1eyedking Graphics =/= Art Direction

[Radisshu]

Just because you don't "get" something doesn't deny it artistic merit. You know Rothko the artist I mention earlier, he was a famed artist for the emotion he managed to convey with such simplicity, obviously they got it. So just because you don't get it it's not art?

Oh, please. I don't get it.

 

[Radisshu]

Art is a category, that does not imply quality.

I'm not sure that's what he meant.

Anyway, if it doesn't imply quality then what does it imply? It should imply something otherwise it couldn't really be categorized, no?

Well, that's more complicated. The art institutions (art schools, art museums, art galleries) continue to broaden the category by constantly including more types of art.

I guess the most realistic definition would be "art is what is currently considered art by the artistic institutions". Terms such as "art" are difficult to pin down because they are entirely human inventions, and change completely with the subjectivity of human nature. We can't check art scientifically to see if it really is art, so we need to find a definition that is independent of statements such as "Well I personally dislike Picasso's later works, so they cannot be considered art" (compare to "Hip hop isn't really music", which it according to western music theory most certainly is, whether you like it or not).

EDIT:

Other comparable phrases would be "That chair is awful. I can't consider that true furniture." "I hate pasta. This cannot be considered true food." "These apartment buildings are disgusting. They cannot be considered real buildings."

 

[Clockwork Knight]

(Ottobeuren Abbey)

Rococo. Excessive beyond respect for form, geometrical purity, formality, proportions, etc. France should really thank Napoleon for making Neoclassicism sweep all of that shit away.

As for you, CK, you're the typical ignorant who immediately tags something over-designed, superficial and degenerate as artistic. Your petty brain associates a ridiculous mess of contours, twirls, figurines, leafs, and cherubs as an exponent of art.

I feel sad for you. Though I do like you when you're not stupid.

Do I really have to quote the kicking thing again? Anyway, you're contradicting yourself hardcore here.

You grab a brush, and paint something inside your mind that wasn't previously in the real world.
You grab a pencil, and write something inside your mind that wasn't previously in the real world.
You grab a chisel, and sculpt something inside your mind that wasn't previously in the real world.

It's not pleasing to the senses. It doesn't have any particular purposeful arrangement whatsoever. It does not invite imagination. It does not convey a message through its form. It doesn't require skill. In fewer words, it doesn't fulfill the requirements to be art.

Explain why it's art, then.

There is no creation during the process: a photograph is just a still real-world image which could have been captured by our eyes. It's a pretty picture. Tells a message. But nothing was created, no imagination employed at all. It's not art.

Then I show you something that fulfills all those requirements, yet its "not art" because you don't understand it, or you think it looks tacky, or something.

If you're really so deadset on finding an exact definition for art (which is pretty lulsy an autistic in its own right), at least be consistent.

You're a p. cool guy too, but you have a tendency to go full retard when cornered. Just admit you were wrong. Embrace the manboon heart that beats inside you!

 

[Orgasm]

@roll-a-die

Well, we disagree on the fundamentals.
I believe that you have to be at least as skilled/knowledgeable about the subject as the artist to fully comprehend the skill involved. It cant be picked up in an hour.

Antenna example. Why is the rudimentary shape not art anymore?
The 2 square picture is a rudimentary shape. It has a creative meaning. You labeled it as art.
Antenna has a rudimentary shape. It needed a creative spark/meaning to be in that new, revolutionary form and work. You label it as not art.
Contradiction?

Wheel example. So the purpose plays a role in the decision art/not art? Is a great propaganda painting not art anymore because it serves an utilitarian purpose? Why does whatever purpose play a role at all?

Where I wanted to go was, that you logically have to accept everything as potential art. I started to ask you those questions because you said, art requires skill and than posted abstract paintings and photos of shit labeled differently.

If you demand skill as part of art than you have to accept all kind of things, where skill (also hard to define) is required, as art.

You second demand is some form of creativity and again it is not possible to draw a line and say that the composition in a picture is creativity but adding a H-atom to some molecule and creating a usable gas for what purpose ever is not.

The third thing you added in you last post was a specific purpose for something to be art and thats very illogical imo.

 

[Paperclip]

Actually I also always think that that kind of decoration style like in that abbey pic CK posted is excessive.

 

[Radisshu]

To further clarify, the reason I think art - and categorial definitions in general - should have nothing to do with quality is because of the subjective nature of aesthetics.

A category should be broad enough to be useful, and once you learn something of it you should be able to somewhat accurately sort things into and out of it. Its definition should also be such that people can agree on it, if the categorial definition its based on ridiculously subjective views (such as "is it beautiful?"), the category will mean nothing.

 

[hiver]

Children's cartoons are examples? Nigga please.

1eyedking : Look ma im dumb!

Nope, it's the premise behind pretentious shit as Rococo - which, by the way, isn't art because it doesn't retain purity of form.

Irrelevant to the example we were discussing even if you would really want it to be otherwise.

Effort, yes. Talent, in the broad sense, maybe. True talent, as in artistic talent, a definite no.

You are going to tell miyazaki a definite no to the level of talent?
hahaha... hohoho.

That drawing could have been made by pretty much anyone from deviantart -

haha...what an idiot.

Your lolgic fails.

lmao

Creating something beautiful for the joy of it doesn't meet the criteria for art, sorry. You may love doing your work as much as you could, but if you create something shitty it's still shitty - and thus, not art.

Love is one of the ingredients that can raise something to the level of art. Fallout.

No, it transmits "I'll make this room full of detail so people go 'Ooh, pretty' andw my work is art because it's full of little curves, I mean, that's exactly where artistic talent is at!".

Failed. trying too hard.

This is in the children stories level. If that is your intellectual standard...

Many of miyazaki works have a base in something simple, nothing more then children story at first look.

BWAHAHAHA, the characters barely move their mouths when they speak and you cite them as masters of animation! That's a good one.

Yes moron because the whole is art and "animation" is the whole of it not just one detail, not just some particular character or scene.

Also, even if it has a heart, that doesn't mean what he created is good

.
In this case its not good - its excellent.

To be honest ,it looks like Dragon Ball Z, for fuck's sake. Actually, DBZ is far more interesting in a pop culture sense than that pretentious crap.

Youre embarrasing yourself on several levels now.

It's minimalist on purpose, because you can't draw a tens of thousands incredibly detailed characters (which still wouldn't qualify as art if drawn as devoid of imagination as those backgrounds) without spending a fortune on animators, editors, resources, and whatnot.

reading and comprehension fail.

Those were cool things, but they were kinda like that, I mean literal "What is human if your whole body is artificial - what is individuality - what is a mind - can performing a physical action achieve perfection of movement and intention and become a value in on itself or is it the same as random thought in a ghost, irrelevant?" questions without further exploration, and therein would have lied creative wisdom. It might make emo collegiate-level nerds crap in their paints, ask themselves whether "love can blossom in the battlefield" or not, but it's not a Dostoyevsky in my book. Nor a Repin. Nor a Bach.

It never attempted to be dostoyevky, repin or bach.
Its really... pathetic to see you reached for this argument after trying so hard to present yourself as a thinker and an intelligent person.
Frankly... the only thing you can do now it take a few bricks and beat your head in.

Do you have any actual arguments or this simple pretentious fake crap is all?

Oh yeah, dystopian future setting. Totally not like every other Anime ever

Tottally not. Take a look at other movies miyazaki made.
Anyway, dystopian setting might be common in anime but thats not the point i was making. I merely said that character animation in Ghost fits and enhances the setting theme - which it does.

Watched it, found some stuff mildly interesting, was left sorely disappointed on how none of the themes were developed at all - no content = boring, so I gave the genre the finger, because honestly, if that's the best you can throw...

The whole is nothing. No theme is developed. There is no link between soul and conscience, no exploration as to why the computer entitiy should be considered alive, what the fuck happened during the merging - nothing.

You just exhibit that you failed to appreciate it fully on account of your personal preferences and idiocy.

Link between soul and conscience is one of the main themes you retard.
The question whether a computer entity should be regarded as a being or not is at the heart of the plot.
Why in the hell would you need to know what happened during the merging?

Do you have no imagination or capability for logic thought yourself? (ah yes you dont well...anyway)
Why would you want everything explained to you directly? Whats the point of making everything obvious and quantifiable when one of the points of the movie is that its not?

Do your require constant handholding and more streamlined experience to figure out anything for yourself?
You need a quest compass man?

The ghost is more about asking questions then giving definite answers - even a retard like you should have understood at least that level of it.

It presents them as themes in which visual arts compliment the minimalistic story, the story compliments visuals and sounds and music compliment both. visuals comprise of rich detailed backgrounds and minimalistic characters that the artist, rather then be hampered with - turned into a tool that tells another layer and enhancement of the main theme.

Does that sound familiar? No? well nevermind... moving on.

Its purpose, or one of its purposes is to make the viewer think - rather then giving some sort of retarded simplistic definite pretentious answers modern kids would be happy with.

Your inability to appreciate it is nothing more then that.
Its the same thing as me listening to some Bach piece and hearing nothing but boring pretentious tones and sounds that dont reflect nothing to me.


Ghost in the shell is a piece of art regardless what one individual thinks of it, very much similar to how Fallout is art regardless of its medium and very simple character animation, piss poor graphics and retardedly simple main premise or "the story".

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Actually I also always think that that kind of decoration style like in that abbey pic CK posted is excessive.

Sure it is, since that's the point of the style

The word Rococo is seen as a combination of the French rocaille, meaning stone, and coquilles, meaning shell, due to reliance on these objects as motifs of decoration.[1] It may also be related to the Portuguese barocco (which refers to an irregularly shaped pearl),[2] or Baroque style. Owing to Rococo love of shell-like curves and focus on decorative arts, some critics used the term to derogatively imply that the style was frivolous or merely modish; when the term was first used in English in about 1836, it was a colloquialism meaning "old-fashioned". However, since the mid 19th century, the term has been accepted by art historians.

Ignore that last bit, though, these art historians are all dumbfucks according to Dr.1eyedking.

 

[1eyedking]

Then I show you something that fulfills all those requirements, yet its "not art" because you don't understand it, or you think it looks tacky, or something.

I just posted some bare minimum requirements. Take it as an entrance fee, but not quite on the show yet.

It's not aesthetically pleasing and doesn't follow other things I mentioned. Art is a hard thing to define mostly because it must accomplish lots of things at the same time. Lurk above these posts.

You're a p. cool guy too, but you have a tendency to go full retard when cornered. Just admit you were wrong. Embrace the manboon heart that beats inside you!

I guess would if I were. But I'm not

Also, stop quoting Wikipedia; it's terrible stuff. You're smarter than that.

 

[crufty]

i believe there is universally good art. like all faith, this is belief with no major science to back it up. However, if we subscribe to chomsky's theories of innate grammar--make sure you spawn a few children before disagreeing--then we must also have innate art appreciation to go along with our instinct to create.

It takes an open mind however, and societal/environmental impacts may degrade some people's ability to appreciate art, to rise above whatever infection their fellow philistines have imparted on them.

I point at ancient cave art as some of the art of the highest order, some of our finest works--as well as crudest.

in terms of gaming, the real question for me isn't art direction, but the point i keep hammering at: art vs illustration. some games are an illustration...this *X* is *X*. Some games are art: this *Y* is going to be defined together, by us, both game creator and gamer. IWD v PS:T...

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Also, stop quoting Wikipedia; it's terrible stuff. You're smarter than that.

It's not like trying harder will help, Skyway-fu is motherfucking unbeatable

A - *question*

B - *answer*

A - "What does that even mean? What? Ha ha, nice try. You're dumb."

 

[DraQ]

I always thought that to consider seriously arguing finer aspects of something being or not being art, you are required to be a pretentious douche.

 

[denizsi]

I saw an art today.

 

[roll-a-die]

@roll-a-die

Well, we disagree on the fundamentals.
I believe that you have to be at least as skilled/knowledgeable about the subject as the artist to fully comprehend the skill involved. It cant be picked up in an hour.

As I said that photo was a picture I found googling poop and getting a blog post about how when you eat right your poop floats. I think I know more than the person who took that picture about photography. The difference between you and I, is that I know the context in which that image was taken.

Antenna example. Why is the rudimentary shape not art anymore?
The 2 square picture is a rudimentary shape. It has a creative meaning. You labeled it as art.

It's two squares, yes, but those shapes have intrinsic meaning beyond the obvious. It's a rudimentary shape, that also has blending and brush patterns, which required skill. It also has a palate which can communicate meaning, which required creative thought.

Antenna has a rudimentary shape. It needed a creative spark/meaning to be in that new, revolutionary form and work. You label it as not art.
Contradiction?

Not quite a contradiction, mostly because both of us are misunderstanding each other. I don't work well with vague concepts. But I would argue that the antenna would be no more art than a circular CPU. Sure it's new, but what purpose other than picking up airwaves does it serve. Does it look good, no, it's just a simple 2-7 point euclidean shape. Thus it doesn't serve to provoke emotion or admiration.

Wheel example. So the purpose plays a role in the decision art/not art? Is a great propaganda painting not art anymore because it serves an utilitarian purpose? Why does whatever purpose play a role at all?

Propaganda does serve a purpose beyond the pure utility, it serves as a message and a conversation/spark to someones mind. I'm not saying that all wheels aren't art, it's one of those things like photos where if it's done well, it has the potential to be art.

Where I wanted to go was, that you logically have to accept everything as potential art. I started to ask you those questions because you said, art requires skill and than posted abstract paintings and photos of shit labeled differently.

If you demand skill as part of art than you have to accept all kind of things, where skill (also hard to define) is required, as art.

You second demand is some form of creativity and again it is not possible to draw a line and say that the composition in a picture is creativity but adding a H-atom to some molecule and creating a usable gas for what purpose ever is not.

The third thing you added in you last post was a specific purpose for something to be art and thats very illogical imo.

Hm, that's not at all what I meant, though I may have worded it strangely. For that I apologize, what I meant to say, is that it has to serve some purpose other than JUST utility, to be art. You don't call a spoon art, but if that spoon is ornate and engraved or etched with designs, it has the potential to be art.

The second point about skill, it has to be skill, and/or creative thought. You can make something skillfully and have it not be art, without that creative spark. Robots can't do art, they lack the ability to think creatively. They can create something skillfully yes, but in the end it's still the creation of a human coming out. In which case the credit goes to him.

Anything has the potential to be art when done well enough, I'll admit that, but not everything is.


@1EyedKing, Once more you seem to confuse High Art for art/Low Art.

 

[1eyedking]

@1EyedKing, Once more you seem to confuse High Art for art/Low Art.

What you say is low art is not art. Even some of the stuff that people catalog as high art isn't.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I'm an American, you're not patriotic if you aren't moved by those words. Yes there is some degree of natural talent in art, but, by far, it is a learned skill, that can be honed through practice. Natural Talent helps yes, but is not required to be an artist.

Are you dumb? The constitution means it in the lawful sense, not in that we are all born with equal potential. I missed that post: you have aptly demonstrated your stupidity in it; puts your other "deductions" in a very bad light.

 

[roll-a-die]

Give me a complete definition of what you consider art then.


As to your second point, I notice you merely call me stupid yet offer no evidence to refute my claim that art is a learned skill.


To settle this once and for all, here's one a da Vinci's earliest works, from 1476, from AFTER he completed his apprenticeship. See, Leonardo went to school to be an artist and he actually learned there .

Let's fast forward 20 years,

As you can see in those twenty years his brush work and anatomy vastly improved, lets see 10 years later. The work he is most known for.

Again he improved even more over time, in this his shading, anatomy and fabric drawing have improved.

Art is a learned skill it improves over time. Natural talent can give you a jump start, like it did for people like da Vinci, but most of art is learned.

 

[StrangeCase]

Interesting, again. And what do you make out of it?

Mainly obvious things. I initially thought, like some other posters, that you were simply trashing art that you didn't like. Sounds like a pretentious belligerent prick, I thought, so let's set off some fireworks. I posted a link to the Lego castle, then went back and browsed the thread some while waiting for a reply. While doing so, I started to rethink things. I got the impression that you have a system in mind that you've clearly put some thought into, and that operates on rules that are logical, at least in your mind. Your definition of art is much narrower than mine, and you've expressed a lot of thoughts I personally think are misguided, but they're not arbitrary and they're not products of an incapable mind. I'm curious as to how these rules work.

No, of course not. It's when, as you said, the thing is political in itself, kinda like Doris Lessing adopting a feminist stance in her novels.

I've never read Lessing, so I couldn't speak to that. So if there's a political agenda at work, art is compromised? Sounds like that excludes satire as a genre. Some great authors were considered satirists (Mark Twain, Jonathan Swift). Would you consider them artists? If not, are they still great? Hell, were they ever great?

About the African kid with an AK-47: you instantly associate those elements with racism, illegal weapon trafficking, and children as faction militia, which are all political issues at their core.

Makes sense. Here's what interests me: we've agreed that one can write non-politically (like Shakespeare) but maintain strong political themes. Is this possible in painting? You can't politically charge brushstrokes the way you can charge words, right?

You could also think of it this way: a great writer could include an African kid with an AK in his story, and still have it be art. A great painter could paint the kid and the gun, and torpedo the work's artistry with politics. Do writers have more latitude in this area, or am I missing something?

I tried to argue logically, at least.

I think I believe that, actually.

 

[Raghar]

No, anime is not animated manga. Some anime adapts manga, but some manga adapts anime. Manga are japanese comics. The term is relatively new, and is not suited for older japanese art.

roll-a-die already explained that. I actually don't care if that stuff is in category manga made before 1900, manga made before 1950, or manga made befoer new Japanese anti porn laws... Actually I do care if it's before new Japanese anti porn laws, as some dojinshi will not exist when some retards would try to decrease violence and sexual stuff in the manga.

Not that Raghar is any better, mind you - unlike 1EK he never even appeared to be in the first place.

Should I regurgitate similar walls of philosophy texts like Paula Tormeson IV?
When PT IV do that, it's funny. When two or more posters would do that, it's either a reader club, or bunch of university educated retards talking to each other. I'm glad debates full of strangely sounding terms used because the person wanted to sound educated are quite rare on RPG codex.

Why are you not in Belgium? The artist, I posted two of his works, shown some of his work in EU. Considering the originals are 1.5 x 1 m, or similar size it's quite a sight, especially for you...

btw naruto is more artful then princess mononoke. it is a pretty subtle kids show.

I read 300+ chapters of Naruto in two days because I head it would have interesting plot twist later. Plot twist was minor, and didn't save it from being horrible mess of stupidity and hypocrisy.*1 Bleach is nearly as bad (with exception of the first arc), however when author has inspiration, he has fairly nice drawing. (BTW he wanted to be a hairstylist and it shows)

Luckily I discovered some songs from Miku, and I have recovered quickly.

 

[DraQ]

Bump.

I've revisited this thread and it's almost a study of 1EK's downfall.

It starts out pretty intelligent, and thought out, although his definition of art direction is a bit to holistic for me, meaning that it's beyond the point of actual usability, not that I disagree with need to have ties between different element of your game or other work.
It ends up with inane squabbling over the nature of art.


Rest In Derp, fellow codice.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Bump.

I've revisited this thread and it's almost a study of 1EK's downfall.

It starts out pretty intelligent, and thought out, although his definition of art direction is a bit to holistic for me, meaning that it's beyond the point of actual usability, not that I disagree with need to have ties between different element of your game or other work.
It ends up with inane squabbling over the nature of art.


Rest In Derp, fellow codice.

I still take strong issue with the original post.

Many people are ridiculed as graphics whores, but never has anyone been called an "art direction whore" or a "design direction whore". Strange, since the latter is really just a pretentious version of the same thing, and since a graphics whore is at least honest. Yes, graphics and art direction are different, but equally secondary.

I mean really, look at this:

it has a unique retro-futuristic comic book design, complete with Monopoly inspired figurines, Blade Runner pistols, and an art deco vibe and you've got one hell of a setting. Factions are logical and their outlook upon the world is befitting, and their themes are well characterized. Music is without doubt 50% of game's atmosphere since Mark Morgan made an effort of including industrial sounds, beeping noises, keyboard clatter, sirens, fanfare, water drops and other gameworld-appropriate stuff to his tracks, enhancing the verisimilitude and experience greatly

Are these things nice to have? Yes, they are. Are they the meat and potatoes of the game, and not just the seasoning? Hell no. Even if you retained all the above features, Fallout would be a significantly different game if it did not have those dozen ways of getting into Mariposa Military Base.

So the whole attempt to distinguish graphics whores and art direction whores is pointless, because both are people who care just about the seasoning and not the meat and potatoes. The difference is that one of them likes to act like the seasoning is the meat and potatoes.

 

[Murk]

I don't think he's arguing that the art style dictates the game's functionality, but rather that since cRPGs must have an art-style he wants ________ or whatever.

After-all, many a MUD or otherwise text based game has absolutely no art save for that which is imagined by the player and perhaps hopefully instilled by some text based description from the creator.

 

[Kron]

The whole point of this was to oppose those who say that gameplay is all that matters in a game. Art direction is not a seasoning, it is the global "character/feel" that a game has (like say, Thief) that brings it closer to something more akin to art.

A game like Thief would still have amazing gameplay if you took away its characteristic music, setting, writing, cutscenes, faction characterization, etc. and threw in some generic fantasy crap. But through the lens of art direction, the game would have lost something integral to its character and ultimate value.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Many people are ridiculed as graphics whores, but never has anyone been called an "art direction whore" or a "design direction whore". Strange, since the latter is really just a pretentious version of the same thing, and since a graphics whore is at least honest. Yes, graphics and art direction are different, but equally secondary.

The graphics whores are ridiculed because they don't really care about the game(s), they just see the prettiness and that's enough to satisfy them. Like movie-watching people who will watch the movies with the most explosions, or music-listening people who are satisfied with the newest pop song that lets them shake their booty. You can't really talk about art direction if you don't care about it, as it's not immediately obvious such as the graphics' quality.

 

[Rpgsaurus Rex]

Many people are ridiculed as graphics whores, but never has anyone been called an "art direction whore" or a "design direction whore". Strange, since the latter is really just a pretentious version of the same thing, and since a graphics whore is at least honest. Yes, graphics and art direction are different, but equally secondary.

The graphics whores are ridiculed because they don't really care about the game(s), they just see the prettiness and that's enough to satisfy them. Like movie-watching people who will watch the movies with the most explosions, or music-listening people who are satisfied with the newest pop song that lets them shake their booty. You can't really talk about art direction if you don't care about it, as it's not immediately obvious such as the graphics' quality.

People often get called "graphic whores" for caring at all about graphics. Like, someone who would pick a clean tileset in DF or a roguelike over ASCII "graphics" (assuming equal functionality).

I don't think anyone on the Codex would fit *your* graphic whore definition. You really have to be most casual of all casual gamers to not even care the slightest about gameplay.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Actually, "if you care about graphics at all, you're a graphics whore" is a definition I've only seen here at the Codex. Everywhere else I hear it, it's used to refer to a guy who puts the graphics above all and won't look twice at a game if he thinks it looks ugly.