Art and Shmups

[Hulkcore]

Spidercat is a work of art in itself.

I think this is the beginnings of a definition of art that we can all agree on.

[it290]

So I can define 'art' as my balls if I want to

my balls are art -- this is how I am defining the word

I am not defining my balls as art. I am defining art as my balls.

[icycalm]

So I can define 'art' as my balls if I want to

my balls are art -- this is how I am defining the word

I am not defining my balls as art. I am defining art as my balls.

The first and last ones are identical. The second one is too, if you add 'art' at the end of the sentence.

Man, you guys. What gets to me is that with all your sniping you actually think you are being clever.

[it290]

Sorry -- not a snipe, just a general commentary on the thread/construction of my own work of 'art'. I just like the way the words roll off the tongue.

edit -- Indeed, they are identical, except for the second, which is ambiguous, as you noted. However, I would say that you are actually both defining art as your balls and defining your balls as art.

[icycalm]

However, I would say that you are actually both defining art as your balls and defining your balls as art.

Yes, I understand that that's what you are saying, but you are wrong.

[it290]

In that case, reversing the construction of your statement, would you say that art is your balls? Or that art is your balls, but only conditionally?

[BulletMagnet]

Or just do what everyone else does on the internet, and keep contributing to the deafening noise. It's your choice.

I seriously hope you don't think that I'm just typing for the sake of typing here, and not trying to actually learn anything. Why should individual-to-individual discussion, on a message board or otherwise, be considered any less "worthy" of an avenue to learning something than burying one's nose in a book? Less convenient for you, maybe, but not ineffective, at least if the person "in the know" is willing to humor the persistent troglodyte for awhile.

And the best of them, the ones which one would have to read in order to be considered educated in this day and age, are crystal clear and self-explanatory. All one needs to do is read them.

I'm no philosophy expert, but based on whatever experience I've had in the field I'm always skeptical of assertions that a writer's style is "accessible" or something along those lines...accessible to whom, or in comparison to what else, I always end up asking, as little of it, despite the universal ramifications of philosophy, ever seems aimed at anyone outside the tiny minority who have spent their entire lives learning how to interpret this stuff. Though this goes a bit more into the realm of political philosophy, Robert Nozick has always been something of a poster boy for "accessible" philosophical writing...but if "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" is philosophy for the masses, I'd hate to see the stuff that the philosophy buffs read (or try to).

In any event, you said you'd toss up a list of recommended reading in this area - it couldn't hurt.

But once you do that you discover that the word is not necessary anymore, because there is ANOTHER word that fully describes that meaning, and which is less confusing to use for everyone because it has only a single meaning.

I assume that here you refer to "good," "great," etc., as mentioned earlier on? If so, aren't those (or any) words as open to individual interpretation as "art" would be, at least in terms of degrees of what qualifies as "goodness" and whatnot? Can't someone just as easily define "good" as a pile of his own crap as he could declare "art" the same thing?

In any event, just because a certain word is "more confusing" than another comparable word doesn't necessarily mean that it deserves to be phased out of the lexicon completely. Language is about more than efficiency.

Of course I can! That's the whole point!

I thought you'd said that "definitions" required a consensus or convention of some kind, a "general" agreement that a word be used to label a concept. If one person chooses to label something with a certain word in a way that no one else accepts, is his idea of what that word means a legitimate "definition," with the ability to cripple any further use of the word for anyone, in relation to any subject? Or can everyone else simply choose to avoid stretching existing words beyond "reasonable" limits, and get on with it? On that note...

The concept art as in "a means for artistical expression" or whatever, is bullshit, because as I just explained to you absolutely anything and everything can be art in that sense, including every piece of shit that comes out of my ass every day. Even pieces of shit can have "messages" as long as one is stupid enough to read one in them.

If this is the case, then why not just make an effort to keep one's own definition of the word within more reasonable bounds, state your case for the boundaries you've chosen to others in order to find common grounds for discussion of "art", and ignore those who insist that it be stretched farther, rather than simply declaring the word, and any related discussions, completely off limits?

I cannot teach you this in a freaking online message board about stupid little games where you have a tiny spaceship and fire at other spaceships.

Enough to get me into the philosopher's ivory tower, no, but seeing as I'm still interested enough in the subject to keep questioning you on it, I think it's safe to say that you could probably at least give me some further basic clarification on it. Offhand I'd guess that the issue is not that the venue is innately unsuitable, but rather that you consider it somehow "beneath" you.

My balls are the concrete thing that needs no definition. Art is just a word which, in order to be useful, we must define. I gave you the example of my balls to help you see the distinction between words and concepts.

Okay, it appears that the crux of my problem was that I was conflating "labeling" (concepts) with "defining" (words) - duly noted. I'm still unsure, however, how the fact that certain people are willing to mold the two to their own convenience somehow means that we ought to just throw up our hands and declare the areas they've claimed as defunct.

[icycalm]

In any event, you said you'd toss up a list of recommended reading in this area - it couldn't hurt.

This is not the spirit that will get you anywhere, Craig. But I can see you have little desire of moving.

[BulletMagnet]

This is not the spirit that will get you anywhere, Craig. But I can see you have little desire of moving.

Well, what'd you expect me to say - "I promise without reservation that I'll make the time to immediately read and extensively study each and every book that you suggest?" Again, this isn't something that I've devoted a sizable portion of my life to (or, frankly, could if I wanted to) - that being the case, would it have been best if I had just vomited up a "sux lol" post rather than making at least some attempt at discussion? I would hope that there's at least some distinction to be drawn between my participation in the topic and a 4chan-esque waste of a post.

In any event, if you don't deem me worthy of any more of a real response than your outright detractors, I'm not sure what else to say in my behalf.

[Randorama]

Depends on how specific you want to get - ask most anyone what the "dictionary definition" of a "chair" is and they could probably give it to you, but ask a bunch of people to, say, draw the first thing...

Ever heard of hyperonym. hyponym, etc. etc....? Anyway, Formal Concept Analysis is your friend

my balls are art -- this is how I am defining the word]quoterm

My balls are art?! I always knew that. Wait a second, who's Ursini, me or you? Else the "my" possessive is ambiguous

[Rob]

I think this is the beginnings of a definition of art that we can all agree on.

Spidercat is a childish doodle compared to Dust Dragon.

[Randorama]

Dust Dragon>>>>>>*

[Enhasa]

2 best posts in this thread

Yo, buddy, Killer 7 is highly streamlined, well executed action title. Don't confuse it with No More Heroes !

Spidercat is a childish doodle compared to Dust Dragon.

[Ed Oscuro]

Structure of this post:

1.) Two jabs at icy
2.) General response to the idea of a definition of art declared by an elite
3.) Specific comment towards the opening of the artical icy linked

1.)

You have no idea how easily I can shit a couple thousand words. It's an art!

Yes, especially when half those words are quoted wholesale from irrelevant sources. No, it's a work of economic necessity which somebody apparently pays you for (I can't imagine insomnia.ac as the fruit of somebody's spare time).

What about the definition of the word 'chair'? Is that opinion too?

According to you, the naming process was something like this: The town's head poo-bah and grandest wizard sat on it, quoted from Wiggenstein, and then pronounced its proper and obvious name.

2.)

The public will be fine letting the artists define what art is - until they start asking for public funding.

An elitist approach to defining what art is (such as your appeal is, given that you obviously don't trust society or artists) doesn't sit well with me for the mere reason that personal biases against certain well-intentioned artistic movements would be squashed out entirely. Dada, for instance, is always considered an "artistic movement," even though the average person doesn't consider it art. The average person looks at the wheel or the ceramic urinal and wonders how they are meant to look at it, where the artist's actual artistry is psychological - not at all represented in the physical medium presented to the person, but rather in engineering the mental response to the readymade "artwork."

I don't really have a problem with an elitist attempt to define "art" and "not art" since generally only the elites have the time to bother categorizing such things or paying attention to the result; the general public will be entertained by whatever is around, including films which most of us will agree are entirely commercial ventures (any seemingly artistic sheen is there on the part of an indentured muse).

Orwell hated the idea of words with mutable meanings, or without meaning (the very same thing); so do I. However, admitting that games can also fit under the umbrella of art is not giving ground to those who misuse terms like democracy. This is a point against taking Orwell too literally in the face of modern evidence: the definition of democracy is well-known in the wide world, as reasonable definitons of such words are agreed upon and countries that adopt fantastic names like "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea" get their just dues in the international community. The relatively stable state of international affairs should allay the fears of those who feel like he did; diplomats are not so stupid as to deal with the DPRK as if it is a true democracy, and the average person spots the idle deception with ease.

Back to games and art - here is a simple exercise which should soothe some of your concerns. Consider a bicycle, and consider the term "art." Clearly, a bicycle can be a work of art while still being functional (without becoming a readymade). Isn't the form of the latest Ferrari supercar (continually improved and updated through roughly four decades at this point) a work of art, and also a mechanical object? I fail to see the significance (or even the logic) of denying that the circles of a Vern diagram ever intersect. Clearly, you have games, and you have art; even when these are separate, definite objects it is clear that one can point to at least portions of a game and view them as art - and it seems no defeat for lucid thinking to extend the recognition to a piece on the whole. If a game would be disqualified from the honor of being considered art because of its inherently commercial nature, we should do the same for Shakespeare's plays written for an audience (all of them); if a game must be docked points in the "is it a game yet" contest because parts of it are ugly and unrefined, we should knock out all novels with unrefined or clumsy portions (the borrowing of Shakespeare, the wide-eyed social reportage of Dickens, and all the experimental authors ever - gone).

Orwell hated words whose meanings can be changed willy nilly because it puts too much political power into the hands of the wordsmiths (or, more accurately, fearmongers and those who are skilled on emotional play, such as himself - 1984 has given schoolchildren nightmares ever since it was released and certainly had political impact in the world). Likewise, smart consumers of media should be aware of the biases that lead the "socially conscious" game reviewer to lead them away from "bad" "non-art" and towards "art;" when art becomes officially sanctioned it loses its relevance, becomes a tool of repressors, and loses its justification to be called art.

All that aside, however, I think the general idea of being ready to challenge those who will mindlessly argue that games are art is worthwhile. However, I also believe this is a decision every person should make for themselves.

3.)

"Criticism" outside of "advising people who want to know what to pay too much for at B&N" is now less dominated by the masturbatory academic fluff Orwell raged against during his time. For an upcoming paper I'm quoting a new piece by one of my professors which might be considered critical by people from Orwell's time (as it looks at how an author reflected social trends in '20s Japan), but this is a modern interpretation grounded in the increasingly scientific field of literary history; I know the author of this piece is interpreting the original in accordance with his interests, but he does so in a completely grounded fashion. There are no vague allusions to "peculiar deadness" or comparisons to "a scent of barnyard animals" in the piece.

(The first generation of painters affected by newly-discovered Oriental works (some time before Orwell) were usually guilty of humoring themselves with flights of idealistic fancy; despite this, they absorbed many of the lessons of Oriental art and even invented some new ones to which they applied the slapdash moniker "Japonisme." From confusion, knowledge.)

So, academia has moved past the bumbling self-centered nature of the "criticism" Orwell justly railed against.

What about the average game reviewer, who is apparently your target?

I submit that the average reader, while generally intelligent, will naturally find such questions dull and uninteresting. Look at GameFAQs: The site's name itself lets on that you can at best only hope for a limited level of intuition from its readers; you go there to find the answers that the internet might otherwise provide in ten second of web searching, not to find comprehensive answers to deep game mechanics. That's to say nothing of the average smart person who plays shooters for score; how much mental energy is the average person willing to invest in a black pit of philosophizing? More to the point, is this really even a demerit? A person's freedom is generally lost or ensured at the voting booth, not (usually) at the movie theater or in an arcade.

The average reviewer - especially the average games reviewer - is simply too overworked and put-upon to even do their job properly much of the time. They are swayed this way and that by fads and trends; vertical shooters with bullet hell and chaining are seen as the products of an inward-looking audience. Indeed, it seems to me the average games reviewer aspires more to become Chris Morris (of CNN Money), an industry analyst and observer of the march of progress in interactive entertainment, than an actual ubergamer or gaming critic. I feel it is no mistake that format wars are so closely (but so poorly) followed by the average online gamer; they're keeping score in the dreary (yet irrestistible) game of economic hardball between industry players. (Arguable points: Most people don't have the skill or determination to excel at a type of gameplay; hence the continual return to the primitive campfire storytelling of gaming as games become more and more complex. The public is more interested in seeing indicators of progress and the triumph of the American Dream than they are in bettering their scores. Wait for computation/watts efficiency scores to become the next hot indicator on CPU reviews, or MPG counts for cars.)

That doesn't mean the effort to move the discussion forwards is ignoble, or even a failure. It lays the groundwork that future historians may point to with as much interest as the average corporate game reviewer (once you've read one you've read them all), but the current audience is not receptive to it.

Perhaps you only hope for a few positive impacts from posting the piece. I found useful points in the article, for instance, and I'm happy it was posted. I just find the general indifference to the state of your personal reception at this forum to be amusing.

p.s. the typo in the first sentence is there to draw out whoever hits "quote" immediately upon finding an error. People should try this trick on me, since I'm likely to do such a thing.

[Hulkcore]

including films which most of us will agree are entirely commercial ventures (any seemingly artistic sheen is there on the part of an indentured muse).

As a student of filmmaking, I completely disagree with this statement. But I really have no desire to comment further unless someone cares for me to elaborate.

[Rob]

Vern

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKZodyFLm0w

[Ed Oscuro]

Vern

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKZodyFLm0w

End thread, please

Hulkcore: I'll admit I cast a bit wide in that statement. The average blockbuster film is conceived from start to finish as a commercial venture, although some of them do get tainted by artistic tendencies to some extent

[Hulkcore]

Honestly, I should have stated earlier that I mostly think of art in terms of film and literature (comic books included dammit) and have little interest in graphic works. Not that I don't consider it all art, but I'm more concerned with the above since they are my passion/skillset.

This is the main reason for my view on the commercialness of art. As an artist, I will continue to do what I do regardless of where my income flows from. It would certainly be nice to make enough money to live off of by making films, but I'll continue to do it as long as I'm able. To do otherwise would be suicide.


EDIT: And for the record, anything by Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, or Zack Snyder is not art.

[Udderdude]

You guys really want to see art? Ok, here it is. Art.

[icycalm]

Ed, are you sure you are a human being and not an experimental AI or something? I have no idea what you are talking about. I forced myself to read a couple of your paragraphs, and they seem to me even more meaningless than the worst kind of art criticism. And that's saying something!

And I am not just saying that I can't see your point, because you obviously do not have one -- I am saying that many of your individual sentences make no sense.

I mean what is this sentence even supposed to mean?

I just find the general indifference to the state of your personal reception at this forum to be amusing.

Don't try to clarify with additional sentences. Just try to either rearrange the words or rephrase the whole sentence completely, until it makes sense. It should be good exercise for you.

[it290]

Icy, you're clearly being facetious, and it's not to your credit.

[spadgy]

Icy, you're clearly being facetious, and it's not to your credit.

Got to admit I agree. Also Icy - you totally distract people from the fact you make some really interesting and credit-worthy points by diluting them with a load of inappropriate rudeness.

Some of what you've said has really made me think, and some of what you said has really made me wince! Your last post to Ed for example!

This place isn't a proving ground or an intelligence competition...

[Ed Oscuro]

I mean what is this sentence even supposed to mean?

I just find the general indifference to the state of your personal reception at this forum to be amusing.

Exactly what the words indicate. The only criticism I can aim towards it is that I didn't indicate the subject at the beginning of the subject (it should have been obvious, however).

Ironic that a sentence critical of Icy's demeanor should be undecipherable for him.

I also have a serious question. I don't see what relevance Wittgenstein had to the rest of your article.

It appears only to serve as evidence for the importance of having set definitions for words, which should not be your major argument, but it is.

The section in which you have highlighted a sentence - "There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical." - belies his reputation as an analytic philosopher. He is not calling things that cannot be put into words woo-woo (even if people today might wish he had), but rather defending religion and the mystical. If you need to read Wittgenstein as saying that a misuse of words is "mystical," and that the "mystical" is in error, you are misreading him.

A side issue here - I can't imagine what other purpose you had in quoting all that, but you really should spend more time explaining how you approach the relevant parts. I don't mind that you quoted a large section of Wittgenstein; it's more interesting than your writing, and you aren't insulting our intelligence in assuming that we can understand it - but you perhaps are attempting to dodge having to explain things in your own words.

Lessons learned:

Throwing in dictionary references is one of your bad habits; dropping the name of whatever philosopher you happen to be reading at the moment appears to be another.

You also seem hypocritical - given your obsession with an incredibly esoteric point - in naming the article "For Artfags Only" (is this a self-deprecating moment, or are you insulting your readership?), just as I found the anti-parody-games article to be a perfect (and, unfortunately, apparently unwitting) parody of the "new games journalism," arguing against a game for perceived artistic sins and assuming that the readership cared little for an honest judgement of the gameplay.

This is incredibly unfortunate given that - from what I've read - you seek to put value into careful study of each game and creating edifying reviews.

I am receptive to criticisms of the densely packed wording of my posts; I'm aware I do not provide a lot of footholds with exterior context through quotes, and prefer to make do with short references instead. Quote trains are an eyesore, fill up the page, and turn me towards looking for malapropisms to poke fun at (which is not one of my most respected habits).

I'm also too optimistic in thinking I can have a wide-ranging discussion about any mix of topics at the same time. Most people require an introduction, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion to get their grounding; whereas if you throw a sentence at me like

"Criticism" outside of "advising people who want to know what to pay too much for at B&N" is now less dominated by the masturbatory academic fluff Orwell raged against during his time.

I can easily digest it (assuming that I know all the references; the only odd one here is Barnes & Noble, the bookseller). In my defense, nobody's paying me to make things more clear, and this isn't going on a permanent webpage so I don't try to edit it for clarity as heavily as I would my term papers.

Some of what you've said has really made me think, and some of what you said has really made me wince! Your last post to Ed for example!

On the contrary, I find Icy's behavior and attitude to be consistent from one venue to the next. IRC, the Forums, and insomnia.ac - the attitude is always the same, and always insufferable (ignoring my Briggs-Meyer for the moment, which proves that I actually find this all very amusing - I admit it's true).

This place isn't a proving ground or an intelligence competition...

You've found the problem: this is an immutable part of Icy's personality.

Losing a battle of wits apparently threatens to lose him respect and expose his vapid and hollow commentaries. I'm pleased that he took the time to read part of my post and ask about it; that is a step in the right direction.

Icy views his every moment of existence as a struggle to find the elite choir that will stand enraptured by his preaching and pivot at his every command. Apparently, creating enough drama on niche internet forums will spread the fame of his teachings far and wide, and disciples will flock to his side from the far corners of the earth. The flip side is that it is a struggle against his intellectual oppressors, whoever those may be. I snipe at him often, but I wonder if it is possible to write a serious criticism of him that he would actually bother to read.

[moozooh]

Also Icy - you totally distract people from the fact you make some really interesting and credit-worthy points by diluting them with a load of inappropriate rudeness.

Isn't that ironic, he just forces you to credit-feed through his articles.

[Ed Oscuro]

Also Icy - you totally distract people from the fact you make some really interesting and credit-worthy points by diluting them with a load of inappropriate rudeness.

Isn't that ironic, he just forces you to credit-feed through his articles.

Comforting to know I'm not the only one who has that reaction

[spadgy]

Also Icy - you totally distract people from the fact you make some really interesting and credit-worthy points by diluting them with a load of inappropriate rudeness.

Isn't that ironic, he just forces you to credit-feed through his articles.

Genius...

[icycalm]

This place isn't a proving ground or an intelligence competition...

Does saying that make you feel better for losing?

[spadgy]

This place isn't a proving ground or an intelligence competition...

Does saying that make you feel better for losing?

Touché!

[icycalm]

You wish!

[grovsnus]

Never shall I dismount this high horse of mine!

Define I.