Can Cutscenes be Art?

[Amor fati]

It is not an accident that psychology proper begins with Nietzsche (Freud, Young and Adler took all their main ideas from him, and wouldn't have gotten anywhere without him—)

[icycalm]

lol, thanks. I should be paying you guys for the free proof-reading.

On the other hand, you should be paying me for the free reading, so I guess we can call it quits, lol.

[aaden]

Here's another one:

Listen, for example, to what Mr. Brendan Lee of insercredit.com has to say

[icycalm]

Fixed, thanks.

Also, a note of warning to my readers. Do not allow yourselves to be misled by ignorant child-fagots who scoff at my references to various arts and artworks. I have picked my examples with great care: not one of them is wrong. Even if some WERE wrong, the theory would not in the least be harmed by this -- but in any case they are NOT. The hate for Eminem, for instance, is typical of hipsters: they hate on principle, instinctively, everything that has become popular. The real human, on the other hand, PAYS NO HEED TO POPULARITY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, AND DRAWS HIS VALUE JUDGEMENTS FOR HIMSELF. Similarly for the film directors I referenced, or the poets, or the novelists, or the painters. The masters in each of those arts would agree with me -- and even if they disagreed in detail, they'd still agree on principle. To take again the case of hip-hop, for example, here is the opinion of a hip-hop producer who's read my essay:

http://twitter.com/Megailinx/status/27891827377971200

@icycalm Em can spit, but Pun is that dude. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq2WVDESAS4

So you can see that he doesn't disagree on the principle that "complex rhyme schemes", "multisyllabic rhymes", and "complex rhythms" make for better hip-hop (which, after all, I drew FROM THE VERY BIBLE OF THE ART OF HIP-HOP ITSELF); he simply thinks that this Pun dude is better at it that Eminem. I, on the other hand, stand behind my claim that Eminem is superior (not only technically, but also aesthetically). In any case it is a small difference, as when one expert sees Yagawa/Raizing games as superior, and the other prefers Ikeda/Cave ones. BOTH of them, however, would scoff at the idea that a simple "indie" shooter is anywhere near the level of the two damnaku masters, thereby BOTH of them validating my claim that complexity is the number one criterion for criticism in art.

It is the same with all arts and genres. Two experts might debate all day, for example, whether Mikami is a better designer than Itagaki or the other way around, but only A COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON would argue that Rohrer is anywhere near either of them. This is how you can tell the child-fagot from the experts: the former disagrees on the very principle, the latter only in the details.

[icycalm]

Currently in the middle of writing the next (and last) part of the second essay, and contemplating whether or not I should throw the following paragraph into the mix:

And just as Brecht correctly grasped that what calls itself "anti-fascism" is merely another form of fascism, and indeed its most extreme form, so too what calls itself "pluralism", ostensibly the <i>opposite</i> of fanaticism, is merely another form of fanaticism, and indeed its most extreme form: a fanaticism which, while ostensibly according equal validity and value to all viewpoints, denies validity and equality to the viewpoint that all viewpoints are not equal and equally valid — which is to say to the most common viewpoint, indeed the <i>only</i> viewpoint that exists, the viewpoint that even those who pretend not to hold actually hold, since the inequality of viewpoints is intrinsic to, and contained within, the concept "viewpoint".

Now someone please come and tell me that I am not a philosopher. Or that my style is not perfectly suited to the subject matter that I am treating.

[icycalm]

ART THOUGHTZ: How to Make an Art.

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

[icycalm]

Ended up splitting the last part into two. Here's the first:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_ge ... es/#partix

And the second should be up in a few days.

[Peter]

Spotted a missing word in the last paragraph:

and ultimately the level of entire artforms

[icycalm]

Fixed, thank you. Also re-read the whole thing and tightened up a few sentences here and there -- nothing of substance, though.

If anyone would like to attempt to provide their own analysis of the "three neuroses" before I get around to posting my own, you are welcome to do so here. It might be an interesting exercise for you -- and for me.

[icycalm]

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?t ... #msg515107

I'd side with Sinclar in taking issue with icy (oh noes gues i can never sign up 2 insomnia now huh!11 lols) on the heavy metal/grunge example in one sense -- it's a pretty odd example, and could've been substituted with something far clearer. As noted, prog rock-->punk rock would've been a more solid way of looking at it.

Also, I'm not entirely sure that what he claims to have happened with grunge really did occur. My knowledge of this is sketchy since I was barely old enough to walk at grunge's peak, but with the exception of Nirvana I don't think any of these bands made any claims to superiority over heavy metal. To me a lot of them sound indebted to heavy metal if anything -- Smashing Pumpkins come to mind immediately, or Pearl Jam if SP aren't considered "real" grunge (see how stupid this is?).

Of course icy is referring more to what the critics said than the bands themselves. I don't have a fucking clue what they said because I couldn't read at the time they were getting published, but I imagine he is correct if his assertion is that the music critics themselves tried to put grunge above heavy metal as a higher form of music. Popular music critics have to do shit like that to sell anything. They have to latch on to trends and raise them to something more than what they are (which is exactly that -- a trend). It still happens today; anyone who's had the good fortune to read NME knows this. I still remember "New rave" (lol) being flaunted as the second coming for a good few months with practically all other music being trashed as obsolete and unimaginative. And when the trend dried up? Everyone forgot about it. "Old" music was allowed artistic credence again.

So yeah, muddy area.

There's nothing muddy about it. You are just misinterpreting my comments (and my examples). The "second neurosis", which is what you find objectionable, does NOT consist in artists or critics praising some new and degenerate styles/genres as superior over older ones. This sometimes happens, perhaps, but it's not the focus of the neurosis. The focus of the neurosis is that ALL STYLES/GENRES ARE EQUAL. So, for example, a JRPG fan will reply to a blanket condemnation of his favorite genre by claiming that "you just don't like the genre and therefore everything you say is "biased" and invalid". The neurosis basically consists in maintaining that genre preference is an entirely "subjective" thing, and every genre has its masterpieces as well as its trash. The consequences of this absurd belief then is to PREVENT THE COMPARISON OF GENRES, and therefore often leads to the prevalence of inferior styles and genres over superior ones. THIS IS WHERE MY EXAMPLES COME IN. Therefore, I am not saying that grunge artists or fans were at any point claiming that their music was superior to heavy metal (although doubtless some of them said that -- but that's not my point) -- what I am saying is that if we could get rid of the neurosis we'd have many more critics willing to make comparisons AT THE LEVEL OF GENRE, and thus highlight and analyze the superiority of heavy metal over grunge. So I did not say this:

Also, I'm not entirely sure that what he claims to have happened with grunge really did occur.

(which is why you can't quote me saying it) -- you merely hallucinated it.

Do you get it now? You are just drawing conclusions without having read the next part, which is where I analyze the neuroses and where the reasoning behind the examples becomes clear.

As for that "indie" fagot's suggestion on how to improve my example, guitar_mobster already answered it:

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?t ... #msg515204

How is "prog" rock a better example than grunge? I don't even know what it is. Most people don't know what it is. Everyone knows what grunge is. Get it?

I've no idea what "prog rock" is supposed to be. But it sounds gay, and therefore to be avoided. You guys understand as much about the art of giving examples as I do about making botched platformers -- i.e. nothing.

Also,

To me a lot of them sound indebted to heavy metal if anything

Of course they are indebted to it -- grunge is a degenerate form of heavy metal (via way of punk rock, which is also degenerate but on the whole somewhat less so) -- how could they not be indebted to it; just as JRPGs are a degenerate form of dungeon crawler, Impressionism a degenerate form of perspectival, post-Renaissance painting; "indie" platformers a degenerate form of platformers, etc. etc.

[icycalm]

And by the way, how amusing is it that in an essay that contains such unheard-of, utterly revolutionary passages as these:

The remarkable consistency, by the way, with which all our principles are equally applicable not only within artforms, but also across them, is a result of the fact that, quite simply, NO ARTFORMS ACTUALLY EXIST but, again in perfect accordance with biological evolution, only a plethora of simulacra.

a photograph can be seen as a silent movie all of whose frames are identical, or a movie as a videogame composed of a single cutscene, or a piece of music as a movie all of whose frames are blank, and so on and so forth

all you fuckfaces can find to talk about is whether my perfectly valid examples could perhaps be tinkered with, or replaced with less valid ones.

[El Chaos]

In the third paragraph:

What must ultimately be grasped, then, is how abolutely necessary and natural this process is, and how idiotic and absurd — indeed ultimately nihilistic — any desire for its negation.

[icycalm]

Fixed, thank you.



http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Phil ... rtscam.php

[raphael]

I only recently discovered John William Waterhouse (who painted the above) and William Adolphe Bouguereau (who did the one below).



No thanks to the art scammers for the delay.

[icycalm]

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?t ... #msg517888

So, since Broom is busy and probably will not respond to the age question, I guess I will answer this one for you all. There is only one "battlefield" for videogames that I care about, immersion and pleasure. I don't care about "meaning" or a "point" in the same way that you don't care that a phone can probably be used as a weight training device. But fine, let's say that you remove these games from this battle and instead have it about "making a point" or "art thoughts, and if you are against that, then you are against thinking itself." But this is ridiculous, this battlefield is already filled with warriors: Nietzsche, Heraclitus, Spinoza, Freud, Einstein. All of whom are so far advanced that it is ridiculous to even think this sort of thing would be advised. And even if I did not have these intellectual giants, my own thoughts are so far superior to these game developers that it would be laughable anyway.

Well said, my friend. Which explains why, even when an artwork is a blatant propaganda about some stupid herd idea, it can STILL give pleasure, and indeed pleasure on a par with a masterpiece, despite that. Some examples:

1984, Animal Farm, Schindler's List, Groundhog Day, etc. etc. Masterpieces despite the stupid message.



*but remove Einstein from the list.

[icycalm]

Bouguereau, by the way, totally trumps Waterhouse in skill. It's just that, between the above two paintings, I would nevertheless take Waterhouse's over Bouguereau's because of aesthetic reasons: I find the first scene, as well as the setting and the characters it depicts, more attractive and more fascinating than those of the second -- in a word, more beautiful. It's like preferring a slightly dumbed down videogame sequel to the original because it is much more graphically and aesthetically impressive. It's a valid stance if the aesthetic gains sufficiently outweigh the mechanical losses (though ideally, of course, you'd want no losses at all and everything maxed out -- or, in the above painting example, you'd want Bouguereau redoing Waterhouse's painting after having seen it).

[Evo]

I always wondered why my favorite painters did not have much space in the art books in the library. Especially Jean Leon Gerome. My interest was due to this painting.

[icycalm]

I keep getting sucked in by that Bouguereau. His use of lighting is insane. The fucking thing is like an eye-magnet. When I turn my head from the screen my surroundings look so miserable and pathetic in comparison! And the internet cafe is closing soon!

[Icaro]

I've no idea what "prog rock" is supposed to be. But it sounds gay, and therefore to be avoided. You guys understand as much about the art of giving examples as I do about making botched platformers -- i.e. nothing.

Actually, back when you had just begun posting this sublime essay, I was going to register just to nitpick that epic metal isn't the most complex form of metal -- prog metal is. I can therefore easily understand why some are talking about such little things: surely the reason why people are pointing out small details in your essay is precisely because all the other stuff is just so accurate and deep that they in no way can or want to talk about it. They just silently agree.

Now, progressive rock is a movement that was born back in the 70s, and if I was given just one word to describe it, it would be this: "virtuosism". The prog musicians (a prog band usually consisting of a keyboardist, a guitarist, a bassist, a drummer and a vocalist, each one of the first four a master of his own instrument and often gifted in others) had to deal not only with complex riffs and solos, but also with weird time signatures and non-common scales. Most of the masterpieces of the genre are pieces that follow a vast array of changes and last over ten minutes--these masterpieces in fact are called “epics” by the fans.

The most known band from the original movement is Pink Floyd, which you are probably already familiarized with (though most likely not with their best works: Dogs, Echoes, etc). There are, however, legends for the few who appreciate this complex kind of music, such as King Crimson, whose influence is vast though mostly unheard of by the average person. As an easy example that comes to mind: King Crimson’s Robert Fripp (one of the greatest guitarists of all time) was the inventor of the technique known as crosspicking, which is one of the bases of speed metal. Also, the song Larks’ tongues in aspic part I also by King Crimson has one of the earliest examples of what I would call a “metal riff”, rather than a “hard rock” riff.

The reason why that guy said that prog rock would have been a better example is that punk is EXACTLY the movement that followed it, it is the very answer to it. I once saw a part of this documentary where a star of punk (I think it was one of the Ramones) said that after the virtuoso musicians that had become famous in the early seventies many people felt that they weren’t good enough to make music (and they were, of course right, at least in the sense that they were completely unable to create music as great as most prog songs), and how he and his band just decided that they wanted to play despite not being that able to play complex stuff. We all know the results: I know beautiful songs by prog rock groups that last more than the first Ramones´ album, and no punk song I know is as good as the average Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix song.

The prog scene saw a modest (in size but not in intensity or importance, which is to say that many of the masterpieces I listen to were born here) revival in the 2000s, in the rock scene with bands such as The Mars Volta and Porcupine Tree, and in the metal scene with bands such as Dream Theater and Liquid Tension Experiment. You have listed Tool’s Lateralus in your music tastes, so you are already slightly familiarized with this type of music.

Thus, I present to you a few prog metal songs. Listen to them, of course, with the proper, earth-shaking volume.

Liquid Tension Experiment: Acid Rain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmo1VW_wA_o

Dream Theater: The Glass Prison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSX86zPnUkY

Dream Theater: Take the Time live, Petrucci's solo (the whole song is wholly recommended, but it is over 10 minutes in length and here I am just proving the kind of skill Dream Theater shows)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT39qE9UDm8

And also some Prog rock songs.

Porcupine Tree: Normal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHPIJPzYYmw

The Mars Volta: Viscera Eyes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KN87aObBOY

Do give them a careful listen. You will find that, regardless of whether you initially like them or not, these are some of the best musicians in recent times, and their songs contain experimentation in the highest way an art can.

[icycalm]

lol, that Acid Rain piece is nuts. Listening to the rest now.

[icycalm]

I'll give you some commentary on the music later. For now, a little more on this:

Well said, my friend. Which explains why, even when an artwork is a blatant propaganda about some stupid herd idea, it can STILL give pleasure, and indeed pleasure on a par with a masterpiece, despite that. Some examples:

1984, Animal Farm, Schindler's List, Groundhog Day, etc. etc. Masterpieces despite the stupid message.

I have grown weary of the poets, the old and the new: they all seem to me superficial and shallow seas. They have not thought deeply enough: therefore their spirit -- has not plumbed the depths. ... A little voluptuousness and a little tedium: that is all their best ideas have ever amounted to.

Zarathustra: Of the Poets


(And yes, by poets he means artists.)

[zinger]

Holy hell Evo, that's one awesome painting.

[raphael]

Bouguereau, by the way, totally trumps Waterhouse in skill. It's just that, between the above two paintings, I would nevertheless take Waterhouse's over Bouguereau's because of aesthetic reasons: I find the first scene, as well as the setting and the characters it depicts, more attractive and more fascinating than those of the second -- in a word, more beautiful. It's like preferring a slightly dumbed down videogame sequel to the original because it is much more graphically and aesthetically impressive. It's a valid stance if the aesthetic gains sufficiently outweigh the mechanical losses (though ideally, of course, you'd want no losses at all and everything maxed out -- or, in the above painting example, you'd want Bouguereau redoing Waterhouse's painting after having seen it).

I totally agree. Bouguereau tends to do poor choices of subjects and concentrate only on technique. But, MAN, does he know light and eye candy!

He is my main master in cinema lightning and color grading -- together with Johannes Vermeer.

On the subject of music, I second all Icaro wrote. I must add that, as always, experts sometimes loose the point and some of progressive rock is boring, and expert listeners being the same often point you to boring pieces too. Being complex, often slow to grow on you and sometimes plain boring, progressive music is too often discarded even by people who have the taste to appreciate it -- and will probably do later on.

By the may the term "progressive music" sounds stupid, but I don't know any other to describe it.

[El Chaos]

I thought of "experimental [music genre]", since that's probably what they mean by "progressive", but it still sounds stupid. "Experimental metal". "Experi-metal", haha!

And yeah, Acid Rain is a blast! I hope BlazBlue and Hard Corps: Uprising support custom soundtracks, 'cause that one's going right in when I get a 360, lol.

EDIT: And indeed there's probably no way to describe Bouguereau's skill other than insane. Seriously...

[icycalm]

Okay, so here are some music-related comments.

Actually, back when you had just begun posting this sublime essay, I was going to register just to nitpick that epic metal isn't the most complex form of metal -- prog metal is.

Good thing I never said that then! So it's not a matter of "nitpicking" my essay, but your hallucinations of it! Which hallucinations, however, are not really my problem but yours!

Now, progressive rock is a movement that was born back in the 70s, and if I was given just one word to describe it, it would be this: "virtuosism".

And if I was given two words to describe your "virtuosism", it would be these: "tech demo".

To be sure, a tech demo is a prerequisite to great art -- it is NOT however, art itself, let alone great art -- something which is amply demonstrated by your "Acid Rain" track. There's no doubt that, technically, it is extremely impressive. But an experienced listener can tell straight away that the track has little to no coherence, and that the dudes are simply throwing in everything and the kitchen sink, stitching up utterly unconnected pieces just so they can say they've made "music" -- instead of random guitar-picking exercises or whatever, which is what that thing is.

And now compare it to real music:

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

The dudes have utterly annihilated everything you've linked in this thread in 30 seconds flat. "Dream Theater", lol. I didn't even manage to listen to more than a few seconds of their first track you linked. You know how we have "unwatchable" for movies and "unplayable" for games? Your track is "unlistenable" -- you'd have to pay me to suffer through all of it. And as for a pure instrumental that's not boring, compare again your Acid Rain piece to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSG5KIlGngQ

It's a bad reproduction so you have to turn it up considerably to "get it", but the thing is fucking amazing. I mean, it is an instrumental, but if you don't know this you are constantly expecting for the vocals to kick in -- and yet they never do, and you nevertheless never get bored. The entire track is merely three and a half minutes long, and by the time you are through with it it feels like you've read an entire fantasy novel. This is what "coherence" means: the musicians are telling you a story; the tech demo fags are merely robots perfoming neat exercises.

Do give them a careful listen. You will find that, regardless of whether you initially like them or not, these are some of the best musicians in recent times, and their songs contain experimentation in the highest way an art can.

lol. "Best musicians" -- they are not even musicians, dude -- let alone the "best". Perhaps if you define musician as someone who PLAYS music -- but if you define him as someone who WRITES it, they barely even qualify. Their experimentation should at best be commented by a pat in the back, and the suggestion that incoherent "virtuosism" has anything to do with "the highest way an art can blah blah blah" is a vulgar insinuation and stupidity, if not a mental illness.

Note that my comments apply only to the first two tracks. I have not yet mustered the courage to click on the other ones. If I do at some point I will let you know.

Overall, I repeat: no one has yet managed TO EVEN SUCCESSFULLY NITPICK any of my examples -- let alone refute anything of substance.