BF2S Forums [Minecraft]

symbolic is the key part of that above-definition. video-games are not symbolic - no deeper transcendent meaning is attached to their content. the venus de milo symbolises and signifies something; a pretty game-world in crysis or a suspense-driven plot doesn't. games have no symbolic significance because they're just literal pieces of digestible entertainment-- there's nothing deeper to dwell upon or ponder, much less to appreciate and be 'enriched' by (which, at a basic level, all art aims to do, somehow). i think it's an interesting discussion to have, and one that is rewarding to have quite often as the medium changes and evolves. video-gaming is still very new (people were saying that photography and the cinema were not art-forms upon their inception, i suppose we should all remember that). but i do not think, to any standard working definition/model of 'art', that video-games are quite there yet. whether that's technology or because of the state of the economy that underpins video-gaming (for art to flourish there needs to be a rich system of patronage that doesn't worry about cost incentives and marketing like the current gaming industry does - it's all essentially born as a bonus luxury indulgence).

and pretentious? no. people often call things pretentious when they don't understand it. it's not pretentious. some would call the storyline of final fantasy pretentious because it's over-wrought, contrived, poorly written and given to dramatic cliche; it's given to pretention. how is shakespeare pretentious? he's one of the most sincere wordsmiths in the english language's history. and hold off with the assumptions that i'm some sort of spoilsport no-fun art critic. i've played video-games way more and to a way more 'serious' and hardcore degree than you even have... i'm hardly turning my nose up snobbishly because they don't meet my artistic 'standard'. i just don't think it's right to class video-games as art right now; it's an opinion, i'm not dismissing the industry or game design at all. i don't even wish for it to be art: video-gaming is part of the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, not the spheres of ART. and why would it want to be? art is often little fun, lets face it.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-05-17 18:58:20)

intelligent as ever.

they each represent a high-expression of an entire medium (sculpture, visual art, literature)... so referencing them seems to make a lot of sense when attacking the video-game concept as a 'medium'. what's the equivalent to a rodin? who's the picasso of video-games? has there even been a story-driven game of the complexity and intricacy of something like tolkien's lord of the rings? video-games are all surface and no symbolism; all the lights and tricks but no real substance. it's entertainment and it's easy and it's fun. half life and deus ex never made me ponder anything away from the keyboard; creating elaborate buildings in the sims never made me consider the aesthetics of architecture; creating a fancy pad in minecraft doesn't have the finesse and transcendence of being a sculptor. how am i pretentious by relying upon these examples? they're the obvious go-to's if you want to qualify what is 'art' and what isn't. it seems you're just relying upon the word in the usual way of "deployed as a defense against something one doesn't understand". that's so trite.

i fail to see how sinking 125 hours into a quidditch pitch is suddenly going to categorically turn my primitive creation into a michaelangelo. it just doesn't have anything to it other than perseverence and an initial 'oh cool!' factor. once you've seen it (even in someone else's youtube channel) that's kind of... it. the full significance of it is that it's impressive because it took a shitload of time, effort and patience. those are hardly the rare ingredients required for a piece of art.

my point was that it doesn't even have the potential to cross the boundary between pissing-away-time entertainment and a serious artistic expression. of course my figures and statistics are exaggerating: i'm trying to demonstrate the point that, no matter how much time/effort you spend, it will never rise from the ranks of 'entertainment' to an 'artform'. that's all i originally argued against. fflink claimed that the extreme dedication and obsessive compulsive flair of the first video made it an 'art'. well not really. just a guy that spent way too much fucking time doing something that anyone could do if they had the "will and the idea" themselves. could you really say the same about a "will and an idea" being the sole requisites for creating a masterpiece? there's a certain 'x factor'... that video-games are missing.

too long did not read.

YoU jUsT dOn'T uNdErStAnD iT@!!@1

where have i said you don't understand it? i said your use of the word pretentious was trite and teenage. the 1x1 block is entirely meaningless; it has NO SYMBOLIC MEANING. that's like saying "i don't see how a dot on a page is not a work of art". there's a huge gulf between a dot used as an ellipsis at the end of a sentence and a pointillist masterpiece. are you seriously being really stupid on purpose? it's like saying anyone that can use a letter from the roman alphabet, a basic unit of construction of the english language, is therefore penning 'art'. that makes no sense whatsoever.

Uzique wrote:

Roger Lesboules wrote:

I dont see how 1x1 block could not be art. Look at Picaso work...most of it could come sraight from minecraft...for me Picaso work is ugly, yet its art...so i dont see how someone could not make art even tho the medium (Minecraft) is somewhat cheap.

and are you seriously drawing a line between a cubist piece of art and a house... made of cubes? hahaha.

I'm not talking about your average 10x10x5 shelter for the night. Im talking about some things that actually take some dedication and that manage to look decent considering the medium. Dont tell me some construction in minecraft are not great, ive seen some really good thing made on it!

Picaso...sorry man, that look like easy shit someone could do drunk...The Mona Lisa, now your talking about Art.

So going by your comments recently on this thread, I'm going to play troll's advocate and jump to the conclusion that if it's either entertaining or impressive, it isn't art.

Also, by likening Minecraft to paint and an easel, you're acknowledging at least that it is a valid medium, if only with voxels?

Also:

Uzique wrote:

where have i said you don't understand it?

Uzique wrote:

people often call things pretentious when they don't understand it.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

So going by your comments recently on this thread, I'm going to play troll's advocate and jump to the conclusion that if it's either entertaining or impressive, it isn't art.

Also, by likening Minecraft to paint and an easel, you're acknowledging at least that it is a valid medium, if only with voxels?

Also:

Uzique wrote:

where have i said you don't understand it?

Uzique wrote:

people often call things pretentious when they don't understand it.

it's a medium with no symbolic currency. paint is a medium because it can represent something literal and something figurative. what can a voxel do? build a virtual reality town? ok. i'm failing to see the aesthetic grandeur, somehow. and entertainment is the philosophical category below art... so why are you playing trolls advocate? which part of art history do you want to rely on to confirm the entertainment/art distinction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Judgment 1790 early enough to predate me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Distinction something a little more contemporary?

lol lesboules

not only town can be made it seem!