State of the "Art"

[Danny Boy]

Vixen@

^

This

[DavidS]

It is we who decide what art is, not the artist himself. If a person has decided to spend 37 mil on a piece, no matter how lame it might look from a technical point of view, it has value because we somewhere along the road decided so.

Yes, technically it doesn't measure up at all. AT ALL. Most people can "draw" better than that. But art isn't just about how difficult it was to make it, or what techniques were used. It's more than that.
I naturally agree that the fact it was sold for 37 mil is fucking DUMB, but it's up to the buyer. *Shrug*

Now I am wondering if what I had to say was even on topic or not..

Of course it is. We all know the "what" and what we indoividually think about it. This topic was made more for a talk about the "why".

[Alex Ros]

While discussing the state of art, first of all, you had to point out what is art and what is not. Another thing and a lot more important thing you had to point out, which art forms are evolving and vice versa which are petrified.

Some say that art is a reflection of life. Reflection of momentary reality, faced by the author and expressed in his work. Expressed in a way, when reality opens its hidden side, absolutely similar to scientific discovery. And some say that art is truly a science, a way of researching life and universe in a non-materialistic way with instruments like metaphors, associations, emotions, etc. As science use numbers and formulas to prove a new theory, art do use musical notes, letters and phrases, paints and film... etc. to prove new theory, some new revelations about the world.

As a result I presume that art is a way to find and show something new about life. Absolutely similar to regular science. Because both, art and science, serve to change, to evolve the way we live and perceive surrounding reality.

But in contrast to science, art have to heavily affect us, humans, to change our perception of reality. I am talking about immersion (in a widest way). Is there anyone among us who could cry or laugh by staring at a statue? Paintings? Literature? Theatre? Nearly nope. (Some would cry on a book, of course, but that's an exclusion. At least I believe so. Ecpecially because I am myself one of those "exclusions".) Anyway, those art forms are petrified. Just as in medicine bloodletting is not used anymore, science has long stepped to the molecular level. But, for example, good movies could affect us that way, could make us cry or laugh and form new real (!!!) memories. That's the clue or key, I mean the ability to form real memories. So the more effective the influence on our minds and memories the more alive some art form. Now we made a turn and came back to discussion of the state of art.

The answer about the state of art is the answer on a question, is there an art form which can influence us heavily enough to truly change our ways of living and perceiving reality? Is there an art form of THAT strength? If not then art is dead.

And my very honest opinion on a state of art: "I do not know". I really hope it is not dead, but... Even cinematography is already dying, that's my personal opinion. David Lynch, Kim Ki-Duk, Gus Van Sant, Takeshi Kitano, etc... are just closing that art form, cinematography. Music? Women could "achieve" a real orgasm just by sitting on a chair and listening to Mozart, could you? Nope. So... ummmh... Well, finally, I just really hope that games (yup) is that new form of art which in some years would become strong enough to be able to open hidden sides of reality, to be able to make non-materialistic new discoveries about universe.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to insult anyone. Just a few absolutely friendly thoughts on a theme. And don't get me wrong that I am trying to look clever, brainy good boy, smarty shithead. I am not, believe me or not. I am just truly (!!!) interested on a theme, no more, no less.

[failedALIAS]

Art is what invokes a reaction, whether that reaction is bliss or rage. So scribbling profanity all over the Mona Lisa and carting it around France, taped to the butt of a mule would be the greatest bit of art in this generation.

[DavidS]

While discussing the state of art, first of all, you had to point out what is art and what is not. Another thing and a lot more important thing you had to point out, which art forms are evolving and vice versa which are petrified.

Do you mean "have to" instead of "had to" (as in "we have to individually determine our vocabulary before we talk about subject x")? Or do you think I should`ve given my own definition on art beforehand to open a more specific discussion?

Anyways, thank you for taking time to write this. I do agree that we`re in an age of change and that games will probably be the major art form of the current and next generation. Makes me wonder how a dadaist game would play or an abstract expressionistic one. (VJ performances by Andrew Jones come to mind).

[Alex Ros]

While discussing the state of art, first of all, you had to point out what is art and what is not. Another thing and a lot more important thing you had to point out, which art forms are evolving and vice versa which are petrified.

Do you mean "have to" instead of "had to" (as in "we have to individually determine our vocabulary before we talk about subject x")? Or do you think I should`ve given my own definition on art beforehand to open a more specific discussion?

Well, my English is not as good as I dream it to be, so sorry if some or most of my words are hardly understandable. But yeah I meant exactly "had to", like you say "definition on art beforehand to open a more specific discussion?"

Anyway. As for games as art there's one single big problem. All forms of art are somehow based on being "framed" or "edited". Author is making accents, managing consumer's attention. I mean that we see, listen, read, etc... only those things which author have decided to include in his work. Everything that is not needed for that nominal art work is cutted off. I mean that author is controlling what and when a consumer would think or imagine. But with games the most important thing is a freedom of a consumer to choose by himself where to move and look. No "frames" and no "editing". Even the rhythm is not controlled by author. Etc. As a result you, me, anyone who would like to transform games into the new innovative art form would have to solve the unsolvable (heh) problem of how to save the freedom of a player and at the same time how to nearly fully control his, player, thoughts.

At the right moment the biggest problem is an absence of really innovative decorations or environment design. There's a lot of simply good and beatiful examples, but there's no artists talanted enough to create environments as new in terms of art as... uhhhm... as for example Hans Giger. Just for a example. What would be "Alien" without Giger designs? Anything but art. And as I believe and that's my personal opinion, I do not insist I am right, there's no artist in game development industry as talanted as Picasso, Dali, Caravaggio, Da Vinci, etc. And that's a big problem. I presume studios like TheChineseRoom would solve the problem how to control thoughts of a player without making linear restrictions like in Dear Esther. But they would not solve the problem of "decorations". There's just no artist in the industry who is genius enough to build up new worlds priceless in terms of art.

[DavidS]

Spoiler below!

While discussing the state of art, first of all, you had to point out what is art and what is not. Another thing and a lot more important thing you had to point out, which art forms are evolving and vice versa which are petrified.

Do you mean "have to" instead of "had to" (as in "we have to individually determine our vocabulary before we talk about subject x")? Or do you think I should`ve given my own definition on art beforehand to open a more specific discussion?

Well, my English is not as good as I dream it to be, so sorry if some or most of my words are hardly understandable. But yeah I meant exactly "had to", like you say "definition on art beforehand to open a more specific discussion?"

Anyway. As for games as art there's one single big problem. All forms of art are somehow based on being "framed" or "edited". Author is making accents, managing consumer's attention. I mean that we see, listen, read, etc... only those things which author have decided to include in his work. Everything that is not needed for that nominal art work is cutted off. I mean that author is controlling what and when a consumer would think or imagine. But with games the most important thing is a freedom of a consumer to choose by himself where to move and look. No "frames" and no "editing". Even the rhythm is not controlled by author. Etc. As a result you, me, anyone who would like to transform games into the new innovative art form would have to solve the unsolvable (heh) problem of how to save the freedom of a player and at the same time how to nearly fully control his, player, thoughts.

At the right moment the biggest problem is an absence of really innovative decorations or environment design. There's a lot of simply good and beatiful examples, but there's no artists talanted enough to create environments as new in terms of art as... uhhhm... as for example Hans Giger. Just for a example. What would be "Alien" without Giger designs? Anything but art. And as I believe and that's my personal opinion, I do not insist I am right, there's no artist in game development industry as talanted as Picasso, Dali, Caravaggio, Da Vinci, etc. And that's a big problem. I presume studios like TheChineseRoom would solve the problem how to control thoughts of a player without making linear restrictions like in Dear Esther. But they would not solve the problem of "decorations". There's just no artist in the industry who is genius enough to build up new worlds priceless in terms of art.

[/quote]

You sure are right that games face big challenges and we have yet to reach certain artistic "landmarks", yet I do also think we easily tend to devalue what is happening right now because it is contemporary and not yet aknowledged as of "historical and lasting social value". Personally I do think there is much to be seen in games like Journey or Limbo (and yes, also in Dear Esther as it is a step forward for narration in games.).

I guess games are in a similar situation like movies, just before the dawn of arthouse. Many critics back then were also of the opinion that movies are not art. Much similar like the dawn of the photocamera. (I feel reminded of the "Technobild" theory by Vilèm Flusser.)

You wrote a problem is the lack of innovation in environmental and decorative design. I can partially agree. I think the reason lies mostly in nowadays very easy access to artistic media throughout the western world, so we have seen much more than people 20 years ago. There is an old proverb that goes like "Every word you can write has been written before".

What I can`t agree with is the concept that art needs to be "framed" (as in being restrictive in the way it lets you perceive it). If we look at a painting or movie we can still decide on what we want to focus and due to all being different, none of us will experience it the same way or will draw the exact same conclusions. On the other side, letting the audience interact with something gives you new possibilities to play with immersion, purpose and exploration. Since the audience partakes in the action, you can, for instance, create a feeling of responsibility and sympathy towards a subject you like to explore. You also have different and strong possibilities to make the audience reflect on themselves (why did I do this? Why did they do that? What do my actions tell about myself?) and for me, that makes a big part of what art should be.

In the end that is just my view of things. But it is also the reason why I haven`t started the thread with a statement/idea of what art has to be within this discussion. Much more open this way. I am pretty sure we wouldn`t have this nice debate if I`ve set up rules. That said, I am thankfull for your words. Having different perspectives and talking about it forms the root of progress and I am looking forward to your answer.

[Alex Ros]

Looks like discussion is simply nailed down to only two of us Well, that's not a problem as long as I do not care. Theme you started is extremely (yup) interesting to me, so I will continue and nevermind if there's only two of us...

First of all, about "frames" and "editing". I do agree that art is not have to be "framed" and "edited". Yes, of course, I clearly understand that it's simply impossible. Absolutely impossable. I've meant only one single thing that while author is dealing with movies, animation, theatre, painting, literature, etc... it's simply much easier to make accents, to focus attention on certain thoughts, metaphors, etc. I've been talking only about that kind of "controlling" consumer's thoughts. It's not an absolute control, but still it is control. And while author is able to think what a consumer might think here and there with usual arts, it's nearly impossible to control in such way a gamer. At least with absolutely open non-linear world like at the Elder Scrolls, Fallout, etc. And, yeah, I do believe anyone who would decide to make real art-game-not-game (how else to say? O.o) would have to deal with such an open world. Simply because that's the most exciting thing with games - free exploring of a big open world. Well, that's my opinion. I could be wrong or I could change my mind.

Anyway games aren't art at the moment. At least as I personally understand art. The only art form which is still alive and evolving is cinematography (and music). And not art-house, but pseudo-documentary. I do not mean Blair Witch No, of course. But! I think that the idea itself to make an auditory think, that all events on screen are real, were real is a way to move forward and explore new yet unexplored forms of making movies. I might say that some, only a few of viral advertising short videos are those tiny movies of the future. For example that http://youtu.be/xuanP2P41_I shorty is art. Short, but effective. Maybe because it's not viral advertisement but simply a virus without a client (I just personally know people who made it). Well, it's just a tiny minute which forced millions of people to talk about the Pyramid of Power and Higher Power, about the conflict between the power of government, power of money and power of something from the "other side". I presume any author would be just on high if he could force people to discuss such a phylosophical things. And that's only a minute of reality. The question if it's real or not is still open. It's sounds funny, but it is so. And... what I was talking about? Ah! Yes. I think, that if there could be a whole movie made in a way when nobody's sure if it's real or not, that movie could be a break through. (Don't get me wrong I am not talking about shooting style, pseudo-documentary, pseudo-homevideos, etc. Nope. I was talking strictly about art movie when it's truly impossible to state if it's real or not. And yeah there's no such movie at the right moment. But I think that the future of cinematography, at least one of the millions of ways to evolve it.)

P.S. Do you like Tool? I mean the music band. Their videos and design of CD packeges. I am asking because some of your art works, sketches reminded me their, Tool, videos and designs.

[DavidS]

Hi,

Sorry for answering late and I will tonight/tomorrow. Just have to do a lot today.

But I can answer your post scriptum: I like tool but I am definately not their biggest fan. My private works are sometimes inspired by Zdzislaw Beksinski but I guess you can also find a bit Leyendecker and Mucha inbetween. If you like Tool music videos check out some Frank Zappa (mainly the "Baby Snake" movie).

[Alex Ros]

Offtopic but... Nope. I do not like TOOL music videos And I am also not their fan. I'd say I am not a fan of anything at all. I prefer to stay with an open mind and prefer to be able to change my mind anytime. To be a fan is to be "closed". I love (music) too much from Bethoveen or Prokofiev to Miles Davis with the Doors, Black Sabbath, Nirvana, Massive Attack, Unkle, Isis, Lustmord and 1000 other absolutely different bands and artists of whatever times I like everything that touches me, no matter of genre or any other cliche.

By the way I really liked your Innsmouth sketch. Real well-thought-out concept of fish-men. Curious how could you imagine the village-city itself, I mean Innsmouth.