If you don't know what game that is then I emplore you buy it ASAP (playstation 2) and play it in 1 sitting.
I saw a friend playing this one day and borrowed both his ps2 and the game. Played through it in a day then went back and beat it again the next day. Absolutely gorgeous game!
When video games go into mass production, it loses it's art form status and enters the entertainment media market. While at the same time gains no cultural value as it ages. This is all of course my own opinion of things.
So no movie is art because it's entertainment media? I think Ebert would disagree......
But he's still an idiot.
From that statement alone I can tell you don't know what an art film is. And no not all films are considered art, just like all video games aren't. And just like art films, art video games are very few, very niche and very non-profitable and those points right there would keep critics like Ebert from experiencing such art video games at all.
The last art video game I played was Okami and the last art film I watched was Valhalla Rising. In both instances each would never garner the mass drawing of people/players that would deem them blockbusters, because they were both made with different goals in mind.
Now you're making a logical fallacy, a sort of reverse appeal to popularity. The Mona Lisa recieves millions of visitors a year and is one of the most famous works of art, is it not art because it is popular? Hamlet gets performed all the time and is probably one of the most widely viewed plays ever, is it not art?
Ebert is a pretentious jackass who hardly has the pedegree or the Master's Degree to tell anyone what counts as art and what does not. And once having his ass handed to him by hundreds of people (his own admission) he still tries to defend the untennable position by saying he just didn't define what he was talking about clearly enough. Given how out of touch with reality and the modern American he is, the balcony should just remain closed.
(I'd be willing to kill someone for this box to have a spellchecker, or at least to stop blocking my browser's built-in one.)
But the problem is, as the title of the column suggest he "sorta" back off.
The thing the Ebert has missed entirely is a cliche. "Art is in the eye of the beholder" It's that *HE* refuses to acknowledge them as art. It doesn't mean that video games CAN'T be, and it doesn't mean that they aren't to some people. It means he's a pretentious closed minded jackass who got bad press and sorta had to do it because his publishers told him to.
It's like When Steven Spilberg said that Video games will never be as good as movies, because Video Games can't make you cry, or angry or take sides.
CLEARLY, he's never played and of the games in the FFVII series, and again point proven, he's talking out of his arse.
Power corrupts, and popularity makes you stupid. He's great for movie reviews if your in your 70's. Because that's how he rates them. Like a stupid pig headed old coot who's lost touch with reality.
Ebert, your half-assed "retraction" gets a great big thumbs down.
(removes suggestion of what orfice Ebert should remove his thumb)
When video games go into mass production, it loses it's art form status and enters the entertainment media market. While at the same time gains no cultural value as it ages. This is all of course my own opinion of things.
So no movie is art because it's entertainment media? I think Ebert would disagree......
But he's still an idiot.
From that statement alone I can tell you don't know what an art film is. And no not all films are considered art, just like all video games aren't. And just like art films, art video games are very few, very niche and very non-profitable and those points right there would keep critics like Ebert from experiencing such art video games at all.
The last art video game I played was Okami and the last art film I watched was Valhalla Rising. In both instances each would never garner the mass drawing of people/players that would deem them blockbusters, because they were both made with different goals in mind.
Now you're making a logical fallacy, a sort of reverse appeal to popularity. The Mona Lisa recieves millions of visitors a year and is one of the most famous works of art, is it not art because it is popular? Hamlet gets performed all the time and is probably one of the most widely viewed plays ever, is it not art?
What is, and is not art is strictly debatable. it depends on the person in question. Mona Lisa.. it's a piece of art, but so is the drawing my 1st grader brings home from school.
I don't really care what another person thinks "art" is and isn't, any more than I care what another persons opinion about anything is. Just because someone gets paid for their opinion or is solicited in some "official" way for their opinion, doesn't make their opinion worth more than anyone else's or "right" and everyone else's "wrong". The only opinion that matters to anyone, or should, is their own. Think for yourselves, don't be sheep...
------------------------- "Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P.Lovecraft, "From Beyond"
Ebert basically said something out of ignorance and the internet world bit his head off for it. Which he deserved completely. If you think about it, if I never saw a particular movie, but went off on how bad the movie is, how bad the directing is, etc I'd be pretty much talking outta my a**.
Ebert is "old school" in that he doesn't understand that video games are a new form of media that is more than just button mashing to blow up pixels. Games such as Mass Effect, Heavy Rain and Shadow of the Colossus are just some examples where the storytelling was done 1st, then the gameplay 2nd.
I bet if he actually sat down and watched someone play, say Mass Effect, he'd be pleasantly surprised by the story and would (grudgingly) rethink his position on games and art.
Movies: Virtual creations of someone else's fantasy in a flat, one dimensional plane that allows only vicarious observation. The storyline is fixed and (except for being resurrected for the milking of tired sequels or remakes that will be constantly compared to the "original") there is no growth or expansion of that creation during the life of said movie.
Video games: Virtual creations of someone else's fantasy in a mutlidimensional aspect that allows the observer to experience the content for themselves, in their own way, at their own pace, and very often with varying results.
MMO video games: Virtual creations of someone else's fantasy in an almost living, breathing experience that creates an interactive "community", and in the case of some (like City of Heroes/Villains for example) allows the individual the ability to create their own unique characters, write elaborate back stories, create their own content, influence the direction the game takes by making choices in their play, and definitely vary the results.
Now, as an amateur but very prolific writer, I can tell you that it takes much more talent to write running, interactive stories that change and allow for growth than it does to write a single story that is then set in stone. To say nothing of the talented graphics artists that designe the virtual 'world' in video game, the coders, the folks that write the dialog (script) for the NPCs, etc. The talent and creativity that goes in to making a good video game is every bit as tasking as making a movie, especially in recent times since Hollywood iseems to be now morphing into "CG iz the r0ckz0r" mode where movies are just video games you can look at but not play.
Methinks Mr. Ebert somehow has a personally soured opinion of video games and was reflecting that rather than any relevent information in his "review". It's *my* .01 opinion that opinions are like .... well you know how the saying goes... Personally? I hate movies. They aren't interactive enough to hold my attention. But that's just my personal taste and I don't go around spewing that like it's some kind of gospel. Hopefully Mr. Ebert will learn a lesson from this spectacular example of how to plant his foot squarely in his mouth.
Ebert: Decreasingly relevant uber liberal who holds party-goers' attention with his self-important opinions while sipping a $100 glass of vodka at various Hollywood establishments. Knows nothing about video games, has never played one; only knows that he detests the younger generation and that they play video games, therefore by the transitive property of smugness he detests video games.
His relevancy is on the decline, the relevancy of video games is on the incline, the two correlate inversely and this trend will never reverse. Ebert could have stated that all video games are art, are a promising new form of it, and that he would be interested in soliciting viable examples of it from the younger generation in order to better understand them for himself. Instead, he demonstrated his lack of class, his inbred mental processes, and the emptiness of his hollowed out Hollywood mind.
Art, in my opinion, is a media which freezes an emotion (or string of emotions) in time. Anyone who believes video games do not do this for people is demonstrably wrong.
Kudos for his apology, but the fact is that such a gross error by a man with his clout demonstrates the vacuous nature of his niche "job." That such a man could be 180 degrees, 100% perfectly wrong about such a large, promising, and indeed only budding industry is so bizarre as to be almost frightening. To think how many Americans secretly waive their opinions in order to adopt his in order to avoid that troublesome thing known as critical thought... One only wonders in how many other public arenas such a gross mistake is so commonly made.
the problem here really is that art is subjective. At least he was willing to have another go at the subject and claim his weakensses as well as claim that according to his definition, video games might someday be art.
Every time I read some forum's discussion of what art is in the defense of video games, people catagorically state what they think art "is". Yet I can think of examples that are considered art that don't embody what they claim art is.
As one individual in this thread stated regarding "throwing paint on a canvas" not being art (paraphrasing) I would say he was evaluating this type of painting based on his present experience and understanding of art. He is being true to his opinion of course (nothing wrong with that) because he is being true to his perceptions and taste, but I've seen movies of people like Jackson Pollock paint, I've seen the paintings up close and I can say that it is art.
Art transcends picture perfect technique, art is about ideas but doesn't have to be about ideas. Art DOESN'T have to be about emotions per se because not every artist is creating art about emotioin. Sometimes art is soley about ideas, about manipulation of some sort of medium in order to create something that makes one pause and think or feel. Art just has to be able to make some sort of connection with the viewer.
Art is too wide, too broad to fully be catagorized. And having studied art I can say that the entirety of mankind's effort to create things that exist for the sole purpose of being experienced, viewed, listened to, felt, is so broad that people don't always have the tools to fully realize the scope fo what they are experiencing.
A perfect story is when an Uncle of mine took me to a modern dance performance. All the music that accompanied the dancers was pretty straight forward. However, there was a famous piece by Penderecki called "Threnody for the victims of hiroshima" which for some people would not be considered music. My uncle immediately stated that he hated this piece as he heard it at a concert a year earlier.
I turned to him and said "by the time the performance is over you will have fallen in love with the piece". He thought I was nuts. But sure enough, at the end of the incredibly moving and heart wrenching performance he was practically in tears. He turned to me and said "I love this piece and I don't know why".
The problem with a good amount of art or music or "whatever" is that some people want (need) to apply their preconceptions of what makes a good piece of art or music without fully understanding what the artist or composer was actually trying to create and for what purpose.
People will look at a modern painting and immediately state it's horrible. Well, if one is thinking that a painting has to be like a Sargent then one isn't going to see beyond what they know.
As for the piece, my uncle fell in love with it because without the dancers to give the music an emotional focal point, it's difficult for people not familiar with "modern" music to know what to listen for. They start trying to listen for melody when there are types of music that aren't about melody. The piece I linked is NOT about meldoy. Just like not all art is about "emotion".
With art, If one doesn't know what to look for, where to see the greatness no matter how large or small, then one will simply not see it.
Same with video games which is why Mr. Ebert had issues. But he admits it. And for me that makes his article good. part of experiencing and appreciating art is also discussing it with people. And not all people are going to agree.
I know people who hated modern art and music and as they educated themselves they came to love it.
I'm one of them as I would never have understood this piece when I was a freshman at the conservatory.
But now it's a favorite. I highly ask that you all give it a listen and put on different ears. You might discover something new. Maybe Mr. Ebert will one day put on different eyes and see beyond his current education and experiences.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
In response to Sovrath, I would simply like an example of art that is not about emotion. I'm curious as to what, to you, is artistic but void of emotional purpose. I am not claiming that such a thing does not exist (to you), but to me, it is like trying to imagine a square circle. The two ideas are in logical opposition. Some art does attempt to merge styles, to experiment, etc. Discovery is an ancient emotion, in this man's opinion, and attempting to separate it from sadness, happiness, etc. strikes me as misguided.
I listened to the piece; it is very good, and its purpose is to evoke an emotion (even to a more amplified degree than most music, in a sense). I would call the screaming strings the melody, if you choose not to call them the melody, I would call your decision arbitrary, but certainly within your right and ultimately an unimportant distinction. There are plenty of great viola parts that are beautiful and not "about the melody."
I may be correct that all art has an emotional purpose, I may not be, but in either case your right to disagree, whether it makes you incorrect or not, is still your right.
In response to Sovrath, I would simply like an example of art that is not about emotion.
I can give you one;
Screensavers.
They are just for looking at, and by all means many of them are considered art. There's no emotional link unless it's themed. Like the classic "pipes" or "flying toasters" ones, what are they trying to tell us? That our lives are constantly running through circles or flying away from us? There is no meaning to it, as far as I am concerned it's Jackson Pollack.
I consider art as anything that causes trance or contemplation. You can look at the mona lisa and and question the intentions behind it, or you can look at a laser light show and be entranced by it with no real thoughts in your head, and both are art. You can ponder the deliberate carvings on a table leg, or you can deep out on an infinite spiral lithograph. Doesn't even have to be manmade to be art, I've seen computers generates some amazing effects and designs.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
GTwander, I'm not sure what you are telling me with this. An emotional purpose and a definitive message are two different things. Forgive me, as I'm not trying to sound querulous, I'm genuinely interested in this.
I am not claiming, nor ever would, that all are is "trying to tell us something." Only that it has an emotional purpose. If screensavers have no emotional purpose, nor any emotional meaning (for you), then to you they too would not be art (to you). This is what I am fundamentally saying. It's like calling a cat, a cat, and not a cat. If it's art, it's art, if it has no emotional meaning, it's nort art. If its art with no emotional meaning, it doesn't exist.
In other words, what is art, and what is not art, is entirely subjective, because different people infuse different things with emotional purpose. However, that property which makes art, art, is objective. All art is art for the same reason, but not all things are art to the same people. One man's opinion.
GTwander, I'm not sure what you are telling me with this. An emotional purpose and a definitive message are two different things. Forgive me, as I'm not trying to sound querulous, I'm genuinely interested in this.
Emotional depth and a definitive message are the same thing, for instance;
This is a robot of a Japaness businessman that crawls long the ground, it has a message behind it that means something different to anybody else. It's a deliberate point trying to be made. Some might not even see that meaning, but think it's funny nonetheless.
This is Jackson Pollack. Any emotional meaning in it is simply in your head, because the artist just focused on aesthetics (colors and shapes). Which is no different than...
Or...
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
What has this guy ever really done? no really, does he have some mad movie watching skill or what? gimme a break, I could care less what this guy thinks.
When I said i had "time", i meant virtual time, i got no RL "time" for you.
In response to Sovrath, I would simply like an example of art that is not about emotion.
I can give you one;
Screensavers.
They are just for looking at, and by all means many of them are considered art. There's no emotional link unless it's themed. Like the classic "pipes" or "flying toasters" ones, what are they trying to tell us? That our lives are constantly running through circles or flying away from us? There is no meaning to it, as far as I am concerned it's Jackson Pollack.
I consider art as anything that causes trance or contemplation. You can look at the mona lisa and and question the intentions behind it, or you can look at a laser light show and be entranced by it with no real thoughts in your head, and both are art. You can ponder the deliberate carvings on a table leg, or you can deep out on an infinite spiral lithograph. Doesn't even have to be manmade to be art, I've seen computers generates some amazing effects and designs.
Thank you GT Wander, you know what I was saying.
Pollock used emotion of a sorts while he did his painting. His process was emotionally charged but he was not trying to lead the viewer to an emotional state as his paintings are about texture and color.
I would say some Vermeer paintings aren't necessarily about about bringing you to an emotional place.
Same withSargent:
Bill Viola is about illusion and light and sound:
Newman:
Applying design, which I think is an art, is not about creating emotional responses but about allowing us to look at
ordinary objects in a new way:
And of course, one of the greats, at least to me, my Great Grandfather who worked in marble and did many of his commissions as busts for the wealthy. Up close his work is excellent and he did try to capture some his subjects but I wouldn't say they were trying to lead a person to an emotional place by their very nature. They might have an emotional impact to the people who knew the subjects but I've seen and touched some of these and they are excellent but my response is admiration for the work not a deep emotional response that transcends my state of being.
The top third from the left is actually an older couusin of mine. It is marble with a green marble base and quite large. I would say that one conveys emotion for those of us who know the story of the piece. But some of the others were commissions much like you would hire a photographer to take a family photo. The first one is actually a huge sculpture and that picture shows my great grandfather working on a large piece which is for some large building in New York.
In the end, a person might have an emotional or spiritual response but that is personal. If you go to modern art museums you will see a lot of work that is more about being clever or about juxtaposing incongrous ideas in a way to make them congruent.
Necroing this to say suck it Ebert. Smithsonian Institution is putting on a video game art exhibit. For those of you that don't know, it is the largest museum chain in the U.S.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
It's in his best interest for movies to maintain the superiority in popular opinion. It's just like when they said the "horseless carrage" (car) would never catch on.
Comments
I saw a friend playing this one day and borrowed both his ps2 and the game. Played through it in a day then went back and beat it again the next day. Absolutely gorgeous game!
Now you're making a logical fallacy, a sort of reverse appeal to popularity. The Mona Lisa recieves millions of visitors a year and is one of the most famous works of art, is it not art because it is popular? Hamlet gets performed all the time and is probably one of the most widely viewed plays ever, is it not art?
But the problem is, as the title of the column suggest he "sorta" back off.
The thing the Ebert has missed entirely is a cliche. "Art is in the eye of the beholder" It's that *HE* refuses to acknowledge them as art. It doesn't mean that video games CAN'T be, and it doesn't mean that they aren't to some people. It means he's a pretentious closed minded jackass who got bad press and sorta had to do it because his publishers told him to.
It's like When Steven Spilberg said that Video games will never be as good as movies, because Video Games can't make you cry, or angry or take sides.
CLEARLY, he's never played and of the games in the FFVII series, and again point proven, he's talking out of his arse.
Power corrupts, and popularity makes you stupid. He's great for movie reviews if your in your 70's. Because that's how he rates them. Like a stupid pig headed old coot who's lost touch with reality.
Ebert, your half-assed "retraction" gets a great big thumbs down.
(removes suggestion of what orfice Ebert should remove his thumb)
What is, and is not art is strictly debatable. it depends on the person in question. Mona Lisa.. it's a piece of art, but so is the drawing my 1st grader brings home from school.
Don't think I'll even bother to read the article.
Art is simply, and irrefutably, any created medium that evokes an emotion or passion in people, whether it be the artist, or the public.
That's it. Full stop.
I don't really care what another person thinks "art" is and isn't, any more than I care what another persons opinion about anything is. Just because someone gets paid for their opinion or is solicited in some "official" way for their opinion, doesn't make their opinion worth more than anyone else's or "right" and everyone else's "wrong". The only opinion that matters to anyone, or should, is their own. Think for yourselves, don't be sheep...
-------------------------
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P.Lovecraft, "From Beyond"
Member Since March 2004
Ebert basically said something out of ignorance and the internet world bit his head off for it. Which he deserved completely. If you think about it, if I never saw a particular movie, but went off on how bad the movie is, how bad the directing is, etc I'd be pretty much talking outta my a**.
Ebert is "old school" in that he doesn't understand that video games are a new form of media that is more than just button mashing to blow up pixels. Games such as Mass Effect, Heavy Rain and Shadow of the Colossus are just some examples where the storytelling was done 1st, then the gameplay 2nd.
I bet if he actually sat down and watched someone play, say Mass Effect, he'd be pleasantly surprised by the story and would (grudgingly) rethink his position on games and art.
Movies: Virtual creations of someone else's fantasy in a flat, one dimensional plane that allows only vicarious observation. The storyline is fixed and (except for being resurrected for the milking of tired sequels or remakes that will be constantly compared to the "original") there is no growth or expansion of that creation during the life of said movie.
Video games: Virtual creations of someone else's fantasy in a mutlidimensional aspect that allows the observer to experience the content for themselves, in their own way, at their own pace, and very often with varying results.
MMO video games: Virtual creations of someone else's fantasy in an almost living, breathing experience that creates an interactive "community", and in the case of some (like City of Heroes/Villains for example) allows the individual the ability to create their own unique characters, write elaborate back stories, create their own content, influence the direction the game takes by making choices in their play, and definitely vary the results.
Now, as an amateur but very prolific writer, I can tell you that it takes much more talent to write running, interactive stories that change and allow for growth than it does to write a single story that is then set in stone. To say nothing of the talented graphics artists that designe the virtual 'world' in video game, the coders, the folks that write the dialog (script) for the NPCs, etc. The talent and creativity that goes in to making a good video game is every bit as tasking as making a movie, especially in recent times since Hollywood iseems to be now morphing into "CG iz the r0ckz0r" mode where movies are just video games you can look at but not play.
Methinks Mr. Ebert somehow has a personally soured opinion of video games and was reflecting that rather than any relevent information in his "review". It's *my* .01 opinion that opinions are like .... well you know how the saying goes... Personally? I hate movies. They aren't interactive enough to hold my attention. But that's just my personal taste and I don't go around spewing that like it's some kind of gospel. Hopefully Mr. Ebert will learn a lesson from this spectacular example of how to plant his foot squarely in his mouth.
Ebert's still around?
Movie critics are still around?
Can someone tell me why I should care?
Why am I writing in increasingly longer sentences?
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
Who cares what that cardiac arrest-in-waiting has to say about ANYTHING? He even sucks reviewing films, his chosen profession.
He who can't, teaches. He who can't teach, becomes a critic.
Ebert: Decreasingly relevant uber liberal who holds party-goers' attention with his self-important opinions while sipping a $100 glass of vodka at various Hollywood establishments. Knows nothing about video games, has never played one; only knows that he detests the younger generation and that they play video games, therefore by the transitive property of smugness he detests video games.
His relevancy is on the decline, the relevancy of video games is on the incline, the two correlate inversely and this trend will never reverse. Ebert could have stated that all video games are art, are a promising new form of it, and that he would be interested in soliciting viable examples of it from the younger generation in order to better understand them for himself. Instead, he demonstrated his lack of class, his inbred mental processes, and the emptiness of his hollowed out Hollywood mind.
Art, in my opinion, is a media which freezes an emotion (or string of emotions) in time. Anyone who believes video games do not do this for people is demonstrably wrong.
Kudos for his apology, but the fact is that such a gross error by a man with his clout demonstrates the vacuous nature of his niche "job." That such a man could be 180 degrees, 100% perfectly wrong about such a large, promising, and indeed only budding industry is so bizarre as to be almost frightening. To think how many Americans secretly waive their opinions in order to adopt his in order to avoid that troublesome thing known as critical thought... One only wonders in how many other public arenas such a gross mistake is so commonly made.
I think the article was good.
the problem here really is that art is subjective. At least he was willing to have another go at the subject and claim his weakensses as well as claim that according to his definition, video games might someday be art.
Every time I read some forum's discussion of what art is in the defense of video games, people catagorically state what they think art "is". Yet I can think of examples that are considered art that don't embody what they claim art is.
As one individual in this thread stated regarding "throwing paint on a canvas" not being art (paraphrasing) I would say he was evaluating this type of painting based on his present experience and understanding of art. He is being true to his opinion of course (nothing wrong with that) because he is being true to his perceptions and taste, but I've seen movies of people like Jackson Pollock paint, I've seen the paintings up close and I can say that it is art.
Art transcends picture perfect technique, art is about ideas but doesn't have to be about ideas. Art DOESN'T have to be about emotions per se because not every artist is creating art about emotioin. Sometimes art is soley about ideas, about manipulation of some sort of medium in order to create something that makes one pause and think or feel. Art just has to be able to make some sort of connection with the viewer.
Art is too wide, too broad to fully be catagorized. And having studied art I can say that the entirety of mankind's effort to create things that exist for the sole purpose of being experienced, viewed, listened to, felt, is so broad that people don't always have the tools to fully realize the scope fo what they are experiencing.
A perfect story is when an Uncle of mine took me to a modern dance performance. All the music that accompanied the dancers was pretty straight forward. However, there was a famous piece by Penderecki called "Threnody for the victims of hiroshima" which for some people would not be considered music. My uncle immediately stated that he hated this piece as he heard it at a concert a year earlier.
for your listening pleasure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfBVYhyXU8o
I turned to him and said "by the time the performance is over you will have fallen in love with the piece". He thought I was nuts. But sure enough, at the end of the incredibly moving and heart wrenching performance he was practically in tears. He turned to me and said "I love this piece and I don't know why".
The problem with a good amount of art or music or "whatever" is that some people want (need) to apply their preconceptions of what makes a good piece of art or music without fully understanding what the artist or composer was actually trying to create and for what purpose.
People will look at a modern painting and immediately state it's horrible. Well, if one is thinking that a painting has to be like a Sargent then one isn't going to see beyond what they know.
As for the piece, my uncle fell in love with it because without the dancers to give the music an emotional focal point, it's difficult for people not familiar with "modern" music to know what to listen for. They start trying to listen for melody when there are types of music that aren't about melody. The piece I linked is NOT about meldoy. Just like not all art is about "emotion".
With art, If one doesn't know what to look for, where to see the greatness no matter how large or small, then one will simply not see it.
Same with video games which is why Mr. Ebert had issues. But he admits it. And for me that makes his article good. part of experiencing and appreciating art is also discussing it with people. And not all people are going to agree.
I know people who hated modern art and music and as they educated themselves they came to love it.
I'm one of them as I would never have understood this piece when I was a freshman at the conservatory.
But now it's a favorite. I highly ask that you all give it a listen and put on different ears. You might discover something new. Maybe Mr. Ebert will one day put on different eyes and see beyond his current education and experiences.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Bumper sticker of the year.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
In response to Sovrath, I would simply like an example of art that is not about emotion. I'm curious as to what, to you, is artistic but void of emotional purpose. I am not claiming that such a thing does not exist (to you), but to me, it is like trying to imagine a square circle. The two ideas are in logical opposition. Some art does attempt to merge styles, to experiment, etc. Discovery is an ancient emotion, in this man's opinion, and attempting to separate it from sadness, happiness, etc. strikes me as misguided.
I listened to the piece; it is very good, and its purpose is to evoke an emotion (even to a more amplified degree than most music, in a sense). I would call the screaming strings the melody, if you choose not to call them the melody, I would call your decision arbitrary, but certainly within your right and ultimately an unimportant distinction. There are plenty of great viola parts that are beautiful and not "about the melody."
I may be correct that all art has an emotional purpose, I may not be, but in either case your right to disagree, whether it makes you incorrect or not, is still your right.
I can give you one;
Screensavers.
They are just for looking at, and by all means many of them are considered art. There's no emotional link unless it's themed. Like the classic "pipes" or "flying toasters" ones, what are they trying to tell us? That our lives are constantly running through circles or flying away from us? There is no meaning to it, as far as I am concerned it's Jackson Pollack.
I consider art as anything that causes trance or contemplation. You can look at the mona lisa and and question the intentions behind it, or you can look at a laser light show and be entranced by it with no real thoughts in your head, and both are art. You can ponder the deliberate carvings on a table leg, or you can deep out on an infinite spiral lithograph. Doesn't even have to be manmade to be art, I've seen computers generates some amazing effects and designs.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
GTwander, I'm not sure what you are telling me with this. An emotional purpose and a definitive message are two different things. Forgive me, as I'm not trying to sound querulous, I'm genuinely interested in this.
I am not claiming, nor ever would, that all are is "trying to tell us something." Only that it has an emotional purpose. If screensavers have no emotional purpose, nor any emotional meaning (for you), then to you they too would not be art (to you). This is what I am fundamentally saying. It's like calling a cat, a cat, and not a cat. If it's art, it's art, if it has no emotional meaning, it's nort art. If its art with no emotional meaning, it doesn't exist.
In other words, what is art, and what is not art, is entirely subjective, because different people infuse different things with emotional purpose. However, that property which makes art, art, is objective. All art is art for the same reason, but not all things are art to the same people. One man's opinion.
Emotional depth and a definitive message are the same thing, for instance;
This is a robot of a Japaness businessman that crawls long the ground, it has a message behind it that means something different to anybody else. It's a deliberate point trying to be made. Some might not even see that meaning, but think it's funny nonetheless.
This is Jackson Pollack. Any emotional meaning in it is simply in your head, because the artist just focused on aesthetics (colors and shapes). Which is no different than...
Or...
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Some fat guy who watches a lot of movies doesn't like video games. Oh noes. Remind me again why anyone should care?
What has this guy ever really done? no really, does he have some mad movie watching skill or what? gimme a break, I could care less what this guy thinks.
When I said i had "time", i meant virtual time, i got no RL "time" for you.
Thank you GT Wander, you know what I was saying.
Pollock used emotion of a sorts while he did his painting. His process was emotionally charged but he was not trying to lead the viewer to an emotional state as his paintings are about texture and color.
I would say some Vermeer paintings aren't necessarily about about bringing you to an emotional place.
Same withSargent:
Bill Viola is about illusion and light and sound:
Newman:
Applying design, which I think is an art, is not about creating emotional responses but about allowing us to look at
ordinary objects in a new way:
And of course, one of the greats, at least to me, my Great Grandfather who worked in marble and did many of his commissions as busts for the wealthy. Up close his work is excellent and he did try to capture some his subjects but I wouldn't say they were trying to lead a person to an emotional place by their very nature. They might have an emotional impact to the people who knew the subjects but I've seen and touched some of these and they are excellent but my response is admiration for the work not a deep emotional response that transcends my state of being.
The top third from the left is actually an older couusin of mine. It is marble with a green marble base and quite large. I would say that one conveys emotion for those of us who know the story of the piece. But some of the others were commissions much like you would hire a photographer to take a family photo. The first one is actually a huge sculpture and that picture shows my great grandfather working on a large piece which is for some large building in New York.
In the end, a person might have an emotional or spiritual response but that is personal. If you go to modern art museums you will see a lot of work that is more about being clever or about juxtaposing incongrous ideas in a way to make them congruent.
http://www.moma.org/
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Necroing this to say suck it Ebert. Smithsonian Institution is putting on a video game art exhibit. For those of you that don't know, it is the largest museum chain in the U.S.
http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
It's in his best interest for movies to maintain the superiority in popular opinion. It's just like when they said the "horseless carrage" (car) would never catch on.
Remember Old School Ultima Online