default header

Theory

Can Cutscenes be Art?

Moderator: JC Denton

Unread postby icycalm » 26 Nov 2014 00:46

http://forum.krstarica.com/showthread.p ... st27747456

It's apparently in Bosnian, of all languages... This is the Google translation:

User Unfriendly wrote:Speaking of Picasso and Manzoni and generally "modern" art line would be to put our genealogy and Kierkegaard's "art of video games" (which is actually the genealogy of "modern" art.)


You don't really need the "actually" since art is videogames. The genealogy of videogames will naturally include that of all art.

User Unfriendly wrote:Here everything is explained about the "modern" art (and art in general in general.) Any other interpretation of art seem comical in comparison.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 08 Mar 2015 19:50

https://archive.moe/v/thread/286115193/#286117861

Anonymous wrote:>>286116946

>21st century’s greatest art form

I guess Leigh learned something from icycalm after all.


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

Unread postby icycalm » 29 May 2017 12:34

https://archived.moe/his/thread/2870286/#2876127

Anonymous wrote:>>2876077

>>2875952
>>2876004
Yeah, since he agrees largely with determinism, he finds even environmental effects to be ultimately down to genetics (since genetics could preclude even the states that could be influenced by the environment), or disagrees that there is a dichotomy.

He is inheriting Nietzsche here. Everything is power. Vitality (ultimately, genetics) will influence people's dispositions, their philosophies. Nietzsche saw the history of philosophy before him to be full of lies, due to its pretence to being all about objective rationalisation. Taking Dawin and the other turns of natural science, Nietzsche instead thought there was no objective rationalisation, instead each philosopher merely reflected the biases of their physiology and upbringing. Almost like psychosomatics in reverse.

So in Icy's thought, the conspiracy of art was an unconscious rebellion by society's discontents (ultimately.. its genetic discontents). It is a vague, ugly, conniving process, because its practitioners are like that in some way. Those people are only able to thrive through this subversion. And this remains unconscious because it would be a painful realisation for them to act on.
Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 25 Feb 2018 15:33

https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S10751598#p10751638

Anonymous wrote:Well, it's been a while since I've read it (been meaning to re-read and take down notes this time), but to summarize from recollection:

1. The purpose of art is to give pleasure (stemming from Nietzsche's understanding of the aesthetic through tragedy)

2. Artforms evolve over time and reactionary movements form (stemming from Walter Benjamin's essay anticipating how mechanical reproduction would affect the arts)

3. Art is misused by the wealthy and "artfags" (stemming from Baudrillard's idea of use vs. sign value; essentially, both these groups care only about social prestige rather than the pleasure value of art)

4. Videogames are the latest in the evolutionary chain, and have recently been under siege with the same corruption that other forms have seen in the past


Good bullet points, but there's a lot more than this in there of course. So much more I don't even remember all of it lol.
Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Previous

Return to Theory