There are different kinds of art, just like there are different qualities of everything.
I think you may find on closer inspection that there can be things that are intrinsically beautiful, or intrinsically awe-inspiring to humanity as a whole. I don't think that's silly, and I'm perfectly ok with the fact that you might think it's silly, but I feel the need to let you (all) know this. I'm told, for example, that the Sistine Chapel is one such thing... or the great canyon. I know of a few things in Sydney where I live that seem to have a common effect on most people... (some of the churches, or architecture we have here, for example - even though we have such a young culture, the effect is still there). It doesn't strike me as being that there is anything different in computer art or architecture than other art or architecture in this regard. While I agree that computer game art doesn't *have* to be awe-inspiring (in an absolute, non-relative, non-subjective, objective sense) in order to be computer game art, or qualify as being "of a standard" which is enough to be acceptable to most people as being computer game art (ie qualifying for the title), I think it nonetheless matters in a general sense to aspire to such a high standard of quality in everything, irrespective of whether it's computer game art, or "ordinary" art, architecture of buildings, or architecture of information systems. This is, after all, why we attempt anything at its root, isn't it? or is it simply to satisfy some form of mediocre whimsy? or to "get by" so to speak? Contrast things that last with things that don't last. I personally don't hold that "good graphics" from a technical standpoint are inherently or necessarily awe-inspiring, because usually the context of technology yields little meaning compared to the context of culture, but "good graphics" from a technical standpoint are able, obviously, to transmit a message that *is* awe-inspiring (ie the media / conduit / accessibility channel). In other words, the technology of quadrupling memory capacity and processor speed provides little impact on the kinds of meanings I can make from a social & cultural perspective. If I print my book on a different type of paper, it doesn't change the message of the book, but rather perhaps the accessibility of it. That is, except, perhaps for the cases such as the recently "new" Superman movie, where providing a "similar" visual and feel context to the previous movies provides more meaning to the message BECAUSE of current fashions of style in direction/production in movies. It actually adds to the world and meaning in this case - but this is a case of feedback, which IMHO is an exception to prove the rule. This segues rather neatly to the question of content being contained within a context that simultaneously holds it and gives it meaning. The semantic content and context in contrast to those the "content" and "context" of the accessibility / conduit / media. This brings the question "Where is the semantic value held?" to bear on the situation. If the point (ie meaning) of a game and therefore its visual design is not to impact the senses in some form of objective visual art, but rather to provide a conduit of accessibility to impact the mind in some form of objective mental art, then I would agree that visual art need not be very "impressive" or "awe inspiring" in order to achieve its aim. Perhaps, however, the entire point of the game is simply to "make money" in which case none of my comments hold value. :) Also, a question that springs to mind is... do you find any of the popularly "impressive" movies or graphics of the current day awe-inspiring? I find them quite cool... impressive in a technical sense, but not in a long-lasting impacting sense... obviously ( - to me, at least, and my friends - ) technology is inherently and constantly subject to fashion and incredibly time-sensitive, therefore there is little meaning contained in the special effects or technological advancements that are possible. I think we long ago passed the point where technology allowed us to build anything we can fantasise about... for example, I find inception, or the godfather, or even games like wizard of wor to be far more entertaining from the point of view of what they do to me in totality, than I do with something like transformers 2, for example. This is a very interesting conversation, so I'd like to thank you, David, for your participation in it. :) Julian On 18/01/2012, at 3:06 PM, David Barbour wrote: > I understand `awe inspiring` to be subjective - hence, subject to changes in > the observer, such as ephemeral mood or loss of a sensory organ. You seem to > treat it as a heuristic or statistical property - i.e. it's awe inspiring > because people have felt awe in the past and you expect people to feel awe in > the future. > > I suppose I can understand either position. > > But it's silly to say that awe inspiring is just a property of the object - > i.e. you say "without something being awe-inspiring, there's no possibility > for awe to be inspired when the conditions are right." That's just too > egocentric. People find all sorts of funny things awe-inspiring. Like > football. Or grocery bags in the wind. > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKg6OJ6zhhc) > > Regards, > > Dave > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Julian Leviston <[email protected]> wrote: > No, I find it IS awe-inspiring all of the time. > > I may not necessarily be full of awe or actually be inspired at any > particular one time... however, this doesn't change the fact that certain > things or people themselves are awe-inspiring all of the time to me. In other > words, if I'm in a bad mood, this is in itself not necessarily any fault, > consequence or relationship of or to the fact that Alan Kay is still an > amazing person. Even in my bad mood, I recognise he is awe-inspiring. > > Guess this depends what you mean by awe-inspiring (as I originally said). If > you re-read the original context, he was talking about inherent breathtaking > beauty being required or not. I think to make something inherently beautiful > or to construct it with detailed thought is actually very worthwhile. Without > something being awe-inspiring, there's no possibility for awe to be inspired > when the conditions are right. When something is awe inspiring, it doesn't > necessarily always follow that awe will be inspired, though ;-) > > :P > > Julian > > On 18/01/2012, at 11:34 AM, David Barbour wrote: > >> You don't find it awe-inspiring "all the time". (If you do, you're certainly >> dysfunctional.) But I readily believe you still find it inspiring "some of >> the time" - and that is enough to be an enriching experience. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
