The full title of this seminal work of space art is Base of the World, Magic Base No. 3 by Piero Manzoni 1961 Homage to Galileo. By subtitling his work an homage to Galileo, Manzoni was slyly making the absurd proclamation that the entire earth is a sculpture.
Everything is art.
This is hilarious and amazingly absurd, though
Also I think re: craftsmen vs. artists:
Good designers create art, even if they don't imbue what they design with some higher meaning. They can do this because their products speak for themselves aesthetically and functionally. If you are just making the most functional object you can with no mind for aesthetics, you are not an artist in any way.
The same goes for games. When your game is fun to play, has graphics which convey what is happening either elegantly or with extremely high fidelity, and carries an entertaining plotline which still makes sense, your game is ready to be judged as "art" next to music and movies and paintings and all the rest.
That's not to say that your game shouldn't challenge the player in some way. Good art should be about making an effort to understand the intentions of the artist, the choices made in the creation of the piece, and the intended meaning. Nor does that mean that Halo is on the same level as Citizen Kane just because it entertains the audience.
As an aside, I think that once it becomes possible to reliably achieve photorealism in games, they will move as a whole towards more abstract graphics, just as visual art once did.
AMP'd on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited April 2010
Ebert is a brilliant man and an excellent writer who, sadly, is completely misinformed when it comes to video games.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
secretly i use more or less the same definition i have for 'literary' when i talk about art
this means people think i have bad ideas. but it helps me understand things better
bsjezz on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited April 2010
I think that the most pivotal moment for me in the 'art as video games' came in Metal Gear Solid 3 when
You stood before Boss in the field with a gun to her head and had to press the trigger yourself in order to end the game.
At any rate, I find it remarkably hard for any person to try and attack video games as not being art while defending movies as being art.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I'd like to spend my silver years sitting on a porch and yelling at people who step on my lawn. I'd eat beans out of a can and keep my rifle near in case a bear strolls out of the woods.
Looking up my old review, I see I described a four-star movie but only gave it three stars, perhaps because it was a "spaghetti Western" and so could not be art.
Looking up my old review, I see I described a four-star movie but only gave it three stars, perhaps because it was a "spaghetti Western" and so could not be art.
Seems like he just picks and chooses what is art for that day.
Wasn't trying to be strong, just trying to be honest.
And seriously Bale, if you don't like what I'm saying, why even respond? Especially when I'm not even talking to you? For fuck's sake, I haven't even said two words to you around here. What the fuck?
I don't care if games are considered art or not. Maybe I'd care if I developed them.
I think Ebert had at least one good point in one of his articles in that is it still art if we can change it in some way? Like the outcome? Would Romeo and Juliet still be considered a masterpiece if you could go back and give it a happy ending?
I don't care if games are considered art or not. Maybe I'd care if I developed them.
I think Ebert had at least one good point in one of his articles in that is it still art if we can change it in some way? Like the outcome? Would Romeo and Juliet still be considered a masterpiece if you could go back and give it a happy ending?
There are lots of games where you can't change the outcome.
I don't care if games are considered art or not. Maybe I'd care if I developed them.
I think Ebert had at least one good point in one of his articles in that is it still art if we can change it in some way? Like the outcome? Would Romeo and Juliet still be considered a masterpiece if you could go back and give it a happy ending?
Man did you not even read that post you made? If you can't figure out what I mean then I don't even know what else to say.
You could, y'know, just not say anything at all.
That's always an option.
Seriously, I've read the post over, I don't get what I said that could have pissed you off so bad. So how about you cut the vague bullshit and just, you know, talk.
What bugs me most about Ebert's article is not his statement that games aren't art, but that the thinks in essentialist terms and believes there is an absolute definition of art.
Wasn't trying to be strong, just trying to be honest.
And seriously Bale, if you don't like what I'm saying, why even respond? Especially when I'm not even talking to you? For fuck's sake, I haven't even said two words to you around here. What the fuck?
Ha ha, wow. I thought you might be different when you're not in CF, but here it is.
Posts
This is hilarious and amazingly absurd, though
Also I think re: craftsmen vs. artists:
Good designers create art, even if they don't imbue what they design with some higher meaning. They can do this because their products speak for themselves aesthetically and functionally. If you are just making the most functional object you can with no mind for aesthetics, you are not an artist in any way.
The same goes for games. When your game is fun to play, has graphics which convey what is happening either elegantly or with extremely high fidelity, and carries an entertaining plotline which still makes sense, your game is ready to be judged as "art" next to music and movies and paintings and all the rest.
That's not to say that your game shouldn't challenge the player in some way. Good art should be about making an effort to understand the intentions of the artist, the choices made in the creation of the piece, and the intended meaning. Nor does that mean that Halo is on the same level as Citizen Kane just because it entertains the audience.
As an aside, I think that once it becomes possible to reliably achieve photorealism in games, they will move as a whole towards more abstract graphics, just as visual art once did.
this means people think i have bad ideas. but it helps me understand things better
At any rate, I find it remarkably hard for any person to try and attack video games as not being art while defending movies as being art.
Some movies are art
And some of both are just entertainment
The same goes for music, painting, or sculpture
Sorry for dragging out the tired old argument, but I fail to see how this can be considered art...
Roger Ebert is full of shit. And that's putting it mildly.
edit: okay it's smaller now
he's full of good ideas that turn to shit through one misguided ignorance
So he's a second-stage shithead?
i guess you could put it that way!
your welcome
is this supposed to be tomorrow's comic?
is THIS my birthday comic?!
Braid.
yeah I'm not sure what AoR's point is there
Seems like he just picks and chooses what is art for that day.
We collectively
Whether or not it am in fact art does not concern me.
That I fail to understand how sculpture of a simple cube is considered art, when a complex game like MGS3 isn't.
Well, fuck you too.
Weak return, man.
Wasn't trying to be strong, just trying to be honest.
And seriously Bale, if you don't like what I'm saying, why even respond? Especially when I'm not even talking to you? For fuck's sake, I haven't even said two words to you around here. What the fuck?
Well played... :?
The difference is that I'm not even sure what I said that set him off. Ebert does.
Oy...
I think Ebert had at least one good point in one of his articles in that is it still art if we can change it in some way? Like the outcome? Would Romeo and Juliet still be considered a masterpiece if you could go back and give it a happy ending?
There are lots of games where you can't change the outcome.
Take the Half-life series.
It would be a comedy, and still art.
You could, y'know, just not say anything at all.
That's always an option.
Seriously, I've read the post over, I don't get what I said that could have pissed you off so bad. So how about you cut the vague bullshit and just, you know, talk.
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Steam profile.
Getting started with BATTLETECH: Part 1 / Part 2
art should not be about putting your message at the end of a long corridor full of twists and turns and pitfalls just because you can
unless of course that's your message
and I'm still not sure what Braid's message was
Ha ha, wow. I thought you might be different when you're not in CF, but here it is.
Bitches be shoppin'