icycalm wrote:since it ultimately deceives the deceiver to a far greater extent than the deceived, and thereby, in the long run, contributing to rendering him far more stupid...
I'm looking forward to buying your books.
Moderator: JC Denton
by ray » 15 Mar 2011 02:21
icycalm wrote:since it ultimately deceives the deceiver to a far greater extent than the deceived, and thereby, in the long run, contributing to rendering him far more stupid...
by icycalm » 15 Mar 2011 15:45
by icycalm » 15 Mar 2011 17:28
Jean Baudrillard wrote:It is because our society no longer allows space for real violence, historical or class violence, that it generates a virtual, reactive violence.
I wrote:We are always reacting to a work of art. The only one who acts in a work of art is the artist.
by icycalm » 12 Apr 2011 21:30
In The Accident of Art, Virilio and Lotringer argue that a direct relation exists between war trauma and art. Why has art failed to reinvent itself in the face of technology, unlike performing art? Why has art simply retreated into painting, or surrendered to digital technology? Accidents, Virilio claims, can free us from speed's inertia. As technological catastrophes, accidents are inventions in their own right.
by icycalm » 04 May 2011 14:14
by icycalm » 20 May 2011 23:10
Gamification
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Gamification is the use of game play mechanics[1] for non-game applications (also known as "funware"),[2] particularly consumer-oriented web and mobile sites, in order to encourage people to adopt the applications. It also strives to encourage users to engage in desired behaviors in connection with the applications.[3] Gamification works by making technology more engaging,[4] and by encouraging desired behaviors, taking advantage of humans' psychological predisposition to engage in gaming.[5] The technique can encourage people to perform chores that they ordinarily consider boring, such as completing surveys, shopping, or reading web sites.[4]
by icycalm » 30 Jun 2011 20:39
by icycalm » 01 Jul 2011 15:35
by icycalm » 14 Jul 2011 16:50
by icycalm » 11 Oct 2011 16:30
by icycalm » 17 Oct 2011 14:21
Your Excellency wrote:This post actually gets to the heart of the matter. The reason that everyone is acting offended right now is because Ico is currently up on it's pedestal as a True Classic. They treat Ico as it if was the Sistine Chapel of gaming. Thus, anyone who criticises Ico knows nothing about gaming.
But if you truly love gaming, then you'll know that gaming isn't like other art forms. Gaming is different to everything else because it's always been restricted to the technology of that generation. Goya wasn't limited by his tools when he painted Colossus, and if he was alive today he probably would have painted it exactly the same way.
by SriK » 05 Nov 2011 23:18
If, then, the simulacrum is that which appears to be something other than it is, everything is a simulacrum, since in a world of becoming, of perpetual metamorphosis — in a world, that is to say, of flux — no one and nothing is what it appears to be, and Baudrillard's seemingly bewildering declaration that "I am my own simulacrum" is merely the ultimate conclusion to be drawn from this line of reasoning.
by icycalm » 05 Nov 2011 23:35
by icycalm » 10 Nov 2011 17:41
by icycalm » 03 Dec 2011 15:21
dstopia wrote:You know, these last few days I have come to realize (and I realize I'm about to say something extremely obvious, which should be clear to anyone with half a brain cell) that these "indie" developers place an ENORMOUS emphasis on their name when marketing their games. It's almost like the only thing that matters.
It's like the whole thing with the shit art in the 20th century. The artist starts taking precedence over the work of art, because the work of art is fucking shit and unable to stand the test of time on its own. It's amazing how art was turned from entertainment to some bullshit rethoric about "expression" in the course of just a few decades thanks to people who are unable to scribble two coherent thoughts together.
Icy's genealogy truly is his best essay so far. I tried to make all my retard art college student friends read it but it's an effort in futility. The rethoric of art as an expression is so deeply ingrained in their brains by the idiotic education system that there's no way to show them the retardedness of their way.
by icycalm » 17 Jan 2012 06:47
It may well be that Mr Hirst offends our self-righteous notions of work when he explains his use of a studio with the line: "I couldn't be fucking arsed doing it."
Will Brand wrote:There is, we recognize, a historical danger here. Someday, the record of this exhibition might be dug up by a young art historian, or perhaps a blogger like us, or perhaps some sort of future blogger who does things with brainwaves. They’ll see that there was a massive show spread across every location of the most successful gallery of the time, entirely comprised of one of the most successful artists of the time, and that it was supported by some of the most illustrious voices money could buy. So I’m going to lay this down, just to clarify, so that nobody from the future gets confused: we hate this shit. Everyone hates this shit. These spots reflect nothing about how we live, see, or think, they’re just some weird meme for the impossibly rich that nobody knows how to stop.
by icycalm » 17 Jan 2012 07:16
I wrote:Hello Mr. Brand,
I just read your post on Hirst's new pseudo-exhibition, and was moved enough by your closing lines to find your email address and send you this link:
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_ge ... art_games/
If you can manage to get past the first few paragraphs, which are concerned with an artform which (I presume) probably doesn't interest you much, I believe you will find that page to be the most astonishing thing you will ever read on the subject of art.
Sincerely,
Alex Kierkegaard
P.S. If you would like a copy of the book when it's out (which it should be sometime in February), give me an address to send it to.
by void » 18 Jan 2012 22:25
icycalm wrote:"Ultimately, true genius lies, not in proving anyone wrong, but in proving everyone right."
That's a line from my philosophical book.
by icycalm » 18 Jan 2012 22:47
by icycalm » 18 Feb 2012 20:45
icycalm wrote:To make my position crystal clear, if given a choice between saving Far Cry 2 or the entire history of 2D games, the 2D stuff would all go in the trash without a second's hesitation, just as I'd trash all the paintings ever made to save a Heat, a Blade Runner or a Dark Knight. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the primitive stuff -- it is part of the amazing depth and breadth of my tastes and aesthetic sensibilities that I can -- but the utter superiority of the advanced stuff has to be recognized, if not by everyone then at least by the highest arbiters of taste, otherwise we might as well agree with the artfags that progress in art is impossible and go back to cave paintings or splattered canvases.
That is not to say that I expect you to agree to this. But it would at least be a good idea for you to realize what my position is, simply for the purposes of whatever discussions we might have on this or related topics.
Recap wrote:So now you know, people: "2-D games" are primitive because we now have "3-D genres" with their analog control wonderness and first-person perspectives which finally! make you feel as the freaking protagonist from your favorite, worth-a-thousand-paintings B-movie.
I'm sure you also expected me not to refrain myself from replying with something along those lines, so there it is.
icycalm wrote:Recap, just in case you care, the reason you prefer games with scene development, as you call it, over stuff like Asteroids, and then again 16-bit games over 8-bit games, are exactly the same reasons that make me prefer 3D games over 2D ones. So the stuff you posted, about B-movies and the like, apply also to your favorite games. I can even quote you from this thread:
"amazing settings and scenography"
That was in reference to some childishly crap 2D eurotrash art, and to the accompanying C-movie plots.
Just in case you care to know how you look when you talk about stuff like this, you look exactly like Ebert when he's scribbling stupidities to justify his hatred of videogames, and the resentment he feels at his favorite art being superseded. Every little pseudo-argument, and I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE, that is being constructed in order to support its author's incapacity, appears, to those who do not share that incapacity, retarded. So the best thing for Ebert to do would simply to remain silent...
I am not saying you should be too. I am just trying to explain to you how the situation looks like from where I am standing. And as it happens, I have 2,500 years of science and culture standing right here with me.
by icycalm » 19 Feb 2012 20:29
Recap wrote:Icycalm, keep that shit for your own forum, thankyouverymuch. If you want to attempt to explain why real-time polygons, three-dimensional mechanics in a two-dimensional medium, and analog control pads or control systems based on non-gaming interfaces are "utterly superior" to bitmap-based graphics, pure 2-D mechanics, and digital controls, go ahead. But gratuitous insults which lead the discussion nowhere won't be tolerated even from you. Just in case you care.
The reason I prefer 16-bit games over 8-bit ones, or games with scene development over stuff without it is, essentially, an aesthetics subject. A plain matter of beauty. Of pleasing my eyes. It has nothing to do with how well the game makes me feel as its stupid protagonist --neither how well the game makes of me its actual protagonist-- nor the virtual tangibleness of its world. As I told you once, I don't give a shit about immersion in my action games. Not that kind, anyway.
icycalm wrote:Recap wrote:Icycalm, keep that shit for your own forum, thankyouverymuch. ... gratuitous insults which lead the discussion nowhere won't be tolerated even from you.
There's not a single gratuitous comment in any of my posts in this thread. If the substantiation that I offered is not enough for you, ask for more and I will provide it. As to your level of tolerance of my ideas and arguments, it has nothing to do with me, and you will of course take any action you deem necessary, whenever you deem it so.Recap wrote:If you want to attempt to explain why real-time polygons, three-dimensional mechanics in a two-dimensional medium, and analog control pads or control systems based on non-gaming interfaces are "utterly superior" to bitmap-based graphics, pure 2-D mechanics, and digital controls, go ahead.
I already have: because they are more immersive, i.e. as I have explained at length in my Genealogy (even just the parts of it that have been published on the internet so far), artistically superior. And I mean, besides all that (which is all there is, and all there needs to be, but perhaps some humor might help you see the ridiculousness of your position anyway), if you think that a retarded childish little 2D bitmap, or some variation of fucking Tetris or whatever (which is what all the 2D action genres boil down to in the end), or a fucking arcade stick or whatever, are the ULTIMATE POSSIBLE ACHIEVEMENTS OF DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT, and that the purpose of the entire history of digital technology as it pertains to art had been achieved with these pathetic little developments, you are out of your fucking mind. Even if we put behind us all the theory and all the science and all the art, and just simply put a screen from Super Mario World or whatever (to demonstrate the graphics), and an arcade stick on a couple of pedestals and write beneath them: THE PINNACLES OF DIGITAL ART, we'd have even THE PEDESTALS THEMSELVES LAUGHING AT US, dude. The absurdity of your position is so obvious the moment we leave some early-90's obsessive's dedicated gaming room and go out into the street and get some goddamn air, that no arguments at all would be required to prove any of my points (quite aside from the fact that I HAVE ALL OF THEM WHILE YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING). Like, for reals dude. If you seriously think that the pinnacle of art is The Super Shinobi or Strider or whatever, you seriously need some goddamn air. Nor can you escape from this implication by hiding yourself inside the term "videogames" and claiming that art and videogames are two separate things, because that dichotomy has already been demolished in my Genealogy. Art and videogames are EXACTLY THE SAME THING, and as I explain in my article on Set Theory (and as you should be able to grasp without even reading it), videogames are basically a superset of all previous (and in fact even future) artforms. So if you say that some random 2D childish little game is the pinnacle of videogames you are saying it is the pinnacle of art, and no amount of muddling the waters or backpedalling can obscure that retarded insinuation.Recap wrote:The reason I prefer 16-bit games over 8-bit ones, or games with scene development over stuff without it is, essentially, an aesthetics subject.
As if all my writings weren't about aesthetics, lol.Recap wrote:A plain matter of beauty. Of pleasing my eyes.
There's nothing "plain" about beauty, Recap. It is an extremely complicated subject, and our understanding and pursuit of it hinges on an immense level to all the rules and guidelines art theorists like me have been expounding for millennia. The retort that "that is simply what I like" belongs on gamefaqs: at the level of art theory and criticism it is merely an ignorant childish gesture. And I am telling you why games with stage progression (i.e. scene development) "please your eyes" -- instead of having a game be a single glorified stage (however beautiful) -- because real life has scene development, which is why therefore it's more immersive.Recap wrote:It has nothing to do with how well the game makes me feel as its stupid protagonist --neither how well the game makes of me its actual protagonist-- nor the virtual tangibleness of its world.
It has everything to do with exactly those things, and your denial of this obvious simple fact is merely your way of attacking the theory which you can see eventually, in the long run, and from a higher viewpoint, denies the superiority (and therefore ultimately the relevance) of your tastes.Recap wrote:As I told you once, I don't give a shit about immersion in my action games. Not that kind, anyway.
There's only one kind of immersion, and as far as 2D Japanese games go you are a downright ADDICT of it.