Fallout 3 Operation: Anchorage reviews

[Wooz]

You talking about Duchamp's 'fountain'? It was supposed to be a joke on surrealist art jurys. Hardly "these days", it was 'made' almost a century ago.

If I was to compare F3 to any work of art, I'd choose Manzoni's readymade critique.

It even is the same color!

And in both cases, I'm sure you can find hidden gems amidst the brown mass. But are they worth it? Meh.

 

[TychoXI]

Some people believe Owe Boll's movies are masterpieces and he is a genius.

Reminds me of that time I saw a broken urinal up on a display in the Museum of Modern Art.

You heard me. Like a 60 year old, completely green and golden, used, broken, stinking urinal.

Art is 'subject to interpretation' nowadays.

Are you talking about the Fountain by Duchamp? How dare you say such things about such masterwork. (Well it isn't green and golden, nut still!). Dadaism was a marvel upon this Earth.

And remember; DADA doesn’t speak. DADA has no fixed idea. DADA doesn’t catch flies.

EDIT: Manzoni was a genius.

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

You talking about Duchamp's 'fountain'? It was supposed to be a joke on surrealist art jurys. Hardly "these days", it was 'made' almost a century ago.

If I was to compare F3 to any work of art, I'd choose Manzoni's readymade critique.

It even is the same color!

And in both cases, I'm sure you can find hidden gems amidst the brown mass. But are they worth it? Meh.

...and sold them for the price of their weight in gold.

Well done.

 

[Public]

Once when I was searching for galleries in London with my sister, who is an artistic geek, we came across one gallery, with pictures of garbage. Like someone took a hand full of stuff from the ugliest trash can in London, took some nice quality pictures, and opened a gallery for them.

People were watching, some of thm were amazed:

"Ohh, that's very interesting"

"Yes indeed! That's my favourite one"

"Uhh"

My sister told me this is actually England's modern art


Also, back when my sister had that art course a year ago, there was that guy who made a toilet covered in pages cut out from the Bible.

Probably he thought:
"I am sooo controversial!!"

 

[iridium_ionizer]

Definitively not blue enough.

Nothing is too anything in this industry. If they complain, it just means they didn't push it far enough.

I concur. I am still waiting for a game that has all of the visuals go through a black filter. People only complained about Doom 3 because it wasn't dark enough. Someone should make a game that would make playing Doom 3 be like staring at the sun in comparison. A game so black that the only way you would know you died would be by the soft gurgling of your shot out throat pumping through the speakers. And the final level should take place in a black hole.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Once when I was searching for galleries in London with my sister, who is an artistic geek, we came across one gallery, with pictures of garbage. Like someone took a hand full of stuff from the ugliest trash can in London, took some nice quality pictures, and opened a gallery for them.

People were watching, some of thm were amazed: <snip>

That reminds me of when I saw pictures of shopping carts in different places (like lakes, in the middle of a field, etc.) at a photography showing and my response was "How is this art?" People around me were not happy and a friend of mine who fancies herself a photographer was interested by it enough to be unhappy with my comment. I have issues with calling photography art in general but I can certainly see the difference between an amateur and professional photographer's work but when there is no/minimal human manipulation, I'd say it's not art.

 

[Endless Void]

I concur. I am still waiting for a game that has all of the visuals go through a black filter. People only complained about Doom 3 because it wasn't dark enough. Someone should make a game that would make playing Doom 3 be like staring at the sun in comparison. A game so black that the only way you would know you died would be by the soft gurgling of your shot out throat pumping through the speakers. And the final level should take place in a black hole.

I actually always wondered whether a Daredevil video game like that is possible. A game where your only guidance will be sound or (if possible) smell. That would be a true innovation for gaming.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

That reminds me of when I saw pictures of shopping carts in different places (like lakes, in the middle of a field, etc.) at a photography showing and my response was "How is this art?" People around me were not happy and a friend of mine who fancies herself a photographer was interested by it enough to be unhappy with my comment. I have issues with calling photography art in general but I can certainly see the difference between an amateur and professional photographer's work but when there is no/minimal human manipulation, I'd say it's not art.

Photography as art is marginal, IMO, because it's available to anyone, and becomes easier as technology advances. There is definitely some art in it though, finding the right situation, setup, lighting and angle. It's not the same level as painting or sculpture though.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

That reminds me of when I saw pictures of shopping carts in different places (like lakes, in the middle of a field, etc.) at a photography showing and my response was "How is this art?" People around me were not happy and a friend of mine who fancies herself a photographer was interested by it enough to be unhappy with my comment. I have issues with calling photography art in general but I can certainly see the difference between an amateur and professional photographer's work but when there is no/minimal human manipulation, I'd say it's not art.

The art is getting people to believe it is art.

 

[4too]

Three Blue Blobs In A Row - - 'Cha-Ching'!!

Three Blue Blobs In A Row - - 'Cha-Ching'!!

... The art is getting people to believe it is art.

The art of the craft begins with the suppression of disbelief.

"Ism-s" are great for setting up the illusion bounded by straight line facts and inseminated with the wave patterns of belief.

The art of the craft works for pyramid schemes, ideals or objects on pedestals, and video games.

Buy the buzz and win a big blue, or, brown blob, as it squiggles infinitely about.








4too

 

[Public]

Once when I was searching for galleries in London with my sister, who is an artistic geek, we came across one gallery, with pictures of garbage. Like someone took a hand full of stuff from the ugliest trash can in London, took some nice quality pictures, and opened a gallery for them.

People were watching, some of thm were amazed: <snip>

That reminds me of when I saw pictures of shopping carts in different places (like lakes, in the middle of a field, etc.) at a photography showing and my response was "How is this art?" People around me were not happy and a friend of mine who fancies herself a photographer was interested by it enough to be unhappy with my comment. I have issues with calling photography art in general but I can certainly see the difference between an amateur and professional photographer's work but when there is no/minimal human manipulation, I'd say it's not art.

It's kind of like a picture me or someone would take randomly after shopping

Photography as art is marginal, IMO, because it's available to anyone, and becomes easier as technology advances. There is definitely some art in it though, finding the right situation, setup, lighting and angle. It's not the same level as painting or sculpture though.

Pretty much the same thing is with music (as for I am doing music myself), because now we have programs like FL Studio. It's very easy to use this thing, and most of the amateures use it, and some of them call themselves muscians.

Heh, even I don't consider myself a musician yet. I will accept myself a "musician" when I will get to that level I will feel like one. Right now I feel like an outcast or something.

But I think we are living in those times, when we have to be better, to become 'someone' that can be called an artist. Because today even someone like Owe Boll can make movies.

 

[Ixyroth]

Re: Three Blue Blobs In A Row - - 'Cha-Ching'!!

Three Blue Blobs In A Row - - 'Cha-Ching'!!

... The art is getting people to believe it is art.

The art of the craft begins with the suppression of disbelief.

"Ism-s" are great for setting up the illusion bounded by straight line facts and inseminated with the wave patterns of belief.

The art of the craft works for pyramid schemes, ideals or objects on pedestals, and video games.

Buy the buzz and win a big blue, or, brown blob, as it squiggles infinitely about.








4too

The Masters of the Matrix know this all too well. If you can get the masses to believe something, then it can be made reality, even if it's based on a complete lie, which it usually is.

Nationalism, religion, economy (capitalism/socialism), etc. It's all one big game of mind, and hence reality, control.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Photography as art is marginal, IMO, because it's available to anyone, and becomes easier as technology advances. There is definitely some art in it though, finding the right situation, setup, lighting and angle. It's not the same level as painting or sculpture though.

Pretty much the same thing is with music (as for I am doing music myself), because now we have programs like FL Studio. It's very easy to use this thing, and most of the amateures use it, and some of them call themselves muscians.

Heh, even I don't consider myself a musician yet. I will accept myself a "musician" when I will get to that level I will feel like one. Right now I feel like an outcast or something.

But I think we are living in those times, when we have to be better, to become 'someone' that can be called an artist. Because today even someone like Owe Boll can make movies.

Classical music is still definitely art (the less good modern composers are kind of beside the point, like the bad fine art students would be for painting). Modern music not so much, because so very little of it even passes the initial level of quality for being called "art", that pretty much none of it is. Art and entertainment is more or less separate these days.

Film as an art has died since worldwide popularization of Hollywood. The great directors are so few anyway, that you could count them with just your fingers. Tarkovskiy was probably the last one.

 

[Public]

...

You have to understand how the composer saw music back then, and what music he/she could compose. Today we have much more restrictions, created by the law and the government, which cuts many ways of creativity for many artists. And about that entertainment part, it's mostly there to create a connection between the fans and the guys on the stage. It's also the best way to get money from (gigs, concerts and selling merchandise), because believe me or not, being an independant and good musician is a fucking hard work nowadays! Even being at least an independant muscian, and live for music, is hard too.

Back then musicians were rare, because of many aspects, and even a simple guy who knew how to play a piano, could get a job easily if he had connections or educations (only 'educated' people could do such things, because it was probably a blasphemy for a simple guy to play piano).

Right now, musicians need to work harder, to develop, and when the speed grows up, usually the quality of the 'artistic side of their music' falls down. While back then when the classical music, we know today, musicians could take more time to polish their creations.

When they had restrictions and pressure, most of them on the end of their careers started drinking and die in a very young age.
Just like today, music is mostly linked with alcohol and shits, because they need some kind of a side kick to forget all about this stress and stuff. Of course, there are lots of stupid local bands that make music only to drink, or the other way around.

Also, think about it that way. Today we have much, much more ways to explore music! More intruments, and more ways to use them, and back then they had only an orchestra and they could stick only to that.

So overaly, I think you're wrong that only the classical music was and is an art. You're just looking at it from the wrong way, where every musician today does music only to entertain. That's bull crap! Many of them don't care about entertaining, they care only about their music and entertaining is just a tool to pread their music.

 

[Knödelkarpfen]

Sorry Mikael. It seemed a weird thing to try to discuss in this thread. But you're right, flamebait on my part.

If classical music is art, then why? Much of it was created for very practical purposes---for learning to play instruments, to be used in church services, for a little background music during a party, to give aristocrats who knew standard music procedure a little bit of musical delight at an unexpected detail. Many of the great composers were employed by noblemen or church to crank out a lot of music very quickly.

In the 19th century then, you actually have a time where classical music became the popular music of the middle class (in Germany at least). You have some composers of this time working hard writing to entertain and delight, and others, usually of the Beethoven Cult, working hard trying to reach some higher level with their art, following what they thought was his example. Wagner was of the latter sort, putting so much energy into his operas, and yet he was hugely popular. Something created with achieving high aesthetic principles can end up being fine entertainment for people. Sometimes, something created for entertainment or pedagogy is now considered high art. It is much the same today with all kinds of musicians. So I just don't understand this idea that there is a difference between entertainment and art. It's not a helpful distinction, but rather a confusing one.

I also don't see why it is that Hollywood has to be the ruin of all filmmaking. How many great filmmakers have worked in the the Hollywood system? Murnau, Hawks, Ford, Lang, Welles (with great difficulty!), Hitchcock, Allen, Scorsese....the list can go on and on, and it does. Before they became filmmakers, a few Frenchmen with names like Godard, Truffaut, Rohmer wrote about how many of the Hollywood films from the 1940's and 50's were making for great film art, even if many of them seemed to just be melodramas and thrillers. Then they were inspired by them and went and made their own work. I don't see why it can't be the same today. Hell, these days if you work digitally, filmmaking costs can be down so low that you don't have to rely on a huge studio to make films. I think this would have been a dream for Welles. Lynch and Kiarostami are a couple of guys who have made amazing films within the past several years using cheap digital camcorders.

Why is it photography always gets the shaft on internet forums? "Es ist ein zu weites Feld", as said in Effi Briest. I assume it comes down, though, to the hierarchy of artforms, where the older ones are given greater prestige than the newer ones.

Too bad there isn't more to say about Bethesda's DLC.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Hollywood may have made some great movies in the days long gone - but how many truly great, Fellini-level movies/directors has it produced in the last 20-30 years?

To answer your argument, Public, it has never been "easy" to become a great musician, all of them worked their asses off more than anyone today. Music has always been a form of entertainment, true, but back in the days the value of the "art" part outweighed the value of the "entertainment" part. Your government restriction argument would only be valid if there was an example of what some composers did in the past that would be prohibited by the law today. I'd rather blame the "producers" who value profit and speed over quality - people who would rather have a piece of shit every week that a masterpiece once a year. The truly good people do not get picked by the "industry".

The problem is that, today music is all about moneymoneymoney, so what if it's bad if you got your check for it. That was not usually the case back in the days - very few people actually made any sort of profit. It's not just the entertainment value, but also the lack of quality. Otherwise you can blame it all on the speedup, and canonize Madonna and put her portrait next to Mozart's The fact is, classical music survived for centuries, and today's "hits" disappear sever weeks after release. Anyone who's actually "famous" in music today, is known for controversy, not for the music quality itself. And there is nothing wrong with that, but it simply does not qualify as art.

Why is it photography always gets the shaft on internet forums? "Es ist ein zu weites Feld", as said in Effi Briest. I assume it comes down, though, to the hierarchy of artforms, where the older ones are given greater prestige than the newer ones.

Your last statement is relatively true. I'd say photography "gets the shaft" because it's an art form where it's hard to establish the qualifications for greatness, so to say. Part of it because of the nature of the art form, part of it because of the little time that it had to establish its own norms and culture.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

For me having an idea is not art! Art is about the skills of the artist. It is not the idea of Leonardo Da Vinci to draw Mona Lisa that makes it art, it is the skillful painting that does. With the same reason most of the stuff Picasso did is not art for me. A lot of ideas, but no skills shown.

 

[M-26-7]

Art is whatever you want it to be. If you think modern music is art, then it is. However, you can't really then say what isn't art. Art is art as long as someone somewhere considers it art. Perhaps that's just 2 days of sleeplessness talking, but I think it's pretty good.

 

[LynkS]

For me having an idea is not art! Art is about the skills of the artist. It is not the idea of Leonardo Da Vinci to draw Mona Lisa that makes it art, it is the skillful painting that does. With the same reason most of the stuff Picasso did is not art for me. A lot of ideas, but no skills shown.

Well, if art is all about skills we would have olympic games for artist or something like that, but fortunately you are wrong.
Art is a way of expressing yourself, and having skills is not always necessary but usually it helps
Just because you don't understand Picasso's picture, that does not mean that someone else doesn't see something great in them.

Kubrick said it well: "Reactions to art are always different because they are always deeply personal."

 

[Kashrlyyk]

For me having an idea is not art! Art is about the skills of the artist. It is not the idea of Leonardo Da Vinci to draw Mona Lisa that makes it art, it is the skillful painting that does. With the same reason most of the stuff Picasso did is not art for me. A lot of ideas, but no skills shown.

Well, if art is all about skills we would have olympic games for artist or something like that, but fortunately you are wrong.
Art is a way of expressing yourself, and having skills is not always necessary but usually it helps
Just because you don't understand Picasso's picture, that does not mean that someone else doesn't see something great in them.

Kubrick said it well: "Reactions to art are always different because they are always deeply personal."

No, I am not wrong. Your definition is the watered down bullshit definition used today that allows anybody to sell anything as art. Any definition of art that results in people believing SHIT IN CANS is art is wrong.

If you don´t have to be skillful anymore to be an artist, then art has no meaning anymore today. And that is definitely the case. I already said it above, it is all about making idiots believe what you do is art and then you can sell a unicolored orange canvas for millions.