122 replies to this topic

[Cukeman]

There are still standards of what is art, and what is excellent art.
Any one can take up drawing but that doesn't mean they'll be
anywhere near a Picasso, Van Gogh, Da Vinci, or Rembrandt.

Doesn't matter though, since this is getting off topic, at least I think so.

[Aslion]

There are still standards of what is art, and what is excellent art.

No there isn't. Every single medium of art is completely subjective.

[Sheik]

I agree wth Alison.

There are still standards of what is art, and what is excellent art.
Any one can take up drawing but that doesn't mean they'll be
anywhere near a Picasso, Van Gogh, Da Vinci, or Rembrandt.

Doesn't matter though, since this is getting off topic, at least I think so.

Also, in reference of my earlier post, Picasso would very much be poop with a spotlight on it in my opinion. Everyone without Parkinson's should be able to draw something remiscent of Picasso's work. At least a very large number of his works. From an aesthetic point of view, Picasso's way overrated in my opinion. But as an artist he was actually quite brilliant, especially if you get a little educated about his background and the context in which his work's were created.

Edited by Sheik91, 06 October 2011 - 09:34 AM.

[Cukeman]

No there isn't. Every single medium of art is completely subjective.

I call BS, no one is going to rate an only moderate talent on the same level as our greatest artists.
There are actual reasons why certain artists are praised so highly. Take a couple courses in art history.

[Mitchfork]

I call BS, no one is going to rate an only moderate talent on the same level as our greatest artists.
There are actual reasons why certain artists are praised so highly. Take a couple courses in art history.

Nah, it's pretty much subjective. In terms of influence, yes, some artists/pieces are definitely more important than others; that's why I can appreciate, say, The Velvet Underground, but I don't have to like their music very much. As Sheik91 already said, you can appreciate Picasso's work and contributions to art without even thinking he was a good artist. Yeah, there's some level of objectivity in the "greatness" or an artist or piece, but if you're talking about individual likes and dislikes, you're entering completely subjective territory.

[Sheik]

I don't like the believe that you have to be talented to make art. Talent and art can exist seperately and mustn't correlate to result in "great art".

Take dripping as an example. All you have to do is splashing colours at a wall and voilà: art. You could teach a monkey how to do that, no talent other than swinging brushes that are soaked in paint needed.

Edited by Sheik91, 06 October 2011 - 02:04 PM.

[Cukeman]

A lot of traditional art is measured by how well-crafted the piece is, but even with modern art,
like crapping on a table, it is about making a statement, and there are more and less effective
ways to make that same statement.

So I agree that you can have any methods or materials, but how well it is done will always be
something that can be measured.

Edited by Cukeman, 06 October 2011 - 04:58 PM.

[Aslion]

but how well it is done will always be
something that can be measured.

No, you're literally wrong. Everybody has their own opinion.

[Cukeman]

No, you're literally wrong. Everybody has their own opinion.

Everybody having a different opinion, and the existence of qualitative measurement are not mutually exclusive things.

Edited by Cukeman, 07 October 2011 - 03:18 AM.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Everybody having a different opinion, and the existence of qualitative measurement are not mutually exclusive things.

That is exactly what he's been trying to say o.o

You simply cannot 'measure' the quality of art and call the level of quality fact, because it is nothing but your subjective opinion, and there really is no serious argument you can make against that

But we are getting off-topic so there's that.

[Dawnlight]

Well I'm surprised how off topic this has gotten to. I was saying that some users care too much about the design that they care less about the actual gameplay or some make only screens to show off, but no actual quest.

[Sheik]

Yeah, I was debating wether I should post on the art thing at all, but it's so rare you get the chance to talk at least pseudo-sophisticated about art and I really didn't want to miss the chance.
And this thread being the bloody mess it is, I didn't feel too bad about off-topic posting either. It's not like it hurt the quality of this thread, because there's probably not so much left of it either way.

Good point your bring up Dawnlight. But I'd like to hold against it that it's actually perfectly fine to use the ZC engine simply for creating screens you enjoy to show off. It's not like you have to build a quest with the program. It's a tool and you can choose how and for what to use it.

Edited by Sheik91, 07 October 2011 - 06:24 AM.

[Shane]

I'm with Dawnlight, this was my problem during past development, I was focusing too much on Screen Design that much, there were just screens to look at but not play in because it lacks gameplay, now that I notice my major flaw I'm taking a step back and focusing on all main qualities regardless if it's a quest or just a screen.

Also Dawnlight, one thing that bugs me about your screen (with the exception of that I love it) is that the curtains are placed in the odd fashion I would swap the torch near the south door with the right-most curtain or you could get rid of the torch near the south door all together and then move the curtain where the torch is. Either one I think should do the job.

[Dawnlight]

But I'd like to hold against it that it's actually perfectly fine to use the ZC engine simply for creating screens you enjoy to show off. It's not like you have to build a quest with the program. It's a tool and you can choose how and for what to use it.

While I agree with your statement, from my point of view, it seems that a a majority of people use ZC to show off or just make random screens. Not that many people are stepping their game up and actually make a quest from the skills they acquired. There's nothing wrong about that, but lately this is one of the reasons why we aren't seeing that many new quests. But just so you know, I am not against using ZC for just making screens. I think it's a great way to practice using a particular tileset prior to the actual quest you are making,

[Cukeman]

You simply cannot 'measure' the quality of art and call the level of quality fact, because it is nothing but your subjective opinion,
and there really is no serious argument you can make against that

Come now, I don't think that even you believe that. I've seen your Hylian Phoenix sprites,
and how you've been revising and updating them to make the animation less stiff, or to
balance the contrast, and I don't think you pulled these changes out of thin air. You had
definite reasons and methods for measuring their quality and improving it.

If you couldn't measure the quality of art, there would be no schools for musicians, writers
and artists to go to to become professionals, because no one would know if they were
improving or not without a way to measure their work and compare it to their past work
and to the work of others.

People do have opinions that differ, but the measure of art is anything BUT purely subjective.
No one is going to say my music is as good as Mozart, my writing is as good as Shakespeare,
Mark Twain, or Isaac Asimov. And no one is going to say I can sing as well as Elvis.

Do you think no one can tell when a musician plays a wrong note? When their instrument is
off-pitch? When a singer is off-key? When an author goes off on a tangent that is totally
not relevant to his story? When an art student hasn't learned to apply color theory? Do you
think blackbishop89 cannot tell if my sprites resemble the enemies in Zelda II?
Do you think no one can tell whether a long edit or a short edit is better in a film?
Do you think a comedian can't tell if a joke falls flat?

As for methods of measurement, there is composition, complexity, plot, structure, continuity,
design, color balance, texture, concision (or lack of), pace, size, dramatic impact, proportion,
context, descriptiveness, vagueness, etc.

Do you think judges and art professors are randomly pulling judgments out of a place where
the sun doesn't shine?

I don't claim that our evaluation of art is cold, hard, fact, but it is so much more than mere opinion.

Edited by Cukeman, 07 October 2011 - 08:48 PM.