Thank you very much.
Just curious, what would you say if the paper was called "Purpose in Art"?:)
I'm also interested why this doesn't communicate the point?
In order for that logic to hold up the artwork needs to possess just one attribute: A Purpose. Everything in the world is defined by it and can truly be judged only in regards to it.
Wow, I've lurked for a long time, but you made me finally post lol. quite a few people on here have said that you need to properly format your "paper" and do actual research and analysis on the subjects you are talking about.
If English is your second language, I applaud you for learning it so well! But casual conversational vocab and formal research paper vocab is miles apart.
Right now it reads like you are just typing down what is popping into your head. Maybe if we were both sitting in a bar after we both had a few pints, it may make flow better? lol
You need to study art, and take some basic courses on writing and formatting. You are writing opinion piece on how to judge art? Would you look at World of Tanks and consider it ART on the same level as ICO? or Mass Effect?
It's a great discussion, but you seem to be too dismissive of the feedback you are getting here. There are many fundamental flaws with your first post, that i think for many people it would take too long to dissect.. it almost needs a complete re write.
It strange how some people here assume it is supposed to be a formal research paper. In fact it started from sitting in a bar with a friend and that is exactly what it's supposed to be. With every single write up I do I try to keep it casual. 'cause it's for people, not for scientists.
It's a great discussion, but you seem to be too dismissive of the feedback you are getting here
That's the last thing I want to be, mate. But you don't listen to people just because they told you so. You look for a rational seed in there and if you don't see one you ask people for clarification. If there so many fundamental flaws with the paper then why we still haven't heard a better argument then:
Art is a perforamnce which is never the same twice. Just because the russion painter performed the perfamnce multiple times does not mean that every atom is in the same place nor does it mean that each peace does not have its own uniqu neuonsies.
Who are you to judges an abstracts painters art's purpose? It's the purest form of expression possible! You cannot judge that. You can give your opinion, but everyone has opinions. It's not in a commercial space. You move that art into a commercial space, where it has a commercial purpose, THEN it can be judged by the target consumers and the client.
You realize all thoes artists(da Vinchi, Bosch, Rembrandt, Zorn...) were COMMERICAL artists? usually paid by indivduals or the CHURCH to paint something speciifc, that had a speciifc purpose. Portraits, biblical scenes, ect.
They were the epitomy of commercial art/design...
you are trying to impose a commercial workflow and critique onto 99% of all Art.
And I have a few billion people and couple of thousands years of art history that disagree with that.
I stated on multiple occasions that if self expression is the only purpose then no objective critique is applicable.
But there's more to some abstract art.
I got some complaints about the structure and not going into the pipeline overview. And that is totally my fault. Because I somehow led people to believe that this paper is something that it is not. Maybe because of english being my third language, but I don't know other word for casual opinion write up other then a "paper". I would appreciate if you could advise a better one. Mostly it talks about how a clear vision of purpose in art could help you out. So I've also renamed the paper to "Purpose In Art" to confuse people less.
The original thread title was really off and I'm thankful for that and I got it fixed.
Also Albertos' comment was actually quite useful. I didn't immediately see that, 'cause I thought he saw something that wasn't there, but the sentence itself when viewed out of context was really ludicrous and I got it fixed too. So thank you very much Alberto.
I love to take criticism and that's what I'm here for. And if no one argues with what you write then you've probably written something everyone already knows.
You need to study art, and take some basic courses on writing and formatting. You are writing opinion piece on how to judge art? Would you look at World of Tanks and consider it ART on the same level as ICO? or Mass Effect?
Now that is really demeaning and it's not the first time it's practiced in this thread.
When I have a discussion with someone I have enough respect to judge people only on the merit of their arguments.
I don't care how you look smell, if you're a senior or a student, a hobbyist or an art director as long as what you say makes sense.
I don't go in here asking how many lectures on game art you've given, how many published papers do you have and if you've ever been asked to lecture at art universities, and I don't dismiss your arguments based on the fact that you haven't. Since it has nothing to with the subject at at hand.
So I'd very thankful if you'd do me the same courtesy.
Because that's how polite adults have an educated discussion.
You either bring your arguments or go home.
Hey D1ver I apreciete the effort your making but I think your point may be getting lost in your efforts to defend yourself and respond thoughtfully to every comment being made.
I think what you are trying to say, and I am completely open to the possibility I am completely missing the mark, is:
Art SHOULD, and historicly DOES, always have a purpose and as a result always has a metric (way of measuring) a succefull execuation. Somthing that can not be judged in some way objectivly is nothing, and as a result MUST contain a purpose and be ultimatly objectivly judged within that context. Which does not mean art can not be percived subjectivly, just simply that ultimatly in order to make sense of it we must percive it objectivly.
I am not saying that I fully agree with the above statement nor will I assume that is the point you are trying to make. I am really intresated to underrstand what is motiviating your discussion. I think I have a good idea but to facility further conversation I would ask that you condencce your point as much as possible into a concise satement.
Then maybe we can start fresh and I can clarify and relate what I have already said.
Art SHOULD, and historicly DOES, always have a purpose and as a result always has a metric (way of measuring) a succefull execuation. Somthing that can not be judged in some way objectivly is nothing, and as a result MUST contain a purpose and be ultimatly objectivly judged within that context. Which does not mean art can not be percived subjectivly, just simply that ultimatly in order to make sense of it we must percive it objectivly.
I think these 3 sentences is far more concise and to the point than your first post. This is basically the start of a huge paper, delving into historical and modern art, trying to quantify this hypothesis. Why is it correct, why might it be wrong? What historical examples can you give in trying to establish contextual purpose? How can this cross over to Games?
I wasn't bringing up world of tanks as a jab at you, I was trying to get your view. If you consider that AND Ico "art", can you judge one against the other, or do you have to only judge the each art within its own purpose? You mentioned not all games need art bibles. All AAA games need art bibles. Browser and casual games MAY not, but they would still be better if they did. This statement made me curious of your background. A person artistic background has TOTAL relevance over their public opinions. If someone states certain things, as industry professionals, it calls into question why the are defending certain point of views so strongly.
SO a discussion between Ico and World of Tanks, has complete relevance to your post. Ico had an art bible, word of tanks didn't. what effect did that have in the effectiveness of the "art"? Where would TF2 be if it didn't have an art bible? Acr0 linked to a video that shows what would of happened. Game Art Bibles have a huge impact on criticism of art in games and how to give proper feedback within the objective of the game. Not talking about it is a big hole in your research
You are comparing your experiences in the industry to a historical art background and other industry standards in production. If you cant effectively and impartially compare the validity of your own personal art, how can you impose your thoughts onto other art?
Art SHOULD, and historicly DOES, always have a purpose and as a result always has a metric (way of measuring) a succefull execuation. Somthing that can not be judged in some way objectivly is nothing, and as a result MUST contain a purpose and be ultimatly objectivly judged within that context. Which does not mean art can not be percived subjectivly, just simply that ultimatly in order to make sense of it we must percive it objectivly.
I would argue with me myself if this is what I thought I meant. But I don't remember ever saying something should possess a purpose. The paper always uses such words as "majority" and "almost everything". Especially this:
Somthing that can not be judged in some way objectivly is nothing
where does this come from?
There's only one central point, that I keep repeating:
If art has a purpose behind it, it can be objectively critiqued in regards to it.
Nothing has to have a purpose. Everything can have pure self expression as a purpose, which makes objective critique possible only if your are the author yourself.
That's it. Nothing more to it. The paper didn't claim nothing more. And it's not the first time I repeat it.
I said that almost everything has a purpose because, as I outlined previously what humanity considers art, it was obvious that majority of it relies on thorough planning, preproduction and skill. And even abstract art sometimes has more to it then just self expression.
I don't want to doubt abstract art or claim it to be inferior or superior to any other kind of art. That's not what the paper is. It is definitely art and it has it's place in the hearts of people.
This is basically the start of a huge paper, delving into historical and modern art, trying to quantify this hypothesis. Why is it correct, why might it be wrong? What historical examples can you give in trying to establish contextual purpose? How can this cross over to Games?
You are comparing your experiences in the industry to a historical art background and other industry standards in production. If you cant effectively and impartially compare the validity of your own personal art, how can you impose your thoughts onto other art?
You overcomplicate things too much, in my opinion. I see no reason for all of this. I don't compare my nothing to nothing. It has nothing to do with where I or you come from and I strongly discourage people from thinking that way.
I put forward a statement that I find logical. Consider it an axiom if you will.
You read, you agree - it remains true. You disagree, you prove it wrong - I take it off. You can't ever really say that you checked your logics with all the knowledge in the world. A million historical examples won't make it right if there'd be just one to prove it wrong. So it all just makes sense until someone proves you wrong.
And then I show only how this statement was applicable in my experience. The things I did not fully knowing why. As an advice of how you can be more conscious and productive.
Replies
Just curious, what would you say if the paper was called "Purpose in Art"?:)
I'm also interested why this doesn't communicate the point?
If English is your second language, I applaud you for learning it so well! But casual conversational vocab and formal research paper vocab is miles apart.
Right now it reads like you are just typing down what is popping into your head. Maybe if we were both sitting in a bar after we both had a few pints, it may make flow better? lol
You need to study art, and take some basic courses on writing and formatting. You are writing opinion piece on how to judge art? Would you look at World of Tanks and consider it ART on the same level as ICO? or Mass Effect?
It's a great discussion, but you seem to be too dismissive of the feedback you are getting here. There are many fundamental flaws with your first post, that i think for many people it would take too long to dissect.. it almost needs a complete re write.
It strange how some people here assume it is supposed to be a formal research paper. In fact it started from sitting in a bar with a friend and that is exactly what it's supposed to be. With every single write up I do I try to keep it casual. 'cause it's for people, not for scientists.
That's the last thing I want to be, mate. But you don't listen to people just because they told you so. You look for a rational seed in there and if you don't see one you ask people for clarification. If there so many fundamental flaws with the paper then why we still haven't heard a better argument then:
And I have a few billion people and couple of thousands years of art history that disagree with that.
I stated on multiple occasions that if self expression is the only purpose then no objective critique is applicable.
But there's more to some abstract art.
I got some complaints about the structure and not going into the pipeline overview. And that is totally my fault. Because I somehow led people to believe that this paper is something that it is not. Maybe because of english being my third language, but I don't know other word for casual opinion write up other then a "paper". I would appreciate if you could advise a better one. Mostly it talks about how a clear vision of purpose in art could help you out. So I've also renamed the paper to "Purpose In Art" to confuse people less.
The original thread title was really off and I'm thankful for that and I got it fixed.
Also Albertos' comment was actually quite useful. I didn't immediately see that, 'cause I thought he saw something that wasn't there, but the sentence itself when viewed out of context was really ludicrous and I got it fixed too. So thank you very much Alberto.
I love to take criticism and that's what I'm here for. And if no one argues with what you write then you've probably written something everyone already knows.
Now that is really demeaning and it's not the first time it's practiced in this thread.
When I have a discussion with someone I have enough respect to judge people only on the merit of their arguments.
I don't care how you look smell, if you're a senior or a student, a hobbyist or an art director as long as what you say makes sense.
I don't go in here asking how many lectures on game art you've given, how many published papers do you have and if you've ever been asked to lecture at art universities, and I don't dismiss your arguments based on the fact that you haven't. Since it has nothing to with the subject at at hand.
So I'd very thankful if you'd do me the same courtesy.
Because that's how polite adults have an educated discussion.
You either bring your arguments or go home.
I think what you are trying to say, and I am completely open to the possibility I am completely missing the mark, is:
Art SHOULD, and historicly DOES, always have a purpose and as a result always has a metric (way of measuring) a succefull execuation. Somthing that can not be judged in some way objectivly is nothing, and as a result MUST contain a purpose and be ultimatly objectivly judged within that context. Which does not mean art can not be percived subjectivly, just simply that ultimatly in order to make sense of it we must percive it objectivly.
I am not saying that I fully agree with the above statement nor will I assume that is the point you are trying to make. I am really intresated to underrstand what is motiviating your discussion. I think I have a good idea but to facility further conversation I would ask that you condencce your point as much as possible into a concise satement.
Then maybe we can start fresh and I can clarify and relate what I have already said.
I think these 3 sentences is far more concise and to the point than your first post. This is basically the start of a huge paper, delving into historical and modern art, trying to quantify this hypothesis. Why is it correct, why might it be wrong? What historical examples can you give in trying to establish contextual purpose? How can this cross over to Games?
I wasn't bringing up world of tanks as a jab at you, I was trying to get your view. If you consider that AND Ico "art", can you judge one against the other, or do you have to only judge the each art within its own purpose? You mentioned not all games need art bibles. All AAA games need art bibles. Browser and casual games MAY not, but they would still be better if they did. This statement made me curious of your background. A person artistic background has TOTAL relevance over their public opinions. If someone states certain things, as industry professionals, it calls into question why the are defending certain point of views so strongly.
SO a discussion between Ico and World of Tanks, has complete relevance to your post. Ico had an art bible, word of tanks didn't. what effect did that have in the effectiveness of the "art"? Where would TF2 be if it didn't have an art bible? Acr0 linked to a video that shows what would of happened. Game Art Bibles have a huge impact on criticism of art in games and how to give proper feedback within the objective of the game. Not talking about it is a big hole in your research
You are comparing your experiences in the industry to a historical art background and other industry standards in production. If you cant effectively and impartially compare the validity of your own personal art, how can you impose your thoughts onto other art?
I would argue with me myself if this is what I thought I meant. But I don't remember ever saying something should possess a purpose. The paper always uses such words as "majority" and "almost everything". Especially this:
where does this come from?
There's only one central point, that I keep repeating:
Nothing has to have a purpose. Everything can have pure self expression as a purpose, which makes objective critique possible only if your are the author yourself.
That's it. Nothing more to it. The paper didn't claim nothing more. And it's not the first time I repeat it.
I said that almost everything has a purpose because, as I outlined previously what humanity considers art, it was obvious that majority of it relies on thorough planning, preproduction and skill. And even abstract art sometimes has more to it then just self expression.
I don't want to doubt abstract art or claim it to be inferior or superior to any other kind of art. That's not what the paper is. It is definitely art and it has it's place in the hearts of people.
You overcomplicate things too much, in my opinion. I see no reason for all of this. I don't compare my nothing to nothing. It has nothing to do with where I or you come from and I strongly discourage people from thinking that way.
I put forward a statement that I find logical. Consider it an axiom if you will.
You read, you agree - it remains true. You disagree, you prove it wrong - I take it off. You can't ever really say that you checked your logics with all the knowledge in the world. A million historical examples won't make it right if there'd be just one to prove it wrong. So it all just makes sense until someone proves you wrong.
And then I show only how this statement was applicable in my experience. The things I did not fully knowing why. As an advice of how you can be more conscious and productive.