billy Xavier Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Hi all, I am doing a project for a Andy Warhol class and the assignment is to create an Warholian object. I am imagining what Warhol would do in SL. So far I was thinking he would like to be anybody with an avatar, be able to instantly copy things, and question can art be created in a video game. Anyone have other ideas of what Warhol would do in SL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaria Goldshark Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 billy Xavier wrote: can art be created in a video game. Art is everywhere in video games......SL is an artist's dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Jetaime Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Instead of asking us to do your homework for you, download the viewer and log into SL and explore the vibrant art scene in world and you can see that Warhol would never ask "can art be created in a video game". The answer is no because games don't allow content creation for the most part, Their content is provided. They have fixed goals to 'win'. SL is not a game, it is a virtual world. And yes, art can be created there and is every day by it's residents, some of whom are well known artists in RL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Billy's been here since 2004: https://my.secondlife.com/billy.Xavier Surely you know the answer to your question by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy Xavier Posted December 9, 2012 Author Share Posted December 9, 2012 Hmm yea maybe I should have phrased that better. I know art can be created in SL but would it be considered art by others. Lots of people did not consider his Brillo boxes art because they just looked like copies but he recreated them to show everyday objects can and should be considered art. Maybe he would use SL to hold a virtual gallery opening for his work or just go to lots of parties. I am trying to think how could use SL to reflect American life? Anyone have ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 maybe thats it andy warhol would recreate SL things in SL i think. like ordinary SL things. what they are is the question i think. like what would the ordinary SL things be for him? like would he paint a plywood prim? maybe dunno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Sorbet Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 I am pretty sure that he would be labeled as a griefer and banned within a short time. If he kept a screencap journal, it might look a little like w-hat.org. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 billy Xavier wrote: Hmm yea maybe I should have phrased that better. I know art can be created in SL but would it be considered art by others. Ok, now you've got something I can relate to, and I think the answer would not be what a lot of SL artists want to hear. Until it mainstreams, new art forms tend to get treated as just 'junk'. People will look at the stuff made in SL as just 'video game junk and screenshots thereof' - completely dismissing BOTH the imagination and the work that goes into it. It'll probably be another decade before the first virtual world to get mainstream appreciation. And chances are people will call it a first of its kind, and ignore everything that came before... Does that mean its not art though? Hardly. Maybe eventually it will get that recognition outside of the 'video game freaks playing this' (and in some gamer forums, the general comments seem to think SL is junk and -less- creative than the video games they're on... /facepaw... Others just think we're weird). - The core of the rub is we may not think this is a game, but the people not -playing- SL do... and they're going to label us with so-fitting labels. Until we can make a game be seen as art... and what the "players" of that game do be seen as art when it is original, we don't stand a chance... Because the label of game is not going to wear off any time soon... If Andy Warhol tried to use SL to get famous, he'd have failed. But if after famous he'd shown up, it would have given this place a short burst of interest, which would fade the moment he did something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 What would Andy Warhol be doing now if he were alive? Clawing at the top of his coffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orca Flotta Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 I've seen Campbell Tomato soup cans in SL, if that answers your question. :smileyvery-happy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiffy Vella Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 His machinima would have been interesting indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Pussycat Catnap wrote: Until it mainstreams, new art forms tend to get treated as just 'junk'. Only if it actually is junk in terms of art, which some of it really is - a gent's urinal, for instance, or a pile of bricks, or half a sheep, or an unmade bed, etc. The people who created those, and things like them, must have laughed their socks off when they were accepted as actual art by some people in the art industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 You know the big fuss about the Guardian reviewer's critique of MoMA's videogame exhibit, right? Also, Tiffy has it right, I think: If Andy were in SL, he'd be using the medium for video, not for painting nor sculpture. I don't remember any example of him being an "environmental" artist (well... other than The Factory itself, I suppose), which would be a good fit for other artists. In fact, Warhol would never spend time in SL. There aren't enough celebrities about, and he would judge the platform to have had its fifteen minutes of fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy Xavier Posted December 9, 2012 Author Share Posted December 9, 2012 Thanks guys. So far I created an avatar that looks like Warhol. I think if he was in SL he would like to create a perfect version of himself because he was insecure about his appearance. He might also try a woman avatar out but end up settling on himself because he would like people to recognize him. I then made a video showing Warhol looking at his art in the game, sleeping, going to a nightclub, and getting a blow job. I Show him sleeping to interact with Warhol's sleep which was a 7 hour film of man sleeping that provided a contrast to those who were awake all the time due to methamphetamines. Virtual characters do not need sleep but showing one sleeping could have the same effect. A player can log off and can start again from the same spot anytime. Why sleep when there is no need to? In the last part of the sleep video I demonstrate that the Avatar’s eye is actually open. It cannot close to fall asleep because there is no need. I also depict Warhol engaging in virtual sex to see if it provided a better substitute to real life sex which he did not enjoy much. Anyone have other ideas or critiques? Consensus is not a good measure of art. There have to be reasons for something to be considered art. A work cannot be dismissed as not being art at first glance. I think this is what happening with video games, people are just looking at the most popular ones and ignoring others. The guardian piece that says, "The player cannot claim to impose a personal vision of life on the game, while the creator of the game has ceded that responsibility." This Ignores games like Dear Esther or Braid that forces the player to think about the games intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: Until it mainstreams, new art forms tend to get treated as just 'junk'. Only if it actually is junk in terms of art, which some of it really is - a gent's urinal, for instance, or a pile of bricks, or half a sheep, or an unmade bed, etc. But note Qie's post right below yours - about that Guardian article. That article is a short little rant by some fuddy-duddy who's locked into the old norm that anything with pixels or cartoons is for people -UNDER- 18 only - and so cannot be called art... (His entire argument seems to be "why was the professor who called this art even playing games to begin with, is the guy some kind of geeked out freak living in his mother's basement watching hentai videos and drooling?" ) - OK, I embellish... but only because his editor probably forced him to dial down the dismissive scorn... He makes my point: Mainstreamers are not yet ready to call this stuff art. Nevermind that there is more money in this than in movies... stuff with pixels on a screen is still for kids and freaks with mental problems... according to that writer... - And I don't think he's been fired for that opinion yet... so somebody agrees with him... By contrast, MoMa NY at least is pushing forward and recognizing a new art form. So we're in a period of transition. Give it a few years... that Guardian writer himself will likely be praising the "art" in some future game once somebody hip enough is involved... Oh, in your examples, the toilet is the kick off of the DaDa movement - which was more political and 'design' than art themed. They were arguing about breaking free of past norms... Really fitting for the situation we're all in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) - He did it for no reason other than to provoke the establishment. But it kicked off a movement. The entire modern graphic design, advertising, and modern art industries can all trace themselves to that moment in 1917 when Duchamp made his protest. Pop cultures and 60s boomers like Warhol as their champion, but without Duchamp Warhol would have just been some freak working in a comic book shop scaring the kids... if comic books had even managed to come about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Pussycat Catnap wrote: But note Qie's post right below yours - about that Guardian article. That article is a short little rant by some fuddy-duddy [...] Presumably he's "some funny-duddy" because his opinion doesn't match yours, and that's not a valid reason at all. You specifically mentioned the gent's urinal so I'll comment on that. First, the person who offered it as a work of art didn't create it, so s/he wasn't an 'artist' for that piece. Noticing that something has an aesthetically pleasing shape doesn't make the one who noticed it an artist because s/he created nothing. Second, it might have been considered a reasonable piece of sculpture if the person who actually created it did it as a sculpture, but, like most things in the world, it was created for practical use and was, therefore, not a work of art. It was no more a work of art than the keyboard that I'm typing on is a work of art. The only way that it could be considered to be a work of art is if everything that is made is also considered to be a work of art. The same applies to the unmade bed, the half sheep, and so on. Bricks could be used as a medium, of course, but the actual pile of bricks was just that - a pile of bricks. It wasn't a work of art. Like the others, it was just somebody having a laugh at the stupidy of some people in the art world persuading themselves that it's art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 billy Xavier wrote: Hi all, I am doing a project for a Andy Warhol class and the assignment is to create an Warholian object. I am imagining what Warhol would do in SL. So far I was thinking he would like to be anybody with an avatar, be able to instantly copy things, and question can art be created in a video game. Anyone have other ideas of what Warhol would do in SL? Interesting question. He was the original famewhore. So the first thing he would do would be to sidle up to whoever he felt was "SL Famous" and or "legacy" i.e. if there were some equivalent of an SL old money family, debutante or society matron. He would use them to get publicity for himself. In return he would offer some form of debauched revel. He would identify whatever is the ubiquitous ingredient in SL and make that a centerpiece for his art. Maybe the humble untextured prim cube. He would get other people to make his art for him. He would have a signature 'look' for his own avatar. He said "artists should be ugly" so the interesting question, for me, would be whether or not he would have a pretty avatar or simply a unique one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: But note Qie's post right below yours - about that Guardian article. That article is a short little rant by some fuddy-duddy [...] Presumably he's "some funny-duddy" because his opinion doesn't match yours, and that's not a valid reason at all. You specifically mentioned the gent's urinal so I'll comment on that. First, the person who offered it as a work of art didn't create it, so s/he wasn't an 'artist' for that piece. Noticing that something has an aesthetically pleasing shape doesn't make the one who noticed it an artist because s/he created nothing. And yet that piece revolutionized graphic design, modern propaganda, art, and oddly enough; typography. 2 of those industries started that day. Those museum blokes were just stuck in outdated thinking, and needed to be shocked... Duchamp's statement was a metaphor for 'urinating on the art world.' His act is studied by students of design and typography to this day, and would be for 'political propaganda art' students if they had schools for that. As for the fuddy-duddy, I call him that based on his criteria for dismissing video-game art. It was one sole reason: "why is an adult man in a real profession even playing a video game?" His entire rant against MoMa was based on assumptive bias about the hobbies of a researcher... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Whatever the urinal is studied for, it doesn't make it art, and it doesn't make the person who displayed it an artist. I've no idea what you mean by that piece revolutionising graphic design, art, etc. It didn't revolutionise anything. It certainly caused a lot of people to laugh at the stupidity of displaying as art, but that's not exactly a revolution. About video games: Why do you think that adult males with proper jobs, should not play video games? That has to be one the silliest things I've seen written in a very long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now