No, quite the opposite. I've seen some movies made from classic literature that really touched me. Perhaps movies and theaters are also forms of art, and they do not devalue the original literature at all.Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
No, quite the opposite. I've seen some movies made from classic literature that really touched me. Perhaps movies and theaters are also forms of art, and they do not devalue the original literature at all.
No. They'll just make a sequel. Duh.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
Indeed, if they felt they could bludgeon an epic poem like Inferno, they could easily pass it along to Purgatorio, but progressing to Paradiso would contradict the meaning of the game since . . . well, why did Dante go to heaven in The Divine Comedy again? If Beatrice awaited rescue in the hell, then obviously they should have no reason to meet in heaven - perhaps a place to escape?
I think the imagery definitely attracted the gaming industry to The Divine Comedy - even the title sounds alluring - monsters like Minos, the wrathful drowning in the river Styx, speaking trees, sinners trapped under ice - it sounds unsettling enough to put into a video game, but I wonder how much of even that they retained in the making of the game. Things like The Odyssey and The Iliad, I think, have gotten too Hollywoodized to turn into a video game any time soon, especially the latter; if they did, I would just wonder if Achilles would bear any resemblance to Brad Pitt. If they could dissect The Divine Comedy, I have no doubt they could do the same to Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene, but that poem does not likely contain enough action, the same to Ovid's Metamorphoses.
What about Greco-Roman plays? Oedipus has a bit too much incest for their taste, but you never know for sure where their joysticks will lead. Perhaps Iphigenia in Taurus or Electra? What about The Æneid?
Last edited by mono; 07-16-2009 at 02:45 PM.
So, video games aren't forms of art?
I definitely don't approach them as such. Some games certainly posses artistic qualities, but works of art? No.
Are you a serious gamer? Because I'm assuming you're not, because if you were you would know that there is as much if not more art involved in games as there is in movies.
Depends on what you mean by "serious". I have an x-box 360 within eye-shot, and have been playing video-games since I was a child.
And I'm not sure serious has anything to do with it. I highly doubt a "serious gamer" or what I imagine to be a serious gamer - say someone who puts games on reserve - is interested in video-games as an art form. They're pure interactive entertainment. There's nothing wrong with that. I enjoy them, people enjoy them, but I don't think they transcend that.
I love owning noobs on Call of Duty 4. I don't criticize the artistic value of it, because there is not any. There is, however, a very large entertainment value. I enjoy that.
The salvation of the world is in man's suffering. - Faulkner
You don't see any artistic value in the extraordinary environments in Call of Duty? The lighting, the attention to detail, that has no artistic value? I often find myself just looking around and enjoying the scenery . . . maybe I'm unique in that way, but to say there is no artistic value there is incredibly narrow-minded. People have to create and build these games from their imagination, so how can there be no art involved with that? But, one may argue, that the Call of Duty series is based on real life things, whether it be current military or World War 2, and therefore no imagination is involved. I guess the same could be said about any realistic painting, then.
I will give you that most games are created with the sole purpose of entertainment (though a lot of art, especially literature, has the same goal), but to say games have no artistic value is, well, dumb. There are games now where art is even the main gola in the creation of the game. Games like Flower, Pixeljunk Eden, and Echochrome are evidence of this.
If you look around at the scenery you're shot in the face and teabagged. There is of course art in the game, there is art in every creation, but the main point is entertainment-- plain and simple.
The salvation of the world is in man's suffering. - Faulkner
I have gotten shot when I play a new level, and I'm looking around, actually. Never teabagged though.
Okay, I agree, the main point is entertainment, but art plays a large role.
Seriously though, if you can, check out those games I listed. Art is a huge part of those, and for Flower, art is the main point of the game.
The whole 'games as art' discussion is pretentious and tired. Frankly, people who rush to label games as art aren't really gamers.
There are no games where art is the main goal in its creation. Plenty of indie games like Flower and Braid are unique, and they do have artistic qualities, but even those games are, above all, forms of entertainment.
In a similar vein, you don't play chess to observe the handiwork of the pieces.
I sort of agree with the above poster, but art is in the eye of the beholder.
Video games are entertaining. When i'm killing ZOMBIES woo, in COD5 i'm not thinking about how beautiful they're put together. Visually though, some video games are stunning, so why can't they be considered works of art?
Another thing - i have been to PLENTY of exhibitions featuring video games created by people on display as art. So ah, in my view, yeah, they can be.
Also, i really can't stand it when people get so worked up over an adaption of something. If you're going to allow it to devalue the original piece of work then you're an idiot, good day
Last edited by Zee.; 07-17-2009 at 12:43 AM.
I'll play ball.
If I were to take a screen shot of a still of a video-game, that screen shot would cease to be a game, and instead be a still image, i.e. a digitally created artwork. I'm not debating that beautiful graphics are not artistic; it's irrelevant whether visual art is created using paint or graphic design.
But a still image of beautiful graphics is not a game, and that's exactly why I said games have artistic qualities but are not art. A game requires gameplay, and gameplay is not art. If a game lacked gameplay it would not be a game, but a film.
That doesn't prove anything. The mere fact that there are exhibitions does not prove the truth of the claim their making.Another thing - i have been to PLENTY of exhibitions featuring video games created by people on display as art. So ah, in my view, yeah, they can be.
I would agree. If your opinion of the actual Inferno were to change because of the b*stard Dante's Inferno videogame, then you are an idiot. The main thing at issue here is the misrepresentation of the poem to a mass audience, who simply doesn't know any better.Also, i really can't stand it when people get so worked up over an adaption of something. If you're going to allow it to devalue the original piece of work then you're an idiot, good day
I can only play games with good storylines - repetitive killing and missions don't interest me whatsoever. If the story doesn't hold my attention I get bored. Final Fantasy is not only the most captivating game I have played but also the most artistic. But yeah I agree to some extent that games are not art. However, I do realise the amount of artistic input that goes into some of them, especially games like Final Fantasy.
Only an idiot has no grief; only a fool would forget it. What else is there in this world sharp enough to stick to your guts? - Faulkner
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
