On 1/17/2012 9:50 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
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.
interesting thoughts, albeit admittedly a bit outside my area...
I actually liked the Transformers movies (except: too much humans, not
enough robot-on-robot battle), and admittedly sort of like Transformers
in general (have watched through most of the shows, ...), and have taken
some influence from the franchise (although, I also have many other
things I liked / "borrowed ideas from": Ghost In The Shell, Macross,
Zone Of The Enders, Gundam, ...).
in general, it was still better in many regards than "Cowboys and
Aliens", which managed to give both me and my brother a sense of
"what?... this is stupid...".
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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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
