Author Topic: Random thought (Read 3749 times)

xanrastafari · « **on:** November 25, 2003, 12:46:23 PM »

I haven't posted here in a LONG time, but a thought, relating to videogames, just occurred to me and I decided to use this as an outlet. The most straightforward argument against videogames being an artform is that the sales figures often actually have to do with the quality of the game.

Compare that with books, movies and music. The best never sells in those.

Comments? Responses?

Berny · « **Reply #1 on:** November 25, 2003, 12:49:44 PM »

Yeah. Ever heard of Eternal Darkness?

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #2 on:** November 25, 2003, 12:53:55 PM »

That's not an argument at all, because sales for anything, be they books, movies, or videogames, is based on a combination of image and quality. Horrible games like Enter the Matrix sell well, but so do great games like Ocarina of Time. In literature, uninspired fantasy ripoffs (which I shall not name) sell incredibly well, but arguably the greatest work of fiction ever produced, Lord of the Rings, is also the best selling book of all time. Horrible movies like Batman and Robin do great at the box office, but the movie that's sold the most tickets ever, Gone With the Wind, is also one of the best movies ever made. If something lacks in quality, they make up for it in image. If something lacks in image, they make up for it in quality. The TRULY successful movies/games/books are the ones that have both image and quality.

nolimit19 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 25, 2003, 01:04:45 PM »

actally i think he has a point. however i thikn that it will change as the industry developes more like it did with books, movies, and music. so it may seem like a science now, but after we reach a point where technology cant improve on it anymore, it will become more of an art form, and i think its becoming more like that now.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #4 on:** November 25, 2003, 01:07:47 PM »

Exactly- it will get to the point where image is standard and quality will have to pick up the slack to insure high sales. Right now, a game can sell on image alone, and in some cases actually works better than working hard and putting the effort into making a good game.

Berny · « **Reply #5 on:** November 25, 2003, 01:10:31 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Batman in Robin do great and quality.

Misspelled, taken out of context and soon to be in my sig.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #6 on:** November 25, 2003, 01:17:59 PM »

Good find, Berny, but only ONE word was misspelled.

The "and quality" part was in a different part of the post.

Berny · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2003, 01:43:29 PM »

oops...oh well. I'll put an elipses in there to patch things up.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #8 on:** November 25, 2003, 01:53:47 PM »

In my opinion the definition of art depends on what was more important to the creator: creating something they wanted to make, or making money. Now with most movies, tv shows, games, books, albums, etc money is a factor. Compromises are going to be made in order to make something sell better. Every game ever made has only been made because someone thought it could sell. But that doesn't mean it's not art. If the creator's focus was more on creating something they wanted to make than it was on making money (and they likely focused on both) than it's art.

Therefore I would consider Miyamoto's games to be art because I'm pretty sure he makes what he wants to make. Something like Fairly Odd Parents: The Videogame probably was only made for money so I wouldn't consider that art. However the only people who can really define if something is art or not is the creators themselves.

Berny · « **Reply #9 on:** November 25, 2003, 01:58:43 PM »

Yeah, I agree big time Ian. I mean, did you SEE Wind Waker? Did you HEAR Wind Waker? That is a gaming masterpiece and has the best Zelda storyline; it looks like Miyamoto will continue along that story. And SMS! So colorful! I didn't play Animal Crossing but I've wanted to for the longest time.

Miyamoto is Video Game Artist Number One. Who else should be on the list?

Short Girlie · « **Reply #10 on:** November 25, 2003, 04:14:07 PM »

You have to play animal crossing! It's so fun! Everyday, there's always something different in store for you! Just like real life. And the seasons change with you too!

xanrastafari · « **Reply #11 on:** November 25, 2003, 05:07:34 PM »

Valid points all of you. However, in many genres, especially music and books, things that are popular are by necessity easily digested, understood and accessed. I would counter that the high selling and high quality elements in these genres are both. However, I would also argue that these are not necessarily works of art. My *admittedly biased, personal* view of art involves depth, innovativeness, and perhaps inacessability.... and I would argue those things that are popular and high quality, are either not understood by the majority of their audience, or are not art.

Artistic music? Try some Gyorgy Ligeti or Maudlin of the Well. Books? Pynchon or Gene Wolfe. Movies? Not too knowledgable in this area, but I'd say try Brazil or City of the Lost Children.

Never heard of them? Thats because they're art.

(These are intentionally more obscure than most things I would consider art... But not too much so)

Couple of other responses:

Mouse Clicker- The bible is the best selling book of all time, not LOTR.

Berny- Decent point.. maybe I need to look a little deeper into sales figures

*Edit*

Ian - Another decent point, but I disagree on your definition of art.... I think that leaves too many doors open.

xanrastafari · « **Reply #12 on:** November 25, 2003, 05:13:21 PM »

Oh, and I'm not going to have comp access for a few days.... so I won't respond for a while.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #13 on:** November 25, 2003, 05:14:27 PM »

I don't count the Bible, because it's not intended for entertainment. Although one could argue it's a work of fiction just like any other novel, it's on a completely different level than Lord of the Rings, hence my claiming LotR was the best selling book of all time.

Also, I don't believe art has to be inaccessible- that's more art critics not wanting to be associated with casual admirers. I agree art should judged on innovation and depth, but accessibility shouldn't even be considered.

nolimit19 · « **Reply #14 on:** November 25, 2003, 06:28:20 PM »

well lord of the rings has been around for quite some time now. it seems that a lot of art is rejected by its contemporaries, and later embraced....i dont know how popular lord of the rings was when it first came out(it had to be at least mildly popular...right), but i dont think that the lack of accessibility makes something more art oriented....although i do see the point, and it may be that way in a lot of cases, but i dont think its a rule.

xanrastafari · « **Reply #15 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:00:04 PM »

Yeah, I guess a lack of accessability is not a rule per se, but rather a guideline: I think anything truly deep and innovative will end up being inaccessable. Oh, Lord of the Rings was wildly popular when it came out. However, it was popular as entertainment, not art: People enjoyed reading about Hobbits prancing around and vile creatures secreting evil and fighting valiant heroes, rather than looking for deeper meaning.

I think one of my professors explained it really well: Art is someone trying to tell you something, to teach you something with a layer of enjoyment on the outside. Entertainment is solely that layer of enjoyment.

I don't know if I'm expressing myself clearly, as my brain is sort of blown out from excessive college workloads right now, but hopefully you can understand me?

If this discussion is still around then, I'll respond on Sunday.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #16 on:** November 26, 2003, 03:53:44 AM »

Goethe's "Die Leiden des jungen Werther" and "Faust" were VERY popular at the time they came out and back then people easily understood the deeper meaning. Does that make them less artistic?
Art doesn't always teach you something. What did people learn from the Mona Lisa?

The most common argument against games being art is that it's craftmanship, it's done on order. However, people like Johann Sebastian Bach made art on demand to get the money they needed to survive. Art is seldom created due to the love to art, but more due to either monetary reasons or to push a new idea.
I'd define the difference between art and craftmanship as follows: Craftmanship is the replication of an existing idea (e.g. making a copy of a certain piece of furniture), art involves a creative step (e.g. making up a picture and adding it to a single table). Art has to have a creative step every time it is created, making a piece of art and then making copies of it is craftmanship. I'd also say a conversion to another medium pretty much always involves a creative step (although a smaller one than creating something completely new).
Not all art was welcomed at first. "Impressionism" (or Expressionism?) was actually a word used by a critic to insult the "new" style. Now it is accepted as art.

Jdub03 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 26, 2003, 05:16:48 AM »

When searching for a deeper meaning of the word art I came across this little blurb on video games. Its short but a little interesting if your a gamer.

Heres the link
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Nov/bga20031106022527.htm

I also found a website that pretty much sums up how I feel art should be defined as. Read it and tell me what you think.

Heres the link ENJOY!!!
http://www.ebtx.com/art/art02.htm

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #18 on:** November 26, 2003, 05:58:11 AM »

The Lord of The Rings has been around for less than 75 years, that generally counts as not very long considering other books that are popular as well have been around for over 100 years longer...

Ian Sane · « **Reply #19 on:** November 26, 2003, 06:50:03 AM »

xanrastafari by your definition of art it could be argued that the works of Shakespeare is not art because almost everyone has read at least something of his and has likely discussed it's inner meaning in some sort of class. His works are popular and thus not inaccessible. The same could be said about the great composers like Mozart or Handel. Just because something is popular as entertainment doesn't mean it's not art. While everyone can enjoy something the deeper meaning is still going to be inaccessible to most. Most people like Lord of the Rings as entertainment but some do examine it's inner meaning.

"Art is someone trying to tell you something, to teach you something with a layer of enjoyment on the outside."

According to that definition than the Bible could be considered art since it clearly is trying to tell you something. Any religious text tries to tell you something.

"The Lord of The Rings has been around for less than 75 years, that generally counts as not very long considering other books that are popular as well have been around for over 100 years longer"

Since the Bible is nearly 2000 years old (and the Old Testament is even older) than in comparison Lord of the Rings has sold quite well.

Berny · « **Reply #20 on:** November 26, 2003, 08:44:02 AM »

Heh. I suppose that's true Ian. I guess that's why Lord of the Rings is my Bible. *thinks Lord of the Rings is the best book of all time*

Jdub03 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 26, 2003, 08:59:12 AM »

You can be arty and philisophical at the same time. Its teaching in a more compelling and inpsiring way I personally do believe the bible is a work of art. Just read some of the stories and youll know what I mean.

xanrastafari · « **Reply #22 on:** November 30, 2003, 08:32:02 AM »

Alright, good points everyone: A few additions/modifications/responses:

I consider the Bible to be art... I think it was an amazing book for the time it was written.

I revise my initial statement: inaccesability is not NECESSARY. I think it often happens though, especially in modern art because it continues to push boundaries. I also revise the teaching you something statement.... It must either teach you something or push boundaries.....

Shakespeare fits withing this revised definition.

So I guess this is no longer applicable to the statement i made about video games. However I do maintain that whoever thinks Final Fantasy games' plots are amazing works of literature needs to read more. Anyways, thanks for listening.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #23 on:** November 30, 2003, 09:24:16 PM »

Yup, although the FF storylines are deeper than the usual ones it's still worlds from the likes of Goethe. Imagine an ETA Hoffmann-style RPG...

News:

Author Topic: Random thought (Read 3749 times)