Understanding the Media 2
I represented my Presentation this morning, I have improved it by including a variety of sources and a wider range of of research. I included demographics, sales data and genre data. I displayed the data on graphics to make it look more presentable.
Both years 1 and 2 were designated into 2 groups for a debate. We had two topics to debate which were 'Games are Art' and '3D Graphics have improved film'. My group were against 'Games are Art' and we were in support for '3D Graphics have improved film'.
We suggested different points for each topic, mainly concentrating on 'Games are Art'. My main focus for the debate was although I did make other points -
Photorealism is a recreation of the fake (falsehood)
I researched into Photorealism using New Media A Critical Introduction, and read the actual definition for Photorealism. Reality is not recreated only a photographic reality, reality seen through a lens of a camera. Digital simulation has not achieved realism, only Photorealism. I also looked for quotes to use in the debate to support the argument. I also looked into the idea that artists have no freedom with being creative in the games industry. Artists are given briefs which they have to follow and no personal influence is allowed, they are part of a pipeline.
I read into to particular example, a concept artist was given a brief, the project was to create an image of a mech-planet construction site. The brief goes into detail on what is required on the image, the colour palette is restricted to only cool blues with one additional colour to pick out the details in the image. I used this example to back up the argument by explaining that the artist has no freedom in what he is creating, he is restricted to two colours.
I found a quote by Roger Ebert who opposes the idea of games being art.
"No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists, and poets. To which I could have added painters, composers, and so on, but my point is clear."
- Roger Ebert
I used this quote to support the argument, explaining that artists in the art industry don't consider games to be an art form. This quote being a perfect example of why game are not art, saying that no artist has ever been able to compare games with other arts.
Looking at this argument it has given me a wider mind on the subject, I have always looked at it in a biased way and always believed that games were a form of art. But arguing against it I have had the chance to view the other side of the argument and see what other people believe and they have made some interesting points. The games industry pipeline is a long list of people who have been given a brief which they have to follow building someone else's vision.
The next debate was '3D Graphics have improved film'. My group were in support of this idea.
My points for this argument were not as strong as my points in the last debate, I began by explaining that 3D has improved the entertainment value of films. Films like Transformers could not have been achieved without the technology of 3D graphics. The animations sequences being so seamless and the quality of the 3D being photo-realistic making a more successful impact on the audience.
I then described Bullet-Time, I began by explaining how the effects of Bullet-Time were achieved before it excited, the way it was created was by editing all the single frames together, the director could then generate the illusion of the freezing of movement and action. This was not very time efficient. Bullet-Time is a very fast way of creating slow motion and this technique is improving all the time as technology advances.
We suggested different points for each topic, mainly concentrating on 'Games are Art'. My main focus for the debate was although I did make other points -
Photorealism is a recreation of the fake (falsehood)
I researched into Photorealism using New Media A Critical Introduction, and read the actual definition for Photorealism. Reality is not recreated only a photographic reality, reality seen through a lens of a camera. Digital simulation has not achieved realism, only Photorealism. I also looked for quotes to use in the debate to support the argument. I also looked into the idea that artists have no freedom with being creative in the games industry. Artists are given briefs which they have to follow and no personal influence is allowed, they are part of a pipeline.
I read into to particular example, a concept artist was given a brief, the project was to create an image of a mech-planet construction site. The brief goes into detail on what is required on the image, the colour palette is restricted to only cool blues with one additional colour to pick out the details in the image. I used this example to back up the argument by explaining that the artist has no freedom in what he is creating, he is restricted to two colours.
I found a quote by Roger Ebert who opposes the idea of games being art.
"No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists, and poets. To which I could have added painters, composers, and so on, but my point is clear."
- Roger Ebert
I used this quote to support the argument, explaining that artists in the art industry don't consider games to be an art form. This quote being a perfect example of why game are not art, saying that no artist has ever been able to compare games with other arts.
Looking at this argument it has given me a wider mind on the subject, I have always looked at it in a biased way and always believed that games were a form of art. But arguing against it I have had the chance to view the other side of the argument and see what other people believe and they have made some interesting points. The games industry pipeline is a long list of people who have been given a brief which they have to follow building someone else's vision.
The next debate was '3D Graphics have improved film'. My group were in support of this idea.
My points for this argument were not as strong as my points in the last debate, I began by explaining that 3D has improved the entertainment value of films. Films like Transformers could not have been achieved without the technology of 3D graphics. The animations sequences being so seamless and the quality of the 3D being photo-realistic making a more successful impact on the audience.
I then described Bullet-Time, I began by explaining how the effects of Bullet-Time were achieved before it excited, the way it was created was by editing all the single frames together, the director could then generate the illusion of the freezing of movement and action. This was not very time efficient. Bullet-Time is a very fast way of creating slow motion and this technique is improving all the time as technology advances.
No comments:
Post a Comment