ehlaren

As for architecture in general, It's my second interest aside from gaming, and I considered it for quite some time, although have never studied it deeply.
I think however that context is everything for architecture, and so meaning is tied both to the building itself and the context. I agree with Wild Homes, I can't figure out any meanings from so many modern buildings, but is that because I see them so often in architectural magazines and such? Where they are always pictured alone, maybe a glimpse of a view through a window.
In games however, possibly because of gameplay considerations, (good) buildings are so tied to their context they seem so much more relevant. Games have to evoke meanings from their architecture, since it is often so difficult to from other aspects, and because shaping a world is where games can separate themselves from traditional media. So much meaning is gleamed from the stark City 17, or the decaying ostentatiousness of Rapture.

This is a field where games must advance in, to be taken more seriously, and Daniel Dociu proves this can be done.

TheJeanGenie

j.howlett

While many 'big buildings' in modern styles tend to underwhelm me (the library at my university looks like a spaceship - literally), I do love a lot of the vernacular architecture that's sprouted up in the past couple of decades.

@j.howlett: You're talking about a preservation problem. America has historically lagged behind Europe in that regard, and Asia lags behind us. We're catching on, but people tend to get hysterical about things being declared historic areas ('What do you mean I have to get permission to change the exterior of my house?!'). But there are plenty of people working very hard to change that - and more and more areas figuring out that flattening whole neighborhoods of nice old houses that aren't necessarily 'grand' houses is NOT the way to go (among other things).

Maggie Greene

I do willingly concede to your interpretation of my earlier comments, but upon rereadingy own words I wonder if I didn't enter a mindspace I did not intend. I am not opposed to the post-structuralist line, but I enjoy more a work that can be taken, free of background and time, and interpreted freely within those parameters of human experience that are relatively timeless and unchanged. While I agree that one of the inevitable results of our superconnected-communication age is this greater realisation that all new works really ARE derivative, I prefer very much that the artist should at least attempt to bring my appreciation to one place. The alternative seems a bit self-indulgent, to my mind; and I would maintain that if, for example, fifteen pieces of art were produced, charmingly self-aware that meaning only exists in the context of each participant, then even relative statements of value can only pertain to the purely technical as all else is subjective and theoretically equal.

This might make little sense. Or no sense. I'm very tired.

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

The point of post-structuralist reflexive intertextuality is to highlight the highlight the subjectivity of meaning and the absurdity of decoding authorial intent. To infer that 'meta-art' (a horrid word construction that I hope to never use again) has only technical merits is to prove the point of post-structuralists everywhere; that is, defining meaning as an all-encompassing truth to a specific piece--a type of key that would unlock the work's intentions--is an epistemologically shaky endeavor that might prove to be ultimately futile.

More conservatively speaking, a post-structuralist work gives into the conceit that everything is derivative, echoes of what has come before. Meaning is drawn from the associations the audience makes from the work's familiar subtexts. There is no palpable difference between a novel that continually references other novels and a novel that continually references actual historical events, or even 'real life'. Extensive intertextuality is no different than a standard bildungsroman that draws from the author's own experiences--both are ultimately just a collection of signifiers, only as meaningful as what the audience can draw from them and how they might relate to the implications thereof. To me, Infinite Jest (a book I despise, by and by) is much more meaningful than The Sorrows of Young Werther (a book I love), precisely because I can identify and relate to Wallace's references.

Point being: a work mired in a "specific context" is only wholly specific to the author, and the author alone. And while some might pick up on those contexts and appreciate them, others will draw wholly different meanings from the myriad subtexts that underlie the work within the context of their own specific experiences. Generally speaking, I'm very leery of any view that reduces meaning to a single experiential value that must be common among most--if not all--observers, reducing a work to a simplified coin that only gauges a handful of signifiers on one side and technique on the other.

Of course, I think we're probably split along modernist/post-structuralist theories of signification. Which, in that case, I am fully prepared for the feminine, academic slap-fight that is sure to ensue. I can't wait until this ostensibly intelligent discussion spirals into a juvenile dialogue consisting entirely of "No, you're wrong, you shit-head" and "No, you're wrong, you jejune pissant."

:)

JustThisGuy

Some of you may remember see himself in a game *coughhalflife2cough*

[i200.photobucket.com]

I love daniel dociu work and its impact in the guild wars world, one of the games with the best art direction ever.

LordCiego

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

Archetype

Ragnarok_Comes

j.howlett

I'd say that our friendly architect neighbors across the sea care just as much about practicality as their American counterparts. I think you're confusing modern architectural style with historical architecture. The above cities are certainly beautiful, but they're also hundreds of years old (the ones listed are at least five times as old as the US) and their most stunning buildings and blocks are generally very old historic landmarks.

To be quite frank, I'd say that there are more avant-garde buildings in the States than over in the Continent per square mile. Our popular monuments alone are a testament to that. (No one's happy with just a statue anymore) Hell, most new public service buildings tend to follow very modern architectural styles; for example, several of the police stations in my city have a GIANT METAL FACE sticking out the side of the building. And my closest library is a massive Brutalist affair that stands out starkly against my neighborhood's otherwise Victorian backdrop.

Or you might just be suffering from familiarity. Your surroundings are boring because you're used to them. Trust me, those art-lovin' foreigners (whatever country they might be in) are just as bored of their cities as you are of yours.

JustThisGuy

Here's looking to GW2.

Majorasblaze

Note to self: Get secure job and wife before release of GW2.

(ensures maximum playtime).

LemmingZ

justhesh

Evil Tortie's Mom

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

There are exceptions to this, certainly, as there are to any idea. Renzo Piano comes to mind.

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

HarkMammil

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

This guy's art is always beautiful to look at, though.

I especially like his steampunk style giant "crab fort."

braagh

Dragoness_Muir

j.howlett

solar_tf

Not all American architects only look at practicality... Honestly, the "Americans are all pigs and prudes who don't have any culture and love guns" thing is beyond old...

bobtheduck

Venin

Lixie

but sadly no guild wars 2 art :(

lifeinthefridge

Katorok