Can Cutscenes be Art?

[icycalm]

Yeah, listened to the third track as well. At least half of it. This isn't even technically impressive -- it's just a boring-ass solo, perhaps even more boring because you didn't give me any context. But yeah. Dream Theater, lol.

[icycalm]

And, to be more precise, the Acid Rain track runs out of steam and falls apart at precisely the 1:43 mark. Up to there it's wonderful. Afterwards there are highlights, but it is obvious that the dudes are simply trying to wow you without having any real plan in mind. Which is why the track becomes unlistenable.

[icycalm]

And now for something more important: the ARC essays linked off the frontpage recently:

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Phil ... rtscam.php
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Phil ... eynote.php
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Phil ... urtain.php
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Phil ... entury.php
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2005 ... t/Ross.php
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2004 ... n/ross.php
http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/faq.php

These are some very valuable analyses of various facets of the "conspiracy of art", as this took place in the art of painting, and doubtless many people will be impressed by them, as well they should be. It is therefore worthwhile for me to point out that, on the whole, despite their merits, they are so inferior to my Genealogy that IT'S NOT EVEN FUNNY. Do not allow yourselves to be misled by the more conservative, "scholarly" style of these essays into ranking them above my own analysis. This Fred Ross dude, who wrote most of them, writes in a more scholarly manner because he is a civilized man; I write the way I write because I am a barbarian -- and a barbarian is precisely what was necessary to break open this can of worms and take a good look inside. The mistakes the dude makes are grave and numerous, and perhaps once my Genealogy is done I will take some time to reread his essays and highlight all of them, but here are some major ones for starters:

-He fails to uncover the CAUSE of the phenomenon. He knows next to nothing about psychology, sociology, history, etc. -- never mind philosophy. So on the one hand he DOES notice that the whole scam began in the late nineteenth century, yet on the other he keeps harping on throughout about "human ideals", the glory of "democracy", "humanism", our "institutions", etc. etc., without the slightest suspicion that it is precisely his precious democracy that is to blame here. He throws all the blame on the artfags, as if these people were simply EVIL or something, instead of NECESSARY BYPRODUCTS of a certain type of social arrangement.

-He knows next to nothing about artistic evolution, and very little about arts other than painting, so he fails to note how the scam migrated to and evolved in all the other arts, to finally arrive at the cinema, videogames, etc.

-He says that photography is not an art, which is a huge mistake and forms precisely the third neurosis I will soon be analyzing. It is moreover clear by the overwhelming emphasis he places on the art of painting that he would be unwilling to accept the existence of higher artforms -- and would therefore fail to understand artfagotry mutation, artform health and growth, stagnation, death, etc.

-He tackles all the artfags' most well-known excuses and stratagems, and successfully debunks many if not most of them, but never with the iron certainty, clarity and swiftness of someone who is a real MASTER of the subject and its various facets. So, for example, he correctly grasps that "abstract art" is neither abstract nor art, but fails to properly explain why. And he fails to do that because he is working with a rather vague and hazy definition of art. Better than ANYONE ELSE'S definition of course, and tantalizingly close to the real one, but still not good enough to get the job done properly.

(The real, and FINAL, definition of art, by the way, I will be unveiling in the third essay of my Genealogy. It will be four words long (at least in English; six if you add in "Art is..."), and in ten to fifteen years it will be the first thing you'll see at the top of this page (just as, in the same time-frame, my definition of the simulacrum will be at the top of this page). The moment you see that definition a thousand little pieces will fall neatly into place, and further analysis, in dozens of different fields, will instantly become much less arduous than it currently is.)

-He makes the fatal error of ACCEPTING the derogatory term which painting artfags have been using to slander great paintings ("realist"), while ALLOWING them to keep using the term which they themselves appropriated for their garbage ("modernism") -- whereas in reality THERE'S NOTHING "REALIST" ABOUT "REALIST" ART AND NOTHING "MODERN" ABOUT "MODERNIST" ART. I mean FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, WTF IS SUPPOSED TO BE REALISTIC ABOUT SHIT LIKE THIS:



"Realist", lol, are you fucking kidding me? WTF is wrong with all those fagots? Are all of them still Christians?

Not to speak of "modernism"! As if there's anything modern about artworks more simple than those made by cavemen 50,000 years ago, lol.

So yeah. This Fred Ross dude and his friend are just amateurs -- perhaps good painting critics, but certainly not experts in any other artform, and certainly not philosophers. Of course, it stands to reason that in their valiant effort to fight the artfags they'll get involved in countless philosophical issues, which simply cannot be avoided. And, for laymen, they certainly did not fare badly at all! But neither of them can hold a candle to me, so be on your guard while reading their essays and critiques, and whatever you accept, keep it under house arrest until you've read my final word on the subject.

Basically, the main service these guys have rendered us is to analyze in some more depth how the artfags' tactics work specifically in the art of painting -- and since that's precisely where the whole shebang got started, and since, again, that's precisely where it has become entrenched and dominated the most, their analyses are invaluable. It's really rather terrifying what they've managed to accomplish... All the universities in the world? All the major galleries and museums? In less than a century? And the absolute masterpieces consigned to basements and sold off for peanuts? We are lucky they didn't go as far as burning them!

The dreadful power of ressentiment in action...

[icycalm]

"Photography is not art", lol, yet his entire "art renewal" site is filled with nothing but photographs!

[raphael]

Another common mistake: photography is not realistic either. Try to photograph reality without faking it, you only get blured, burned, darkened or bland images. It has no depth, very little color, et cetera. And we end up digitally retouching it anyway. Nothing realistic about it, and actually... the less realistic the better.

What a real photographer does is just another kind of drawing with different tools. Which is why most great photographers and cinematographers take their inspiration from the masters of painting.

[raphael]

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!

I realized today what we call "rock progressif" in French and furthermore what I like in it, is not exactly what's called "progressive rock" in English, and "experimental" is certainly not a description of it. Actually the term progressive music (be it rock, metal or others) is actually pretty vague and defines every music that steps away from the standards (for prog-rock the standards of rock, for prog-metal the standards of metal, and so on). It's both a stupid term and sometimes fittingly describes stupid music. The idea behind it is the typical modern art motto: new music should always be a progress in form from previous ones, mirroring democratic, social and scientific progresses of the time (then '60s, '70s, etc.) Yeah, great...

Now, some of the so-called progressive rock is actually brilliant, but the irony is that it is actually antithetic to the "progressive" idea. Composers of progressive rock were supposed to ban the rock structure from use in their work -- or at least step away from it. So, in need of a structure to build on, what some did was keep the rock instrumentation and get inspiration from classical music -- mostly Bach. Being listened by teenagers with no musical education this passed for music from nowhere and so was labelled progressive. Mixing the richness of classical music with the youthful energy of rock, this can produce great music.

I'd say the rest of progressive music is incoherent as a genre and often produces incoherent or boring music. Furthermore we today often label bands as progressive when they are influenced by bands who were labelled progressive in their time. So it can be anything. Most if not all of metal today might be labeled progressive through this analogy. And you can be sure progressive music fans often do so. For example, listening to Beyond the Ice by Blind Guardian, linked by icycalm earlier, my first reaction was: "but, it's prog-metal!" Well... my bad.

What I really like is when music tells a story and not only that, but a story that appeals to me. This song does just that, and it does so using many melodic structures from classical music and folkloric music. Hence the progressive label. In French we use the word for mostly the same bands as others do, but its meaning is understood differently; by progressive music we understand: music pieces in which there is progressive harmonic evolution from the beginning to the end of the piece. In short, music that tells a story.

This is how I came to think I like progressive music and how I now realize the word is pretty useless. Often we only use it to describe music we like, actually only meaning "good music". It should then come as no surprise prog-rock is also called art-rock.

I should have used an Insomnia debunking dictionary.

[Icaro]

I realized today what we call "rock progressif" in French and furthermore what I like in it, is not exactly what's called "progressive rock" in English, and "experimental" is certainly not a description of it. Actually the term progressive music (be it rock, metal or others) is actually pretty vague and defines every music that steps away from the standards (for prog-rock the standards of rock, for prog-metal the standards of metal, and so on). It's both a stupid term and sometimes fittingly describes stupid music. The idea behind it is the typical modern art motto: new music should always be a progress in form from previous ones, mirroring democratic, social and scientific progresses of the time (then '60s, '70s, etc.) Yeah, great...

I actually remember many of my favorite prog groups denying the prog label, before eventually accepting it as a vague term. I espcecially remember a The Mars Volta interview where Omar Rodriguez-Lopez (who was made a lot of pretencious claims) said that prog music didn't exist, that only "misunderstood" (or something as ridiculous) music existed. My reaction was that yes, prog might be the wrong way to call it, but the term has nevertheless become useful to name a certain type of music, just as RPG is still used even here for games that are in no way role-playing games, and that of course prog rock doesn't actually exist, but by that same coin neither does metal or rock, since they are just terms we invented for music that displays certain aspects.

Now, a thing one has to clarify is that the label "prog" for a band does not make every song they make instantly prog songs -- it just means the band has a tendency for writing prog songs. If someone tells you "Green is the colour is one awesome prog song", he is very stupid. However, the term prog does fit the song Shine on you Crazy Diamond, which is, in fact, divided by the band that wrote it in 9 movements. I can neatly define, for example, three acts in King Crimson's Starless.

So, while many people misuse (like every other term) the term "prog" such as by calling Radiohead prog rock, I still believe it is useful and can make the assertion "I like prog rock".

As for icycalm, I am a bit disappointed that you weren't fond of the tracks I showed you, but I still hope the music I'm comfortable calling "prog" will grow on you one day. As for me, I didn't especially like the first Blind Guardian song you posted (nothing wrong with it though -- I'd just need to hear it a bit more to form a solid opinion about it), but I did really like the second one. Beyond the Ice is truly great.

And thanks for the links to ARC, I can't stop looking at Hylas and the Nymphs.

[Icaro]

This is an experimental / avant garde song:

Cabezas de Cera: Indomable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wal0ZX8ggQ

And this is a progressive rock song:

The Mars Volta: Cicatriz ESP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5BM0Tln7cM

Notice the structure of the second song: verse, then chorus, verse again, chorus again, then the song enters an instrumental bit that slowly pulls the song down from the chorus until it becomes an ambiental interlude heavy on experimentation which very slowly starts to get more and more intense, pulling the song back up for an explosive encore of the verse and chorus.

[icycalm]

As for me, I didn't especially like the first Blind Guardian song you posted (nothing wrong with it though -- I'd just need to hear it a bit more to form a solid opinion about it)

I told you to listen to the first thirty seconds of it. Overall it's not one of their best songs. But those thirty seconds, though they are far less complex than some of the things you linked, are so far above them it's not even funny. This is the difference between musicians and music teachers. You can have some gimp sit in a corner and pump out insane guitar-picking exercises, but that doesn't make it good music. Now, if Blind Guardian could play at the level of the gimps, that'd be the ideal. And perhaps one day they might be able to! But right now they can play at perhaps 80% their level, but that 80% is exploited to the full, and therefore leads to superior music.

[icycalm]

Another thing that factors into this discussion (and the whole "prog" thing) is what Nietzsche calls the "grand style". This is quite a difficult concept to grasp, but a very useful one, and it extends to everything. Classical music, for example, though the most complex music yet made, is not "grand style". Nietzsche was puzzled why all the other arts had a grand style, whereas music, at least in his time, did not. I believe that heavy metal is the musical grand style that Nietzsche was looking for -- and will make the case for it later on in my writings (probably in the philosophical book).

So the idea is that, even if some "prog rock" dudes end up making more complex, AND AT THE SAME TIME COHERENT, music than a good metal band, I will still prefer the metal at the end of the day, because of this "grand style" business.

In games, for example, where everything becomes more complex, this concept is even more difficult to grasp. Grand style in games is something like Civilization. Or Supreme Commander. Or even Makaimura. The third essay of my Genealogy will contain this line:

AN EASY GAME CAN NEVER BE EPIC.

Think about that for a while.

[icycalm]

In literature, Zarathustra is grand style. In drama it is tragedy. In poetry, the Iliad. In painting, this:



In the plastic arts, this:




Another way to think of it is the Greek word "apotheosis" (look it up). Nietzsche called Rubens and Homer, "artists of apotheosis".

[Peter]

A four word definition of art... Simulacra created for pleasure?

[icycalm]

Don't even bother. People have been trying for 2,500 years. There's no use.

[icycalm]

I would rephrase your definition, by the way, as "pleasurable simulacra". The point of definitions is to use as few words and concepts as possible...

And, by the way, "pleasurable simulacra" is a far more useful definition than the "works of expression" fagotries that uneducated people use. You can get some work done with it. It's still nowhere near as useful as mine though, for one thing because it EXCLUDES bad art. There's nothing "pleasurable", for example, about Mr. Bean: The Movie, so according to your definition it's not art. And yet it clearly is... So there you go.

[icycalm]

Except if you meant that aim of these simulacra was pleasure, regardless of how well this aim was accomplished.

But then again, what reason would anyone have to create simulacra if not for pleasure? Simulacra for sadness? For instructional aims? But then you are implying that simulacra with instructional aims cannot be pleasurable...

I don't really see any way to salvage your definition. And what's more it completely ignores the key aspect of art -- the thing that makes these simulacra art in the first place.


Edit: I banned Peter alongside user Alcaeus for having the same IP address.

[icycalm]

I am cutting up what remains of the second essay (another 20 or 30 pages or so) in several smaller parts:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_ge ... mes/#partx

It's just too much to write in one go. My head is spinning from looking at my notes all day and trying to lay them out in some reasonably understandable order.

[icycalm]

Getting more senile every year:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/02 ... _2010.html

This is the last of my lists of the best films of 2010, and the hardest to name. Call it the Best Art Films. I can't precisely define an Art Film, but I knew I was seeing one when I saw these. I could also call them Adult Films, if that term hadn't been devalued by the porn industry. These are films based on the close observation of behavior. They are not mechanical constructions of infinitesimal thrills. They depend on intelligence and empathy to be appreciated.

Because Blade Runner and Heat are not "based on the close observation of behavior". They do not "depend on intelligence and empathy to be appreciated" -- they depend on stupidity and apathy to be appreciated.

And this person is supposed to love the cinema.

[icycalm]

Oh, and this: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_ge ... es/#partxi

[icycalm]

[El Chaos]

Robert Ebert bears an uncanny resemblance to Roger Ebert, lol.

[JoshF]

Not anymore (lol?)

[Joshua]

Ebert posted this link to his Twitter: http://www.ludix.com/moriarty/apology.html

It doesn't specifically discuss cutscenes, but you're all talking about Ebert, video games, movies, and art anyway, and I thought it would be of interest since the author discusses Arthur Schopenhauer.

[icycalm]

I call it All Your Art Is Belong to Us!

I find it hard to believe he came up with this without reading my cutscene essay...

Anyway. It's a good piece, as far as uneducated people's rambling on art and games go. He even gets close to some real insights on a couple of occasions, but promptly fucks everything up shortly after. Here are a few howlers I caught, among many:

If a connoisseur's disinterested exercise of taste earns the agreement of many over time, he or she is called an expert.

The connoisseur is "disinterested"? lulz

Oscar Wilde was not being flippant when we wrote, "All art is quite useless."

No, he was not being flippant -- he was being a moron.

If the Romantics were right, if the purpose of sublime art is to solve the mystery of choice, it's hard to see how goal-chasing can be anything but a distraction.

But after the Romantics came Nietzsche, who tore up their views and excoriated them. But I guess you didn't manage to get that far in your random philosophical skimming.

But once you enter Huizinga's magic circle and start groping at preferences, the attitude of calm, radical acceptance necessary to cultivate insight is lost.

Insight is cultivated by "radical acceptance", lol. Not to mention that "radical acceptance" is a contradictio in adjecto.

And, finally, lol at his definition of "sublime art" or whatever:

Sublime art is the still evocation of the inexpressible.

He certainly got one thing right, though:

As a result, most indies secretly, or not so secretly, aspire to produce authentic-looking kitsch. Kitsch with a edge, if they're good, but kitsch nonetheless.

The well-oiled game-making machines manufacture kitsch. Indies struggle to imitate them.

He forgot to add "and inevitably, utterly phail".

Anyway, yeah, thanks for the link. Also, dude, if you think this thread is about "cutscenes" you are seriously stupid.

[icycalm]

I sent him a link to my Genealogy.

[El Chaos]

Second paragraph of Part XIII:

Who could deduce from this that the object referred to has nothing to do with art but is merely a dilapidaded armchair?

In the fifth paragraph:

For power is not, as the people suppose, something that can be taken but something that must be given — power is suicidal — it freely expends and gives itself, it flows and overflows and molds its surroundings according to its tastes; whilst weakness continually accommodates itself as it best it can to pressures from without.