As a film major, this subject is part of my background. This is something I usually avoid debating, because definitions of art tend to be weak, limited, and subject to change. The notion of what...
As a film major, this subject is part of my background. This is something I usually avoid debating, because definitions of art tend to be weak, limited, and subject to change. The notion of what constitutes art is historical and highly subjective, and, most frequently, attempts to arrive at a definitive definition betray the prejudices and limitations of the times and the particular theoretician.
In my view, you make a mistake by placing such a great value on the word "message", when it is very clear that many pieces of art have nothing of the sort. You attempt to rectify that mistake by broadening the meaning of "message", and the end result is something that has little to do with the usual connotations associated with that word, to the point that I might question: why use "message" at all?
To "convey a message" is to enter the territory of semantics. Sets of signs must allow reasonable inferences that we call meaning, a content that must be interpreted. This hardly describes the works of Stan Brakhage (that I shared in another comment), as well as the works of many composers such as Claude Debussy and Frédéric Chopin. You can definitely describe the semantic connections that you draw during your aesthetic fruition, but can you really say that Chopin's Nocturnes itself actually convey a message in the same way that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 does?
The good thing is that you don't seem to mistake "art" for "good art". A lot of smart people use discussions of art to exclude everything they classify as culturally inferior as something beneath the very concept of art. They are, of course, wrong. Art is inclusive by nature, that is probably the only thing that never changes about it.
My goal with the post is/was not to cleanly put a box around what is and isn't art, but rather have an approximate idea that captures a good chunk of its essence. Hopefully the conversation is not...
My goal with the post is/was not to cleanly put a box around what is and isn't art, but rather have an approximate idea that captures a good chunk of its essence. Hopefully the conversation is not rendered fruitless by exceptions being the rule.
If the word "message" seems too biased, I would allude to the author's purpose/intent behind the work. To me, the very idea of an intent + sharing equates to the essence of a message being communicated (though I can imagine edge cases which make this not an absolute/strong statement). In addition to the intent, to the extent that Chopin's Nocturnes evoke similar feelings in a swathe of listeners, I would have no qualms terming such (systematic) effects as messages. Thanks for the Stan Brakhage links; this is my first encounter with his work. For me, this raises the interesting question of what Stan Brakhage intended when he created those videos.
While I definitely appreciate the significance of the subjectivity of aesthetic experience, at least for the moment, I wish to avoid sinking into the swamp of cliched (postmodernist) tropes where interpretations are relative (eye of the beholder, etc), and anything can be art -- while there may be some truth to it, I think it doesn't help get a general sense of what art is about.
One motivation to avoid a too-loose definition is to consider the following potentially interesting question: Could/Should/Would computer-generated works be considered "art", and why so? Would the answer be any different if the piece were randomly generated -vs- being drawn from a sample after the computer was "trained" on a corpus?
That's okay. Do notice that I haven't used a single postmodernist argument in my comment. Pre-20th century symphonic music (and most from the early 20th century) is everything but potmodernist. I...
That's okay.
Do notice that I haven't used a single postmodernist argument in my comment. Pre-20th century symphonic music (and most from the early 20th century) is everything but potmodernist. I mean, what exactly is the message conveyed by Chopin's Nocturne op.9 No.2, a piece composed in the 19th century, long before postmodernism even existed? Does it even make sense to think in terms of "message" for something like that? Furthermore, you mention "purpose/intention", but in the following paragraph distance your argument from subjectivity. I'd argue that trying to read author's intentions is an eminently subjective effort.
I really get the sense (interpreting /u/entangledamplitude's message, conveniently) that they mean message as generally as possible, a package of information meant to trigger a response in the...
I really get the sense (interpreting /u/entangledamplitude's message, conveniently) that they mean message as generally as possible, a package of information meant to trigger a response in the receiver. That is, anything from a concept conveyed through word to a set of emotions triggered by music. Sure, Chopin probably wasn't thinking what any given listener thinks or feels in response to hearing his compositions, but there is a payload of intentional meaning of sorts, or else why share it? Simply because the message isn't specific or clear doesn't change that it is still a message of sorts.
My film analysis professor had his own theory of poetics. The guy is a genius, IMHO. Instead of “message” or any kind of informational terminology, he says that works of art employ “strategies to...
My film analysis professor had his own theory of poetics. The guy is a genius, IMHO. Instead of “message” or any kind of informational terminology, he says that works of art employ “strategies to produce responses” (“estratégias de produção de encanto”). Works of art employ expressive resources to elicit certain reactions. This may sound similar to something like “message”, but is entirely different. Intention is not really something you can analyze in his view, and I agree. Intentional analysis of works of art is an avenue for creative conjecture (or “mind reading” if I’m not being diplomatic...). In this paradigm you say that “the piece did something on the reader”, not that “the author did something on the reader”.
That's roughly how I conceptualize it myself, assuming I understand from your brief summary. Do you have any particular resources you could share regarding this research?
That's roughly how I conceptualize it myself, assuming I understand from your brief summary. Do you have any particular resources you could share regarding this research?
My professor only wrote about it in Portuguese, but he was heavily influenced by Aristotle’s Poethics, Luigi Pareyson, Umberto Eco, and David Bordwell, among others. He does have some articles in...
My professor only wrote about it in Portuguese, but he was heavily influenced by Aristotle’s Poethics, Luigi Pareyson, Umberto Eco, and David Bordwell, among others.
He does have some articles in Spanish, if you can read in that language.
Thank you for this post, it's a very interesting read. How do you approach "art" (I'll call it that for the lack of a better word) which lacks any meaning? I think a good example would be concept...
Thank you for this post, it's a very interesting read.
How do you approach "art" (I'll call it that for the lack of a better word) which lacks any meaning? I think a good example would be concept art often used in video games and animation. They are often very pretty pieces that serve no further purpose other than to give a 3D artist a concrete idea on how their environments, models, etc should look. Beyond that, they carry no story, no emotion, nothing. But they are still very pretty to look at, and you cannot deny the skill that concept artists have. Are they art?
Could you share some examples? At the very minimum, it might be considered beautiful in that it demonstrates a mastery of that particular medium (if the viewer is receptive to the skill involved)....
Could you share some examples?
At the very minimum, it might be considered beautiful in that it demonstrates a mastery of that particular medium (if the viewer is receptive to the skill involved). But digging deeper, all those concept pieces (if I correctly understand what you mean by concept art) are typically depicting characters/environments which have a strong underlying message about the context in the game world; I would argue that the pose/expression/clothing/etc of the characters definitely carry emotion. Maybe your examples will demonstrate something different from what I'm imagining :-)
Take something like this: https://kotaku.com/the-art-of-titanfall-2-1788424864/amp Most pieces in there are very detailed and while they may depict characters doing or reacting to something, there...
Most pieces in there are very detailed and while they may depict characters doing or reacting to something, there is often little to no underlying message to the art. Since this article collects mostly pieces which are very pretty to look at, you'll be missing a lot of character and weapon sketches which literally only exist to give 3D artists a lead.
If they exist to give 3d artists a lead, or to drum up enthusiasm with an audience with regards to a theme, wouldn't that automatically constitute the intended message? Randomly picking one image...
If they exist to give 3d artists a lead, or to drum up enthusiasm with an audience with regards to a theme, wouldn't that automatically constitute the intended message?
Randomly picking one image 1 as an example, the "vibe" of futuristic technology + austere & slightly dilapidated environment seems to be setting context for the game experience. The precise connotations these register in our minds will no doubt be influence by the larger context of games/sci-fi that we are in tune with, but given that, I'd definitely imagine this image communicating a "message".
PS: They definitely are quite intricate and pretty to look at!
Concept art generally isn't designed to be released to the public in a way that advertises the product. A lot of it incidentally gets released through artists portfolios, and sometimes in press...
If they exist to give 3d artists a lead, or to drum up enthusiasm with an audience with regards to a theme, wouldn't that automatically constitute the intended message?
Concept art generally isn't designed to be released to the public in a way that advertises the product. A lot of it incidentally gets released through artists portfolios, and sometimes in press packs so publications have images that they can use as headers for their articles about said game, but it's not something explicitly public facing.
And in regards to its main purpose, giving 3D artists, environmental designers, etc. an idea on how everything should look, what's the message there? Does an idea on how things should look convey enough to be counted as a message?
Compare this to a piece like Peace, at last by Pedro Krüger Garcia. It is in my opinion a perfect example of the phrase A picture tells a thousand words because you get a whole story from a single painting and the title alone.
Are these equal? Setting context for a game experience and telling a whole story in a single painting? I'm not trying to elevate one over the other (or accusing you of doing so, I hope that is clear), I'm simply trying to understand your view on it.
(Sure! Thanks for engaging) Yes, conveying an idea of how things should look, or even priming someone to expect one range of possibilities would be considered a “message” in that sense (wrt my...
(Sure! Thanks for engaging)
Yes, conveying an idea of how things should look, or even priming someone to expect one range of possibilities would be considered a “message” in that sense (wrt my comment about the sci-fi aspects of the image). It’s not a complete story like the Pedro Kruger Garcia image (btw, wow!), but it could nicely serve as a world-building section of the story (and implicitly does so). Once the reader’s mind has been primed in this way (only because of all the other sci-fi they’ve read), the author has a chance to quickly get to the point, or make a break with tradition and create a surprise.
A lot of it incidentally gets released through artists portfolios, and sometimes in press packs so publications have images that they can use as headers for their articles about said game, but it's not something explicitly public facing.
I don’t care too much about the “public” as the audience, and am totally happy considering the game environment designers as the initial audience receiving the message. When the same images get released to the public, they similarly convey a feel/vibe for the game. There might also be a meta aspect, eg: the magazine discussing the gorgeousness of the game visuals.
Are these equal?
Probably not “equal”, but such a comparison was never intended.
The topic is very interesting to me, because I've spent a lot of time discussing the idea of video games as an art form with people, and to do that one needs to define what art even is. I've also...
(Sure! Thanks for engaging)
The topic is very interesting to me, because I've spent a lot of time discussing the idea of video games as an art form with people, and to do that one needs to define what art even is. I've also dabbled in writing (some of it uhhh... of questionable content) and world-building, so I like the discussion about what things should be called art and what shouldn't. Also, Tildes desperately needs more content that isn't technology related.
Yes, conveying an idea of how things should look, or even priming someone to expect one range of possibilities would be considered a “message” in that sense (wrt my comment about the sci-fi aspects of the image).
I guess you're right. I think I was looking too much for an explicit meaning in the image rather than, like you said, an implicit one like feel of the world. Perhaps Krüger's painting influenced me too much there.
I don’t care too much about the “public” as the audience, and am totally happy considering the game environment designers as the initial audience receiving the message.
I agree as well, though I (also) didn't consider counting the developers using the image for inspiration as "the audience" if you get what I mean. But it does make sense.
Stan Brakhage is an example of art that does not "convey a message" (at least in the way you define it): https://youtu.be/L8r9t135_xY https://youtu.be/XaGh0D2NXCA
Stan Brakhage is an example of art that does not "convey a message" (at least in the way you define it):
Not at all meant to be authoritative; lightly edited stream of consciousness thought from a few days ago. Wanted to share, and see what reactions/comments it brings about. Thanks for reading.
Not at all meant to be authoritative; lightly edited stream of consciousness thought from a few days ago. Wanted to share, and see what reactions/comments it brings about. Thanks for reading.
As a film major, this subject is part of my background. This is something I usually avoid debating, because definitions of art tend to be weak, limited, and subject to change. The notion of what constitutes art is historical and highly subjective, and, most frequently, attempts to arrive at a definitive definition betray the prejudices and limitations of the times and the particular theoretician.
In my view, you make a mistake by placing such a great value on the word "message", when it is very clear that many pieces of art have nothing of the sort. You attempt to rectify that mistake by broadening the meaning of "message", and the end result is something that has little to do with the usual connotations associated with that word, to the point that I might question: why use "message" at all?
To "convey a message" is to enter the territory of semantics. Sets of signs must allow reasonable inferences that we call meaning, a content that must be interpreted. This hardly describes the works of Stan Brakhage (that I shared in another comment), as well as the works of many composers such as Claude Debussy and Frédéric Chopin. You can definitely describe the semantic connections that you draw during your aesthetic fruition, but can you really say that Chopin's Nocturnes itself actually convey a message in the same way that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 does?
The good thing is that you don't seem to mistake "art" for "good art". A lot of smart people use discussions of art to exclude everything they classify as culturally inferior as something beneath the very concept of art. They are, of course, wrong. Art is inclusive by nature, that is probably the only thing that never changes about it.
My goal with the post is/was not to cleanly put a box around what is and isn't art, but rather have an approximate idea that captures a good chunk of its essence. Hopefully the conversation is not rendered fruitless by exceptions being the rule.
If the word "message" seems too biased, I would allude to the author's purpose/intent behind the work. To me, the very idea of an intent + sharing equates to the essence of a message being communicated (though I can imagine edge cases which make this not an absolute/strong statement). In addition to the intent, to the extent that Chopin's Nocturnes evoke similar feelings in a swathe of listeners, I would have no qualms terming such (systematic) effects as messages. Thanks for the Stan Brakhage links; this is my first encounter with his work. For me, this raises the interesting question of what Stan Brakhage intended when he created those videos.
While I definitely appreciate the significance of the subjectivity of aesthetic experience, at least for the moment, I wish to avoid sinking into the swamp of cliched (postmodernist) tropes where interpretations are relative (eye of the beholder, etc), and anything can be art -- while there may be some truth to it, I think it doesn't help get a general sense of what art is about.
One motivation to avoid a too-loose definition is to consider the following potentially interesting question: Could/Should/Would computer-generated works be considered "art", and why so? Would the answer be any different if the piece were randomly generated -vs- being drawn from a sample after the computer was "trained" on a corpus?
That's okay.
Do notice that I haven't used a single postmodernist argument in my comment. Pre-20th century symphonic music (and most from the early 20th century) is everything but potmodernist. I mean, what exactly is the message conveyed by Chopin's Nocturne op.9 No.2, a piece composed in the 19th century, long before postmodernism even existed? Does it even make sense to think in terms of "message" for something like that? Furthermore, you mention "purpose/intention", but in the following paragraph distance your argument from subjectivity. I'd argue that trying to read author's intentions is an eminently subjective effort.
I really get the sense (interpreting /u/entangledamplitude's message, conveniently) that they mean message as generally as possible, a package of information meant to trigger a response in the receiver. That is, anything from a concept conveyed through word to a set of emotions triggered by music. Sure, Chopin probably wasn't thinking what any given listener thinks or feels in response to hearing his compositions, but there is a payload of intentional meaning of sorts, or else why share it? Simply because the message isn't specific or clear doesn't change that it is still a message of sorts.
Works of art certainly elicit all kinds of response. I just don’t think calling that “message” is a very good idea.
Fair. It doesn't read as an inaccurate word choice to me, just rather imprecise. I see your point though.
My film analysis professor had his own theory of poetics. The guy is a genius, IMHO. Instead of “message” or any kind of informational terminology, he says that works of art employ “strategies to produce responses” (“estratégias de produção de encanto”). Works of art employ expressive resources to elicit certain reactions. This may sound similar to something like “message”, but is entirely different. Intention is not really something you can analyze in his view, and I agree. Intentional analysis of works of art is an avenue for creative conjecture (or “mind reading” if I’m not being diplomatic...). In this paradigm you say that “the piece did something on the reader”, not that “the author did something on the reader”.
I’m summarizing, of course.
That's roughly how I conceptualize it myself, assuming I understand from your brief summary. Do you have any particular resources you could share regarding this research?
My professor only wrote about it in Portuguese, but he was heavily influenced by Aristotle’s Poethics, Luigi Pareyson, Umberto Eco, and David Bordwell, among others.
He does have some articles in Spanish, if you can read in that language.
My Spanish is rudimentary at best, but I'd still appreciate the opportunity to attempt to stumble through them.
Okay, I’ll look it up for you when I have a chance ;)
Thank you very much, then.
Yup, this is pretty much what I meant.
Thank you for this post, it's a very interesting read.
How do you approach "art" (I'll call it that for the lack of a better word) which lacks any meaning? I think a good example would be concept art often used in video games and animation. They are often very pretty pieces that serve no further purpose other than to give a 3D artist a concrete idea on how their environments, models, etc should look. Beyond that, they carry no story, no emotion, nothing. But they are still very pretty to look at, and you cannot deny the skill that concept artists have. Are they art?
Could you share some examples?
At the very minimum, it might be considered beautiful in that it demonstrates a mastery of that particular medium (if the viewer is receptive to the skill involved). But digging deeper, all those concept pieces (if I correctly understand what you mean by concept art) are typically depicting characters/environments which have a strong underlying message about the context in the game world; I would argue that the pose/expression/clothing/etc of the characters definitely carry emotion. Maybe your examples will demonstrate something different from what I'm imagining :-)
Take something like this: https://kotaku.com/the-art-of-titanfall-2-1788424864/amp
Most pieces in there are very detailed and while they may depict characters doing or reacting to something, there is often little to no underlying message to the art. Since this article collects mostly pieces which are very pretty to look at, you'll be missing a lot of character and weapon sketches which literally only exist to give 3D artists a lead.
If they exist to give 3d artists a lead, or to drum up enthusiasm with an audience with regards to a theme, wouldn't that automatically constitute the intended message?
Randomly picking one image 1 as an example, the "vibe" of futuristic technology + austere & slightly dilapidated environment seems to be setting context for the game experience. The precise connotations these register in our minds will no doubt be influence by the larger context of games/sci-fi that we are in tune with, but given that, I'd definitely imagine this image communicating a "message".
PS: They definitely are quite intricate and pretty to look at!
Concept art generally isn't designed to be released to the public in a way that advertises the product. A lot of it incidentally gets released through artists portfolios, and sometimes in press packs so publications have images that they can use as headers for their articles about said game, but it's not something explicitly public facing.
And in regards to its main purpose, giving 3D artists, environmental designers, etc. an idea on how everything should look, what's the message there? Does an idea on how things should look convey enough to be counted as a message?
Compare this to a piece like Peace, at last by Pedro Krüger Garcia. It is in my opinion a perfect example of the phrase A picture tells a thousand words because you get a whole story from a single painting and the title alone.
Are these equal? Setting context for a game experience and telling a whole story in a single painting? I'm not trying to elevate one over the other (or accusing you of doing so, I hope that is clear), I'm simply trying to understand your view on it.
(Sure! Thanks for engaging)
Yes, conveying an idea of how things should look, or even priming someone to expect one range of possibilities would be considered a “message” in that sense (wrt my comment about the sci-fi aspects of the image). It’s not a complete story like the Pedro Kruger Garcia image (btw, wow!), but it could nicely serve as a world-building section of the story (and implicitly does so). Once the reader’s mind has been primed in this way (only because of all the other sci-fi they’ve read), the author has a chance to quickly get to the point, or make a break with tradition and create a surprise.
I don’t care too much about the “public” as the audience, and am totally happy considering the game environment designers as the initial audience receiving the message. When the same images get released to the public, they similarly convey a feel/vibe for the game. There might also be a meta aspect, eg: the magazine discussing the gorgeousness of the game visuals.
Probably not “equal”, but such a comparison was never intended.
The topic is very interesting to me, because I've spent a lot of time discussing the idea of video games as an art form with people, and to do that one needs to define what art even is. I've also dabbled in writing (some of it uhhh... of questionable content) and world-building, so I like the discussion about what things should be called art and what shouldn't. Also, Tildes desperately needs more content that isn't technology related.
I guess you're right. I think I was looking too much for an explicit meaning in the image rather than, like you said, an implicit one like feel of the world. Perhaps Krüger's painting influenced me too much there.
I agree as well, though I (also) didn't consider counting the developers using the image for inspiration as "the audience" if you get what I mean. But it does make sense.
Stan Brakhage is an example of art that does not "convey a message" (at least in the way you define it):
https://youtu.be/L8r9t135_xY
https://youtu.be/XaGh0D2NXCA
Not at all meant to be authoritative; lightly edited stream of consciousness thought from a few days ago. Wanted to share, and see what reactions/comments it brings about. Thanks for reading.