PDA

View Full Version : Naturalism.



Zomnivore
10-29-2013, 01:08 AM
Personally I'm a fan of naturalism, I think it can provide compelling explanations for things and make very compelling fiction.

I believe there are enough nuanced interactions in nature ripe for being exploited for fictitious haberdashery, to go hog wild.

What do you think of when you think of flight? What is flight? Its an action, an ability to create mechanical force and move through the medium of the air, and the execution of that act.


Alright. Create a new medium and call it the void. How do you move through it? Void creatures will by happen stance have some form. Probably. At least that's what the use of artists to render them suggests. They will have some guidelines on how to create the image and stylistic icon-ism that will definitely state what is and isn't a void creature. Its a function of the medium, card art exists in. Cards based on games with art that has a 'read' and helps inform the user of the function of the card. Also the concept of creature also has strong connotations with suggest-able forms.

So, now we know that void creatures have definitive characteristics. Using those characteristics to describe how the exist in their environment and shaping their environment to create a wealth of new ways to describe void creatures to come will by its very function create a 'read' because you've created the concept with the idea that they have a reason to exist, at least in that their form describes a function.

___---break---___

Form describing function is nice, but it can also be boring as all freaking hell. The fact is that concepts and imagination create a distinct disconnect from form and function.

Things like bikini-chainmail or the way that children can't die in video games are two extreme examples of why fiction can both be not-real, and also teach you something important about the world it was spawned from.

I find the framework for understanding those systems hard to grasp and how to utilize those realizations for better fiction creation, to be desirable.

Those frameworks exist for a reason, and even though they might not be good ones (if the aspiration is to create better novel fiction) figuring them will be useful.


___---break---___

Utilizing interesting structures in reality is tough, its hard to understand when you've found something interesting. Yep. I've no clue how to create the diagnostic for how to correctly identify something interesting. Subtlety and perspective create an ever changing description and all of its nestled in a climate of general human understanding. So, as I have nothing to add to that aspect of this...Here's something I think is particularly satisfying.


I think systems are revolutionary-ly interesting concepts.
Our awareness that our world has them, and how to utilize them, and create them and exist in them is what I reckon will decide whether or not our species goes extinct, until some other revolutionary concept emerges to destroy us with our own ignorance.


That meta-entities like corporations exist, and the way they've manifested in this world as a semi sentient systems is breathtakingly cool.

But most importantly its novel.

Its easy to see the implications system-organisms have for narrative, but from a visual design aspect its hard to convey the concept.

Artists you really aughta get on that.

(To be continued, also I'm a scrub so if you take a purely analytical bent on this and destroy me. Bravo.)

HyenaNipples
10-29-2013, 04:37 AM
I'd like to engage in discussion, but your thesis and conclusion are both unclear.

Is the creation of standardized traits for the 'Void' the main point, or is that simply an example?

Zomnivore
10-29-2013, 11:36 AM
Oh I was trying to set some topics some tone, but ya will tidy it up.

Ebynfel
10-30-2013, 07:45 AM
There are some issues for the creatively talented to portray what has, in effect, not been created in the void scenario. ANything short of giving a creative professional carte blanche and the creativity may be stymied. When looking to something new and creative, various iterations are often required to find an aesthetic appeal. In the end(and in response), function just loses to form here.

In all honesty, striking a balance between form and function is usually desirable. You don't really want to look at nondescript soldier number 16 on the card art. You want to see the badass swinging through, and it takes some imagination to fill i nthe blanks where the cards leave off. The largest issue with delving into the unknown in an art based game is, well, the art. The medium we most commonly see is but a millisecond of time in an ever-changing window. One artist's interpretation of said event(moving through the void or somesuch, or even flying), could be radically different than others. For an abstract action, it is up to the seasoned creative professional to portray his vision in a well understood, aesthetically pleasing manner, or it detracts from the experience.

But I digress. I really don't know what I am trying to communicate here and am rambling:)

Zomnivore
10-30-2013, 01:59 PM
I guess the idea is, that as long as you stick to physically functional principles you miss out on some of the good visual bits that don't have to rely on physics.

Abrasive harsh colors create an effect that you can use to apply a didactic sensation where you'd have to describe a character in color, and you can also create the narrative that their presence is caustic to those around them...making a compelling didactic experience and you would feel some of that annoyance or visual irritant. (The better part of this would also be if that in some way their gameplay was annoying or game ending, them being a high threat and needing to be removed would probably be pretty cool. Not only would that limit the amount of a visually annoying card you'd see by ways of game balance, you'd also have compelling game reasons to remove it.)

Its a strategy that exploits the brain and principles of perception, to create interesting effects. SO now using a functional understanding of the world, and your own perception of it. You're using things that do not relate to reality directly (principles of the medium of art, and perception) to affect a characteristic to the fictional creature you've created.

Still conceptually naturalism is a restricting system, that can degrade concepts that involve non-causal relationships. Things work for reasons. If you're trying to create a chaotic character you've got to address that notion visually, or you're creating a bad facade in regards to chaos.

Does a decent facade of chaos matter in relation to fiction? If we're stylizing chaos for some visual/narrative reason, or creating un-realistic (funny no) expectations of what chaos would be like...does that matter?

A decent facade of chaos is still important and conceptually grows our own understanding of our beliefs of what something chaotic would be. So there is that...important element of education to fiction making that helps subtly teach people abstract notions.

(Personally I believe fiction can be a subtle way to impart educational aspects to escapism and to help people who abuse it beyond a healthy level.)

Teaching people a high level view of what our* understanding of chaos might look like visually teaches them a lot of things not limited to the concept. It teaches them about the perceptions of the individuals making the fiction and can be a great way of communicating beliefs.

I believe telling people what you believe exposes you to a lot of interesting information. Being wrong, is a very compelling experience once you're given the correct framework for dealing with the negative costs associated with it.

Whelp I'm all out of steam.

There's probably a compelling point(s) somewhere in there. If its not well structured...eh comes with the territory.

Zomnivore
11-03-2013, 03:49 PM
1. There are some issues for the creatively talented to portray what has, in effect, not been created in the void scenario.

2. When looking to something new and creative, various iterations are often required to find an aesthetic appeal.

3.In the end(and in response), function just loses to form here. /In all honesty, striking a balance between form and function is usually desirable.


4.You want to see the badass swinging through, and it takes some imagination to fill in the blanks where the cards leave off.

5.The largest issue with delving into the unknown in an art based game is, well, the art.

6.The medium we most commonly see is but a millisecond of time in an ever-changing window.

8.For an abstract action, it is up to the seasoned creative professional to portray his vision in a well understood, aesthetically pleasing manner, or it detracts from the experience.


1. mmhmm I think the problem lies in describing, and creating a compelling place with interesting believable properties...not something limited to visual arts.

2. Yep design is iterative. Being visually compelling doesn't mean it looks like a functional thing.

3. I think you misunderstand. As far as we know, form is function in this reality. Physical form tells you about an objects properties. Atoms clump together in ways, and molecules bind in ways that form shapes and you can extrapolate this to creatures and mechanisms. As far as I know all matter is made of atoms. So all things with form have inherent functional properties by definition.

4. Yes fiction is often interpretive. What makes a compelling scene is also very subjective.

5. I don't really know if that's an important statement. It might actually be a subtle submission to my point, couldn't really fairly say.

6. I don't believe this is accurate at all.

7. I don't think you can have an abstract notion, and also a well understood interpretation/representation. Often this is why math is so hard, and other scientific notions are lost on people not versed in things.

It also means that representations of abstract notions have to be even more understanding of people's confusion and the ways in which people get things wrong.

Its an iterative process and why wouldn't it be. Learning anything, and teaching something are both full of failure. Its about making failure (a necessary component) a compelling experience.

(This is one of the reasons why I think Demon Souls, and Dark Souls are hugely compelling experiences...to throw that out there)

____

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I had some stuff I wanted to spit out before I addressed you, and then I needed some time to 'brain'-up and talk about what you'd said.

HyenaNipples
11-04-2013, 09:29 PM
You guys are attempting to define 'artistic convention' in the most convoluted way possible.

Zomnivore
11-07-2013, 05:53 PM
You guys are attempting to define 'artistic convention' in the most convoluted way possible.

Sup, as I've said, you're deal with scrub logic here.

I don't honestly know how to approach this subject, its not like I've read much about it, or would know where to look up things in relation to this very specific subject.

By way of jargon, of very specific words, and things I just wouldn't know how to accurately describe from an ignorant position.

If you feel like tossing out resources for me to look up, I'm game. Can't say that I'd be able to purchase a text book, but theory isn't exactly stuck in high barrier to entry resources.
***

If I waited till I knew what I was talking about through and through, what purpose would talking to people have for me?

It feels like waiting for competence to happen to then have a discussion about what interests me is an argument for impotence.

I can't wait for permission to explore these concepts.

I can handle making a fool out of myself when I'm a fool. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and I won't know I'm wrong until some mechanism shows me I'm wrong.

Utilizing this forum, and the user base seems to me more preferable than going directly to text book sources as there is a use for my curiosity, communally, and if this is any way a desirable trait for a community then I also help market the game, by just being the curious yokel I am.

HyenaNipples
11-08-2013, 12:29 AM
I've reread this thread several times, on several different days, in a futile attempt to understand what its about. Ebynfel gave it a good shot, but its rather clear he/she wasn't sure what this thread is about either. Here's working off an assumption:

As far as Naturalism goes in regards to the Void, there isn't any research to do. If we assume that we are within the universe of Entrath, and thus inside an imaginary universe wherein a Void exists... why are we importing a real-world philosophy? Naturalism is ill-equipped to exist inside a imaginary world, as the entire purpose of naturalism is to sit in the real world and riddle out what is imaginary and what isn't.

In an imaginary universe, everything is imaginary. Thus the Void and its denizens can be anything you want them to be, whether you invent them directly; or by concocting an imaginary ecosystem with imaginary physical laws that produce the Void and its creatures. It's the same thing in the end, regardless of which direction you go.

People have done this already, many, many people. There are dozens of popular artistic conventions for the Void, and some work from the creatures up, and others work from the laws down. Just as a few examples from games: Dungeons and Dragons, League of Legends, World of Warcraft, Mass Effect, etc. Whether the Void is just outer-space or an alternate dimension entirely, the Void is always the dark place where the monsters come from.

Artists know how to do that, you just use dark colors and menacing shapes. Viola! People are then quite sure the Void is a nasty place.

Zomnivore
11-08-2013, 01:02 AM
Naturalism is a world view, and I think its one of the more basic fundamental ones.

I believe that when artists try to create 'believable x' they often default into a naturalistic world view, and start creating simulated muscle structures and other physical forms that relate directly to reality. They create lighting structures and blends that simulate real lighting.

They try to recreate nom real things using 'real' frameworks.

I don't think its particularly new as a phenomenon but I wanted to think more about it, and understand what that can do to the art, and in what ways that can limit artistic style.

If you're trying to have a very clear 'read' of what something is, you often try to appeal to the lowest common denominator and 'reality' is pretty much as common as you get. So depicting things to a realistic degree happens a lot in game art. I don't see a lot of abstract things in game art, or in games as a genre.

Monsters being limited by bone structures and other things, because that's what we 'know' is kind of laughable.

Its one of the things that annoy me about modern monster design. Why do so many things have bones? Why aren't monsters inordinately flexible? Qualities that aren't limited to our current flawed understanding of bio-mechanical design.

There's a lot of room for innovation and thats annoying me, even within a naturalistic understanding.

Often when something is annoying me, whether its government, financial systems, society. There are good valuable reasons for that sensation to exist. Usually when I talk about that annoyance I learn more about why it exists.

I don't have a direct goal for this thread other than to learn more about what people thing about naturalism in relation to art, and design. If there's a side objective its to understand more what that feeling of annoyance is stemming from.

Although I also just want to talk to people and see how the subject engages them.

If someone has an interesting take on naturalism and art, I don't want to limit them by setting a solid "goal" for a conversation that I want to have for its own sake.

HyenaNipples
11-08-2013, 01:17 AM
So you don't know what you're talking about either...

I suppose I should have realized that from the start. This just goes to show how bored I get these days.

Zomnivore
11-08-2013, 02:52 AM
So you don't know what you're talking about either...

I suppose I should have realized that from the start. This just goes to show how bored I get these days.

So are you an annoying apathetic troll?

I mean, I provided ideas, and talked about things. You seem to be pretty value-less in this conversation.

If you want to spout meaningless insults you'll find better sport elsewhere for your ego-trip.

You pretend to be a source of authority and provide nothing.

You pretend to be knowledgeable but share nothing.

What are you doing here but to appease your own sense of importance?

If you pretend that you need well formulated thesis statements to discuss...fine, but how do you ever have a discussion ever where the subjects are unknowns?

You bore me.

HyenaNipples
11-08-2013, 09:54 AM
Fair enough.

I apologize.

Zomnivore
11-09-2013, 01:12 AM
Fair enough.

I apologize.

Thank you.

A_e-n
12-21-2013, 09:35 PM
Perhaps the naturalism used in the artwork for games and the majority of their "monsters" is something as simple as immersion.

As you stated before, people like to relate things to the most common denominator, this being "reality". The closer an artist can give relation to the viewer, the more engaged one can be at the things that are different -- at least in the beginning.

Thus, the majority, and first iterations of creatures tend to be closer to what we expect things to look like based on our realities; examples: beasts, robots, humanoids, etc.

Once these have been established, the immersion baseline is set, and the lore/art can take more drastic and abstract turns. Examples: Amorphous human-absorbing blobs, fairies, dragons...

Basically, it seems like a logical progressive system to engage immersion. To create another world in which people can "escape reality"; but in order for it to grab hold, there has to be some sort of ground-work laid. It's a much easier transition from reality to slightly strange than reality to "what in the hell" strange.