Phelot
Arcane
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 17,908
GeneralSamov said:I wasn't asking either of you two tbh, but Cory.
You asked with your heart Samov... with your eyes and your heart.
GeneralSamov said:I wasn't asking either of you two tbh, but Cory.
GeneralSamov said:Given your premises, I'll ask a simple question: can (good) wine be art?
phelot said:Cory said:phelot said:But whomever it is that Ebert was responding to in this article, one example that could have been used is the tried and true Torment. That game was pretty powerful and I'd consider a rather good piece of art. The best? No, not when compared to other forms of art, but it's still a shining example of what video games CAN do.
Games can contain a lot of Art within them. But what about the gameplay? Wasn't it standard rpg combat, inventory and spell management, and strategy? That stuff is inartistic, and if you removed it from the game, you wouldn't have a game.
I suppose then a game is an art gallery with gimmicks?
I suppose [games] could just be a different way of presenting art.
Lavoisier said:Don't be those guys.
Let's separate the intoxication wine produces to the sole appreciation of its taste. It produces a feeling of pleasure in your mouth, much like a painting or sculpture does in your eyes or some classical music in your ears. So is there really a difference, if we conveniently ignore the fact that it causes inebriation (after all, people more interested in the alcohol bit will get cheaper and less tasty wines)?Cory said:GeneralSamov said:Given your premises, I'll ask a simple question: can (good) wine be art?
Wine is used to bring about a desired effect, there is too narrow of purpose to it, there is a certain utility to it. There is an expectation with wine, most are drinking it to get slightly or more severely inebriated, or just to enjoy it's specific flavor, and to meet and inflame desire.
Trash said:I was actually thinking about the works of Rembrandt and other masters of that period that often painted portraits and did so for a living. This is something a militia ordered as a nice remembrance, yet it is nowadays seen as a marvelous piece of art.
praetor said:Lavoisier said:Who gives a shit?
i can give you one if you paypal me the postage money
and lol@SMA for "gaemz r not art cuz I never experienced in a gaem what I experienced reading a book"
GeneralSamov said:Cory said:GeneralSamov said:Given your premises, I'll ask a simple question: can (good) wine be art?
Wine is used to bring about a desired effect, there is too narrow of purpose to it, there is a certain utility to it. There is an expectation with wine, most are drinking it to get slightly or more severely inebriated, or just to enjoy it's specific flavor, and to meet and inflame desire.
Let's separate the intoxication wine produces to the sole appreciation of its taste. It produces a feeling of pleasure in your mouth, much like a painting or sculpture does in your eyes or some classical music in your ears. So is there really a difference, if we conveniently ignore the fact that it causes inebriation (after all, people more interested in the alcohol bit will get cheaper and less tasty wines)?
Also, think outside of this limited example, for instance those incense aromatic sticks. They stimulate your smell in a similar way, and aren't used (at least not that I'd be aware) to alter your perception of reality.
Art was always seen purely from an utilitarian point of view. I'd reckon there probably isn't any other context. This is why i always stressed more on the idea of genius, the concept of art being essentially irrelevant.
DamnedRegistrations said:Fireworks are destroyed for the visual spectacle as well. It'd be pretty hard to say they aren't art. (Or rather, the display of them is.)
Formulate your argument in a manner that doesn't require you to talk about "audience", and you'll get to read my response to my response to your response to my response. As it is, I'm having a more interesting time talking to myself than you. Probably because youa re dumb as hell, mang.Cory said:I said think, but fuck. You can't do it.
I know what your dull argument was. That's why I wrote I understood your response to LS, before I got to my own stuff, which was that MUSIC IS PERFORMANCE.
But you are confusing the [re]creation process with the actual product to be experienced. When you go to see a musical performance, you are passively taking in the product, which already exists on paper or in someones head. The audience is not manipulating the piece of Art toward some goal or end, and there is no competitive element.
On the other hand, you could explain how the experience of an audience listening to an improvisation is different from that of listening to a composition. Of course, it's not metaphysically different. So, again, your argument is kind of dumb, in that it fails to take facts into account.Paula Tormeson IV said:Formulate your argument in a manner that doesn't require you to talk about "audience", and you'll get to read my response to my response to your response to my response. As it is, I'm having a more interesting time talking to myself than you. Probably because youa re dumb as hell, mang.Cory said:I said think, but fuck. You can't do it.
I know what your dull argument was. That's why I wrote I understood your response to LS, before I got to my own stuff, which was that MUSIC IS PERFORMANCE.
But you are confusing the [re]creation process with the actual product to be experienced. When you go to see a musical performance, you are passively taking in the product, which already exists on paper or in someones head. The audience is not manipulating the piece of Art toward some goal or end, and there is no competitive element.
Lyric Suite said:Michelangelo worked on commission as well. Indeed, the very idea of art for art's sake didn't even exist prior to the 19th century. Art was always seen purely from an utilitarian point of view. I'd reckon there probably isn't any other context. This is why i always stressed more on the idea of genius, the concept of art being essentially irrelevant.
To elucidate what i mean, lets compare this not so great painting by Michelangelo:
(pic)
against one of Raphael's most outstanding ones:
(pic)
Both paintings are of course purely utilitarian in nature, that is, their purpose is not to be artistic, based on some arbitrary parameter, but to simply represent a scene. Yet, in the case of Michelangelo, he infuses something in his depiction that strikes us as real. It is the Deluge that we see in his painting, and we see it the way Michelangelo sees it, through the eyes of a genius. The Raphael is more technically accomplished, and yet, it is a complete and utter failure. He paints a scene here, and scene there, but the actual event is completely lost. There is no unity of any kind, no deeper insight into the essence of the event being depicted. Even the Pope, the very center piece of the story, whom legend says extinguished the fire with his benediction, appears in the distance, small and insignificant. Everything that could have made this picture great is completely missing. Is it art? Probably not, but it pretends to be, which is why it is considered art anyway since most people cannot understand genius in the first place.
I see you are wise in the ways of art.Lyric Suite said:And lets not forget what is perhaps Michelangelo's greatest painting, the Adam:
(pic)
A picture so familiar to us we no longer comprehend its significance. Only a genius could have represented such a subject without appearing absurd in the process.
You only see what your eyes want to see. Suck it down!ScottishMartialArts said:praetor said:Lavoisier said:Who gives a shit?
i can give you one if you paypal me the postage money
and lol@SMA for "gaemz r not art cuz I never experienced in a gaem what I experienced reading a book"
I'd like to think my taste has improved. If you asked me this question in high school, I would have been a passionate defender of games as art. After 4 years of studying Latin and Greek literature? Not so much. I'm humble enough in my own opinion to hold out the possibility that I am completely wrong about this, but so far I haven't seen a persuasive argument or example to convince me otherwise.
J1M said:Those of you who "cannot imagine" a game that does X or Y need to get your shit straight and ask yourselves if the guy watching a cave man smear mud on the wall thought to himself "yeah I can totally see realistic 3D aliens coming out of this".
Gaming is a medium that is still so much in its infancy that the person who made the first game is STILL ALIVE. If a game without true choice and consequence doesn't exist 100,000 years after he dies, THEN you can claim it will never come about.
I've read it's nothing but repetitive and pretentious.Konjad said:But if you really want to think if games can be art try to make your opinion after playing The Void
Like notes on a page, a computer game is a set of parametres out of which the player (the musician) weaves his own aesthetic experience.J1M said:Everyone in this thread has made the fatal assumption of putting art at the top of the food chain when it comes to the human experience.