Jump to content
IGNORED

ico, rez, and...?


Guardian
 Share

Recommended Posts

:D

Excuse me, but who the fuck do you think you are?  I was unaware that you had the right to decide what was art and what wasn't.  I assumed that this was down to the artist.

It really does make me laugh when people pick out Rez in particular as a work of art, as if in order to be art, games need to look or sound a little different from the norm.  Art is surely about inspiring reaction and not about being different.

But don't you do the same thing here? Don't you put your opinion here above others as well by mocking them?

It also makes me laugh how when people start talking about art it only takes five minutes before some dillion starts throwing around the word 'pretentious' which, I'm afraid, just makes you look stupid.

Why? It's equally silly to say somebody is stupid if someone doesn't regard [ insert some artwork in YOUR opinion here ] as art. It reeks of 1337tism to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

As I said quality is irrelevant. As is the fact that thecoders have or haven't played games before.

I very rarely go to a gallery and have a peek at the paintings but if I got out the watercolours and splashed a couple of lines on a bit of paper that too would be art.

The Mona Lisa, The Cheeky Song, 1984, Rez and Gigli are all art. They might not all be good art, but they're still art I'm afraid.

Couldn't agree more.

To consider that something has to be "good" before it can be considered art is absurd., particularly as the idea of quality is entirely subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rez art mentioning:

http://www.aec.at/en/archives/festival_pro...ProjectID=11323

http://www.aec.at/en/archives/prix_archive...ProjectID=11729

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/380/380818p1.html

I'm pretty sure there was mentioning of prizes / mentioning / etc that Rez won, on the U-GA website, but it seems it doesn't exist any more

The original Rez website is now hosted at the sonicteam site as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't you do the same thing here? Don't you put your opinion here above others as well by mocking them?

Why? It's equally silly to say somebody is stupid if someone doesn't regard [ insert some artwork in YOUR opinion here ] as art. It reeks of 1337tism to me...

At leat the rev can read between the lines? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D

I'd decided not to argue the point further, because it was just going to go round in circles.

You know, your reply was like poetry man...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't you do the same thing here? Don't you put your opinion here above others as well by mocking them?

Touche. Backtracking slightly, but perhaps I should have said that he doesn't have the right to say what isn't art. If an somebody claims that their work is art then it is.

The answer to the question "But is it art?" is normally "yes".

Why? It's equally silly to say somebody is stupid if someone doesn't regard [ insert some artwork in YOUR opinion here ] as art. It reeks of 1337tism to me...

But its downright rude and wrong to say to an artist that their work isn't art. I didn't call anyone stupid either.

You are so deep. Like...wow. I mean...that reply is ART! See that you even swore in the reply. Harsh man, harsh artistic words.

:D The mind boggles it really does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art is a subjective term in itself.

But I've got a degree in arts, so I have more authority to decide what art is than you :D

Anyway, according to the definitions of art, anything you produce could be called art. Which is too true if you look at the crap that can be seen in any Modern Arts museum these days.

art

n.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature

2. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

Most people- myself included give these threads a wide berth.

Problem is that there are many, many defintiions of art depending what disicpline you are working from. The definition of what is and isn't art is really a question for philosophers imo.

The key to any discussion like this is to establish right at the start what your benchmark definition for 'art' is. Modern art society is in tangles when it comes to defining what is and isn't art so for a bunch of gamers on a forum it's a lofty topic without a benchmark definition in the initial post.

Just a point for the future when this thread will be regurgitated.

Fwiw the best benchmark to guage something's artistic worth I heard from one of my professors on the subject. He argued that good art reveals something about the subject matter that wasn't clear before from examining the literal matter. In other words, a landscape painting of a pastoral scene is worth less than a piece of art that draws attention to a particular asset of the scene- reavling something that the viewer may not have understood just from looking at the view (this is one of the reasons that viewers of a Picasso work may gain more from the experience than if they were looking at a Constable). This principle can then be applied to other forms such as literature and music and, presumably games too.

If this argument is followdedf through then literal games replicating reality (such as Splinter Cell or Gran Turismo) are more simulators and less art as they don't reveal anything of the subject matter that wasn't already clear from viewing the literal subject. However, Rez on the other hand explores the synergy between rhythm and visuals in an exciting, new way that, whilst abstract, is nevertheless, making a comment on visualising musical form.

Similarly, Ico, while based in an alternate reality (i.e. the rules of nature are shared with reality) is still redemptive in its execution and subject matter- it is more than just a simulator and, from the way it has been created, has the ability to tell the player something about themselves of worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are so deep. Like...wow. I mean...that reply is ART! See that you even swore in the reply. Harsh man, harsh artistic words.

:D The mind boggles it really does.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battlestar?

It's an Interactive Fiction piece about an interview with a statue.

The problem with this thread is its assumption that the Art games are going to be the ones major corporations stick on the shelves. Some will, sure, but real "Art" games are more likely to be underground things.

KG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this thread is its assumption that the Art games are going to be the ones major corporations stick on the shelves. Some will, sure, but real "Art" games are more likely to be underground things.

Theres some truth in that. Look at the underground shooter movement on the PC. Theres hundreds of ideas in there, some already covered, but with games like Every extend pushing the genre ever forward. Its not just about ideas though.

The graphical styles are also very unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, my opinion: games are entertainment. HOWEVER, if they were arty, the qualifiers for games being arty would be things like:

- Alternative or beautiful graphical presentation (Rez, Ico, Mojibribbon, Vib Ribbon, JSR, Space Channel 5)

- Fluid control for the player (Soul Calibur, Quake 3, Tony Hawk's)

- No glitches (thankfully most games I play are not too buggy)

- Consistency and coherency of the gameworld, perhaps? A game shouldn't detach you from it's environment with FMV and whatnot. Example: Half-Life has no FMV and all of the story is told through the eyes of Freeman - through the eyes of you...HOWEVER...Half-Life does destroy it's consistency by putting in those bloody Xen levels.

Don't get too upset by what I have posted; this is opinion and not fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoho. Irony travels well on the web.

Coo. 1000th post. Time for a lie down. Still can't find that Rez t-shirt, goddamit.

firework.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ on a bike, it's the Ico/Rez "Are Games Art?!?" discussion. Again.

You could compare the likes of Rez and Ico with playing paintings - Rez being an insane Kandinsky abstractism of eye-fuckery while Ico is more a mellow mist-like landscape painting, almost tints of Escher. Fancy playing a comic book? Aha, that'll be Viewtiful Joe. Etc. etc. etc.

i'm aware that this is an inane and obnoxious topic, particularly to those who hear it over and over. yet i can't shake the feeling that the two games stand alone in terms of their uniqueness and their quality. i simply wanted to know if there are more games of that calibur. so, this is a selfish thread that tries to be something more; in theory, i agree with you and with whomever was claiming that everything can be seen as art and it is only the subjective quality that differs. nonetheless, my experience of videogames tells me something different from this idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.