Star Ocean: Till the End of Time

Now we're getting into some heavy anthropology, so I don't want to get too in-depth without double checking a few things, but here goes.

I think when you're talking about western heroes, you're thinking mostly of the type of "hero" that sprung up during and immediately after the World Wars, and in America during the cold war. These were periods of high nationalism, and the heroes of the time were very diferent from the concept of heroism up until that point.

Obviously, western culture encompasses more than the 20th century. The roots of western culture run very deep, and while western culture today is heavily influenced by recent events (recent meaning the above referenced periods of the 20th century), you don't have to go back too terribly far to see that the all-powerful, weakness-free hero isn't quite the paragon of western art. nearly every Shakespeare play has a tragic hero, many of which would fit right into Japanese culture, and the heroes in works like Ivanhoe certainly have their own weaknesses. Even at the turn of the 20th century, heroism was seen similarly to the east, the main cahracter in The Jungle being one example.

Not that you don't make excellent points. There are fundamental differences between eastern and western culture. Our generation is one of the first that is making a serious attempt, not limited only to intellectuals, to bridge that gap. I just don't think the differences run so deep as people think. In the context of this discussion, I think heroes are heroes regardless of culture, but the focus of heroism can be radically different.
 
Back to Mononoke. It definitely has to do with the relationship between Japan and western culture. That hero prince guy represents the general people of Japan, Mononoke represents older, traditional Japanese culture and the gun woman represents western culture. Ultimately, the prince guy is torn between the traditional Japanese-itude and the increasing Western influence. Why do I think eye-patch gun woman represents western culture? Partly because of her use of guns, which Japan just wasn't into until right around the turn of the 20th century. Mainly because of her compassionate attitude towards hookers and lepers, like a certain Messiah shown in Action Hank's avatar. And when all is said and done, he ultimately decides to go into the gun woman's society, but always acknowledges, remembers and occasionally returns to Mononoke. At least that's what I think.
 
The history of the western hero do go back to the Dark Ages and beyond. The iconic knight in shining armor, King Arthur, chivalry and the like. America's folk lore is riddled with heroes of steel, and literature such as "Tom Sawyer", or stories of Davey Crockett and Paul Bunyun.

I do come from more of an artistic background, where I was subjected to the predominant philosophies of the ages. Mass publication is relatively new, so art was where the hero stories were captured and held for future generations to talk about. Europe liked its heroes so they could give hope to the feudal peasants that there is something bigger and better than their miserable lives. Noble knights, valiant kings, and the holy crusades are examples of this idealism.
 
Interesting that you should bring up World War 2. I think the war has had a profound effect on Japanese culture and the epic stories they tell. I will admit that I haven't taken any courses in Japanese literature or culture, but I have noticed a trend from Godzilla to Star Ocean. And that trend would be that war is bad. The overall themes of many Japanese games is that the war is often a sham and a waste of human life. I'm not sure if this has to do with the populace coming to grips with the actions of their army, or perhaps their demilitarization after the war, or if this related to the atomic bomb attacks. Maybe it's all three.

Western culture also has works along these lines, but it seems to me that the Japanese focus on it a lot more. Although there is a possibility that the only aspect of Japanese culture I am regurarly exposed to (video games - duh) just use this theme as it is conveinent when making a game. After all, these games are centered on conflict.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. By the way, Basil, Star Ocean is becoming more fun as I go along. The battle system isn't overly complex and some of the characters you meet along the way are fun. There was one villain I didn't want to kill because his insane rantings were so funny. I still miss him.
 
anime's historical roots trace a similar path to what you mentioned, katie. it was dealing with a lot of nationalism in the face of demilitarization...and took on many different shapes. some even masochistic (speleling?) in the regard of defacing japanese culture in favor of western.
 
Well Katie, I was focusing on America and western culture during and after WWII but youre' right, Japanese culture changed radically in that period. The main difference was the move from relative isolationism to more globalism. This is in part why there is a huge difference between the older and younger generations of Japanese today. The older generations are still aware of and in some cases still cling to isolationist philosophies, while younger Japanese are more willing to embrace western culture.

I think I'm going to show this thread to a few people who know more about Japanese culture than I do and see what they think.
 
Oh, I thought youmeant Albel. And just a warning to both of you. THE ENDING BLOWS. The whole ending stretch of the game sucks for that matter.
 
BCampbell said:
The nice thing about interpreting art is that even if the creator didn't intend for the interpretation, it can still be valid. Once art is made public, it belongs to those who experienceit , it no longer belongs to the artist. Thus all (reasonable) interpretations are valid.
Click to expand...

Interesting point, BC. However, "post-modernistic and interpret-it-to-mean-whatever-you-want" you want to be, the icons I mentioned are tried and true. Sure some hidden meanings were put in there, and other religious and philosophical meanings are lost on our modern society, but the ramifications of the idealogies in the medieval culture are evident, as were the early American culture. That's why romance comes from Romanticism. Art always reflects philosophies of the culture it is spawned from.

Most art that isn't a pile of colorful crap, or vague portraits (ie Mona Lisa), is pretty clear as to what is meant by it. Even Picasso's "Nightmare" can be directly tied back to his (I think they were his) experiences with the military and the slaughter that ensued. Some things are not open for interpretation. Some art is about making something pretty (many of the Romantic paintings. Some about technical skills (modernism and post-modernism if you count that as art). Some about emotions (expressionism). Most is about communicating an idea. If the artist has not done that successfully, and you want to interpret it however you want, then he has failed as an artist or you as someone who understands art.
 
Darth_Jonas said:
Interesting point, BC. However, "post-modernistic and interpret-it-to-mean-whatever-you-want" you want to be, the icons I mentioned are tried and true.
Click to expand...

That response was actually directed at Steve's interpretation of Mononoke.

Darth_Jonas said:
Most art that isn't a pile of colorful crap, or vague portraits (ie Mona Lisa), is pretty clear as to what is meant by it.
Click to expand...

And yet, many different people have many different interpretations of all works of art...

Just because people interpret a work of art in different ways does not mean the artist has failed. It's impossible for everyone to interpret something in the same way, because we all have had different experiences in life and we have different pools of knowledge to draw from. That doesn't make one (reasonable) interpretation better or more correct than another (reasonable) interpretation. Art is a living thing; it's not as if, once it is "finished", the meaning is set in concrete. Any art that is exposed to the public because a communal experience, and as such it will be interpreted in different ways and continue to be interpreted as long as it stands. If you're saying that there is only one way to interpret a work of art, then you're saying that there is only one way for a human being to experience something, which is patently false.
 
That is only true if you simply glance at a work of art and understand nothing about what the artist was trying to be said. For instance, if the Sistine chapel were viewed out of context, it could be interpretted in dozens of different ways. However, if you examine the artist, environment, and circumstances surrounding the artist, it is easy to see that the most famous part of the piece is "the creation of man". One character is God and one Adam. Period. Your experiences mean nil to the artist and true meaning of the painting.

Anyone, and I do mean anyone, that is truly interested in finding the meaning behind the piece will look at more than just the pretty colors. Who is the artist, why did he make the piece, what's the title (usually the easiest way to tell), what philosophies influenced the artist, what symbolsof the times are located therein. That's why we have art history. Otherwise it would be "here's a painting, here's who painted it, make it mean whatever you want". Don't turn this into a human experience thing. It's not about that. It's about the artist and the art. Granted, many art of the 20th Century was deliberately left up to the "what does it mean to you?" school of thought, where yuppies and hippies stare at it, stroke their goaties, sip their Starbucks or smoke their weed (depending on which category they may fall in), and play "guess the meaning". If I make an image of the destruction of the World Trade Center and someone interprets it as an analogy of the corruption of the industrial revolution, then either my image sucks OR their interpretation is wrong.

Most art is about a subject. It could be mythology (such as the Greeks and Romans were famous for), conquests, famous people, philosophies, history, and the like. Not vague ideas that no one really understands and have to guess at. So tell me, oh enlightened BC, what do your experiences tell you image of "The Last Supper" really mean? Is that your experiences telling you, or did you actually figure out the real meaning of the piece?

"Touchy-feely" is a load of crap used by people that are either too lazy to find the true meaning(s) of a painting or by people that want to twist it to mean something else. Unless that's what the artist wanted you to do in the first place. That is why people like me and Basil want to understand the Japanese culture. I may find the humor cheesy, but why is it supposed to be funny? Why are these characteres happy in circumstances I would be uncomfortable with? Knowing their culture is different means my interpretation is weak and I am ignorant of what the meaning really is. Educate yourself on the culture, and you've taken the first step into the mystery of the art. It makes it more significant, poignant, and helps to understand what the artist was trying to say.
 
Last edited:
man im sorry but i disagree. artists cannot stand there and defend themselves. the piece has to speak for itself... that is why your message has to be solid, but it can mean different things to many different people.

even rococo paintings (romantic) as you say, have more meaning than you imply. it's not about beauty, it's about sex. sex and innocence. the flowing, unrealistic explosions of trees in the backgrounds of these paintings are more than being pretty, they are passion. but to someone else, it's just a bunch of bourgiose (spelling, i dont care) phoney-balogne with a girl on a swing and a young man nearby.

but the rest of us know he's in that bush cause he wants to be "in that bush" and also to see up her skirt.

i know you understand that you can't defend your piece and that people are gonna see in it what they want cause you are an artist too. but i think only part of the time do people "get" what you meant. if they always got it, the art might just be a little too obvious.

now this isnt to say that my works dealt with splashes of poop on a canvas with little bits of color. no. but the emotions i express in my works can relate to people in many different ways, based on how their emotional history plays out.
 
true, true. And that's the beauty of art. It can mean different things to different people, but that doesn't change the fact that it does mean something. Emotions communicated and felt by the view are deliberate. A movie or picture or music that evokes a mood, creates a feeling, or communicates a thought that the artist intended is successful. Although I think it's easier with movies and music. You are exactly right that it can mean different things to different people, but the gist of it should be "gotten" by the viewer. If you paint a figure that looks terrified, then no one should interpret it as peaceful. That's more of what I meant. That's why artists use universal symbols to communicate. A skull means death no matter what or when you live. Read, yellow and orange typically evoke the thoughts and feelings of warmth, where blues, purples, and some greens are cool. I know you already know this, I'm just stating it. If an artist uses certain poses, colors, symbols, and environments successfully, then the viewer can understand what is going on. Some of the deep, deep meanings or tongue-in-cheek meanings might not be communicated well or deliberately vague (such as some of the little things some artists put in pictures of short-changing monarchs).

I think art is much better when it is tried to be understood. Master artists do as you said, they have subtle meanings that help evoke emotions and thoughts without you necessarily realizing how they do it.
 
Well, I'm only going to say a couple of things. Jonas, I think you're both on the right track and the wrong track, but I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying your right for your pruposes, but you're also looking at the issue narrowly.

You say "And that's the beauty of art. It can mean different things to different people, but that doesn't change the fact that it does mean something." But this is a limited view. It does mean something to the artist. It also means something to each person who experiences it. The total sum of the meaning includes all of these meanings. I don't know if you were syaing that the only correct meaning is the one given by the artist, but that what it sounds like. My point is that this is not the only correct meaning, but is one of many.

The other comment I want to make is this: the artist who challenges all those who experience his/her art and declare those who don't "see" his/her "vision" is going to be a very disappointed artist indeed.

I think it's also interesting that you bring up the concept of universal symbols. That's a very Jungian concept, but modern anthropologists are challenging the idea of the universal symbol at all. To take your examples, yes to some people a skull is a dymbol of death. But it also carrieds many other meanings. Do you think Shakespeare was using Yorick's skull to symbolize death in Shakespeare (and then we get back to the perception of those who experience art vs. the artist)? You can read about differnet symbolism for the skull here. Tread softly if you're making absolute statements.

Again, I'm not saying that you're wrong. But it is simply impossible for an artist to know how those who experience his/her art will interpret it, and it's similarly impossible for the artist to ensure that the audience will interpret it in a specific way. To be honest, some of the things you're saying sound like artistic elitism, the kind sof things you hear frm epopel who claim that the average person can't "understand" art, and your signature reinforces that. You're really sounding pretentious at times -- and that's not an attack, I want you to know that you're coming across that way, because you probably don't intend to. It's not an issue of being "touchy-feely", it's an issue of relativity. Now, if you want a relevant example, go back to Steve's interpretation of Princess Mononoke and tell us if he's right or wrong.
 
haha, I get your point. And you're right about symbols not being completely universal, but some things are universal for the most part. And I also know that I sounded pretentious at times. I get annoyed when people try to say that art can mean whatever you want. I understand that people will always walk away from even a bad piece of art with different things. And that is especially true of masterpieces. My point, though, is that sometimes a piece has a particular intention that if it is missed, it is because of a miscommunication of some sort (artist failure, viewer misunderstanding, cultural differences, etc.) But for the most part, everyone will know what it is about or the emotions, scene, or person depicted. Which is why we say "a picture is worth a thousand words". Visuals communicate much better sometimes than the written word.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom