http___blog.robbiecooper.org_bg_2010_05__1.xml
http___blog.robbiecooper.org_category_art__1.xml
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11
Аз започнах да уча за игра дизайн, и какво прекрасно поле е! Много от любимите ми области на интерес са от значение в този еклектичен дисциплина естетика, психология, идентичност, неврологията, технологии и др. Съм започнаха да търсят това, защото аз се интересувам в потребителския опит от това, което е публикувал около преди няколко седмици в "Свържете се чрез образи" . Изглежда вероятно, че комбинираният ефект на интернет, новите устройства за четене, explorable 3D и така нататък, ще създаде нови начини за създаване и взаимодействие с медиите. Това е очевидно малко подценяване. Ние го знаем и да го видя сега, но това, което е ясно, е колко това ще размие границите между различните медии. В книгата си "Теория на шега" , Raph Koster твърди, че Mere забавление става изкуство, когато комуникативен елемент в работата е роман или изключително добре направено. Той наистина е толкова просто. Тя има силата да промени начина, по който хората възприемат света около тях. И това е трудно да си представим среда, по-силни в това отношение от видео игри, където са представени с интерактивност и виртуален свят, който реагира на избора си. "Браво" и "нова", общо взето, занаят. Можете да имате добре изработени развлечения, които не успее да достигне нивото на изкуство. Горното течение на изкуството обикновено са коварни постижения, те са парчета на работа, че могат да се върнат отново и отново и да научат нещо ново. Аналогия за игра ще можете да възпроизведете и отново и да откриваме нови неща. Спомням си, тъй Ван Гог за първи път. Бях видял изображенията много пъти преди това, и след това влезе в музея на Ван Гог в Амстердам и е наистина пренаредени с тях. Това беше едно изключително преживяване, този, който е без съмнение повтаря на дневна база, като хиляди минават през вратите на този музей. Дълбочина и движение в боя създава психологическо усещане и емоционалност, че повечето хора не биха имали преди, чрез посредничеството на боя. Но аз не мисля, че някога ще получите нещо значително по-различно от това, отколкото е създаден от собственото си вътрешно състояние, когато съм ги гледаше. Почти психеделична усещане е постижението си и там не е много повече, за да се учат от него. Всичко останало от него е било направено преди. Това не е нещо лошо, просто мисля, че ние сме склонни да преувеличават значението на индивидуалните постижения, когато те марки влиятелен отправна точка. Заедно, тези постижения до много. Но това създава устойчивост на възприеманата стойност в области, където тези постижения са привидно ерозирали от техническа сложност. Особено в климат, където стойността на изкуството е толкова силно повлиян от него, който служи на целта на интериор за богатите. Но, знаете ли, на кого му пука? Шекспир пише пиеси за развлечение. Дикенс е написал епизодични разкази, които бяха прочетени от ъглите на улиците, за хора, които не могат да четат. Пазара на изкуството е по толкова много начини, невероятно консервативен. По някакъв начин преследва този вид стойност може да се ограничава. Той винаги ми се струва, че създателите на видео игри са едновременно затрупан с идиот нуждите на техния пазар, и от тяхното собствено чувство за какви цели се обслужват от техния носител. Последното е много по-корозивни от първата. Мисля, че нещата ще се получи много по-интересно, тъй като елементи на игра дизайн, свързани с производството на онлайн медиите, че не е чисто, целящи да бъде забавление.
1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 11.1 11.2 11.3 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.10 13.11 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 15.1 15.2 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6 18.7 18.8 18.9
Shapes on a painting are just shapes on a canvas unless they start acting on each other and really, in a sense, multiplying. A good painting has a gathering, interactive build up in it. It’s a psychic build-up, but it’s also a pure energy build up… …there’s no such thing as a neutral gesture, because by the very fact of being there, it draws a certain amount of perceptual attention. Let’s say it drags a weight of .06 in the overall thing; well, then it’s got to give back- I don’t know how much- and some elements contribute more than others. If it’s drawing .06 in attention, let’s say it’s got to give back .12 in energy. Otherwise there’s no reason for its being there… …at this point I began to recognize the difference between imagery and physicality, that everything had both imagery and a physicality, and furthermore that for me, the moment a painting took on any kind of image, the minute I could recognize it as having any relationship to nature, of any kind, to me the painting went flat. The disk paintings (above) were his last works that could be described as paintings. MOMA has one of them in it’s collection, and this is what is written about it on it’s “MOMA highlights” page; This untitled work is a convex, spray-painted disk held a foot or so out from the wall by a central post. Its subtle, tactile surface modulates delicately from center to edge, and it is softly lit from four angles, creating a cloverleaf pattern of shadow. The white center of the disk can seem to lie level with the white wall, so that the eye spends time trying to understand what it sees—what is nearer and what is farther, what is solid and what is immaterial light, or even light’s absence. For Irwin, the result is “this indeterminate physicality with different levels of weight and density, each on a different physical plane. It [is] very beautiful and quite confusing, everything starting and reversing.” Evading confinement by the rectangle of the conventional painting, Irwin’s disks literally extend past their own boundaries—spread out into their environment, which is as much a part of them as their own substance. The idea, in part, extends the Abstract Expressionist notion of an infinite, all–encompassing, allover field, but with the qualification that for Irwin, “To be an artist is not a matter of making paintings or objects at all. What we are really dealing with is our state of consciousness and the shape of our perceptions.” After making this series he abandoned painting altogether and started the “light and space” movement- for example one of his later works; It’s interesting to think about in relation to a virtual space. The idea of presence. Game designers spend so much time trying to make a space believable, that the idea of creating some kind of perceptual dissonance doesn’t fit with the convention. I guess something like UE4 (in the previous post) will have the capacity to use things like particles, light and shadows in very complex ways. Anyway, here’s the great man giving a lecture aged 80 something; This is proper geekery, but there’s an awful lot to get excited about in the two videos above. Ignoring the very stylized and fantasy look of the demo, UE4 looks like it’s going to be an amazing tool. Realtime global illumination! That’s massive. Millions of particles. The fact that the whole thing is running in the editor! Extending the functionality of Kismet. Which is also a big deal, because it means you don’t have to be a programmer to muck around with game mechanics in the engine. The fact that they intend to give it the UDK treatment sooner than they did with UE3 etc etc… I’ve been trying to decide on which way to jump on my personal projects, based on my experiences of the last couple of years. In the end I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t care if something doesn’t run online or on low spec hardware. It’s a boring concern, and has the potential to sort of design stuff in reverse, starting with the biggest bottleneck. Also the problem is, in the long run, solvable. So sod it, I’m going to learn UDK, with a view to doing work in UE4 in a year or two. In day one of the Critical Play talks at MOMA (above) curator Christian Rattemeyer, around 1.30.35, launches into a question which leaves the gaming academics on the back foot for the rest of the conversation. He uses Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, that “still looks like an incredibly strange painting”, as an example of the ability of art to propose radical models that “cut so radically against what we imagine to be even the most marvellous moments of contemporary life”. He goes on “…the examples you’re giving in technology seem like they might date quicker… where are those examples in games that have the effect of radically unhinging us from what surrounds us?” It is an incredible painting, but comes after the technology of painting had evolved for thousands of years. Perspective, the ability to accurately render human likeness, the camera obscura and all the developments in mixing and preserving colour took an astonishingly long time to develop. It reminds me of David Deutsch’s Ted Talk “A New Way To Explain Explanation”. “I bet those prehistoric cave artists wished they knew how to draw better”. The vast majority of painting does not propose a radical model for its time, it simply reflects the prevailing know-how and mental model or world view. Once those practices become so established that they’re conventions, then there’s something to pull down. Picasso was reaching into the past and borrowing from African culture, with all the knowledge of his time and his own immense talent to draw from. Real time shading, rendering, animation and so on has not yet even got to the point where it’s realistic. It’s all in a state of fairly rapid evolution. Not to mention that there’s no real equivalent for visual primitivism in games- using retro pixellation carries none of the associations. And yet games most certainly are self-referential. Grand Theft Auto, for example, is Pac Man in the simulation of a city. It would not be hard to imagine that some day video games should be able to simulate different mental models and states of mind. Particularly if voice input becomes very sophisticated. Maybe even voice input enhanced with on-the-fly FACS analysis of the player. Input is one of the key factors, I think. If the player is simply navigating a space, then the contexts created by that space are of limited meaning. But if the visual qualities of the space are influenced by emotion and intent, that would be quite something. I’ve just been watching video from a MOMA talk, “Critical Play: The Game as an Art Form”. Which I’m loving and is leading me to look into a bunch of people and events put on by MOMA. Wishing I’d been around for the 2011 exhibition “Talk To Me”. The above video is about a piece, “Avatar Machine” by Marc Owens, from that show: Avatar Machine is a system which replicates the aesthetics and visuals of third person gaming, allowing the user to view themselves as a virtual character in real space via a head mounted interface. The system potentially allows for a diminished sense of social responsibility, and could lead the user to demonstrate behaviors normally reserved for the gaming environment. I got so bored of this (blogging) that I had to stop. As soon as something feels like a chore to me, that’s it, unfortunately. When I started this bog I really liked the idea of a scrapbook that other people could see; I’ve started many scrapbooks and forgotten about them quickly, but initially the idea that other people could see this made me feel like I’d stick with it, no matter how small the audience. Then the audience grows and naturally that gets interesting in itself, but somehow that changes things. So this little break from online life has been good, because I’ve managed to remember what this meant to me when I started it. I love Andy Warhol, he was a genius and did so much that most of us never see, even though he’s still such a huge figure. That’s the nature of real genius; it’s not some one-off event, but a lifetime of innovation and free thinking that demands a massive amount from anyone trying to understand it. I’ve written about the work of physicists, artists and philosophers as if I understand all of it. I understand snatches, sometimes whole segments, but it’s like poetry, it’s inspiring and allot of the time has that quality that people seek in art- the feeling that there’s a larger truth or world that’s hinted at, touched on, but never fully revealed. That isn’t a device- that’s about the limits of our understanding, personally and generally. In anything that’s interesting there’s a dialogue in the work that sustains, whether its in science, art, economics or whatever. For me, that’s never about politics or morality, because those two things are heavily constructed, they lose meaning in so many directions as to be pointless. Anyway, I’m kind of switching gears right now. The boredom that I also felt in my work was a good thing, as it almost always is unless you ignore it. The last time I wrote in this blog I was starting to write about 3D- I’ve become interested in explorable 3D, the idea of combining the characteristics of video games with some of the characteristics of photography. That’s what’s been consuming me the last few months and what, for the most part, I’ll be writing about from now on. It’s an arms race. It’s not something that you can do on your own, which is one of the things I find massively rewarding about it. About five years ago I looked into it and did some tests using software that was designed to help sell objects online, it was interesting but I felt like I was in completely unknown territory, I was, technically, out of my depth. I’d probably have been really encouraged if I’d known there were at least four universities and research labs who were doing similar things with the same kinds of technology. Except with some really amazing maths heads involved…