|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Sept 20, 2019 2:54:10 GMT
I led a discussion of this topic back on IMDb, and it generated some fascinating responses. Figured on resurrecting it, to see how, or if perceptions have evolved since then.
It’s an easy yes for me, but I want to hear what you guys think.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Sept 20, 2019 3:12:21 GMT
Art wishes it could be this good...
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Sept 20, 2019 4:23:39 GMT
Not only is it art; it has a unique place in the realm of narrative art.
I've been looking back on my time playing Dark Souls recently. (I can't replay it at the moment because my PS3 needs its laser replaced, alas.) Nothing I've experienced is quite like the thrill of going through the world of Lordran and discovering the story in the architecture, in the enemies, in the people around me. It's a story that 100% relies on the audience getting themselves so involved in trying to uncover the world's secrets that they forget that they're playing what is essentially a series of "tasks." The world itself becomes a story, full of tales that portray heroism, cowardice, betrayal, loyalty, fear and bravery. None of it is presented in a straightforward way of protagonists and villains, but instead every soul you speak with has a story of their own, and you are but an observer of their lives.
Even the game's notorious difficulty plays into this: I felt closer kinship with Cresftallen, Anastasia and "that bumbling Sir Onion" than I did with Frodo and his fellowship, because I had to fight through the same struggles that were so wearying them in their quests.
And this is just DS. There are many great games out there, I choose this one because of the unique way it tells a story, a method that isn't possible in any other medium.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Sept 20, 2019 4:35:56 GMT
Art wishes it could be this good... Not kidding, I was being very careful of Ellie's feelings here. I walked around slowly, watching her scuffing her feet and feeling as bad as her that the game was ending. When I reluctantly went to boost her up and she (finally) came over and climbed up there, I was just... chilling, waiting around. Waiting for a ladder to drop. And then Ellie freaks out AND A LADDER DROPS ON MY HEAD. Joel did his little autojump backwards and I was desperately trying to get the ladder set up because I thought something was attacking her up there. Imagine my relief when she's actually... excited. Damn, it had been ages since Ellie had actually been excited for something. I was so thrilled to see her happy that I almost wept when I found out why she was acting like this was Christmas day. It was good to see that she was okay, after everything. I was a bit worried that the winter had made her as hard as Joel was at the beginning of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Sept 20, 2019 14:47:40 GMT
Sure, but I am getting sick of "games" being nothing more than walkable movies. The latest Blair Witch game was essentially that, with half a dozen puzzles and some of the lamest action sequences ever. Not to mention gameplay hour padding with looping/endless hallways.
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 20, 2019 16:01:14 GMT
They are not art in its real form but it could definitely be considered as one.
The thing is, for many years they were trying to make video-games look like movies, meaning they wanted their characters look like real people, landscapes look as real as possible etc.
In the last 10 years, with all that CGI SFX use, they are trying to make movies look like video-games!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Sept 20, 2019 17:50:21 GMT
They are not art in its real form but it could definitely be considered as one. This is a viewpoint that confuses me. I suppose we have to define "art" first to make sure everyone is on the same page. And then ask what qualities VGs must achieve before they are "art." I'm not sure what else they could do that they aren't doing (in some capacity, or in some games). I'm totally with you on both of your points about "realistic" CG characters, you just interest me here and I figure this is a good debate topic. |
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Sept 20, 2019 18:06:12 GMT
Of course they are. Even in their simplest form (tetris or pacman for instance) they express some imaginative, conceptual ideas. Not to mention that masterworks like Planescape: Torment and Mask Of The Betrayer carry much more artistic weight in them than many pieces that pertain to the so called high arts.
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 20, 2019 18:40:00 GMT
They are not art in its real form but it could definitely be considered as one. This is a viewpoint that confuses me. I suppose we have to define "art" first to make sure everyone is on the same page. And then ask what qualities VGs must achieve before they are "art." I'm not sure what else they could do that they aren't doing (in some capacity, or in some games). I'm totally with you on both of your points about "realistic" CG characters, you just interest me here and I figure this is a good debate topic. What I meant is, the classic form of art is drawing, acting, photography, sculpture etc. That is, having a talent and expressing it in certain ways through certain means (body movements, colors, nature... ) In other words, using your skills and the first materials in order to create something aesthetically beautiful. And I'm talking about the fine arts, the creative arts. VGs are created by many people doing many different jobs and all of it is digital, it's based on technology. No first materials here, no body skills. Of course there is intellect and talent but it's not traditional arts. It's a form of art (meaning, a form of creativity, making somehting novel out of thin air, something that wasn't there before) but not traditional. I always have that kind of debate with many people about what is considered art and artist nowadays (and scientists  ). It's a discussion I really love having. But all these conversations I'm having are not in English so excuse me if I'm not totally understood. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Sept 20, 2019 19:54:11 GMT
This is a viewpoint that confuses me. I suppose we have to define "art" first to make sure everyone is on the same page. And then ask what qualities VGs must achieve before they are "art." I'm not sure what else they could do that they aren't doing (in some capacity, or in some games). I'm totally with you on both of your points about "realistic" CG characters, you just interest me here and I figure this is a good debate topic. What I meant is, the classic form of art is drawing, acting, photography, sculpture etc. That is, having a talent and expressing it in certain ways through certain means (body movements, colors, nature... ) In other words, using your skills and the first materials in order to create something aesthetically beautiful. And I'm talking about the fine arts, the creative arts. VGs are created by many people doing many different jobs and all of it is digital, it's based on technology. No first materials here, no body skills. Of course there is intellect and talent but it's not traditional arts. It's a form of art (meaning, a form of creativity, making somehting novel out of thin air, something that wasn't there before) but not traditional. I always have that kind of debate with many people about what is considered art and artist nowadays (and scientists ). It's a discussion I really love having. But all these conversations I'm having are not in English so excuse me if I'm not totally understood. I rarely have this debate because nobody I know in real life is interested in the arts at all, but I've argued it through in my head often enough. I think we're on different pages because while "aesthetically beautiful" is certainly one goal, I don't think it's the primary goal of art. And limiting that through only first materials is a handicap I find unnecessary. By this definition, poetry and novels are not included, and I think a lot of literature teachers would object to this. So to break it down to "a form of creativity," then yeah, VGs fit. But let's tackle the "many people doing many jobs" aspect. Many art forms are collaborative (film, music, theater), but there's a guiding creative voice that calls the shots to make things come together to fulfill their vision. Video games have staffs working on various aspects (usually far fewer people than movies I'm guessing), but there's always a guiding hand behind it all. Where video games truly differ from other mediums of artistic expression is that it actively involves the audience in the telling of its story (live theater does this to some extent as well). In Journey, the act of exploring the world is changed dramatically by pairing with another traveler, and the story becomes what the two of you choose to do together. The game becomes a canvas on which you tell your own story. When playing Telltale Batman recently, I marked how the violence of it comes across as far more brutal and scary than most Batman stories because I was actively involved in making the decisions. I was playing make-believe, but the story and its arc hit harder because I was actively engaged. A movie showing the same violence can have the same effect I suppose, but I don't think it could have pulled off the villain telling Batman that Bats wears the mask to avoid responsibility -- that dialogue has a stronger effect because I the player chose to do horrible things whenever I lost my temper. When playing Dark Souls, the whole game is made of background atmosphere to create an aesthetically pleasing world; there's plot to be found should you choose to look for it, but none of it will find you. As such, the story is created by what the player chooses to do, chooses to explore, chooses to make of what they see on their travels. There is certainly a script to be found should you dig for it, but the important thing is that what the audience gets out of it is dependent upon their own actions, which influences their interpretation of what they find. |
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 20, 2019 20:59:28 GMT
What I meant is, the classic form of art is drawing, acting, photography, sculpture etc. That is, having a talent and expressing it in certain ways through certain means (body movements, colors, nature... ) In other words, using your skills and the first materials in order to create something aesthetically beautiful. And I'm talking about the fine arts, the creative arts. VGs are created by many people doing many different jobs and all of it is digital, it's based on technology. No first materials here, no body skills. Of course there is intellect and talent but it's not traditional arts. It's a form of art (meaning, a form of creativity, making somehting novel out of thin air, something that wasn't there before) but not traditional. I always have that kind of debate with many people about what is considered art and artist nowadays (and scientists ). It's a discussion I really love having. But all these conversations I'm having are not in English so excuse me if I'm not totally understood. I rarely have this debate because nobody I know in real life is interested in the arts at all, but I've argued it through in my head often enough. I think we're on different pages because while "aesthetically beautiful" is certainly one goal, I don't think it's the primary goal of art. And limiting that through only first materials is a handicap I find unnecessary. By this definition, poetry and novels are not included, and I think a lot of literature teachers would object to this. So to break it down to "a form of creativity," then yeah, VGs fit. But let's tackle the "many people doing many jobs" aspect. Many art forms are collaborative (film, music, theater), but there's a guiding creative voice that calls the shots to make things come together to fulfill their vision. Video games have staffs working on various aspects (usually far fewer people than movies I'm guessing), but there's always a guiding hand behind it all. Where video games truly differ from other mediums of artistic expression is that it actively involves the audience in the telling of its story (live theater does this to some extent as well). In Journey, the act of exploring the world is changed dramatically by pairing with another traveler, and the story becomes what the two of you choose to do together. The game becomes a canvas on which you tell your own story. When playing Telltale Batman recently, I marked how the violence of it comes across as far more brutal and scary than most Batman stories because I was actively involved in making the decisions. I was playing make-believe, but the story and its arc hit harder because I was actively engaged. A movie showing the same violence can have the same effect I suppose, but I don't think it could have pulled off the villain telling Batman that Bats wears the mask to avoid responsibility -- that dialogue has a stronger effect because I the player chose to do horrible things whenever I lost my temper. When playing Dark Souls, the whole game is made of background atmosphere to create an aesthetically pleasing world; there's plot to be found should you choose to look for it, but none of it will find you. As such, the story is created by what the player chooses to do, chooses to explore, chooses to make of what they see on their travels. There is certainly a script to be found should you dig for it, but the important thing is that what the audience gets out of it is dependent upon their own actions, which influences their interpretation of what they find. Well, I have that kind of discussion every now and then. Mostly because I can't stand people who work as actors/singers etc. only to gain recognizability and publicity, with no talent at all, and they claim they are artists. Same, people who study for MSc or other degrees because they just don't want to get a job and they claim to be scientists etc. etc. I'm not an avid fan of VGs, I used to be though. I have no objection about the audience being involved in the story. Yes, it's a big difference from most forms of art but you can also find it elsewhere. In some stage plays, the audience is not only involved but they even decide how it ends. I'm not limiting art only to the use of first materials, I said that's one way of expressing yourself through art. But it's a traditional way. Not a digital one. Hi tech and digital ways just don't make it for me. Of course I agree video games do provoke feelings and excitement to the players similar to movies for example. And they let the players follow their own route, their own script which is great. Not everybody realizes art the same way, right? But an artist works on its own. And I mean they do a specific job which by itself is artistic. Writing the lyrics for a song or editing a movie is art by itself. Doing the stunts for a scene or paying for the costumes is not, imo. Not everyone working for a movie is making art. But making a VG... Maybe designing the graphics is the closest to the pure art forms. Almost all the other activities in a vg production are way too far than that: programming languages, codes, pc work etc. I repeat, they make something out of thin air, they target a very big audience in order to entertain them and of course that requires intelligence, knowledge and talent. But if you ask me 100 times what I consider "real" art, video games or singing, I'll choose singing every single time. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Sept 20, 2019 22:42:18 GMT
Well, I have that kind of discussion every now and then. Mostly because I can't stand people who work as actors/singers etc. only to gain recognizability and publicity, with no talent at all, and they claim they are artists. Same, people who study for MSc or other degrees because they just don't want to get a job and they claim to be scientists etc. etc. I'm not an avid fan of VGs, I used to be though. I have no objection about the audience being involved in the story. Yes, it's a big difference from most forms of art but you can also find it elsewhere. In some stage plays, the audience is not only involved but they even decide how it ends. I'm not limiting art only to the use of first materials, I said that's one way of expressing yourself through art. But it's a traditional way. Not a digital one. Hi tech and digital ways just don't make it for me. Of course I agree video games do provoke feelings and excitement to the players similar to movies for example. And they let the players follow their own route, their own script which is great. Not everybody realizes art the same way, right? But an artist works on its own. And I mean they do a specific job which by itself is artistic. Writing the lyrics for a song or editing a movie is art by itself. Doing the stunts for a scene or paying for the costumes is not, imo. Not everyone working for a movie is making art. But making a VG... Maybe designing the graphics is the closest to the pure art forms. Almost all the other activities in a vg production are way too far than that: programming languages, codes, pc work etc. I repeat, they make something out of thin air, they target a very big audience in order to entertain them and of course that requires intelligence, knowledge and talent. But if you ask me 100 times what I consider "real" art, video games or singing, I'll choose singing every single time. Well, I don't think someone paying for the costumes is art either, but I don't see how that really relates. There are always losers who want to claim they're making "art" when they're just posers (Andy Warhol  ). But if the creative voice uses several people, it is still art. A director guides his cast and crew to create his vision. Nobody is calling the the guys who carved some pieces of the Sistine Chapel "artists," so far as I'm aware, but their work was used by Michelangelo to create what is commonly cited as his masterpiece. I think the main split in our thinking is that "Hi tech and digital ways just don't make it" for you. I see a director looking to create something and using a relatively new technology to realize his vision. I may think his vision stinks, but I can't dismiss it on the grounds that I don't like him using a synthesizer, simply because the synth isn't a "real" instrument. It creates a real sound, and one that is unique from anything else. I find it exciting, actually. I'm experiencing something that is being created entirely through synths and it sounds beautiful. As for live theater and interactivity: I've been to a fair amount of theater, but never anything *too* experimental. I've heard of things like Sleep No More, but I can't speak for myself on how they work. If they are interactive (or "immersive" as SNM appears to be labeled, since the audience can't affect what they watch), it seems to be in limited ways. Audiences choosing an ending, for example: essentially making the piece into a "choose-your-own-adventure" story, (not that there's anything wrong with that). Video games can be in the mold of either "interactive" (choose your ending!) or "immersive" (experience the story in your own way), but they are suited to both in ways that are awkward for other mediums to emulate. And I find that as exciting as listening to a good synth piece -- or a good orchestral rendition of Rhapsody in Blue. |
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 21, 2019 16:02:49 GMT
Well, I have that kind of discussion every now and then. Mostly because I can't stand people who work as actors/singers etc. only to gain recognizability and publicity, with no talent at all, and they claim they are artists. Same, people who study for MSc or other degrees because they just don't want to get a job and they claim to be scientists etc. etc. I'm not an avid fan of VGs, I used to be though. I have no objection about the audience being involved in the story. Yes, it's a big difference from most forms of art but you can also find it elsewhere. In some stage plays, the audience is not only involved but they even decide how it ends. I'm not limiting art only to the use of first materials, I said that's one way of expressing yourself through art. But it's a traditional way. Not a digital one. Hi tech and digital ways just don't make it for me. Of course I agree video games do provoke feelings and excitement to the players similar to movies for example. And they let the players follow their own route, their own script which is great. Not everybody realizes art the same way, right? But an artist works on its own. And I mean they do a specific job which by itself is artistic. Writing the lyrics for a song or editing a movie is art by itself. Doing the stunts for a scene or paying for the costumes is not, imo. Not everyone working for a movie is making art. But making a VG... Maybe designing the graphics is the closest to the pure art forms. Almost all the other activities in a vg production are way too far than that: programming languages, codes, pc work etc. I repeat, they make something out of thin air, they target a very big audience in order to entertain them and of course that requires intelligence, knowledge and talent. But if you ask me 100 times what I consider "real" art, video games or singing, I'll choose singing every single time. Well, I don't think someone paying for the costumes is art either, but I don't see how that really relates. There are always losers who want to claim they're making "art" when they're just posers (Andy Warhol ). But if the creative voice uses several people, it is still art. A director guides his cast and crew to create his vision. Nobody is calling the the guys who carved some pieces of the Sistine Chapel "artists," so far as I'm aware, but their work was used by Michelangelo to create what is commonly cited as his masterpiece. I think the main split in our thinking is that "Hi tech and digital ways just don't make it" for you. I see a director looking to create something and using a relatively new technology to realize his vision. I may think his vision stinks, but I can't dismiss it on the grounds that I don't like him using a synthesizer, simply because the synth isn't a "real" instrument. It creates a real sound, and one that is unique from anything else. I find it exciting, actually. I'm experiencing something that is being created entirely through synths and it sounds beautiful. As for live theater and interactivity: I've been to a fair amount of theater, but never anything *too* experimental. I've heard of things like Sleep No More, but I can't speak for myself on how they work. If they are interactive (or "immersive" as SNM appears to be labeled, since the audience can't affect what they watch), it seems to be in limited ways. Audiences choosing an ending, for example: essentially making the piece into a "choose-your-own-adventure" story, (not that there's anything wrong with that). Video games can be in the mold of either "interactive" (choose your ending!) or "immersive" (experience the story in your own way), but they are suited to both in ways that are awkward for other mediums to emulate. And I find that as exciting as listening to a good synth piece -- or a good orchestral rendition of Rhapsody in Blue. What I meant about paying for the costumes was that a lot of people work for a movie to get made. Not all of them are artists. Some people have a vision, an inspiration and a perspective in their minds. These guys make art through making a film (director, writer, actors etc). In the production of a VG, these people are lesser. As I told before, maybe only the graphic designers. The others are programmers etc. I say it again, they are creating something beautiful out of nothing using their skills and intellect. It IS a form of art, for sure. I think we only disagree in one thing: You see art as a whole, art is art. I tend to seperate it in categories. Thus, for me VGs are not traditional art. It doesn't belong in any pure, traditional art form. To follow your example, synthesizer is a music instrument. I may prefer the use and sound of a classic guitar or a piano but that has nothing to do with it. Is a computer a music instrument? Is music created solely on a computer real art? There are numerous programs through which everybody can create music in his pc. That kind of music is not what I call "traditional art". |
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Sept 21, 2019 21:16:01 GMT
What I meant about paying for the costumes was that a lot of people work for a movie to get made. Not all of them are artists. Some people have a vision, an inspiration and a perspective in their minds. These guys make art through making a film (director, writer, actors etc). In the production of a VG, these people are lesser. As I told before, maybe only the graphic designers. The others are programmers etc. I say it again, they are creating something beautiful out of nothing using their skills and intellect. It IS a form of art, for sure. I think we only disagree in one thing: You see art as a whole, art is art. I tend to seperate it in categories. Thus, for me VGs are not traditional art. It doesn't belong in any pure, traditional art form. To follow your example, synthesizer is a music instrument. I may prefer the use and sound of a classic guitar or a piano but that has nothing to do with it. Is a computer a music instrument? Is music created solely on a computer real art? There are numerous programs through which everybody can create music in his pc. That kind of music is not what I call "traditional art". Well, I have to disagree here; there is a director at the helm of every game, and if you want to know what happens when an inferior director tries to replicate success you need look no further than Dark Souls II (may it burn in everlasting damnation). And if a writer creates a piece of music on a computer, he has at least written something, regardless of how it is being performed. It may not be the best it can be, but creating pieces on a computer is a tool, in a same way that writers would practice pieces on piano before adapting to full orchestra. I think we've agreed that we're not going to get any further (thanks for the discussion though, it's been fun), but I do have one more question: What do you mean by "traditional art?" |
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 22, 2019 11:04:10 GMT
I think we've agreed that we're not going to get any further (thanks for the discussion though, it's been fun), but I do have one more question: What do you mean by "traditional art?"I mean the crafts created with traditional materials and methods, without the use of technology, not being digitally generated. In general, I'm talking about the fine arts: Performing arts (acting, dancing), literature, music, architecture, visual arts (painting), sculpture... Of course someone can argue art is one and only, no categories and separations. It's the way you perceive art, after all.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 28, 2019 7:08:54 GMT
Well The Witcher III is art, so the short answer is yes.
The long answer is HELL YES
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Dec 29, 2021 14:28:44 GMT
So this was a fun video on Dark Souls as an existentialist story. It is, of course, 90 minutes long and expects the viewer to be familiar with DS (there are also loads of spoilers, so viewer beware)... but it made me think of this thread and the meaning of "art." If something as philosophically dense as DS isn't art, where is that line drawn?
|
|
). It's a discussion I really love having. But all these conversations I'm having are not in English so excuse me if I'm not totally understood.
). But if the creative voice uses several people, it is still art. A director guides his cast and crew to create his vision. Nobody is calling the the guys who carved some pieces of the Sistine Chapel "artists," so far as I'm aware, but their work was used by Michelangelo to create what is commonly cited as his masterpiece.
