default header

Theory

Can Cutscenes be Art?

Moderator: JC Denton

Unread postby icycalm » 11 Jun 2010 17:18

Fuck it, it's done. I am probably going to unban that guy later as a thank you gesture, just in case he would still like to post here. He seems to have smartened up a lot since I banned him anyway.

New URL: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/all_your_ ... ong_to_us/
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 11 Jun 2010 17:35

Okay, so I changed my mind. I reverted to the old title (and URL), and used the funny one as a heading for the last part of the essay. I think this is the best solution, because however awesome the second title is, the first one reflects the contents of the entire essay better, whilst the second is, basically, its conclusion -- which is why it is ideal using it to introduce the last part of the essay. I've also unbanned the dude.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 12 Jun 2010 00:13

http://videogames.yahoo.com/celebrity-b ... yd/1310616

Dan Aykroyd wrote:A screenplay is 120 pages, and a game is 650 pages.


Seems like some of the cutscene people are moving up to the videogame industry. Smart choice.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 12 Jun 2010 00:20

I wonder if Cannabalt's design document was 650 pages. Someone should ask Tim -- he has talked to the person who made it.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby gidge-lizardmin » 14 Jun 2010 05:06

Cannabalt's design document has actually been posted online:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/11/th ... -behi.html

I like how he still has time to help his indie friends solve the conundrum of "emergence" even while creating a masterpiece of a game.
gidge-lizardmin
 
Joined: 13 Jun 2010 21:35
Location: New Zealand

Unread postby icycalm » 20 Jun 2010 16:13

http://twitter.com/KeenanW

KeenanW wrote: That, by far, is the most ridiculous game writing I've ever read. Not sure if in the bad or good way. Never before has a game essay included a Zero Wing quote, Plato's cave allegory, and a Jizz in My Pants link. Also: major, major Schopenhauer-esque pessimism. Damn.


That's right. It is a major literary achievement. But you are wrong about the pessimism dude. There's not even a shred of pessimism in it. How can you mistake utterly unrestrained, exhuberant optimism for pessimism?
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 23 Jun 2010 14:36

http://forums.selectbutton.net/viewtopi ... 232#721232

Heather Anne Campbell wrote:Shadow of the Colossus was the better game, but I had more fun playing Resident Evil 4 with my best friend.


http://www.vigigames.com/?p=1339

Matthew Blackwell wrote:Second, as I've stated on a couple of occasions, I reject the notion that games need to be "fun." They don't need to be fun.


It will soon become apparent why I am linking these.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby MrPattywagon » 01 Jul 2010 08:47

Roger Ebert backs down.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html

My error in the first place was to think I could make a convincing argument on purely theoretical grounds. What I was saying is that video games could not in principle be Art. That was a foolish position to take, particularly as it seemed to apply to the entire unseen future of games. This was pointed out to me maybe hundreds of times. How could I disagree? It is quite possible a game could someday be great Art.
User avatar
MrPattywagon
 
Joined: 20 Dec 2009 06:54

Unread postby icycalm » 01 Jul 2010 14:47

It doesn't matter, it's still nonsense. Civilization and Grand Theft Auto III are already Great Art -- even Spacewar was so, in 1962. So fuck him and all the idiots who pay attention to him.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 02 Jul 2010 02:27

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Crow » 02 Jul 2010 03:52

Wow, that was beautiful work. That final paragraph is a masterpiece.

I'm really amazed... and looking forward to part two!
User avatar
Crow
 
Joined: 30 Apr 2010 02:03

Unread postby the shore » 02 Jul 2010 08:17

icycalm wrote:And what's in it for them is social status -- they find in this so-called "modern art" a means for advancement in what I call "the slave game" -- the game for social distinction.


Do you call this the slave game because of the particular way the hipsters and ultra rich play it? Or are you saying that all vying for social distinction, regardless of strategy, is a slave game? I'm not sure I understand.

Thank you for this essay though. Wonderful work as always!
the shore
 
Joined: 29 Jun 2010 06:41

Unread postby raphael » 02 Jul 2010 10:31

Thank you. The article is great.

A few typos:
For this is how it is with theory, and with the all the uneducated imbeciles who start dabbling in it without a thought for what others may have already achieved before they made their grand entrance on the scene:

"we're getting art for our money we when haven't even had a good time". (Kael)
User avatar
raphael
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2008 19:31
Location: Paris

Unread postby movie » 02 Jul 2010 10:46

Once again you have outdone yourself. Phenomenal.
User avatar
movie
 
Joined: 28 Nov 2009 11:54

Unread postby austere » 02 Jul 2010 16:26

What an incredibly entertaining, educational and inescapably conclusive essay -- the only such treatment of this topic I have yet encountered!

The artfags surely cannot ignore this and so I await their reactions with wicked glee. If they read it with some honesty, they will be devastated. I'm linking it to a few people I know who have previously raised complaints about art forms you've used to demonstrate the on-going debasement of culture. Even so, I'm not sure if any of them will have enough courage to acknowledge the cause you have established, especially superstitious people who espouse belief in the so-called "wisdom of the crowd". I mean, just imagine their reaction to this part:

Alex Kierkegaard wrote:...once the masses have been unleashed on the art of painting, and any bungler can make a name for himself by playing the virtuoso in front of uneducated half-peasants who were born yesterday and don't know any better.


I'll include my own perspective, in the hope it is of some value. A long time ago, I started to make my own games, though I had no illusions as to their standing against the greater games out there. Since it was always more fun to spend my time playing the awesome games that were being released, I hardly finished any of my projects. Making anything worthwhile took a long time and a lot of effort -- volumes of algorithms, data structures, optimisation and esoteric hardware tricks had to be learnt. There was much joy in this, the process of learning and discovery more so than the end product. Many people my age did the same and the best and most dedicated went on to make commercial games, while the rest moved on as the barrier to entry became too great for their aspirations. The latter were like children growing up, realising their doodles just don’t cut it anymore.

Nowadays these people get an idea, download Game Maker et al. and watch a video tutorial (always a great way to learn something, lol) and off they go. After they’ve made their hideous sprites they run out of ideas and make yet another platform game. Finally, they share their revolting little creations amongst each other and praise it to high heaven. Someone judging the quality of the game by the praise alone would conclude that they’ve created a game like Supreme Commander or something! The lowered barrier to entry has brought a large mass of people who never gave a damn about developing games into the scene. They think they’re doing something new when in fact they’re simply men-children (or child-fagots, LOL) that haven’t given up on doodling.

A similar decay is happening in the field of hobby electronics, ever since the release of the "Arduino". Just replace "platform game" with LED blinker and you’ll find a familiar pattern of childish infatuation. Outside their little circles, no one gives a damn about their stupid blinkers. Well, possibly this store owner with the motto "Electronics can be art".

Anyway, I will certainly have to read that essay again, late at night when I cannot be interrupted since it deserves one's undivided attention (as with everything else on this website). I can't wait to read the second part, icycalm!
User avatar
austere
 
Joined: 07 Dec 2009 22:50

Unread postby icycalm » 03 Jul 2010 13:07

Fixed the typos, thanks Raphael.

the shore wrote:Do you call this the slave game because of the particular way the hipsters and ultra rich play it? Or are you saying that all vying for social distinction, regardless of strategy, is a slave game? I'm not sure I understand.


Reread the relevant passage. Carefully. It is impossible to mistake my meaning.

austere wrote:The artfags surely cannot ignore this and so I await their reactions with wicked glee. If they read it with some honesty, they will be devastated.


Supposing that you could explain to a worm that it is a worm -- do you think it would be devastated? Notwithstanding the fact that it is impossible to explain to a worm that it is a worm, because what YOU call "worm" is the way A MAN SEES A WORM. I.e. the word "worm" in the mouth of a human signifies THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE HUMAN. It goes without saying therefore that this point of view will forever remain incommunicable to the worm itself. The entire concept "worm" only has meaning in the communication between humans, just as the entire concept "artfag" only has meaning in communication between regular people, etc.

austere wrote:I'll include my own perspective, in the hope it is of some value. A long time ago, I started to make my own games, though I had no illusions as to their standing against the greater games out there. Since it was always more fun to spend my time playing the awesome games that were being released, I hardly finished any of my projects. Making anything worthwhile took a long time and a lot of effort -- volumes of algorithms, data structures, optimisation and esoteric hardware tricks had to be learnt. There was much joy in this, the process of learning and discovery more so than the end product. Many people my age did the same and the best and most dedicated went on to make commercial games, while the rest moved on as the barrier to entry became too great for their aspirations. The latter were like children growing up, realising their doodles just don’t cut it anymore.


Well, this is the thing. They might not "cut it" compared to those of the talented, dedicated people, but on the other hand that is no reason for you to stop making them if they give you pleasure. I am by no means asking anyong to stop doing whatever it is they enjoy doing. All I am asking (and I realize it is a futile request...) IS TO STOP DENIGRATING THE WORK OF THE MASTERS IN ORDER TO FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEIR WORTHLESS, DESPICABLE, RIDICULOUS DOODLES FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

(On the other hand, since denigrating the work of the masters GIVES THEM PLEASURE... and since I am saying that "I am not asking anyone to stop doing whatever it is they enjoy doing"... -- there it is. icycalm contradicting himself.)

austere wrote:A similar decay is happening in the field of hobby electronics, ever since the release of the "Arduino". Just replace "platform game" with LED blinker and you’ll find a familiar pattern of childish infatuation. Outside their little circles, no one gives a damn about their stupid blinkers. Well, possibly this store owner with the motto "Electronics can be art".


That's funny. Goes to show that processes like these are not isolated phenomena. There are definite psychological needs that drive such processes, and these manifest themselves again and again regardless of the field. Understand the psychology, and you have understood all of them.

austere wrote:I can't wait to read the second part, icycalm!


It will be just as groundbreaking, if not more. At the end there'll be nowhere left to hide.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Diamond Dawg » 03 Jul 2010 16:00

A typo:
in attemping, that is to say, to appear as if they stood on a higher plane compared to everyone else at least in one respect
User avatar
Diamond Dawg
 
Joined: 26 Sep 2008 21:42

Unread postby icycalm » 09 Jul 2010 15:01

Thanks, fixed.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 09 Jul 2010 15:06

Image

http://artcritical.com/2010/06/28/paint ... ob-nickas/

David Carrier wrote:In the 1980s, when painting was commonly said to be dead, many group shows were devoted to abstraction. Although some individual artists emerged—Sean Scully was the best—none of these exhibitions had much effect [I wonder why, lol]. But even when Dave Hickey and the philosopher Alexander Nehamas proclaimed that beauty was back, abstraction still was marginalized. The interests of the art world had shifted [to what? lol]. Bob Nickas’s book takes up this story, without much concern for the longer-range perspective [since he doesn't understand it, lol]. “Paintings that are clearly made from the point of view that abstraction is always in a sense an assisted readymade” [saywhat] he says at the start, “can be seen to reanimate rather than recapitulate the histories of both abstraction and the readymade” (p. 5).


lolfagets

And Nehamas is a moron. His book on Nietzsche ("Nietzsche: Life as Literature") is a waste of perfectly good toilet paper.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 Jul 2010 23:29

Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 17 Jul 2010 00:06

On the subject of the role of cruelty in art (emphasis is mine):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(film)

Ashley Miller, co-writer of Thor wrote:Thor's powers are godly, yes... But at the end of the day, he's a man... Odin sends him to Earth because he's not perfect. He's brash, arrogant. Even over-confident... he also bleeds. He struggles. Life kicks him where it hurts the most... You want to feel Thor's rage when he rages. You want to see him fight like hell, and take as much as he dishes out -- maybe more.


It's amusing how artists, when they are being honest, blurt out stuff that validates exactly what Nietzsche is saying, yet when directly confronted with them either outright deny them or begin fuddling and mincing their words -- anything really to avoid facing reality.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby JoshF » 17 Jul 2010 03:57

I was looking through a Robert Crumb comic yesterday and it had a couple of relevant quotes.

"Abstract art: a product of the untalented sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered." - Al Capp, creator of the comic strip Lil' Abnor

"Minimal art is maximum profit" - Isamu Noguchi, minimalist sculptor

"Since bad art has a harmful effect on society, it should never go unchallenged; but since the bad artists (like the good one) is an artist at all only because he claims he is, and has gotten at least one other person to believe him, how is he to be challenged? The only available rules are those of the gunfighter." - John Gardner

I especially like the last one. I'll think of it every time someone complains about icy being too hard on his victims.
User avatar
JoshF
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:56

Unread postby icycalm » 14 Aug 2010 14:16

http://sethhearthstone.wordpress.com/20 ... ide-of-e3/

sethhearthstone wrote:While there are some people who (even in this modern era) believe that Impressionism was a “vulgarization of painting” or even a step “back and sideways” for the advancement of the art of painting, these misguided individuals are simply unaware that impressionism was a reaction to the advancing field of photography. Up to that point painters had sought more and more realistic deceptions [he means "depictions" --icy] of the interplay of light and shadow, the scattering and diffusion of light from different surfaces, and believable representations of the human figure. The transition to unreal use of color and form was a way of saying “look! Here is something that photography cannot create! The human imagination holds greater beauty than the mundane physical world will give you!“ Now with the advancing art of the shader algorithm and hardware that can render increasingly detailed geometry, and further use of laser-scanned actors, we are due for a movement away from realistic visual design in games. I expect more games with more non-representational imagery in the future.


lolartfags

Okay, let's have some fun with him.

sethhearthstone wrote:While there are some people who (even in this modern era) believe that Impressionism was a “vulgarization of painting” or even a step “back and sideways” for the advancement of the art of painting, these misguided individuals are simply unaware that impressionism was a reaction to the advancing field of photography.


I am fully aware of this fact. It was simply not pertinent at that point in my discussion, which is why it was left out. I realize that this method of writing (and thinking, btw) is ungraspable by artfags, but genuine thinkers focus on the matter at hand and leave the chattering to women, children and the elderly. It's true, look it up.

sethhearthstone wrote:The transition to unreal use of color and form was a way of saying “look! Here is something that photography cannot create! The human imagination holds greater beauty than the mundane physical world will give you!


Yes, but only if you ignore the teeny weeny fact that this "mundane" physical world IS PRECISELY WHAT GIVES YOU THAT PRECIOUS "HUMAN IMAGINATION" OF YOURS IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO PERHAPS IT'S NOT REALLY THAT MUNDANE AFTER ALL.

Typical artfag symptoms: a complete inability to function in the real world, and hence an overvaluation of their "imagination" -- i.e. their hallucinations.

Which leaves us with the fact that "The transition to unreal use of color and form" was not " a way of saying “look! The human imagination holds greater beauty than the mundane physical world will give you!", but a way of saying "look! I can't paint worth a shit so have these rough sketches and some pretentious gibberish instead!"

sethhearthstone wrote:Now with the advancing art of the shader algorithm and hardware that can render increasingly detailed geometry, and further use of laser-scanned actors, we are due for a movement away from realistic visual design in games. I expect more games with more non-representational imagery in the future.


Something like Spacewar maybe? Notwithstanding the fact that since "imagery" IS representation, "non-representational imagery" would be, what? A contradictio in adjecto maybe?

So yeah, total trainwreck. I suggest you go back to chattering about that Sean Maelstrom's chatter -- you are far better at it than you are at thinking.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 14 Aug 2010 14:27

And by the way, later in that same blog post he says:

sethhearthstone wrote:The second game in this list marks the return of one of gaming’s true auteurs. (Even the game’s title seems to reference how long it’s been since his last project!) Project Dust directed by Eric Chahi, author of Another World


Absolutely disgusting artfag chatter. I don't know where to begin. Electronic gaming has THOUSANDS of "true auters" -- ALMOST ALL OF WHOM ARE "TRUER" than Eric Chahi. Erich Chahi made a cool platformer and left, while the rest have been churning out masterpieces for decades. Even the dudes who make the Splinter Cell games are more "truerer" "auteurs" than Eric Chahi -- not to speak of people like Cliff Bleszinski or Cevat Yerli.

And then he calls him the "author" of Another World. It's not enough that he already used the French word, now he has to use the English too (probably because he doesn't know what the French word means). So yes, Sid Meier and Tsuneki Ikeda are mere "designers" -- but Erich Chahi, no, he is an "author".

Fucking fagots. The scum of the earth. Even lower than Christians and cockroaches.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 29 Aug 2010 02:59

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

PreviousNext

Return to Theory

cron