Hi there! It appears you are attempting to use Photoshop. If this is a picture of...
- a cat, would you would like to use the text feature?
- your ex-girlfriend, would you like to copy and paste a "special" picture?
- yourself at an odd angle, would you like to apply three filters for an "artsy" effect?
But that's the thing. For a lot of people, possessing an all powerful avatar kind of wipes the mind blank as to how they got there. Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but I feel like this is a cheap attempt to win over current MMO players....no risk of being banned after all.
But is the artist the one who provides the funding for the work and it's completion? Because I can assure you that there have been many, many artists throughout history with their own private benefactors. You might argue that Nintendo or Capcom are capable of dictating the content. Private benefactors have done the same, asking for specific content relevant to their particular tastes and so on. Therefore, if you would consider the private sponsor to be an artist, only then would it be possible to consider the corporate entity the artist as well. The problem here is that when it comes to creating art, many, many people are involved with many different interests. But there are actual artists, and they exist independently of private sponsors, the audience, etc.
Personally, I am unable to state whether any of the video games we interact with today would be considered high art in the future. To be dreadfully honest, I don't know. However, the majority of what Ebert states is absolute bunk. He is not merely dismissing today's video games, he is dismissing the medium entirely. That is something I have a problem with.
Yeesh, that was quite hasty of me. What I meant to have said was that Benjamin wrote the photographs/film lacked the authenticity that art before the mechanical age contained. Furthermore, what one can derive from Benjamin's article is that during the growth of photography and film, there were conflicting interests regarding the artistic value of the two mediums, and Benjamin essentially provided a work around for the debate. Benjamin most certainly applied different levels of value to the mechanical mediums. However, Benjamin brought the two new mediums into the realm of art by doing so. Overall, he allowed for the progression from one medium to the next, much as the majority of art folks today might want to rethink their current definition of art.
With regards to your own art criticism in the field, I'd have to say that I personally agree. My main point is as follows...that the society as a whole should not disregard the medium of Video Games based upon the current selection that exists within popular culture. At this point, it becomes either a matter of personal preference (as there really isn't much for arguing once a person decides what art means to them), or for a real debate, attempting to see whether each piece has added to the progression of the field (as far as I understand, this is generally what defines art).
But I most certainly appreciate you pointing out my blunder. With regards to your work, that sounds insanely interesting. I'm presently in my last year at Stevens Institute of Technology, for a bacholer's in the relatively new Art and Technology program, which is nothing of all of what it sounds. I began with an E.E. degree, and I hope that at some point (preferably soon =D ) the relationship between the two fields (argh, at least video games and art) become less of the hot button issue it is today.
You hit the nail on the head there. The idea that there is this level of interaction deemed appropriate never sat well with me. Problem is when you head into that territory, I guarantee someone is going to pull some metaphysical BS (Does art need an audience in order to be considered art? Or is it just...Art.), which of course, tends to either end the argument completely, or deviate into a place that inevitably gets nowhere. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to slam my head into a desk every time I heard that.
There are certain contemporary groups that would only consider small, non-plot oriented movies art, and anything that comes out of the cinema is just...garbage to them. The belief held there is that today's movies are created through very generic steps used to manipulate the viewer. Which somehow to them, proves mass culture to not be a part of art. Ridiculous, I know, it's like saying that a certain genre of literature can not be considered a great work of art, simply because there are so many others like it.
But believe me, debating art will bring you back and forth to topics you never even considered to be a part of the culture. Art has always been the one thing I can run to when all else fails, and I'll be damned if anyone is going to call my work "not art" because it doesn't fit into their current box. (Kinda restrictive for something that's celebrated for it's innovation, too...). But every time I've seriously been asked to define art, I leave that choice completely up to the individual. It is not my place to define what art is to them, or to even believe I could understand beyond an empathetic level.
And Katamari Damacy is totally art...to me at least. =D Royal Rainbow!
The only point I deemed even somewhat worthy from Ebert was exactly his concern over interactivity. Essentially, it's what differentiates the film medium from the video game medium. There is plenty to debate in that area, considering that this is the first medium that allows the actual audience to play a part, versus how many people participate in recreating the work (as in a play or movie).
The funny thing is, however, that a large portion of the "high art" contemporary art world is actively exploring audience interaction. The catch there is though, is that an awful lot of contemporary critics refuse to believe that anything that became a part of popular culture could no longer be considered art, as it was something else now. What else? They don't know, don't bother to know, don't care. Thus video games != art.
I actually wrote a lengthy paper for a Contemporary Art class debating whether or not video games could be considered art. The snag I ran into with my professor was pretty much the exact moot point I found Ebert stumbling on. What always got me laughing was that at some point or another in the history of art, there is a counter example for every point these contemporary critics believe prove A. is art but B. is not. Take when photography first began as a medium, for example. Walter Benjamin wrote that photographs could not be considered art, because they were reproductions of the work, and no longer had the "aura" that true art contained. But today, photographs can most certainly be considered art. This also kind of derides the argument that what exists in popular culture can not be art, because the only differentiating factor from that is the amount of people that acknowledge the work, due to mass copying. Film as well, was criticized because it incorporated new elements. Instead of just a stand still picture, there was sound, and a plot! But film today can be considered art (not to mention all of the basic elements within film can exist independently as an art form).
Basically, the argument by "true" art critics comes down to 2 points. They either refuse to acknowledge interactivity as a new element, or they believe that the video game medium is a mash-up of other art forms, but where the collected parts are not as great as the whole. Both of these arguments can be countered in the "true" art world, as I stated previously.
I do agree with you that art is a personal choice, and whatever a person chooses to consider art becomes art to themselves. But when you enter the "high" art culture, the argument becomes a whole nother ballgame, complete with flimsy logic and cloudy thoughts. At the end of my paper, I came down to these two points, disproving them (in a much more eloquent fashion however), but essentially ended on the point that ultimately, it becomes the artists' job to create something out of that medium that can be considered art by more than a few. And what happened in the end? My professor hated it. For him to even acknowledge I could be right, would essentially destroy his entire lifes' work as an artist. It would show that popular culture can produce mediums that are art worthy, and one doesn't not need to be in this exclusive circle in order to be a true artist.
But then again, those that we acknowledge today as great artists were more often than not, considered to be almost treasonous to their craft. Look at the history of Modern Art. From Manet, Van Gogh, Monet, Picasso...(it's a long list)..and I'll stop at Pollock since he springs most to mind as the most recent debate within the art world, well, every single one of them caused a great divide between "art" and "not art", but ultimately, they created the revolution that allowed art to progress.
I'm sure that to many people, emoticons display a poor reflection of the person using them in a professional setting. To others I'm sure they are downright annoying. But as numerous people have already stated, they most certainly have a purpose.
When people communicate over the web, obviously, the vast majority is conveyed through text. Emoticons easily display emotions that would otherwise typically be difficult for the average person to communicate through written word. Now, unless the vast majority of people communicating through this medium somehow manage to develop writing skills akin to those of a great author, I can only imagine that the way we interact through the web will expand on multiple platforms.
Overall, the web is still relatively new. Furthermore, the concept of form and design (in relation to the web) is even younger. I'm sure there are quite of few of us who primarily used Usenet, then moved on to the clunky, terribly formatted web sites, and so on. The use of the emoticon developed through small groups, and is still going quite strong, simply because at the current moment, there is no better way to easily display an emotion. And while some people truly disapprove of it's use, I'm quite certain that it is exactly these kinds of development that slowly inch the medium forward.
The fact that this hadn't been thrown out immediately bewilders me. Personally, I'd like to see this pass, and abused to the fullest extent. It's becoming increasingly apparent that the government is capable of doing whatever it pleases, while the people simply sit back. I mean, first off, the only permissible protest from the people is through a written letter with a deadline. This is something that will directly affect the public, not law officials. And by the way, this is a city that has over 2400 video surveillance cameras, all accessible under "certain" circumstances by those law officials. Seriously, why has it become okay for the government to record/access any type of information, but it's becoming absurd to believe the people have even a fraction of that right without their approval?
I'm sorry, but I'm really getting fed up with the amount of people that almost act as though our rights are not really rights, but instead wonderful (but not necessary) gifts from those in power. I would much rather see the government continue to recklessly widen the gap between themselves and the public until the inevitable day that they've gone too far, and people are willing to give up their comfortable lifestyles to fight for the ideas that founded this country.
To those that believe this is a good thing/okay thing/you don't really care, please, get your head out of the sand. There is entirely too much room for abuse. There is a similar law regarding camera usage in the NY/NJ PATH train stations. I can tell you firsthand that I've been harrassed more than once for simply having a camera in my possession, when the rules pertain only to the act of taking pictures.
And when I was young, sugar was essentially the only thing I would enjoy eating. As I grew older, I began to appreciate different food groups, and then different cuisines. And with the vast amount of choice presented to me over the years, I have managed to find a variety of dishes I would consider to be my absolute favorite.
Obviously, I can't say that I've been using a computer as long as I've been eating, but I can at least further appreciate the value of placing my time into searching for a different flavored OS. Learning an OS is a huge time investment, to get to the point where a person feels absolutely comforted in their environment. It's much easier to narrow choices when the rewards are immediate and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi there! It appears you are attempting to use Photoshop. If this is a picture of...
- a cat, would you would like to use the text feature?
- your ex-girlfriend, would you like to copy and paste a "special" picture?
- yourself at an odd angle, would you like to apply three filters for an "artsy" effect?
hm. sanctioned gold buying.
But that's the thing. For a lot of people, possessing an all powerful avatar kind of wipes the mind blank as to how they got there. Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but I feel like this is a cheap attempt to win over current MMO players....no risk of being banned after all.
But is the artist the one who provides the funding for the work and it's completion? Because I can assure you that there have been many, many artists throughout history with their own private benefactors. You might argue that Nintendo or Capcom are capable of dictating the content. Private benefactors have done the same, asking for specific content relevant to their particular tastes and so on. Therefore, if you would consider the private sponsor to be an artist, only then would it be possible to consider the corporate entity the artist as well. The problem here is that when it comes to creating art, many, many people are involved with many different interests. But there are actual artists, and they exist independently of private sponsors, the audience, etc.
Personally, I am unable to state whether any of the video games we interact with today would be considered high art in the future. To be dreadfully honest, I don't know. However, the majority of what Ebert states is absolute bunk. He is not merely dismissing today's video games, he is dismissing the medium entirely. That is something I have a problem with.
Yeesh, that was quite hasty of me. What I meant to have said was that Benjamin wrote the photographs/film lacked the authenticity that art before the mechanical age contained. Furthermore, what one can derive from Benjamin's article is that during the growth of photography and film, there were conflicting interests regarding the artistic value of the two mediums, and Benjamin essentially provided a work around for the debate. Benjamin most certainly applied different levels of value to the mechanical mediums. However, Benjamin brought the two new mediums into the realm of art by doing so. Overall, he allowed for the progression from one medium to the next, much as the majority of art folks today might want to rethink their current definition of art.
With regards to your own art criticism in the field, I'd have to say that I personally agree. My main point is as follows...that the society as a whole should not disregard the medium of Video Games based upon the current selection that exists within popular culture. At this point, it becomes either a matter of personal preference (as there really isn't much for arguing once a person decides what art means to them), or for a real debate, attempting to see whether each piece has added to the progression of the field (as far as I understand, this is generally what defines art).
But I most certainly appreciate you pointing out my blunder. With regards to your work, that sounds insanely interesting. I'm presently in my last year at Stevens Institute of Technology, for a bacholer's in the relatively new Art and Technology program, which is nothing of all of what it sounds. I began with an E.E. degree, and I hope that at some point (preferably soon =D ) the relationship between the two fields (argh, at least video games and art) become less of the hot button issue it is today.
You hit the nail on the head there. The idea that there is this level of interaction deemed appropriate never sat well with me. Problem is when you head into that territory, I guarantee someone is going to pull some metaphysical BS (Does art need an audience in order to be considered art? Or is it just...Art.), which of course, tends to either end the argument completely, or deviate into a place that inevitably gets nowhere. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to slam my head into a desk every time I heard that.
There are certain contemporary groups that would only consider small, non-plot oriented movies art, and anything that comes out of the cinema is just...garbage to them. The belief held there is that today's movies are created through very generic steps used to manipulate the viewer. Which somehow to them, proves mass culture to not be a part of art. Ridiculous, I know, it's like saying that a certain genre of literature can not be considered a great work of art, simply because there are so many others like it.
But believe me, debating art will bring you back and forth to topics you never even considered to be a part of the culture. Art has always been the one thing I can run to when all else fails, and I'll be damned if anyone is going to call my work "not art" because it doesn't fit into their current box. (Kinda restrictive for something that's celebrated for it's innovation, too...). But every time I've seriously been asked to define art, I leave that choice completely up to the individual. It is not my place to define what art is to them, or to even believe I could understand beyond an empathetic level.
And Katamari Damacy is totally art...to me at least. =D Royal Rainbow!
where the collected parts are not as great as the whole
other way around. =D
The only point I deemed even somewhat worthy from Ebert was exactly his concern over interactivity. Essentially, it's what differentiates the film medium from the video game medium. There is plenty to debate in that area, considering that this is the first medium that allows the actual audience to play a part, versus how many people participate in recreating the work (as in a play or movie).
The funny thing is, however, that a large portion of the "high art" contemporary art world is actively exploring audience interaction. The catch there is though, is that an awful lot of contemporary critics refuse to believe that anything that became a part of popular culture could no longer be considered art, as it was something else now. What else? They don't know, don't bother to know, don't care. Thus video games != art.
I actually wrote a lengthy paper for a Contemporary Art class debating whether or not video games could be considered art. The snag I ran into with my professor was pretty much the exact moot point I found Ebert stumbling on. What always got me laughing was that at some point or another in the history of art, there is a counter example for every point these contemporary critics believe prove A. is art but B. is not. Take when photography first began as a medium, for example. Walter Benjamin wrote that photographs could not be considered art, because they were reproductions of the work, and no longer had the "aura" that true art contained. But today, photographs can most certainly be considered art. This also kind of derides the argument that what exists in popular culture can not be art, because the only differentiating factor from that is the amount of people that acknowledge the work, due to mass copying. Film as well, was criticized because it incorporated new elements. Instead of just a stand still picture, there was sound, and a plot! But film today can be considered art (not to mention all of the basic elements within film can exist independently as an art form).
Basically, the argument by "true" art critics comes down to 2 points. They either refuse to acknowledge interactivity as a new element, or they believe that the video game medium is a mash-up of other art forms, but where the collected parts are not as great as the whole. Both of these arguments can be countered in the "true" art world, as I stated previously.
I do agree with you that art is a personal choice, and whatever a person chooses to consider art becomes art to themselves. But when you enter the "high" art culture, the argument becomes a whole nother ballgame, complete with flimsy logic and cloudy thoughts. At the end of my paper, I came down to these two points, disproving them (in a much more eloquent fashion however), but essentially ended on the point that ultimately, it becomes the artists' job to create something out of that medium that can be considered art by more than a few. And what happened in the end? My professor hated it. For him to even acknowledge I could be right, would essentially destroy his entire lifes' work as an artist. It would show that popular culture can produce mediums that are art worthy, and one doesn't not need to be in this exclusive circle in order to be a true artist.
But then again, those that we acknowledge today as great artists were more often than not, considered to be almost treasonous to their craft. Look at the history of Modern Art. From Manet, Van Gogh, Monet, Picasso...(it's a long list)..and I'll stop at Pollock since he springs most to mind as the most recent debate within the art world, well, every single one of them caused a great divide between "art" and "not art", but ultimately, they created the revolution that allowed art to progress.
Will this debate please, please die? =(
I'm sure that to many people, emoticons display a poor reflection of the person using them in a professional setting. To others I'm sure they are downright annoying. But as numerous people have already stated, they most certainly have a purpose.
When people communicate over the web, obviously, the vast majority is conveyed through text. Emoticons easily display emotions that would otherwise typically be difficult for the average person to communicate through written word. Now, unless the vast majority of people communicating through this medium somehow manage to develop writing skills akin to those of a great author, I can only imagine that the way we interact through the web will expand on multiple platforms.
Overall, the web is still relatively new. Furthermore, the concept of form and design (in relation to the web) is even younger. I'm sure there are quite of few of us who primarily used Usenet, then moved on to the clunky, terribly formatted web sites, and so on. The use of the emoticon developed through small groups, and is still going quite strong, simply because at the current moment, there is no better way to easily display an emotion. And while some people truly disapprove of it's use, I'm quite certain that it is exactly these kinds of development that slowly inch the medium forward.
The fact that this hadn't been thrown out immediately bewilders me. Personally, I'd like to see this pass, and abused to the fullest extent. It's becoming increasingly apparent that the government is capable of doing whatever it pleases, while the people simply sit back. I mean, first off, the only permissible protest from the people is through a written letter with a deadline. This is something that will directly affect the public, not law officials. And by the way, this is a city that has over 2400 video surveillance cameras, all accessible under "certain" circumstances by those law officials. Seriously, why has it become okay for the government to record/access any type of information, but it's becoming absurd to believe the people have even a fraction of that right without their approval?
I'm sorry, but I'm really getting fed up with the amount of people that almost act as though our rights are not really rights, but instead wonderful (but not necessary) gifts from those in power. I would much rather see the government continue to recklessly widen the gap between themselves and the public until the inevitable day that they've gone too far, and people are willing to give up their comfortable lifestyles to fight for the ideas that founded this country.
To those that believe this is a good thing/okay thing/you don't really care, please, get your head out of the sand. There is entirely too much room for abuse. There is a similar law regarding camera usage in the NY/NJ PATH train stations. I can tell you firsthand that I've been harrassed more than once for simply having a camera in my possession, when the rules pertain only to the act of taking pictures.
Obviously, I can't say that I've been using a computer as long as I've been eating, but I can at least further appreciate the value of placing my time into searching for a different flavored OS. Learning an OS is a huge time investment, to get to the point where a person feels absolutely comforted in their environment. It's much easier to narrow choices when the rewards are immediate and simple.