Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 04:08:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length

The Path and other art games

Started by Phil_A, November 27, 2010, 01:25:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Big Jack McBastard

One man's art is another man's tat.

I hate Tracey Emin for example (here I go again). an unmade bed and a name-shag-tent are things that need to be tidied up and do not constitute art in any sense unless we accept that the uniqueness that everyone creates in the wake of their day to day life is to be considered art and if that's the case why is Emin paid for these 'works'?

Because she has wanky dimwitted mates who have too much money and lack the ability to form an opinion of their own and so they congregate like a hive, each one possessing a fragment of the vacuous group brain, which when combined, flickers momentarily like a 40Watt bulb in a disused warehouse and they get the idea to promote it. A bit later some ad tosser (with a pleasantly norked missus) spunks nigh on two hundred grand to snap them up.

Neither is/was worthy of consideration. they were given the mantle of 'art' by twats.

Zetetic

I believe the point you're trying to make is summed up by this:

Sir Nicholas Serota Makes an Acquisitions Decision

Frankly, it seems rather pointless to decide that Emin's work isn't art and the above (by Charles Thomson) is, when it's much easier to say without a great deal of argument that they're both simply rubbish (art).

Big Jack McBastard

Edit: At least that's ^ got a point.


Zetetic

Actually, I'll bite more openly:
Quote from: Big Jack McBastard on November 30, 2010, 11:10:44 PM
I hate Tracey Emin for example (here I go again). a... name-shag-tent are things that need to be tidied up and do not constitute art in any sense unless we accept that the uniqueness that everyone creates in the wake of their day to day life is to be considered art and if that's the case why is Emin paid for these 'works'?

The name-shag-tent (Everyone I Have Ever Slept With 1963–1995) was far from created in the 'wake of [Emin's] day to day' life. It took intention, planning and execution, just as much as if she'd created a work with a similar background but, say, in the medium of Stuckist, figurative painting (with a more obviously visual representation of everyone that she'd ever 'slept' with). Would one be art and the other not? Why not? Why wouldn't the painting?

Edit: In response to the above, the tent clearly does have a point. Emin's talked very openly about what it was a reaction to, and it's evidently intended as something of commentary upon those who've invoked her sexual activities, where not obviously relevant, when criticising her work. I just don't think it's a very interesting comment, really, but I can't deny that the reaction Emin provokes is at least often amusing.

Edit2: Christ, the more I consider it, the more stuff like Emin's work seems to be the only thing garnering any real reaction from the wider public, even if it is normally nothing but anger and derision. Gormley can't even hope to provoke that level of emotion (well, possibly when the statues he'd arranged in NIreland were ignited by the locals).  I suppose that's an achievement.

I don't think either piece was/is/would be very interesting of course. (To be honest, the most interesting thing about the tent for me was the slightly curious attention to the gamut of the meanings of sleep.)

Big Jack McBastard

Granted she did a bit of sewing.

But to the larger point. Would a tent you had adorned with the names of the people you had slept with fetch a price of forty grand or thereabouts?

I should have thought not or we'd all be doing it, fuck they can haul my bed out of here right now for a hundred and fifty thousand quid and I'll kip in the sofa tonight. Mind you I'll be flogging that come tomorrow afternoon if my run of luck keeps up.

Is it simply a matter of having the audacity to try and pass something off as art for it to be accepted?

Zetetic

QuoteGranted she did a bit of sewing.
So, are you trying to say that more work would make it more likely to be art? If she found sewing sufficiently hard that the tent marked a technical achievement for her, would that make it art?

Quote from: Big Jack McBastard on November 30, 2010, 11:49:17 PM
But to the larger point. Would a tent you had adorned with the names of the people you had slept with fetch a price of forty grand or thereabouts?
The art market is interesting in itself, but I'm not sure it's the larger point. But I suppose it is something that no-one would write articles decrying our awfulness if you or I were to declare our messy beds works of art. I don't think that this makes your bed any less a work of art than Emin's. (Although it's even duller, being seemingly only an attempt to make a point about 'what is art' in relation to her already fairly dull work.)

QuoteIs it simply a matter of having the audacity to try and pass something off as art for it to be accepted?
Ultimately, I can't see how it's fruitful to try to not accept anything as art that someone else says is art. So, yes, I think.
Duchamp's Fountain seems as good a place as any to mark the mass(ish)-acceptance of this, once you start trying to fight back from there it becomes increasingly difficult to stop (unless you are going to invoke technical ability or effort in which case you're into some very difficult territory).

Better just to accept it, and say why you don't like it, or even better why you find it actually boring. You're much more likely to make a coherent, and comprehensible, case that way it seems; once it becomes a matter of it being 'good' or not, it doesn't seem such a problem to talk about your standards and what reactions such-and-such a piece fails to draw out of you.

Big Jack McBastard

#36
QuoteSo, are you trying to say that more work would make it more likely to be art?

No I was coming back at your 'day to day' nit-picking on the sewing count, nothing more.

QuoteUltimately, I can't see how it's fruitful to try to not accept anything as art that someone else says is art.

'Art is not art until it is called art' seems to be the case, the thing is who is to determine that state of being? The only sensible answer is the individual observing or considering a piece at any given time.

This observer sees (and considers both to be) shite. Does it not follow then that art and shit should be on equal footing when it comes to describing/evaluating a work? Where's my royal college?

I think the art market is the greater point, they're the ones who jostle for ownership and attach all manner of significance to, well the fountain is a perfect example:

QuoteFrom Wiki:Shortly after its initial exhibition, Fountain was lost. According to Duchamp biographer Calvin Tomkins, the best guess is that it was thrown out as rubbish by Stieglitz, a common fate of Duchamp's early readymades.

Well quite.

Edit: On the subject of what her work brings out of me; A desire to beat Charles Saatchi with a shitty stick, which I would then sell, cos I used my own shit and my mate said it was art and that's all I'd need.

Zetetic

#37
Quote from: Big Jack McBastard on December 01, 2010, 12:46:13 AM
'Art is not art until it is called art' seems to be the case, the thing is who is to determine that state of being? The only sensible answer is the individual observing or considering a piece at any given time.
That doesn't seem sensible at all. A consequence of that would be, say, that if no-one was currently observing or considering any work by Cezanne that there were no works of art by Cezanne. This makes very little sense. Perhaps you can rescue it by talking of potential judgements or something.

QuoteThis observer sees (and considers both to be) shite. Does it not follow then that art and shit should be on equal footing when it comes to describing/evaluating a work? Where's my royal college?
No, that doesn't follow, why would it?

By saying that the term 'art' can be extended seamlessly doesn't rob it of meaning. Art still maintains the relevance of intentionality, even when we consider works that attempt to remove intentionality from the work itself. 'Shite' does not. Calling something 'art' remains deliberate, and trying to have it discussed as a work of art remains deliberate, and more to the point, even if we can't characterise 'art', we can characterise those actions as nevertheless still being intended to produce works of art.

To bring this out it surely easy? Emin's bed wasn't art before she attempted to present it as such. Your bed isn't, my bed isn't, as we haven't attempted to claim that it is.

Consider the case if I produce a forgery of a work by Cezanne (or Emin) with the purpose of selling it on. Clearly, my work isn't art (although it's skillful, and its deliberate, although it's the wrong kind of deliberate), but it's also undeniable easy to mistake it for art. Hell, if the forgery's good enough then the work may be an atomic replica, but it's still not art whatever you or anyone else thinks it is. (Now, you could treat my forgery as a found-piece, entirely to bring into question whether it's art or not, in which case I think that in doing so you're producing a work of art. But I think this is different to when you're mistaking it for another thing which is a work of art.)

Of course, we have to be careful - my forgery would be perfectly good to use if you wanted to talk about the artistic merits or demerits of the original piece. (I'll note that it's not so simple. I still want my forgery to be talked about as if it were art, or else no-one would pay me, but it still seems clear that my intentions aren't quite right to make my work art. If I were to produce to forgery precisely to show how I did not think that 'art' could only be denied or attributed in terms of the piece alone, then we're in tricky territory since I'm not far off making an artistic statement I fear.)

Even on this account, I think I've placed far too much on the 'creator' of a piece, and again 'Fountain' brings that out I think. (My excuse being that it's late and I'm not thinking entirely clearly.)
QuoteI think the art market is the greater point, they're the ones who jostle for ownership and attach all manner of significance to, well the fountain is a perfect example:
All manner of significance? What a curious idea that the art market attaches that.

Zetetic

Quote from: Big Jack McBastard on December 01, 2010, 12:46:13 AM
On the subject of what her work brings out of me; A desire to beat Charles Saatchi with a shitty stick, which I would then sell, cos I used my own shit and my mate said it was art and that's all I'd need.
Sounds a hell of a lot better than anything the Chapman brothers have ever produced, if that's any consolation...

Big Jack McBastard

#39
Quote from: Zetetic on December 01, 2010, 01:20:22 AM
That doesn't seem sensible at all. A consequence of that would be, say, that if no-one was currently observing or considering any work by Cezanne that there were no works of art by Cezanne. This makes very little sense. Perhaps you can rescue it by talking of potential judgements or something.

Oh god do I have to?

No, fine you're right I'm off semantically there, obviously anyone with the ability to retain the memory of a piece or view it is well placed to critique it. I'm not being a solipsist here, what I'm trying to say is the decision of what qualifies as art is a personal one, everyone has their own tastes. To rely on others interpretations and decisions as to weather a particular piece is art or not is to allow a little slice of your rationale to be co-opted, another's opinion pushed into your head as fact and you just have to suck it down and agree? Especially in the cases where you vehemently disagree with the classification it has been given by; for arguments sake, 'the wizards'?

That's not to say others opinions on art is worthless, far from it it can be incredibly useful to gaining an appreciation one might otherwise dismiss.

QuoteNo, that doesn't follow, why would it?

I do get riled up by this topic for some reason, I'm not sure why it just hits a nerve, you're expecting me to be all sensible and well thought out while a red mist gathers at the edges of my vision.

QuoteBy saying that the term 'art' can be extended seamlessly doesn't rob it of meaning. Art still maintains the relevance of intentionality, even when we consider works that attempt to remove intentionality from the work itself. 'Shite' does not. Calling something 'art' remains deliberate, and trying to have it discussed as a work of art remains deliberate, and more to the point, even if we can't characterise 'art', we can characterise those actions as nevertheless still being intended to produce works of art.

So if you:
Try to get something recognised as art.
Try to get people talking about something as if it is art.
Call it art.
and try to make it look like it 'just happened'. (yes I'm being flippant)

That's enough for it to be art?

QuoteTo bring this out it surely easy? Emin's bed wasn't art before she attempted to present it as such. Your bed isn't, my bed isn't, as we haven't attempted to claim that it is.

So a claim is as good as proof in the case of art? Brings religion to mind.

QuoteConsider the case if I produce a forgery of a work by Cezanne (or Emin) with the purpose of selling it on. Clearly, my work isn't art (although it's skillful, and its deliberate, although it's the wrong kind of deliberate), but it's also undeniable easy to mistake it for art. Hell, if the forgery's good enough then the work may be an atomic replica, but it's still not art whatever you or anyone else thinks it is. (Now, you could treat my forgery as a found-piece, entirely to bring into question whether it's art or not, in which case I think that in doing so you're producing a work of art. But I think this is different to when you're mistaking it for another thing which is a work of art.)

Right, ok I agree, a remake is often a bad idea we need only look to film to see that over and over, but then reproductions still snag a hefty fee when they go under the hammer. It's not like I want to see people selling their beds as art left right and centre, one tit doing that was enough[nb]but then it might bring down the value of Emin's pit if there were suddenly a 'used bed' economy, which I'd laugh about, for a bit.[/nb].

I think we should go the whole hog and replace the word 'art' with 'value' or 'price'. Seems more appropriate when people decide a piece's worth by outbidding one and other to own them.

QuoteOf course, we have to be careful - my forgery would be perfectly good to use if you wanted to talk about the artistic merits or demerits of the original piece. (I'll note that it's not so simple. I still want my forgery to be talked about as if it were art, or else no-one would pay me, but it still seems clear that my intentions aren't quite right to make my work art. If I were to produce to forgery precisely to show how I did not think that 'art' could only be denied or attributed in terms of the piece alone, then we're in tricky territory since I'm not far off making an artistic statement I fear.)

I like tricky territory it's my favourite bit of territory. I think a duplicate of a piece of art is just as 'valid' as art as the original, provided you're not hawking it as the original. A great film or painting or design is just as enjoyable on a burned DVD, a bit of canvas knocked out a few years ago or ratty bit of metal shaped up by an inexplicably available mason who just so happens to be hanging about.

QuoteAll manner of significance? What a curious idea that the art market attaches that.

I do mean to include critics and buyers waxing lyrical there, again from the fountain article:

Quote"Tomkins notes that "it does not take much stretching of the imagination to see in the upside-down urinal's gently flowing curves the veiled head of a classic Renaissance madonna or a seated Buddha or, perhaps more to the point, one of Brâncuşi's polished erotic forms."

About a purchased, upturned, piss trough....

FountainTM brings out of me bewilderment and curiosity. I am bewildered he managed to get people to want it so badly they forked out millions for reproductions and curious as to just how the hell he managed to pull it all off.

Literally anyone who could afford to buy 0.1% of one of the replicas could have easily obtained an identical urinal, swung it round stuck a squiggle on it and had essentially the same shit as the 'original' and still have change left over to buy a car. Provided they called it 'Geyser' and didn't try to flog it on they'd be sorted. Instead they decided to piss money up the wall (yeah I went there) for the purposes of amusing vapid tossers in the future[nb]The prequel to Vapid Tossers in Space[/nb].

I suppose my bile comes down to toffs and organisations being so utterly wasteful as to provide cunts like Emin et al with millions for crap you could nick from a tip.

Zetetic

Edit: Bah, this is horribly long and muddled, sorry. (But I am finding this genuinely interesting, so I hope 'riled up' means you must be too...) Skip the last quote if you can't be arsed with the rest of it.

Quote from: Big Jack McBastard on December 01, 2010, 02:56:41 AM
Oh god do I have to?
I'm afraid so!

QuoteI'm not being a solipsist here, what I'm trying to say is the decision of what qualifies as art is a personal one, everyone has their own tastes. To rely on others interpretations and decisions as to weather a particular piece is art or not is to allow a little slice of your rationale to be co-opted, another's opinion pushed into your head as fact and you just have to suck it down and agree? Especially in the cases where you vehemently disagree with the classification it has been given by; for arguments sake, 'the wizards'?

That's not to say others opinions on art is worthless, far from it it can be incredibly useful to gaining an appreciation one might otherwise dismiss.
In which case then I think perhaps we can put it down as a linguistic issue. When you say "The Tent's not art", then it very much comes across as a objective proposition about The Tent, rather than a subjective statement (or, if you prefer to avoid the objective/subjective debacle, it's a propositional statement about your own reaction to The Tent). Meanwhile "The Tent's  rubbish" or "The Tent's fucking awesome!!" seem far more loaded, despite their similar structure, to being statements about how you react to it.  There's a bit more witter about this at the end...


Quote
So if you:
Try to get something recognised as art.
Try to get people talking about something as if it is art.
Call it art.
and try to make it look like it 'just happened'. (yes I'm being flippant)

That's enough for it to be art?
I think so, yes. Although there's a good chance it'll be awful.

QuoteSo a claim is as good as proof in the case of art? Brings religion to mind.
Not quite religion, but I think I've found a reasonable analogy at the very end. At the very least, I think it's worth a response (but you might disagree).


QuoteRight, ok I agree, a remake is often a bad idea we need only look to film to see that over and over, but then reproductions still snag a hefty fee when they go under the hammer. It's not like I want to see people selling their beds as art left right and centre, one tit doing that was enough

I think we should go the whole hog and replace the word 'art' with 'value' or 'price'. Seems more appropriate when people decide a piece's worth by outbidding one and other to own them.
Some people, sure. But they're dunces, we know that. I certainly know I'd be happy with my atomic replicas if I could have them, even though they'd have relatively little value on the open market.

QuoteI think a duplicate of a piece of art is just as 'valid' as art as the original, provided you're not hawking it as the original. A great film or painting or design is just as enjoyable on a burned DVD, a bit of canvas knocked out a few years ago or ratty bit of metal shaped up by an inexplicably available mason who just so happens to be hanging about.
Ah. Well. There's certainly an issue here, and I should have tried to bring it out myself. "The great film" isn't the film, as you say it can be transferred to a digital format (and assuming a minimum quality and so on), no-one's going to say that you're missing the original. The same isn't true of paintings by and large, mainly because a photo or a poster inevitably misses a great deal of the original, but if we consider my atomic replica... Yeah, it's more complicated. But I think so long as you're judging it as the work of art produced by Cezanne, not as the forgery produced by Zetetic, then there's no difficulty in it simply being a copy of the piece, just as the DVD is a copy of the film. There's a little more work I need to do here, sure.

I do mean to include critics and buyers waxing lyrical there, again from the fountain article:

QuoteFountainTM brings out of me bewilderment and curiosity. I am bewildered he managed to get people to want it so badly they forked out millions for reproductions and curious as to just how the hell he managed to pull it all off.
It's curious. I think Fountain showed a remarkable bit of daring and insight, both of which we're obviously lost the more readymades that Duchamp 'made', even if I wouldn't want it in my living room. But, yes, that people cared about having a certain causal touch of the original in their hands... how odd.

QuoteI suppose my bile comes down to toffs and organisations being so utterly wasteful as to provide cunts like Emin et al with millions for crap you could nick from a tip.
Let's be clear, I don't like that either. That money could go on supporting artists who produce pieces that are often both much more interesting, and much more impressive (which I value in art, because I'm a pleb).

I don't like that footballers either, and that many are paid ridiculous sums to do nothing of worth. By which of course, I mean something that I value, because evidently lots of people do value it. Don't think it's a matter of whether what we accept what they do is one thing or another. But I do think there's a decent analogy available here:

Now, I can't reasonably and genuinely claim "Football isn't entertainment." That is, if I do you don't think that I mean "No one is entertained by football", I mean "football doesn't entertain me", and someone might reasonable correct me and point out that lots of people really do seem to think it's entertainment, and you can't really tell someone being entertained by something that they're mistaken. Same with torture. If I've hooked someone's testicle's up to a battery, and they're screaming away in pain, I can't very well say "That's not torture! I very much enjoy a refreshing bollock-zap of a morning!"; it clearly is torture even if it isn't torturous for me.

Perhaps this is how I should understand "The Tent isn't art" when it's your words - you simply mean that it doesn't do to you what you expect of art (correct me if wrong), even if does to other people what they expect of art. I guess the upshot of this is that when I say "The Tent is art", I am making a propositional statement about my or someone else's reaction to it, but in doing so I am indeed according The Tent an objective status (it does to someone what that person expects of art).

Perhaps the problem is that "is art" is much more similar to "is entertainment" or "is torture" than "is good" or "is bad" or "is shite". Or so it seems to me, which might explain my position, but perhaps to your mind it's closer to the latter, which would explain yours.

Neil

QuoteLiterally anyone who could afford to buy 0.1% of one of the replicas could have easily obtained an identical urinal, swung it round stuck a squiggle on it and had essentially the same shit as the 'original' and still have change left over to buy a car. Provided they called it 'Geyser' and didn't try to flog it on they'd be sorted. Instead they decided to piss money up the wall (yeah I went there) for the purposes of amusing vapid tossers in the future.

This is the crux of any modern art discussion, isn't it?  'Anyone could have done it.'  The artists skill is in having the creativity and foresight to do it first.  Things like this only seem obvious after the fact, after all. 

Duchamp is questioning what art actually is, and when it takes place, so you'd probably like him, really.  He trampled over archaic notions, such as that the artist had to have originally created (i.e. manufactured) the piece of art.  That's entirely accepted in music, now, isn't it?  Musique concrète and sampling mean, again, that the artist can select something, and present in a new context.

I love all this kind of stuff, but it wouldnt work if it didn't have you thinking 'hang on, that's just bollocks' every now and then.  It makes us reevalute.  I remember reading about a gallery who turned all their old masters back to front for a week.  On the fact of it, this sounds incredibly dull, but the truth is that the backs of the paintings were truly fascinating in their own way.  I'd imagine most of them hadn't been seen before, by any kind of significant number of people, and the majority of them had all kinds of interesting notes that had been added over the decades, and other fascinating little details that revealed themselves.

Sirhenry has done some great CaB Radio shows on these themes.  Must dig em out.

falafel


Pedro_Bear

Quoteartistically valid

The presence of a professional comedian does not make something inherently funny. The presence of a professional scientist does not make something inherently empirical. The presence of a professional writer does not make something inherently literary. In all three examples here, if we were presented with something blatantly suspect and told it was valid by the professional involved just based on their say so, we'd tell them to fuck off. [nb]Fuck off Ricky Gervais ("Britain's Best Stand Up"), fuck off Richard Dawkins ("Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end"), fuck off Jeffrey Archer (just fuck off).[/nb]

The presence of a professional artist does not make something inherently artistic. Yet apparently, a professional artist can claim the opposite, despite all evidence to the contrary? Nah. [nb]There is no good art or shit art. It either works in whatever response it generates, or it's practice at best. Any DevianTart could tell you that. This used to be recognised, especially in pre-novel literature. These days  we pretend everything is a standout piece, worthy of merit on it's own terms. This is bullshit. Professional gallery artists may produce as little as one such piece in their entire career. Really good gallery artists rarely produce more than six or seven.

This is not to invalidate the value of practice pieces, or even failed pieces, rather to point out that artists who claim everything they display is artistically valid when no such response is drawn by their work are full of shit. It's not a semantic argument over definitions, quite the opposite. There's too much talk in contemproary galleries and too little art. We don't need a three page press release by the artist when we encounter artistically valid artwork.[/nb]

Why should a professional artist be proficient at creating "art" computer games? Game designers are much, much better, the label being applied retrospectively on merit by players. But apparently the "art" label mysteriously no longer applies.

So there's two layers to artistically valid here. One is the response and recognition by players when they are engaged with a work of art, however isolated within a game, the real deal. The other is a bunch of artists claiming that their games are artistic without the game demonstrating it at all, i.e. the total bullshit deal. Yet the latter can be "validated" as art regardless, and the former is not "offically" validated.




Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

As I've said in several other threads, Silent Hill 2 is still my personal benchmark for artiness in gaming. Whether you think it's any good or not, it very definitely is art. It's not just due to the visuals - with the monster designs symbolising aspects of the main character's psyche - but the fact that it does something that could only be done in a game. Multiple endings are nothing unique of course, but most of the time they are determined by the player making an arbitrary choice at some point. Metal Gear Solid for instance has two endings, but for all the input the player has into getting them, they could just as easily be choosing an alternate scene on a DVD. Essentially, you could remove the rest of the interactive sections entirely and the narrative would be unchanged. In SH2 though, the story plays out differently depending on the way you play throughout the whole game. Playing recklessly gives a different result to being careful and looking after your companion character. It all fits in with the purgatorial theme; as the town judges the main character, the game is similarly judging the player.

When you get down to the nuts and bolts (or bits and bytes) of it, it probably isn't all that sophisticated, but it makes the game more than just an imitation of cinema. This question of the medium's uniqueness is something that Alan Moore often talks about in relation to comics, and similarly Brad Bird with animation.

Zetetic

#45
Quote from: Pedro_Bear on December 01, 2010, 06:09:20 PM
The presence of a professional comedian does not make something inherently funny. The presence of a professional scientist does not make something inherently empirical. The presence of a professional writer does not make something inherently literary. In all three examples here, if we were presented with something blatantly suspect and told it was valid by the professional involved just based on their say so, we'd tell them to fuck off.
I think if anyone presented me with a show and asked them if I thought it was "valid comedy", I'd tell them to fuck off instead. That's nigh nonsensical as a concept as well. Seriously, "valid comedy" does that demonstrate how misguided the endeavour is? Can you imagine anyone saying "I saw a stand-up last night. I liked it, but I'm not sure if it was comedically valid." ?

"Valid science" is at least possible to make sense of because there's been such a great effort establishing what kind of rules are required to determine scientific methodology.

QuoteWhy should a professional artist be proficient at creating "art" computer games? Game designers are much, much better, the label being applied retrospectively on merit by players. But apparently the "art" label mysteriously no longer applies.
Apparently? According to whom? The only people I've ever seen pushing that line is actually Tale of Tales, and it's pretty clear that a large part of that trolling[nb]BUT IS IT VALID TROLLING? Actually, that's a lot easier to make sense of than comedy and art, I suspect.[/nb]. As we've seen plenty of people here are able to cite good examples of 'good games' that also happen to stand up well when considered as art, including your own excellent ones of course.

Pedro_Bear

#46
It's not an abstract, semantic argument over definitions; revelation transcends language, and occurs in the moment. Very much analogous with humour. There isn't a checklist to validate either, indeed many contemporary failings in both are down to the idea that there are a series of steps to be followed that somehow makes something artistic or funny.[nb]In the case of scientific statements, no scientist would claim authority over truth or make claims of absolute understanding; to do so fundamentally misinterprets the nature of empiricism.

[/nb]

"Art" is not the catch-all term con artists would have us believe. When we respond to an artistic statement, we respond.[nb]It may require an audience to experience other artistic statements for an artist to elicit the response of a complicated idea, but this is not an excuse that can be pulled out of their arts to cover lack of focus or whatever. It is self-deluding to insist that because audience response is subjective, this somehow validates non-art automatically. Ditto limited appeal. In fact, the limited appeal get-out clause forces dilligent artists to perfect their ideas as the niche audience knows their stuff inside and out.

[/nb]It is utterly fraudulent to insist that it is the responsibility of the audience to give meaning to... nothing at all.[nb]Tedious con-artists like Waffa Bilal write rings around their non-art all day and night, desperately trying to force "edgy" anti-capitalist messages onto... nothing at all. That is the effect their claimed artwork invokes in neutral observers, nothing at all. It's not art, itsafaaaake.jpg  I love anti-capitalist professional gallery artists. There couldn't be a more nakedly greedy profession to be in that selling vastly over-priced, mostly fake art to rich idiots as specualtive investments and tax dodges. Contemporary gallery art is capitalism at its worst.

[/nb]  The idea that poor execution, lack of focus or just plain deception on the part of an artist can somehow be magicked away by claiming to be "challenging the audience" or "generating discussion"[nb]We were chatting about Tracey Emin earlier on, and she's an example of an artist who understands when to fake art to draw attention. Her more notorious non-art is casing the mark for her artistically valid stuff. Emin is more than capable of stopping us dead in our tracks with a great revelation, but she plays up the neo-conceptualist bullshit because she knows this is what generates prurient Old Media interest in the first instance. Her shows wipe the floor with the other YBAs, because she drops the act and gets on with her job as a professional artist with her other work. This doesn't validate those non-artworks as art; they are marketing gimmicks, and Emin has slyly alluded to this elsewhere.

[/nb] is self-serving, demonstrable bullshit. Again, any DevianTart could tell you that.[nb]So many great things have been given an audience since the democratisation of art, writing, journalism, comedy, film making and music by the internet. Amateurs have demonstrated an understanding of joyful creativity and free expression that leaves much of the Old Media masturbating in a puddle of its own marketing piss.

The internet has thrown up a whole range of new artforms: camwhoring, macros, MSpaint comics, trollan', bloggan' to name just a few are all products of the medium. The endless creativity of the amateur stretching the limits of their own restrictions is a commonality they all share when we encounter proficiency. The artifacts produced are not as relevant as the act of contributing, another idosyncracy of internet art along with common ownership that is anathema to Old Media modes of thinking.

[/nb]

The examples of art games in neo-conceptualist gallery installations are appaulingly fraudulent as either art or games. There Is Only One Level wipes the floor with them conceptually: as a game that works as a really fun game, it directly challenges the ideas of linearity, monotony and frustration inherent in the act of playing platform games. As a piece of art it is as awesome as it is entertaining, but it doesn't label itself as such.


TL;DR? "No, Uncle Dolan. You are the revelations" And then Uncle Dolan was a artistically valid.[nb]

Trollan' is a art, not an science. The very best trolls don't know that they are, yet their motivation remains the same. Most self-labelling trolls aren't, ditto the way the label is applied in most cases. The analogy is apt, either a troll effects change via enabled dissent or they weren't trolling. The presence of a troll does not make something inherently alterative. Proficient trolls reveal all manner of human flaws and community dynamics with their work in an instantly accessible manner for neutral observers.
[/nb]




Shoulders?-Stomach!


Flandre

Don't forget that official Pedro_Bear fanclub merchandise is available in the on-line store.

The jelly moulds are very popular.

Quote from: Pedro_Bear on December 02, 2010, 09:02:48 PM
camwhoring,

I'm not convinced without contemporary examples of new works posted in this thread.

Wear the Haruhi ribbons.

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on December 01, 2010, 06:43:25 PM
This question of the medium's uniqueness is something that Alan Moore often talks about in relation to comics, and similarly Brad Bird with animation.

I think computer games have come a lot further a lot quicker than either comics or animation. I don't know why though? Maybe it's because games are used to showcase (and sell) new technology. New ways of playing games are added with each new console or controller device.

There hasn't been the usual innovation effect in art games, has there? Like with tv or film, where innovations are taken from the art world experiements in the medium. There isn't much arty experimention with the medium for it's own sake, is there?

Zetetic

Quote from: Pedro_Bear on December 02, 2010, 09:02:48 PM
It's not an abstract, semantic argument over definitions; revelation transcends language, and occurs in the moment.
When you're arguing about whether 'art' applies successfully to certain things, what 'art is' and what 'art' means, then attempt to dismiss arguments from language by bullshitting in a slightly new-age-y way doesn't seem a particularly valid[nb]Ho, ho, ho[/nb] tactic.

QuoteVery much analogous with humour. There isn't a checklist to validate either, indeed many contemporary failings in both are down to the idea that there are a series of steps to be followed that somehow makes something artistic or funny.
Ah, see, now you're beginning to understand, and you've dropped back from 'valid' applying to humour to words people actually use[nb]And therefore certainly mean something to begin with.[/nb] like 'artistic' and 'funny' instead of 'funnily valid' or some such. Precisely, there is no checklist to validate humour against, and that's a lot of reason why we don't talk about whether something is 'valid humour' or not.

Quote(In the case of scientific statements, no scientist would claim authority over truth or make claims of absolute understanding; to do so fundamentally misinterprets the nature of empiricism.)
I never claimed this. No one in this thread claimed this. I will claim however that there many checklists, which arguably neither comprehensive or sufficient, by which may at least begin to 'validate' scientific work.

Quote"Art" is not the catch-all term con artists would have us believe. When we respond to an artistic statement, we respond.
So long as someone responds, it's art, ok.


QuoteEmin is more than capable of stopping us dead in our tracks with a great revelation, but she plays up the neo-conceptualist bullshit because she knows this is what generates prurient Old Media interest in the first instance.
I suppose that 'prurient Old Media interest' doesn't count as a 'response'? I wonder what curious definition you'll play with for 'response' before stating that language doesn't matter when we're trying to understand what we're talking about, and abandoning the term. Maybe you'll try fruitlessly to qualify 'response'.

Quote]The very best trolls don't know that they are, yet their motivation remains the same. Most self-labelling trolls aren't, ditto the way the label is applied in most cases. The analogy is apt, either a troll effects change via enabled dissent or they weren't trolling. The presence of a troll does not make something inherently alterative. Proficient trolls reveal all manner of human flaws and community dynamics with their work in an instantly accessible manner for neutral observers.
That's why I was suggesting that 'valid' can be made sense of when applied to trolling; there are, if not absolutely widely accepted, thoughts on what is required for 'troll' to apply to someone that narrows the field somewhat. Same goes for 'figurative painter' or 'political agitator' as applied to artists. That we can establish limited taxonomies of artists, that do have the appearance of the possibility of validation (although, there's a debate there about whether such taxonomies can truly have such strict approaches work), tells us very little about whether we can limit artist and art in the same way.

mcbpete

Quote from: Flandre on December 02, 2010, 11:46:38 PM
There hasn't been the usual innovation effect in art games, has there? Like with tv or film, where innovations are taken from the art world experiements in the medium. There isn't much arty experimention with the medium for it's own sake, is there?
I dunno I'd say these games experiment with the medium quite considerably:


(I do wish I'd actually named the games when I posted those on another forum a few months back, I know the last one is called Passage ...)

There's also this: http://vimeo.com/9592601

Zetetic

Quote from: Flandre on December 02, 2010, 11:46:38 PM
There hasn't been the usual innovation effect in art games, has there? Like with tv or film, where innovations are taken from the art world experiements in the medium. There isn't much arty experimention with the medium for it's own sake, is there?
There's been too much navel-gazing in my opinion, with an awful lot of games seeking to comment either on previous games or games in general.

Nice 'mainstream' example, I suppose of a subversion of the medium is Arkham Asylum, and the
Spoiler alert
video card glitch, essentially breaking the fourth wall and bringing Batman/the player character's increasingly damaged grip on reality out of the game
[close]
. Which, like anything out of the ordinary in such games, raised fairly depressing howls of rage from certain quarters.

Most recent example I can think of, which I referred to earlier is Activate the Three Artefacts and Then Leave. It's very short (at least to get a grip on what the point of it is), very small and free. Nice little excursion into perception, navigation and the modality of the senses; manages to be an experimentation with medium itself, and still interesting beyond that.

mcbpete

Quote from: Zetetic on December 03, 2010, 11:05:22 AM
Nice 'mainstream' example, I suppose of a subversion of the medium is Arkham Asylum, and the
Spoiler alert
video card glitch, essentially breaking the fourth wall and bringing Batman/the player character's increasingly damaged grip on reality out of the game
[close]
. Which, like anything out of the ordinary in such games, raised fairly depressing howls of rage from certain quarters.
Wow, that sounds like a complete rip off of Eternal Darkness - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Darkness:_Sanity's_Requiem#Sanity_effects

Zetetic

Oh, it's far from novel, but Arkham Asylum's simply one of the most recent uses of the effect, and without the kind of explicit prefiguring as in Eternal Darkness (which is presumably why so many people interpreted it as an actual malfunction).


Pedro_Bear

They look pretty mcbpete, if you can recall the name of the fourth one down, that would be awesome. Is this experimentation with the medium of gaming itself, though?

That bloody There Is Only One Level game certainly is, I can't get past level nine. Same for The Linear RPG. In both cases gaming itself is under scrutiny. There's also Orisinal Games, which are very charming experimental variants with flash, with often an emphasis on trying new things with the mouse.


I know what you're banging on about Flan, those clever games that mess with the user interface at key points, like Arkham Asylum, or Metal Gear Solid are the sorts of things that in film would be inspired by their arty cousins. In games, it's commercial designers who are the ones leading the way. It's a very artistic medium, with a very receptive audience willing to try new things. Art games are redundant in that respect, maybe?

Maybe because games started out with abstraction in the first place? That and the limitations of the interface were always a challenge to overcome?


Quote from: Zetetic on December 03, 2010, 10:33:24 AM
When you're arguing about whether 'art' applies successfully to certain things, what 'art is' and what 'art' means, then attempt to dismiss arguments from language by bullshitting in a slightly new-age-y way doesn't seem a particularly valid tactic.

Obviously, I disagree. Too much talk in galleries, not enough art. Jumping on phrases does not communicate an opinion. Replace "artistically valid" with "dkjhfodsg s\dhgaghufvh\osvhag" and my opinion remains demonstrable, whereas the semantic discussion is revealled to be meaningless competitive bookreading.

And this:
QuoteSo long as someone responds, it's art, ok.
is the sign of a con artist. Worse than the worst DevianTart. That's one self-serving sentence away from claiming to be "misunderstood". People who pull this bullshit are conning themselves as much as any potential audience. There's not a magic number of respondees that suddenly tips nothing at all into being dkjhfodsg s\dhgaghufvh\osvhag. The direct result of accepting this bullshit is the state of the contemporary gallery scene, all hype, precious little content. Again, too much talk, not enough art.

HappyTree

If Art is to contain a statement, if it is to say something, then would there be a minimum age limit for it? Can a child formulate enough conscious or unconscious meaning to be able to say anything meaningful?

I ask because I remember the works of child genius artist Akiane and wonder if they're just pretty pictures or Art.



She was 6 years old. Aesthetically it could be an impressionist's work. But does she have anything to say? Perhaps if we accept the existence of a collective unconscious (Jung) then anyone of any age could tap into it. If we don't then does a child of 6 have the mental faculties to draw together significant meaning?

Zetetic

Quote from: Pedro_Bear on December 03, 2010, 02:08:14 PM
Obviously, I disagree.
But you don't actually demonstrate any reason why you disagree. You just disagree and attempt to state that your opinion reflects...
well, apparently nothing about the world outside, since you're now increasingly arguing that your opinion need have nothing to do with anyone else's language use and understanding of 'art'.

QuoteToo much talk in galleries, not enough art. Jumping on phrases does not communicate an opinion.
We're not in a gallery, and we're talking about what it is to be art. (Hell, you're the one who started trying to marry 'validity' and 'art' which pretty much demands trying to set out objectively determinable bounds.) You're not showing examples that support your opinion as being related to how people actually talk about art. Are you trying to say what you want people to be talking about when they're talking about art? That doesn't seem very useful.

QuoteReplace "artistically valid" with "dkjhfodsg s\dhgaghufvh\osvhag" and my opinion remains demonstrable,
In either case you're inventing a phrase and then failing communicate what you mean by it. To do so in the latter case is fine - because you're not attempt to link it in with existing phraseology, and existing uses of those phrases and the concepts revealed by those uses.

Quotewhereas the semantic discussion is revealled to be meaningless competitive bookreading.
Understanding what anyone means by 'art' is precisely the discussion. You can't get away from it by dismissing any attempt to actually draw on evidence on use as 'bookreading' - reading books and articles and magazines and listening to people is the only way of understanding what people are talking about when they are talking about art.

Quotethe sign of a con artist
Given your (deliberately, I assume) opaque phrase 'When we respond to an artistic statement, we respond.', I attempted to render it as best as I was able into something more understandable. What are your actual beliefs about what makes 'art' applicable or deniable, if you're finally going to abandon 'artistically valid' as gobbledy-gook? Presenting obfuscation as fact, pretending towards revelatory chan-ish rebel intellectualism, isn't communicating an opinion either.

Pedro_Bear

I'm refusing to use words to describe a revelatory experience, because those experiences don't use words. Any person presented with art can draw the same revelation from it, even though their interpretation is subsequently subjective. I.E. the words and meaning come after the revelation. This may not have been clear, but that's what I've been banging on about.

I am then dismissing things labelled as art that lack this initial spark of revelation as "nothing at all", because that's what they are within this opinion of mine.

The reason I get hissy about this is because too much "nothing at all" is passed of as art by fraudulent galleries. They do so by hiding behind the sorts of concepts you have been promoting here. That's all. When applied to subjective interpretation, some of what you've typed is applicable, by I maintain we can't apply any interpetation to "nothing at all".


In the context of "art games" I have encountered on-line and in neo-conceptualist installations, there are no examples of revelation where such a label is applied by the producers, despite there being plenty of examples in games which do not label themselves as such.

Zetetic

I too agree that art should be revelatory, (or emotive if you want in so far as it moves people).

Quote from: Pedro_Bear on December 03, 2010, 04:43:53 PM
I'm refusing to use words to describe a revelatory experience, because those experiences don't use words. Any person presented with art can draw the same revelation from it, even though their interpretation is subsequently subjective. I.E. the words and meaning come after the revelation. This may not have been clear, but that's what I've been banging on about.
I think that this is interesting, even if I'm not at all sure it's right. This idea that a work of art will produce a common (to whom?  Humans? Humans from the right culture, with the right experiences?) (revelatory) experience is very difficult for me to comprehend. Why should this be, that there is anything in the world that every human experiences in precisely the same way? We're not even identical in the most basic measures of psychophysics, and it seems a fairly big jump to claim that there's anything in the other processes of the brain that's ultimately consistent between 'any person' and any other person.


QuoteI am then dismissing things labelled as art that lack this initial spark of revelation as "nothing at all", because that's what they are within this opinion of mine.
Then it seems fair, at best, to say that such-and-such isn't 'art to you', in the same way that you might say 'I don't find Gervais funny' or 'I don't think football is entertaining'. Now, you may point out that we do often make statements more along the lines of 'Gervais isn't funny', but I think that there's a much more implicit understanding of subjectivity there, and even then people will commonly call you out explicitly on this.

My problem is that you've presented this as a definition of what art is, and this seems to now stem from your belief if that something isn't revelatory to you that it's revelatory to no-one. And that seems an odd call to make.

It seems much more accessible and useful to accept that if someone tells you that something is art, to attempt to judge it as you wish (in terms of revelatory power, which I think is probably quite a common and comprehensible approach) and declare it as bad, in which case you begin to talk about why, rather than simply examining the object and declaring that you've failed to experience the right kind of thing and that therefore no-one has, so it's not even worth discussing.