( http://www.furtherfield.org/displayreview.php?review_id=361 )
The Freesound Project (http://www.freesound.org/) is a website that was created to host free sounds for others to sample from. The site contains a database of sounds protected under the Creative Commons Sampling Plus license, so people must provide credit to the original sound creators, but the derivative work can be used commercially or non-commercially. The sounds range from electronic beeps to anything you can imagine, although the database is specifically for sounds, not music.
The site is an exciting prospect for remix artists, who now have a fully-legal library of sounds to sample from, rather than having to record the sounds themselves, or resort to sampling without permission, which could get them in legal troubles later. I feel like copyright laws need to change a bit to allow proper artistic expression while still protecting the rights of the original content creators, after all, a lot of sounds in the world are not under the Sampling Plus license. How can someone claim ownership to a few seconds of sound? It is a difficult issue, because creative works require protection, but this protection also limits future creativity.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Entry 2 - Games as Art
( In response to http://www.furtherfield.org/displayreview.php?review_id=345 )
Edward Picot's article discusses the notion of games being a new art form, and examples many 'games'. He makes reference to a The Escapist article, "Game Rules as Art," which states that the rules in games qualify as art, regardless of the graphics and other components. Picot references many games throughout the article, examining their artistic merits. Two of these games are Gravitation, where you control a man who plays with a child giving him the power to travel to a screen above and knock stars onto the screen below where the child is, only to find that each time the stars might grant you points, but also trap the child until you collect them, and eventually the child disappears completely; and the Graveyard, where you control an old lady through a graveyard to a bench, and then control her out, with very little room for interaction.
I believe that Gravitation is a much stronger piece than the Graveyard because of its proper use of the medium. The Graveyard's creators, Tale of Tales, state that the lack of any gameplay in their 'game' is that "gameplay distracts from the story." I find this to be an absurd statement, as without interaction, the piece is not a game, and attempts to wipe away any differences the medium of games have from movies. It is making the mistake that most commercial games make, by trying to copy the format of movies. Because the rules of most games do nothing to tell the story beyond the visuals and music, Tale of Tales assumes that gameplay can only distract. The Graveyard is an extremely weak piece because it does not use its medium effectively. It is akin to a movie containing only an audio track without any visuals. It is a collosal step in the wrong direction, even ditching game-specific qualities that could enhance the story, such as the ability to move the camera, perhaps making you notice different things in each playthrough.
I consider Gravitation to be a much more successful example of how games can be art. The game uses its medium-specific interaction to add to the way the (although simple) story plays out. Because of the way your interaction adds to the experience and emotional response, it shows how games might be able to tell stories in a different way than movies, books or music. When game designers learn how to tell more complicated stories through their interaction, the medium might begin to get some recognition as a legitimate art form.
Works not cited:
"Indie Nation #39: The Graveyard" by Anthony Burch for Destructoid.com "http://www.destructoid.com/indie-nation-39-the-graveyard-110611.phtml"
Edward Picot's article discusses the notion of games being a new art form, and examples many 'games'. He makes reference to a The Escapist article, "Game Rules as Art," which states that the rules in games qualify as art, regardless of the graphics and other components. Picot references many games throughout the article, examining their artistic merits. Two of these games are Gravitation, where you control a man who plays with a child giving him the power to travel to a screen above and knock stars onto the screen below where the child is, only to find that each time the stars might grant you points, but also trap the child until you collect them, and eventually the child disappears completely; and the Graveyard, where you control an old lady through a graveyard to a bench, and then control her out, with very little room for interaction.
I believe that Gravitation is a much stronger piece than the Graveyard because of its proper use of the medium. The Graveyard's creators, Tale of Tales, state that the lack of any gameplay in their 'game' is that "gameplay distracts from the story." I find this to be an absurd statement, as without interaction, the piece is not a game, and attempts to wipe away any differences the medium of games have from movies. It is making the mistake that most commercial games make, by trying to copy the format of movies. Because the rules of most games do nothing to tell the story beyond the visuals and music, Tale of Tales assumes that gameplay can only distract. The Graveyard is an extremely weak piece because it does not use its medium effectively. It is akin to a movie containing only an audio track without any visuals. It is a collosal step in the wrong direction, even ditching game-specific qualities that could enhance the story, such as the ability to move the camera, perhaps making you notice different things in each playthrough.
I consider Gravitation to be a much more successful example of how games can be art. The game uses its medium-specific interaction to add to the way the (although simple) story plays out. Because of the way your interaction adds to the experience and emotional response, it shows how games might be able to tell stories in a different way than movies, books or music. When game designers learn how to tell more complicated stories through their interaction, the medium might begin to get some recognition as a legitimate art form.
Works not cited:
"Indie Nation #39: The Graveyard" by Anthony Burch for Destructoid.com "http://www.destructoid.com/indie-nation-39-the-graveyard-110611.phtml"
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Entry 1 - Damien Hirst
( In response to http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/damien-hirst-in-vicious-feud-with-teenage-artist-over-a-box-of-pencils-1781463.html )
At first thought, it seemed ridiculous to me that a box of pencils could be considered to be worth £500,000. However, after thinking about it for a bit, it makes more sense to me. After all, a bottle of paint is not worth very much, while a painting can be worth quite a lot. The medium is not what is of value, but rather the artistic expression that it conveys.
What bothered me most about the article was not how Cartrain could be fined such a large amount for taking the box of pencils (although it does bother me quite a bit. £500,000 worth of damages were not incurred and it wouldn't take £500,000 worth of effort to replace that one box of pencils), but rather how Hirst could have Cartrain's collage removed. Surely Hirst didn't create that box of pencils himself. In essence, Hirst and Cartrain are both doing the same thing, using existing materials as their medium. The only difference in my mind is that Hirst has the money and legal power to be able to take that medium away from Cartrain. This is an injustice: Cartrain is not allowed to take ownership of Hirst's medium and compromise his work of art, and Hirst should not be allowed to do the same thing. No matter what the medium, the artistic expression is what is of value.
At first thought, it seemed ridiculous to me that a box of pencils could be considered to be worth £500,000. However, after thinking about it for a bit, it makes more sense to me. After all, a bottle of paint is not worth very much, while a painting can be worth quite a lot. The medium is not what is of value, but rather the artistic expression that it conveys.
What bothered me most about the article was not how Cartrain could be fined such a large amount for taking the box of pencils (although it does bother me quite a bit. £500,000 worth of damages were not incurred and it wouldn't take £500,000 worth of effort to replace that one box of pencils), but rather how Hirst could have Cartrain's collage removed. Surely Hirst didn't create that box of pencils himself. In essence, Hirst and Cartrain are both doing the same thing, using existing materials as their medium. The only difference in my mind is that Hirst has the money and legal power to be able to take that medium away from Cartrain. This is an injustice: Cartrain is not allowed to take ownership of Hirst's medium and compromise his work of art, and Hirst should not be allowed to do the same thing. No matter what the medium, the artistic expression is what is of value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)