Register
I'll try to whip up tiles that reflect each of the movements. Give me a week or so to get them together, then I'll upload what I have for peer-review and critique.
Being from the third world, I reserve the right to speak in the third person.
Using Editor version wip 20170527 gfx_sdl+fb music_sdl
Tue May 08, 2012 3:35 pm 
Tue May 08, 2012 8:28 pm
You certainly could include earlier art periods, but I'm not sure they'll add much, other than variety. For example, the aesthetic aims of Renaissance and Impressionist painters actually weren't that different. The differences were in how they executed the art, and the techniques they used, but ultimately the aim was to represent something from the real world visually. This is obviously a world away from what the Dadaists, for example, were trying to achieve.
Variety is a good thing, but in a project like this, which is so huge, I'd be inclined to have a 'less is more' approach, to certain things. I do absolutely think we should have key figures, and maybe specific works appear, and be referenced in the game. That would be excellent!
Variety is a good thing, but in a project like this, which is so huge, I'd be inclined to have a 'less is more' approach, to certain things. I do absolutely think we should have key figures, and maybe specific works appear, and be referenced in the game. That would be excellent!
Tue May 08, 2012 10:37 pm
Alright, let's do this then. There are a couple iconic eras that I'd like to cover, namely Medieval art and High Renaissance art.
What if we coupled those two with Impressionism, Cubism, Modernism, Dada, and PoMo, then set-up the framework of our story (and level design) as a progression from Medieval to PoMo?
(After looking at the art in modernism, dada, and PoMo, I'm beginning to see how we can make distinct visual differences).
That gives us 7 different styles.
If you were to pick 1 artist from each of these who really stands out as both influential and possibly well-known, who all would you pick?
EDIT: We'll let those 7 artists serve as our additional heroes, giving us a total of 8 heroes counting the main protagonist.
I imagined the Artscape being like an enormous patchwork quilt of every artist's work, like a physical world that our ascended artists could get around in just by walking.
If we stick to that interpretation, we could create a world map that consists of different sections of art styles. However, this game's setting is only in the regions of Medieval - PoMo. We can reference other regions in-game, but the player never goes to them.
Inside each of our regions, we could take the more unique/iconic/our favorite works of art from style-relevant artists and develop tilesets and sprites from those works.
Our dungeons' puzzles and enemies can be based on themes found within relevant works of art, and the conflicts of the story can reflect the conflicts within the the art styles of our 7 artists.
Our story can then be based simply on, as we've mentioned before, artists from the postmodern era rebelling against the principles of previous eras. This way, our story is essentially like a dramatized version of an art history lesson.
Email contributions to the OHR Collab project to:
ohrcollab@gmail.com
All contributions will be recorded in the credits.
What if we coupled those two with Impressionism, Cubism, Modernism, Dada, and PoMo, then set-up the framework of our story (and level design) as a progression from Medieval to PoMo?
(After looking at the art in modernism, dada, and PoMo, I'm beginning to see how we can make distinct visual differences).
That gives us 7 different styles.
If you were to pick 1 artist from each of these who really stands out as both influential and possibly well-known, who all would you pick?
EDIT: We'll let those 7 artists serve as our additional heroes, giving us a total of 8 heroes counting the main protagonist.
I imagined the Artscape being like an enormous patchwork quilt of every artist's work, like a physical world that our ascended artists could get around in just by walking.
If we stick to that interpretation, we could create a world map that consists of different sections of art styles. However, this game's setting is only in the regions of Medieval - PoMo. We can reference other regions in-game, but the player never goes to them.
Inside each of our regions, we could take the more unique/iconic/our favorite works of art from style-relevant artists and develop tilesets and sprites from those works.
Our dungeons' puzzles and enemies can be based on themes found within relevant works of art, and the conflicts of the story can reflect the conflicts within the the art styles of our 7 artists.
Our story can then be based simply on, as we've mentioned before, artists from the postmodern era rebelling against the principles of previous eras. This way, our story is essentially like a dramatized version of an art history lesson.
Email contributions to the OHR Collab project to:
ohrcollab@gmail.com
All contributions will be recorded in the credits.
Tue May 08, 2012 11:38 pm
Medieval artists are pretty hard to pick out. They're nearly all forgotten, and the ones who aren't are generally only known to specialists. With that in mind, I propose:
Medieval artist: Simone Martini;
Renaissance artist: Pieter Bruegel the Elder;
Impressionist artist: Paul Cézanne;
Cubist artist: Georges Braque;
Modernist artist: Joan Miró;
Dada artist: Max Ernst.
The postmodern bit is tricky. There isn't really a single well known artist with a distinct style - that's one of the problems with PoMo. I'm not sure if it makes sense to have a postmodernist as a hero in the context of the story unless you get Duchamp at some stage.
There are various figures who should be featured extensively, like Dalí, Da Vinci and etc, but who mightn't make good heros.
Medieval artist: Simone Martini;
Renaissance artist: Pieter Bruegel the Elder;
Impressionist artist: Paul Cézanne;
Cubist artist: Georges Braque;
Modernist artist: Joan Miró;
Dada artist: Max Ernst.
The postmodern bit is tricky. There isn't really a single well known artist with a distinct style - that's one of the problems with PoMo. I'm not sure if it makes sense to have a postmodernist as a hero in the context of the story unless you get Duchamp at some stage.
There are various figures who should be featured extensively, like Dalí, Da Vinci and etc, but who mightn't make good heros.
Wed May 09, 2012 5:56 pm
Ha ha, here's an idea. What if we build-up the in-game lore to say that the PoMo region is a metaphysical realm to the Artscape like the Artscape is a metaphysical realm to the real world (sort of a dream-within-a-dream thing).
The Postmodernists are the only ones who've discovered how to reach this realm, which is one of the things that concerns the League of Artists in the Artscape.
And, here's the fun part, our heroes discover during their quest that the only way to enter the PoMo realm is to break the 4th wall. However, when they do, it turns out that rather than wind-up in another strange metaphysical realm, they actually bust back into the real world... in the Turbine Hall!
So the Postmodernists isn't/aren't actually a single/group of ascended artist(s) causing havoc from within the Artscape, but real life Postmodernists assaulting the Artscape with the art they make in the real world (since the Artscape is composed of all the art in real life).
This is why it's been so hard for the League of Artists (or whatever we're going to call them) to find the Postmodernists.
How's that for a twist?
Email contributions to the OHR Collab project to:
ohrcollab@gmail.com
All contributions will be recorded in the credits.
The Postmodernists are the only ones who've discovered how to reach this realm, which is one of the things that concerns the League of Artists in the Artscape.
And, here's the fun part, our heroes discover during their quest that the only way to enter the PoMo realm is to break the 4th wall. However, when they do, it turns out that rather than wind-up in another strange metaphysical realm, they actually bust back into the real world... in the Turbine Hall!
So the Postmodernists isn't/aren't actually a single/group of ascended artist(s) causing havoc from within the Artscape, but real life Postmodernists assaulting the Artscape with the art they make in the real world (since the Artscape is composed of all the art in real life).
This is why it's been so hard for the League of Artists (or whatever we're going to call them) to find the Postmodernists.
How's that for a twist?
Email contributions to the OHR Collab project to:
ohrcollab@gmail.com
All contributions will be recorded in the credits.
Wed May 09, 2012 6:52 pm
That's a really great idea - I like it a lot.
I've been thinking about the progression of the story, and I think it would be a mistake for the player to encounter the art periods in chronological order. I think it'll be more effective if they THINK they're going to encounter them in that order, and toward to end have to then go to the medieval period. So, I say we start in the Renaissance, and then progress forward to the Impressionism, then Cubism, then Dadaisms, then modernisms then the medieval and then they break the 4th wall.
I've been thinking about the progression of the story, and I think it would be a mistake for the player to encounter the art periods in chronological order. I think it'll be more effective if they THINK they're going to encounter them in that order, and toward to end have to then go to the medieval period. So, I say we start in the Renaissance, and then progress forward to the Impressionism, then Cubism, then Dadaisms, then modernisms then the medieval and then they break the 4th wall.
Wed May 09, 2012 7:01 pm
Talk is cheap, shut up and demo.
Wed May 09, 2012 7:19 pm
Thanks for that.
Wed May 09, 2012 8:07 pm
I think I sort of over simplified my point.
The thing is, I've been a part of several of these large colab projects and the main thing that goes wrong is that planning goes on forever but then the actual game making never actually gets done.
Everyone would love to design a game but doing the actual work is less than desirable.
G-wreck, your tiles and monster art are amazing.
The thing is, I've been a part of several of these large colab projects and the main thing that goes wrong is that planning goes on forever but then the actual game making never actually gets done.
Everyone would love to design a game but doing the actual work is less than desirable.
G-wreck, your tiles and monster art are amazing.
Wed May 09, 2012 9:17 pm
Swamp Troll wrote:
I've been thinking about the progression of the story, and I think it would be a mistake for the player to encounter the art periods in chronological order.
Sounds good. I'll write-up another outline tonight, this time with some character mock-ups.
Spoonweaver wrote:
The thing is, I've been a part of several of these large colab projects and the main thing that goes wrong is that planning goes on forever but then the actual game making never actually gets done.
I'm thinking we can have the rough story hammered-out by the end of this weekend.
To refine the story, I'd like to use a modular story framework: divvy-up each of the sections of the game and let different members of the community write them (those who want to). It will work like this:
Quote:
*Writers will be given just a few guidelines to stick to:
- Character traits (i.e. 'these characters should act like x')
- Section goals (such as 'we need to have a smooth transition into the next section which is x,' and 'we need the player to visit x dungeon and have a reason for going.')
- 3 Act Format. Begin with a small conflict that establishes the plot of this section, preferably something that takes the player about 10 minutes to resolve. Then, move to a larger conflict that makes-up the bulk of this section, shooting for 30 minutes to 1 hour here. Finally, begin preparing the resolution of the conflict which should take anywhere from 15-30 minutes for the player to finish.
- Character traits (i.e. 'these characters should act like x')
- Section goals (such as 'we need to have a smooth transition into the next section which is x,' and 'we need the player to visit x dungeon and have a reason for going.')
- 3 Act Format. Begin with a small conflict that establishes the plot of this section, preferably something that takes the player about 10 minutes to resolve. Then, move to a larger conflict that makes-up the bulk of this section, shooting for 30 minutes to 1 hour here. Finally, begin preparing the resolution of the conflict which should take anywhere from 15-30 minutes for the player to finish.
Anyone who wants to write a section: Medieval/Renaissance/Impressionism/Cubism/Modernism/Dada/Postmodernism, just post here with your chosen section. First come, first serve.
Any sections that have not been taken by the end of this weekend, I'll write them.
Next week, we'll combine our sections, edit them for continuity, and start developing graphics.
Spoonweaver wrote:
G-wreck, your tiles and monster art are amazing.
G-wreck, your tiles and monster art are amazing.
Thanks
EDIT: Next week, we'll write & start graphics. Week after we'll combine stories.
Email contributions to the OHR Collab project to:
ohrcollab@gmail.com
All contributions will be recorded in the credits.
Wed May 09, 2012 9:47 pm
This is an interesting concept for a game, and although I am not likely to be able to contribute anything other than a few enemy sprites, I am still excited by the project.
I hope nobody will mind if I share a few of my own semi-off-topic thoughts about art.
Back in 2002, my sister an I were in the Tate Modern and we saw the infamous whitewashed urinal. I journaled the following shortly afterwards:
Myself now, James of 2012 is not even slightly angered by the Urinal. I am willing to accept it as art. It is still "Art That I Don't Like" but I no longer object to the art label, and I would no longer label it Anti-Art. I am also less certain than my 2002 self was about whether the artist meant any malice by it. I'm not ruling out the possibility, I just don't know.
I have come to a point in my life where I no longer think it is important for everybody (or even anybody) to agree on a single universal definition of "Art". I think creating art is important. I think viewing and appreciating art is important. I think talking with other people about art is important.
I don't think defining art is important. (Not other than the fact that trying to define art is a natural part of talking about art) I am not saying I think people should stop trying to defining art. I just don't think anyone is going to be able to do it, and I think even if somebody could define precisely what art is, it wouldn't change what art is.
I hope nobody will mind if I share a few of my own semi-off-topic thoughts about art.
Back in 2002, my sister an I were in the Tate Modern and we saw the infamous whitewashed urinal. I journaled the following shortly afterwards:
James, back in 2002 wrote:
Only one piece that I disliked gets mention here. it made me angry to think of it, and as we left the Tate, it filled my mind, and I talked to Julie about it. She was already a step ahead of me in her thoughts about this piece. In one part of the gallery was a urinal mounted on its back in a case. The artist had done nothing to it but to whitewash it, and sign it, and declare that it was art. Before we had left, we sat to rest a moment on the seats overlooking the under-construction area, and there had been ear-phones with a selection of commentaries. We had bot separately chosen to listen to the same commentary, a collection of visitor reactions to the urinal. Was it art?
Walking away from the meuseum, we agreed that it was not. As Julie put it, why would an artist attack art? Hypocritical was the description that popped to my mind. How could a man at the same time claim to be an artist, and profess to be so profound that he could call this thing art, and at the same time suggest that art is worthless, and that anything is art if you call it art. My conclusion was that the artist had succeeded in his attempt to elevate an ordinary object to become somthing more than it was, but he had not turned it into art, he had turned it into anti-art. We discussed objectivity vs subjectivity in art for a bit. There had been things we had like in that gallery for both objective and subjective reasons. Indeed beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but someone who does not believe in beauty at all cannot tear down my own love for it.
Walking away from the meuseum, we agreed that it was not. As Julie put it, why would an artist attack art? Hypocritical was the description that popped to my mind. How could a man at the same time claim to be an artist, and profess to be so profound that he could call this thing art, and at the same time suggest that art is worthless, and that anything is art if you call it art. My conclusion was that the artist had succeeded in his attempt to elevate an ordinary object to become somthing more than it was, but he had not turned it into art, he had turned it into anti-art. We discussed objectivity vs subjectivity in art for a bit. There had been things we had like in that gallery for both objective and subjective reasons. Indeed beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but someone who does not believe in beauty at all cannot tear down my own love for it.
Myself now, James of 2012 is not even slightly angered by the Urinal. I am willing to accept it as art. It is still "Art That I Don't Like" but I no longer object to the art label, and I would no longer label it Anti-Art. I am also less certain than my 2002 self was about whether the artist meant any malice by it. I'm not ruling out the possibility, I just don't know.
I have come to a point in my life where I no longer think it is important for everybody (or even anybody) to agree on a single universal definition of "Art". I think creating art is important. I think viewing and appreciating art is important. I think talking with other people about art is important.
I don't think defining art is important. (Not other than the fact that trying to define art is a natural part of talking about art) I am not saying I think people should stop trying to defining art. I just don't think anyone is going to be able to do it, and I think even if somebody could define precisely what art is, it wouldn't change what art is.
Wed May 09, 2012 10:05 pm
James Paige wrote:
I don't think defining art is important. (Not other than the fact that trying to define art is a natural part of talking about art) I am not saying I think people should stop trying to defining art. I just don't think anyone is going to be able to do it, and I think even if somebody could define precisely what art is, it wouldn't change what art is.
I'm of a very similar opinion, and one of my ulterior motives is to include that message in the game. Along with exposing players to forms of art that they might not see all too often.
I've been having a lot of fun reading about our various art movements
Email contributions to the OHR Collab project to:
ohrcollab@gmail.com
All contributions will be recorded in the credits.
Wed May 09, 2012 11:30 pm
if you aren't interested in art and aesthetics, you might want to skip this diatribe:
The urinal! Ultimately, everyone has a personal definition of art; some people (like myself) furthermore believe that there is a single definition of 'art' and everyone else is wrong - but this is a belief.
We know that Duchamp was a joker, but we also know that he was a classically trained artist. The fountain is a seminal piece of work, and it achieves two distinct things. The first of these is that it challenges the definition of art. Duchamp was saying that something can transcend its function, and thus must be viewed in a different way. By doing this, he takes a simple and base item - a urinal, and makes you think about it in a way you never would have done before. I think this was a very valuable advancement in art history, and made a lot of exceptional (both good and bad) art possible.
The second thing is that he's acknowledging the autonomous qualities of the object as an abstract object. The smooth curves, the dimensions, proportions; the way the light hits the contours and etc. You might think this is absurd, but allow Colin Trudd a moment to explain it further:
[...] modernism, in establishing its autonomy of expression, generates the conditions for the emergence of a pure art that pursues its own unique agenda. In painting this meant that 'authentic' work would be made by drawing upon its own specific material nature. Thus Greenberg predicted that the modernist painter would devote more and more time to the nature of his medium: to the flatness of his canvas, to the physical reality of the picture-plane, to the luminosity or the opacity of his colour, to the shape of his support, to the presence of the frame. Organizing itself as an inward-looking practice, this form of modernism was to develop through the rigorous elimination of all decorative and ornamental elements. This celebration of the ineluctable uniqueness of modernism - its capacity to establish artistic value without making any critical engagement with social and political matters - became the dominant method of appreciating contemporary art practice. (Sim, Stuart. The Routledge Companion to Postmodernism. London: Routledge, 2005. VII)
Duchamp, unlike many others working in that kind of vien today, was not a crook. He was a very talented classical painter and made a deliberate choice to explore the artistic avenue that he did. I think that's worth considering.
The urinal! Ultimately, everyone has a personal definition of art; some people (like myself) furthermore believe that there is a single definition of 'art' and everyone else is wrong - but this is a belief.
We know that Duchamp was a joker, but we also know that he was a classically trained artist. The fountain is a seminal piece of work, and it achieves two distinct things. The first of these is that it challenges the definition of art. Duchamp was saying that something can transcend its function, and thus must be viewed in a different way. By doing this, he takes a simple and base item - a urinal, and makes you think about it in a way you never would have done before. I think this was a very valuable advancement in art history, and made a lot of exceptional (both good and bad) art possible.
The second thing is that he's acknowledging the autonomous qualities of the object as an abstract object. The smooth curves, the dimensions, proportions; the way the light hits the contours and etc. You might think this is absurd, but allow Colin Trudd a moment to explain it further:
[...] modernism, in establishing its autonomy of expression, generates the conditions for the emergence of a pure art that pursues its own unique agenda. In painting this meant that 'authentic' work would be made by drawing upon its own specific material nature. Thus Greenberg predicted that the modernist painter would devote more and more time to the nature of his medium: to the flatness of his canvas, to the physical reality of the picture-plane, to the luminosity or the opacity of his colour, to the shape of his support, to the presence of the frame. Organizing itself as an inward-looking practice, this form of modernism was to develop through the rigorous elimination of all decorative and ornamental elements. This celebration of the ineluctable uniqueness of modernism - its capacity to establish artistic value without making any critical engagement with social and political matters - became the dominant method of appreciating contemporary art practice. (Sim, Stuart. The Routledge Companion to Postmodernism. London: Routledge, 2005. VII)
Duchamp, unlike many others working in that kind of vien today, was not a crook. He was a very talented classical painter and made a deliberate choice to explore the artistic avenue that he did. I think that's worth considering.
Thu May 10, 2012 2:17 am
Pieces of art like the urinal, or perhaps something like this:
These things are art in the same way that Bufanda was a game. It was presented to people in the same way as a game. It was made by someone who makes games. It was even created using game making methods. So we can call it a game even though it's basically a choose your own adventure story.
However, I think the main problem people have with the urinal or the blank canvas with perhaps a red dot on it, is that it's noticeable how little effort the creator has put into the piece. So I think the question changes from, is it art, to is it good? And I'd have to say no, neither of them are. Though, it can be argued that pieces like these push the boundaries of the art world in reality all they do is show the world how little a top artist needs to do. It brings up the reasoning that top modern artist don't really need to be talented as much as they need to be famous. After all, I see crazy urinal sculptures on many lawns whenever I decide to drive through the country. I've also seen hundreds of blank canvases before. The only thing that sets the blank canvases I've seen and the ones in the pictures above apart is that "the artist" featured above was able to get his blank canvases hung in an art museum.
Quote:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SKl3K6c-yio/TgoT9wSmIYI/AAAAAAAAAqQ/8HXs3Y2--mE/s1600/modern_art.jpg
These things are art in the same way that Bufanda was a game. It was presented to people in the same way as a game. It was made by someone who makes games. It was even created using game making methods. So we can call it a game even though it's basically a choose your own adventure story.
However, I think the main problem people have with the urinal or the blank canvas with perhaps a red dot on it, is that it's noticeable how little effort the creator has put into the piece. So I think the question changes from, is it art, to is it good? And I'd have to say no, neither of them are. Though, it can be argued that pieces like these push the boundaries of the art world in reality all they do is show the world how little a top artist needs to do. It brings up the reasoning that top modern artist don't really need to be talented as much as they need to be famous. After all, I see crazy urinal sculptures on many lawns whenever I decide to drive through the country. I've also seen hundreds of blank canvases before. The only thing that sets the blank canvases I've seen and the ones in the pictures above apart is that "the artist" featured above was able to get his blank canvases hung in an art museum.
Thu May 10, 2012 9:21 am
The amount of time spent on something does not translate into how 'good' it is.
Do you know how many drafts or versions an artist might go through before they're satisfied with 'a red dot'? You do a disservice to artists.
For example, take a programmer. They study computing for maybe 7 years, and spend 3 years in university before they become a proficient programmer. Then they spend a number of hours working on a procedural terrain generator. This is a significant of time spent creating a system which will after this point will effortlessly generate landscapes. No body questions games which use this type content generation system, or accuses them of being lazy. The result is still a virtually unlimited number of variable landscapes, which can be generated instantly, with no intellectual requirements from a creator. The different with art is, it provokes the observer and forces them to challenge their preconceptions.
An artist (a good artist, like Duchamp was) will spend all of their life studying, experimenting, practising, thinking and developing their ideas and their working aesthetic. People can criticise Fountain, but there are still people talking about it, and being challenge by it nearly a hundred years later. It has a longevity and cultural impact that the hundreds of thousands of pop artists today unlikely will do.
To suggest that abstract or even conceptual arts take little effort is extremely short sighted.
However, there is a situation in art right now, which we have been having for the last 40 years or so which you've touched on. There is an extremely agressive brand of manufactured art at the moment, which is being perpetrated and encouraged by media moguls and billionaires with foolish art investors. Specifically the BYAs and Charles Saatchi. They're caused an immense amount of harm to the contemporary art landscape, and probably will continue to do so.
Do you know how many drafts or versions an artist might go through before they're satisfied with 'a red dot'? You do a disservice to artists.
For example, take a programmer. They study computing for maybe 7 years, and spend 3 years in university before they become a proficient programmer. Then they spend a number of hours working on a procedural terrain generator. This is a significant of time spent creating a system which will after this point will effortlessly generate landscapes. No body questions games which use this type content generation system, or accuses them of being lazy. The result is still a virtually unlimited number of variable landscapes, which can be generated instantly, with no intellectual requirements from a creator. The different with art is, it provokes the observer and forces them to challenge their preconceptions.
An artist (a good artist, like Duchamp was) will spend all of their life studying, experimenting, practising, thinking and developing their ideas and their working aesthetic. People can criticise Fountain, but there are still people talking about it, and being challenge by it nearly a hundred years later. It has a longevity and cultural impact that the hundreds of thousands of pop artists today unlikely will do.
To suggest that abstract or even conceptual arts take little effort is extremely short sighted.
However, there is a situation in art right now, which we have been having for the last 40 years or so which you've touched on. There is an extremely agressive brand of manufactured art at the moment, which is being perpetrated and encouraged by media moguls and billionaires with foolish art investors. Specifically the BYAs and Charles Saatchi. They're caused an immense amount of harm to the contemporary art landscape, and probably will continue to do so.