
> It's worthwhile. I'm surprised several in the Adventure group
> hadn't mentioned TO before i did.
I skipped those posts. I don't want to be spoiled, because I have not
played it yet.
> > So you are arguing Twinsen's Odyssey from literature point of view,
>
> Except that it lacks the element of imagining the world
> for yourself. But it is drawn so well i didn't mind that.
>
> > instead of the integration of visual arts and linguistic arts
> > I have been proposed.
>
> By linguistic arts do you include storyline?
Not exactly storyline per se, but "how" the story is told. It includes the
use of language, use of literary devices (i.e., symbolism, parallelism,
allegory, forms, plots, etc.). I did mean storyline in the above case,
though.
> Games have a difficulty with Characters. In books you cannot
> revisit a character in a context not intended by the author.
> But in games you can meet them as often as you please, so they
> soon run out of dialogue. This makes games seem less imaginative
> than novels, though really it may not be so.
This is the part I do not agree with you. The character development remains
the same across different mediums. As for running out of dialogue, that is
the problem with implementing technology into an unlimited, non-linear
environment. In fact, a lot of contemporary writers tried to make
storylines less pre-arranged (and that frustrates many readers just like
when my friends was really pissed when he could not figure out why certain
events occurs. Well, I can only say certain events don't add anything other
than realism to the story in many cases). If we do have interactive books
(who am I kidding, adventure games are ibooks already), then we'll soon run
into similar problems. Actually, P:T has very little running out of
dialogue problem since it is very thought out.
> > If that is so, then the judgement will taken entirely
> > differently. Although TLE and GK's
> > have shown those characteristics as well.
>
> Please elaborate. (I haven't played either TLE or GK.)
*Gasp* not even GK? Where on earth you are from? How can you call youself
an adventure game fan?
My suggestion is go get them in bargain bins. If I explain them here, it
would be an essay (as if this is not already).
> > > > IMHO, the latter is the closest one yet to be in art form
> > > > (but none lived up to the standard to be considered
> > > > as a masterpiece). Planescape, arguably to be the greatest
> > > > games ever, is a philosophical piece, but still not an art piece.
>
> This is another game i have not played.
>
> What makes Planescape: Torment so impressive?
This is an RPG BTW. The storyline is a deep philosophical question (who am
I?). It's about a person who lost his soul and would like to claim it back.
As he try to do that, he faced his biggest enemy (guess who? his own soul).
What makes this game unique is the execution (we probably seen the similar
story lines before). Never seen before in games, NPC would disinform you
and confuse you even more about who you are and complicates your objective
as the story progresses. In other words, NPC are no longer walking
information kiosks, but with their own self interests and will put your life
in peril if they need to. Did I mention the script is excellent? Well,
just go get it and you'll see.
> Does P:T run on a P-100 with 2MB video card?
P:T would choke your computer in a nanosecond. Please go buy a new computer
for the sake of this game, it worths it (IMHonestO). Although if the
designer drops the Final Fantasy like special effects, the requirement would
probably drop very dramatically.
> > > What would be required of a game to attain masterpiece status?
> >
> > Forgive me, I meant art masterpiece. They are game masterpieces
already.
>
> Yes, i was asking what would raise a game to the heights
> of a masterpiece of art?
Integration of visual effects, sounds, and of course storyline seamlessly.
There should be no special effect is for the sake of special effect. Every
single element of the game should collaborate together to create an utmost
experience. Like I mentioned before (in another post), each single elements
can be mediocre, (e.g. a schoolgirl chant), but if it fits the theme
perfectly (e.g. a nostalgic scene), than it is a masterpiece (good is good
enough; masterpiece, I do not expect it nor ask for it).
> > > > ... the companies' need to send their "artists" to art galleries
> > > > and filmmakers' guilds to do some post-graduate study what makes
> > > > certain pieces art and whiles others junks ...
> > >
> > > I can tell them that!
> >
> > But they will not listen.
>
> Indeed, that's why the authors of junk rarely mature.
Stephen King you mean? Can you believe that Shawshank is written by him?
Well, that is a rare exception. Most popular writers never mature.
> > The conversation like this is often more productive than the unanimous,
> > conflict avoiding "group discussion."
>
> Yes, but i'm not conflicting, but asking, and in between
> expressing some opinions with a yet to be determined
> relationship to the theme you have commenced to expound.
If more people think like you, we'll have big fight everyday on NG and still
remain buddy buddy with each other. Most important of all, we are actually
learning from each other.
> --
> Best wishes!
> Geoffrey Tobin
> Email: G.T...@latrobe.edu.au
> WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
Ashikaga
Scarlet Herring
(Quatoria) wrote:
>Of course, the ending to the movie is not the real ending of the book.
>Clockwork Orange, the Movie, was based on the edited version of the
>book first released to the US. The full book actually has Alex make a
>revelation and understand why what he was doing was criminal and
>wrong, which, I think, gives the story a little more soul, and
>fundamentally changes the nature of the tale. It's not just a story
>about society breeding violence, it's a story showing that even the
>most violent and morally decrepit member of society is capable of
>change.
Actually, the original version of A Clockwork Orange does NOT have the
extra chapter in the back, where Alex starts seeing the error of his
ways. I even suspect that this bit wasn't written by Anthony Burgess,
since its style differs substantially from the rest of the book, and
isn't in line with the story. I can imagine why it was added later on:
probably the publishers found the book a bit too depressing, and they
wanted a slightly uplifting ending. Stanley Kubrick decided to stick
to Burgess' original vision.