Living Example of Machiavelli's Prince

Machiavelli’s claim that some valuable ends (goals) justify means that may conflict with our basic values, lead me to claim that; if Machiavelli were living today, he would probably say, you can easily understand the practical of what i explain theoretically to you by looking Erdogan, who is even passed me. Erdogan is a ruler who started with the claim of “we will be the fortunate of the unfortunates”, and ended with a claim of “whoever you are, you shall obey”.

I do not know if Erdogan has read Machiavelli ever, or is he aware of “the Prince”, but Machiavelli totally reminds me him. I thought it when i read Erdogan’s quote that “Democracy is an instrument, not a goal.” And i thought it again when i see the lovenessness to him nowadays. In the class while reading Machiavelli, i read his claims that “Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved” thought it again.

Machiavelli’s understanding of ruling that the ends justify the means, simply justifies cheating, imposture,  betraying to remain his power for a ruler. Erdogan obviously adopted this understanding and he established relations based on fear and restrain with his opponents. The ones who did not shared same opinions with Erdogan, always denigrated by him. Because, he had an attitude only grounded on power, if he would not be denigrate he must denigrate others. Machiavelli would be so happy to see this prince’s success, but i wonder that would he be happy to see the situation of the public ruled by him.  

Through perception of the viewer painting is recognized and analysed. for a painting to become appealing to the viewer, It must contain a common grounds or touch a certain emotion. That is the reason why people usually have some sort of expectations when going to a museum as they know experiencing the connection between the painting and themselves will lead to the perception of discovering a common ground. This connection is contained not only by the openness of the viewer but also the techniques the painter uses to express beauty of the painting. Alberti mentions how perceiving black and white are different from each other as one offers peace and the other darkness.

By anture, we tend to move forward to the more clear view we have. Reason why our view of the white on a painting should be closely examined is because white is something that we expect to find peace in.Something that could contribute a lot to a painting should be valued. On this subject Alberti emphases on Zeuix to express this understanding of using white and how the excessive usage should be avoided to achieve expressing peace. Although Zeuix's painting didn't survive, to evaluate a painting from his aspect could be beneficial to see that white appeals to human emotions in clear and peaceful way if it is used just the right way. 

Cleopatra Dissolving the Pearl

This painting is mentions on 'On Painting' as the right way if using white to express peace. The shining face of Cleopatra and the pearl are distinctive colored on a dark surface. 

From the Perspective of an Architect

   Architecture is the fine line between art and engineering. It is a form of art which is expressed through the perspective of an engineer.  Hence it is one of the hardest tasks to achieve. I recommend you to watch the video below before reading the rest. It will give a basic idea about the concept of this short essay.

   Architects play a major role in our lives. They create ambiances that could change our mood. If we would take a school campus for example, the dull concrete walls and the dark floors immediately give a sense that this place is for studying rather than having fun or getting some kind of enjoyment. Now, imagine a room with colorful walls, a very comfortable chair and a desk with only pens and paper on it. After entering in, you would get a sense that this place was designed for you to be creative and comfortable. In short, architects have the ability to change how we perceive our surroundings.

   During the Renaissance, the idea of creating structures that would appeal both emotional and reasonable was gaining great importance. We could easily see this in paintings and other written materials from that time period.  Leon Batista Alberti was one of the pioneers in this architectural reform with his books.

   As an architect, you must have the ability to understand the abstract feeling of how a building feels while designing it. A well known Swiss architect, Peter Zumthor believes that the building has a form of soul or heart. You have to get into contact with the physical object you are dreaming of to achieve this ability of feeling the abstract. Only then you could create something that may be loved by people. Moreover, the architectural state of the building has to show the characteristics of it's time. Architects design buildings that will characterize their cities for decades. When you look at it, you have to get the basic idea of how people living in the past used to design buildings and it should also show a glimpse of what is coming in the near future...

Double, double, toil and trouble

We're a long way away from Act IV of Macbeth but for anyone who's a fan of both Shakespeare and Harry Potter, this might be interesting. Remember the choir at the beginning of Prisoner of Azkaban? Well that is actually from Macbeth Act IV with an addition of the line "Something wicked this way comes", name of a Ray Bradbury novel and the movie's tagline.

Machiavelli

This controversial statement by Machiavelli is still discussed in philosophical and sociological circles because he implies that a ruler can be cruel, evil and violent when necessary. In other words, a ruler must stand strong against his enemies (internal or external), make himself feared and even be evil when there is anarchy, a prolonged conflict or anything that would be harmful to social peace and order. However, this does not mean that he will be hated, but he should be able to recover the peace and order by showing his power when there is something wrong with the administration of the state. In this way, some people will really fear him, perhaps not love him. As a matter of fact, Machiavelli himself cannot decide“whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared more than loved” (The Prince 90), but then he concludes that “with regard to being feared and loved, that men love at their own free will, but fear at the will of the prince, and that a wise prince must rely on what is in his power and not what is in the power of others, and he must only contrive to avoid incurring hatred, as has been explained” (The Prince 91). As indicated in the above statement, a good ruler must have a good character to be loved, but at the same time, he should seem “fearful” so that the enemies will not dare to do harm to his subjects. For example, if someone wants to destroy his country economically, the prince can be aggressive to this person because it will be beneficial to his own country. In other words, if he tries to protect the public from economic harm, then he has a good character as a ruler.

However, Machiavelli appears to be harsh in his statements. Perhaps, it was okay for his time, when monarchies were easily destroyed by their internal and external enemies due to weak rulers, but in our modern times, it is hard to accept such an aggressive ruler. A ruler (in the modern sense) must be liked by his own people and he must avoid violence. In this respect, as I follow from the recent news, I really admire the Prime Minister of Canada, who has a welcoming approach and attitude towards refugees and seems to have established a cabinet involving people from different backgrounds and nationalities. Canada, in general, does not have an aggressive foreign policy either, so in my view, a good ruler should not be aggressive. 

Essence of Films: Renaissance Paintings

      Being an audience means being in search of clues about our own life in the works of art that we look, be it a painting, a musical composition, a film or ballet. To become engaged in a work, we need to find things that reflect some parts of our lives in it. Renaissance paintings are known for their ability to draw the audience inside the painting, and make it possible to offer various interpretations.

      Antonello de Messina's painting "St. Jerome in His Study" is an example that presents many details from our everyday life; although the painting was completed hundreds of years ago, it reflects common details from the contemporary living. The flying birds seen through the windows, a little messiness on the table and the bookshelves, taken off slippers before the entrance, the symbolic lion which reminds us about our cats, and even the cracks on the walls and shelves contributes to the realistic effect the painting offers. Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, what makes this painting more engaging for us is the open door that frames the painting. Thanks to this open door, we feel like we have found a chance to have a glance over the other people's daily lives; it evokes wonder and gratitude, especially if the door opens up to a saint's life. This wonder and gratitude constitute the essence of the contemporary filmmaking and is why we fill the cinema halls. John David Rhodes believes that in both paintings and films"we can enter into a world and apprehend a world, if only with our eyes". He suggests that the essence of Renaissance Paintings and films are the same and the film industry takes Renaissance Paintings as an example in terms of engaging the audience by leaving them an 'open gate' or a chance for witnessing others' lives.

      In my opinion, the reason for the engagement of the audience lies in the details. According to what Roland Barthes' theory l'effet de reel, we become engaged in the work because the little details make the work seem more real and like a part of our lives. Indeed, we cannot feel connection to any work if it is completely unfamiliar to us and simply too perfect to be realistic. This is the case with both Renaissance Paintings and films, as well. It is the Renaissance period in which the painters cracked the secrets of painting such as the effects of light and shadows, light glows on metallic surfaces, the sublime feeling created by the height and magnitude, all of which adds up to the realistic effect that draws the audience in for centuries, and is contemporarily used in the film industry.

Video: Peter Gornstein: Virtual Environments (1st Short Essay)

Video: Peter Gornstein: Virtual Environments

In the video, the speaker talks about how their creation of the virtual environments is “exactly the same way that a Renaissance painter would” have created. Well, they might use the same techniques, depth, space, and light, as the Renaissance painters used, but to call both of the processes “exactly” the same, to me, undermines the greatness of the work the Renaissance painters did.

For instance, the Renaissance painters were the inventors of these techniques. They were the ones to evolve painting into a new era. They innovated something new rather than copying someone before them. And to come with such innovative techniques of painting in the first place must have required a lot of intellect, creativity, and skill rather than simple copying someone else and calling it to be “exactly the same way”.

Then, the Renaissance painters didn’t have computer programs to implement their ideas. Nowadays, all the designers have to do is imagine, and a computer program brings their imagination to life, but the Renaissance painters didn’t have this luxury. They not only had to think about the practicality of painting their imaginations but also had to go through a lot of trouble in order to paint something in the exact same way in which they have been imagining it.

Furthermore, the Renaissance painters couldn’t afford to make as many mistakes as they liked. A single mistake in their painting in its final stages of being painted would have caused the painters to paint all over again rather than simply undoing their last stroke of brush with a click of a button. In contrast to this, the designers of today don’t have to worry about any such thing. They can experiment with their designs in any way they like.

So, to say that the designers of today design in “exactly the same way that a Renaissance painter would” have painted undermines the trouble that those painters had to undergo to create a master piece. From the need of being perfect to not having computers on their side, the difficulty that Renaissance painters had in painting such pieces of art is a beauty in its own self. 

Virtual Environments and Paintings

In the video "Peter Gornstein: Virtual Environments”, Gornstein talks about virtual environments and how they create what they consider making a virtual world.  Gornstein and his team build virtual worlds for games.

He says that one of the important things in a virtual environments background characters just like in the renaissance paintings. Even though though these characters do not change the gameplay, these characters give the story and background of that society and environment. Similarly, all of the objects in a painting give the viewer some emotions and feelings about the picture.

Another thing that Gornstein talks about is bounds of the virtual environment. The bounds of a virtual environment are the bounds of creater’s imagination. You can create a virtual environment without any bounds, bigger than a city or bigger than the universe. Yet, a painting is bounded by the size of canvas. If you have 1 meter squared canvas, you cannot draw a 2 meter squared painting. However, a painter can fit anything into a painting in details by making objects smaller or some another method.

To sum up, building virtual environments has many common  properties with drawing paintings. Both have some background objects or characters that gives information about that environment and both does not have bounds except imagination.

Renaissance methods in use

In light of the video "Martha Fiennes: Nativity", I have found that new technology which gives us a chance to create "moving" images is actually started with paintings in Renaissance. In this new creation, comptures are used to create random but appropriate figures in light of rules of perception. At the end, image gives the feeling Alberti's idea of "historia" by actual movement. So I will argue that understanding the value of Renaissance paintings that perfectly reflect movements and emotions is still point of origin for today's technological -computer based- creations.

If we think moving images are put together step by step, what it might end up is unlimited combinations. "It's like an enormous chess game and it's thinking 500 hundred moves ahead." So when it comes to Boticelli's old painting: "The Adoration of the Kings" we see people are moving purposely in harmony. As Alberti claims  a historia is a narrative painting which includes a complex composition and a large number of figures, this painting is a good example. Not only that, we can see these figrues in such dramatic and emotive positions. Even if there is too many people in Boticelli's painting, they look fitting and related to each other thanks to use of architectural greatness. What Martha and others trying is smilar to these old paintings, they generate random environments to represent cycle of life with moving characters,  there's always an ongoing proccess of change and reaction that reflects an endless scene.  It's as successful as it's closer to Boticelli's, they say. To make it closer they used similar architecture and adjusted the image a little after computer's calculated creation.

Therefore, the value of Renaissance paintings come with their methods of interpretation to lead us create more detailed, perfect images. I think these methods are getting us closer to "nature", is actual "beauty" for Alberti. Technology brings us do it with infinite ways but we are still bound by Renaissance's methods of creation. That's why new art-technology mainly focus on using colors, depth and impressions to represent reality. We still need that understanding of Renaissance to yield new pieces of art.

Being a Good Ruler

       There has been legendary rulers throughout history. The question is what makes them legendary? Is the fact that they are remembered this great is their capabilities at war? Or maybe their attitude towards their people. Machiavelli has some challenging ideas about this topic. He believes that a ruler can't be a lion. A lion may be the king of jungle but in order to achieve greatness, a ruler should be a fox in the silhouette of a lion.
   
        A lion is known with his courage and raw power whereas a fox is known with his cunning and deceiving acts. Machiavelli believes that it is not enough to be strong, honest and courageous to be a good ruler. In fact he states that it is better if you don't possess some of those qualities. He believes that honesty is not a luxury a ruler can have. I believe that his thoughts on this subject is true. There are greater things in life than honesty. Lets take freedom as an example. Imagine a man whose country is invaded. He wants to give his people freedom but he does not have the power to do this. He needs to become a powerful ruler to do this. Becoming a powerful ruler is not something you can accomplish with honesty. He needs to be cunning until he reaches his goal. He can sacrifice some values in order to gain a higher value for himself and for his people.

Being a Fox, But Appearing Like a Lion

While reading Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince, one sentence really got my attention, which is:

“The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.”

In summary, Machiavelli thinks that a prince must always appear good, but be prepared to be evil if necessary. I think this quote is the punchline of the whole book, and a short summary of Machiavelli's ideas. If one should check the history of kings and leaders, one would see that the good kings' works were not appreciated compared to some horrible but reassuring leaders. Actually, one can see the same principle in every aspect of life. Take lectures, for example. Most probably, we've all experienced that "the good teacher" eventually loose the attention of the class and after a while, very few attempts to listen what teacher says. In the end, the teacher cannot control the class, and thus the lecture gets ruined. On the other hand, in "the bad teacher"s class, nobody makes any noise, everybody pretends to be listening, but also nobody likes or respects that teacher either. So the brilliant teacher is the one who is wise, knowledgeable, and tolerant but also the one who can cease the noise in the class and throws the student who ruins the lecture when needed. So, in my opinion, the case for teacher also applies for the leader, ofcourse sometimes in harsher and more brutal cases since politics is way more serious field than education. All in all, I am in a similar opinion with Machiavelli, a politician ought to be cruel when needed, and also should know when to stop being evil, as in lion/fox allegory given above.

The Sacrament Of Last Supper by Salvador Dali

This is a painting called The Sacrament of Last Supper. Its' painter is Salvador Dali who was born in Figueres, Catalonia, Spain in 11 May 1904. He died 23 January 1989. He is best known for his surrealist paintings but as he was developing his painting style he was inspired by the Renaissance artists and mostly Leonardo Da Vinci. This painting was inspired by Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper. I chose this painting because the Alberti's ideas can be observed easily in this painting.

Just like Da Vince, Salvador Dali has considered symmetry important. The centric ray in this painting is just above the Christ's head where the Sun light comes from. And if we were to draw a line vertically passing through the center. It is incredibly summetrical except the Christ. Alberti described the importance of rays by saying "I usually give my friends the following rule: the more the rays are employed in seeing, the greater the quantity seen will appear, and the fewer the rays, the smaller quantity."(On Painting, 42) and in this picture the rays are clearly seen. The extrinsic rays are at the corners on the painting and they create the structure of a pyramid along with our eyes. The horizontal median rays are on the colon's of the inner window. The left one is at where the colon starts to disappear and the right one is at the intersection point of the right colon and the mountain. One of the vertical median ray is at the upper colon of the inner window where the soul of Christ starts to ascend to heaven and the lower vertical median ray is at at the center of the two disciples and the corner of the table.

The two disciples of Christ faced to the Christ hold a great importance for the painting. This painting has a golden ratio. The height and weight of the painting form a rectangle which holds the phi ratio. If we draw the Fibonacci rectangle on this painting as the Figure below, we see that those two disciples are at the center of two symmetrical Fibonacci rectangles.

This again shows how symmetrical, this painting is.

The idea of perspective is of great importance for Alberti. For a good painting, it is necessary for the painter to use perspective and to apply this rule, the painter should use a device called veil. In this painting the table and the positions of the guests and the Christ fits this idea of perspective. the left and the right ends of the table is bent in a way that it gives us the view of depth. The ends of the table points to the center of the painting which in this case also the center of the pyramid that is formed with our eyes. This makes the painting more realistic. the feeling of depth is also creted by the sun light. The shadows of Christ and his disciples are very specific. They are drawn in a way that they would point the center of the table.

The shadows, the symmetry, golden ratio and the feeling of depth makes this painting a good one in Alberti's point of view.

Entering the Picture

Like Alberti said, painting is the mistress of all other arts and while he did not mean cinema as the art form came 400 years after his death, we can interpret it as such. If it weren't for painting, we wouldn't have photography and if it wasn't for photography, we wouldn't have cinema. The first movies were created by not our modern HD cameras but were created by bringing images together to create a moving image (See here for first motion picture). For animation movies, we can even go as far to say painting is not just a mistress but a wife to it. No matter how many technologies people come up with, painting still holds its throne in animation making, only difference is it is made with more advanced technology. Stop motion animation whose most prominent use of art is painting and sculpture is even closer to Alberti's idea.  (See here for examples of stop-motion)

In the video, John Rhodes talks about the opening sequence of "Written on the Wind" by Douglas Sirk and states that "The door is open, we can see the vestibule beyond and we realise this is the world that we’re entering. And the film is really staging that possibility of entering this world for us." which reminds me of the difference between paintings from Early Middle Ages and Renaissance paintings. If we watch the first motion picture and compare it to not even today's technologically advanced cinema but to movies from 50s, it is possible to see this connection. First motion picture, like painting from Early Middle Ages, are fascinating but they do not have the qualities Alberti talks about. They're still, without perspective, taking place in one horizontal place, thus failing at pulling us into a space and creating a story. They don't have a background or clues that show what kind of environment or characters we're interacting (I believe in most art forms, appreciation and theorising cannot be made without interaction with it) with. On the other hands, Renaissance paintings and later movies, give us those qualities. Just as Renaissance painting are done with extreme attention to detail and story, so are the movies. Cinematographers, art directors, costume artists, directors, etc., sometimes spend hours on one shot of the movie, to create a shot that reflects characters' inner feelings or to drop a clue about an upcoming scene or foreshadowing a movie's end. For example (I will use an example that I assume most of you are familiar with) in the 5th movie of Harry Potter series, character Sirius Black views his family tree with his godson Harry by his side. The family tree has pictures of the family members, Sirius mentions his cousin Bellatrix Lestrange as the worst of them. Later, the camera focuses on Bellatrix's picture as Sirius and Harry talks about being a real family in the future, foreshadowing Bellatrix killing Sirius in front of Harry. The focus on family tree was a choice by the director, to give the feeling of suspense and worry. In Renaissance painting, details such as background, environment, clothes, etc. are given to tell the story better. 

Another similarity between film and painting is the perspective. In first motion picture, all we see is a horse moving, not moving to somewhere but looking like it's running on a treadmill, like the lack of perspective in painting from Early Middle ages. Film, later on, uses the same techniques as painting to create a perspective. Like painters, directors use certain techniques that make the viewer look at a certain place, draw the focus on a particular object or a character while at the background, another story might be taking place.  

Virtual Reality and Renaissance Paintings

          Virtual Reality's goal is creating a new time and space by using depth, light and small details as if it was a Renaissance painting. By achieving such objectives, user may experience the environments that were described in Renaissance paintings with a dynamic point of view by travelling around.

            The importance of depth and light is crucial in order to serve a realistic world in Renaissance paintings. According to Alberti, a painter should study to the lights and shades (On Painting, 82). Because such aspects make the audience engage into the worlds that are described and stories that are told in paintings by imitating the nature. Depth helps to recreate a virtual horizon and a vanishing point in paintings. Essentially it increases the level of reality and the desire of stepping into the painting of the audience. Light is also important to arouse such feelings by creating a source of light and its counter. It is also a way of imitating the nature. But in this case, it is much more related to being rational.

            

          Small details, symbols are nothing to do with being rational or natural view. Their purpose is telling a background story without worlds. Some calls this as historia. Generally these stories are not ordinary. Commonly they are picked from the turning points of history or some ancient myths. For the sake of explaining what I meant Apollo and Daphne, Giving of the Keys to Saint Peter can be given as examples. In such paintings, Daphne’s arms as branches and the people around Jesus Christs and Saint Peter that are whispering to each other are not randomly painted. Their purpose is telling the story that is described in the painting.

          

          Virtual Reality and computer games are using such Renaissance techniques to increase user experience and the level of reality because they were invented and used perfectly by Renaissance men. Essentially, they are imitating the paintings by imitating the Nature. So, these two are not very different from each other.

'Good' for the People or 'Good' for the Prince

After reading some articles online, I found out that the phrase "ends justify the means" was not invented by Machiavelli, but he just summarised an older concept in a successful way. Apparently, there is an ideology called Consequentialism which argues that an action should be judged by its consequences, not by the rightness or the wrongness of the action. Therefore, you just need a morally good 'end' and you can do whatever it takes to achieve it. This is where Machiavelli and I have a little disagreement.

I pretty much summarised Machiavelli's idea: "ends justify the means". However, Machiavelli is not really clear about the ends. We know they are valuable goals, but for whom? Are these valuable goals just for the Prince? Then, this phrase has rather a pragmatistic approach than consequentialist. I am okay with having morally acceptable goals that would benefit the greater good, but I am against the idea of someone doing whatever they want just because the end will benefit them. I don't think Machiavelli is being really clear about this. To sum up, Machiavelli's idea about ends and means are too vague for me to agree with.

I'd like to finish with an example so that you can comprehend my stand on this matter. Since The Prince is called the Dictator's Handbook, I have to give an example with the most evil dictator. I am talking about Hitler, of course. One of his aims was to create a superior and pure Aryan race, and believed his aim was 'good'. Maybe, some other Germans thought that as well. However, this can't and doesn't justify concentration camps and the war crimes that were committed. As you can see, since I can't distinguish what is good for the masses and what is good for the Prince, it's impossible for me to agree with Machiavelli on this one.

VIDEO GAMES AS AN ART

Topic : Virtual Environments

Even before watching Virtual Environments by Peter Gornstein, I always thought about whether we should consider computer games as a form of art or not. I believe that there are certain similarities between video games and renaissance art. After I watched the video, my ideas about computer games did not change, they even became stronger because the video clearly demonstrated the technical side of creating a game by using the game called Rise: Son of Rome as an example which actually proves that there are an indisputable connection between video games and renaissance like encouraging creativity and imagining the unimaginable.

In the video, Peter Gornstein claims that ‘’We’re using depth, we’re using space, we’re using light. All of these tools are used to tell the story exactly the same way that a Renaissance painter would do.’’ Surprisingly, these tools that Gornstein mentioned refer and match with Alberti’s ideas in On Painting. Moreover, Gornstein says that they’ve used a painting of Marcello Venusti’s as an inspiration to create Nero’s palace. So, it can be deduced that they used a form of art to create another that is a more aesthetic and visually appealing one and actually by doing this, they somehow accept that they are influenced by the ideas of renaissance.

In addition, in the first paragraph I mentioned that ‘’imagining the unimaginable’’ is another common feature of renaissance art and computer games. In renaissance period, there are a lot of pieces of art that actually created by imagining the unimaginable. For example, lets look at Michelangelo’s famous painting, the Creation of Adam. When we look at the painting, we can see that there a lot of things that Michelangelo figuratively described  with his own words such as the images of the God, angels and Adam himself. For more ‘’technological’’ example, I want to give Far Cry: Primal, which is a role-playing game that takes place in the dark ages. This is another example of imagining the unimaginable because we don’t have enough information about the early life in the dark ages to create the whole environment and make it look realistic. So, I think this is another common feature, which actually my personal best because it’s harder to create imaginary things and make them look beautiful and aesthetic than just perfect the existing one.

Details of "The Milkmaid" by Vermeer

      Alberti’s On Painting is an important piece about paintings and many painters were influenced by his ideas in various periods, so that it may be considered as the first modern treatise on paintings. His ideas established some rules for paintings in terms of three-dimensional subject. We all read Alberti's ideas in On Painting about how details enrich the painting and how those details are also crucial for the painters, so that I want to explore the details on both Vermeer's painting, The Milkmaid. Actually, I do not sure whether Vermeer was actually influenced by Alberti's ideas or not, but I like Vermeer's paintings quite much and I found some similarities between Alberti's ideas for Italian paintings and Vermeer's Dutch style on The Milkmaid, and I want to share those similarities with you. 

The Milkmaid by Johannes Vermeer

      The Milkmaid by Johannes Vermeer was painted in 17th century. This work of art of Johannes Vermeer is considered as a great example of Dutch realist genre painting with especially its simple details. Also, Alberti's ideas in On Painting are in the direction of realism. Besides that the maid is pouring the milk, this painting is contributed with some ordinary items of that era; such as kitchen pieces. The vessels, the bread in the basket, and the pieces of bread on the table contribute Vermeer's realist style with details. 

      
      As Alberti suggests in his treatise, Vermeer uses various colours in his work of art. His palette features a toned down colour scheme of white, yellow, and blue. However, he prefered to use just one person in his painting, instead of various people, and the milkmaid is worn by clothes. Vermeer chose to use different colours (especially blue tones) in milkmaid's clothes and the tablecloth, so that this painting is freed by one-coloured work because in the background of the painting, there is used a soft tone of the mixture of brown and gray, and these colours let-up the painting as long as it is encoloured by different colours. Actually, it is the same colour of the wall in the background but Vermeer uses shading and that shade changes the colour of the wall with soft transmission. In On Painting, as Alberti said; "It is evident that colours vary according to light, as every colour appears different when in shade and when placed under rays of light. Shade makes a colour look dimmer, and light makes it bright and clear" (44). He perfectly uses the transmission between colours, as Alberti recommends. Also, the milkmaid acts natural in this painting, instead of posing or just standing here. Her face is positioned harmoniously and she it is completely proper in terms of size, dimension, function, type and colour that Alberti suggests. Moreover, he also uses the mathematical perspectives in a proper way, so that he is also influenced in terms of this aspect by Alberti. Actually, Vermeer uses camera obscure for capturing the details in a realistic way in his works. I watched a film about Vermeer's painting techniques before a year ago, Tim's Vermeer. In short, his successful perspectives in his paintings are suitable for Alberti's ideas. In addition, Vermeer did not pass over the background details as Alberti wants. For example, he paints a well-detailed basket and the mysterious box on the floor in the background of this painting.

      In a nutshell, while I was reading the rules that were established by Alberti in his book, Vermeer's paintings occured my mind and I compared his works with Alberti's ideas. Thus, I wanted to explore especially Vermeer's this oil painting in terms of Alberti's suggestions. Their periods and races were different but still, there are a lot of similarities between Alberti's rules and Vermeer's painting. I believe The Milkmaid is a proper example according to Alberti's ideas. With this way, I agree with Alberti in terms of his ideas because with using his suggestions, a succesful painting can be arised with those rules, as it is seen in Vermeer's painting. Although it was painted in 17th century, it was influenced by Renaissance aspects of paintings in terms of perceptions that I mentioned.

Building the Picture: Visual Environments

In this short essay I will discuss one of the five videos that are assigned. The video that I will be talking about is named Peter Gornstein: Virtual Environments. In this video Peter Gornstein talks about the similarities between the virtual environments that are created for the video game Ryse Son of Rome and paintings from the Renaissance Era. In his speech about visual environments Peter Gornstein talks about how they have used the techniques that are abundantly used in renaissance paintings to create a better visual world that gives direct and compact messages and feelings to the player. Although they did not mention it Alberti calls this “historia”.In their game Ryse Son of Rome. They tried to create visual environments with historia by using techniques from Renaissance painters. Additionally this speech also explains the creative process  behind creating a visual environment.

In this video they explain how they acquire certain effects they wanted to create. Peter Gornstein states that they use depth, space and light just like a renaissance painter would do. He further states that they used smaller objects to tell the tertiary story, background characters to tell a story or to guide the eye. By doing these he states that he can keep the attention of the player and tell the story of the game properly. This feels like this isn’t a controversial argument and it’s how video games should tell their secondary story. This is most of the things that are stated in the video are what Alberti actually wants the painters to do and the things that will make a pretty good painting. Alberti supports background characters and their usage to guide the eye while talking about historia, he talks about the importance of light and shade in the third part of his book about using black and white and finally, depth and space is talked about in the conscription part of the book. The problem however is the fact that a game and a painting are different from each other. You look at a painting to admire its beauty and understand the story that it tells. But in a game you look for much more that a story and beauty. You look for many different things like gameplay and freedom. Even though Peter Gornstein starts the video with the sentence:  “Virtual worlds have no limits, right? You can go anywhere, it can be any kind of environment. Only the imagination basically sets boundaries.” This is wrong because a lot of the time there are certain places that the players are not supposed to go because of the constraints of the game engine or simply poor design choices (for instance invisible walls or barricades of velvet rail to cut off places). Because of these differences  most of the time you don’t even need to capture the attention of the player to something because In any given level of gaming the player looks for things other than the main thing that the player is supposed to look to find Easter eggs and/or collectibles and they are encouraged to do so in the way of gaining points and achievements. So whatever that the game designers wants the player to see they will probably see it. Furthermore in gaming there is a concept called immersion. Immersion is the feeling that the player is living inside this world that is created. It is one of the main reasons that you continue to play a single game till its end even though you have 70 other games that you didn’t really open . This is completely different than how painting wants you to look at events. In paintings you look at the events from a window but in gaming and in a game that is significantly immersive it feels like the event is happening where you are. Because of this it feels like taking a painters approach to creating visual worlds is not the most reasonable and the best thing and this might be true because most of the games that really caught our attention in storytelling and beauty did not use any of these techniques that the visual designer mentioned. Binding of Isaac, Undertale , Five Nights at Freddy’s, Bastion and even Life is Strange did not use the things that are mentioned  and got awarded for their art design and their stories, meanwhile Ryse the Son of Rome had mediocre reviews.

In this video they also mentioned how they built the environments. In order to build their environments they sketch, brainstorming, talking through the ideas. Then they do loose concept sketches where we kind of sketch out and feel for it. This was a really interesting part of the spreech because it shows the effort that goes behind creating places. These sketches have almost no significance because they will not be able to use it while creating the world in the computer. But it shows how world building and regular painting is not really different. Altough they had a classical approach in lighting and depth and historia, After these sketches they went with a unique approach that will upset Alberti and anyone who is very invested in naturalism because they decided to merge art deco style with traditional roman style to create a unique look that has almost no historical basis. After that they do something called whiteboxing. This is something almost completely different that painting because in order for this to work the person who must appreciate the beauty and the story must be inside of the painting. This again kind of solidifies my idea about paintings and games aren’t really same and Alberti’s instructions should not exactly be followed while building worlds. Although whiteboxing uses many things related to perspective to fit everything in a harmonious way. Then they pretty much paint these whiteboxes and add light and  polish it. The entire process felt like how Alberti wanted the painters to paint. (For a human, first bone, then flesh and then skin/clothing) It kind of drew a parallel between painting and game design.

In conclusion these are the ideas that have popped into my head. It seems that game design and Alberti’s ideas on painting and the techniques used in paintings have many similarities such as the usage of secondary characters, using light and shade, perspective, the general creation of  a level and creation of the historia but just using these techniques does not create beautiful and well-designed games. This is because of the difference of perspective (the player is inside the game but the audience looks from outside),the concept of immersion, and the culture of gaming (people looking for easter eggs and achievements).

Alberti's effects after 200 years "The Maids of Honour "

The moment that I read the assignment I knew which artwork I was going to choose. “Las Meninas”  by Diego Velázquez which is “The Maids of Honour” in English. This painting is from 1656 which is a 200 years away from Alberti’s death but still it has many things that Alberti expects from an artwork. I choose this because I want to see if people still flowed Alberti’s ideas and also when I look at the other paintings I am aware that I’m just looking to a drawing and they don’t make me feel any emotion but this painting has special effects that you feel uncomfortable, watched or important and I like that it has this power.

One of the most important thing about this painting is the use of light which is also important for Alberti. In this painting face of the girl and the maids are bright so when we first look to this painting we look at them. The other figures are dark. The reason behind this always fascinates me. When we look at the bright face of the girl we feel like we have been watched because all dark figures looks at you when you are not looking at them and that can make you feel uncomfortable and that makes this painting effective with the use of light. Light not only used for this but it has been used for another reason too. In “On Painting” Alberti says “The face which has some surfaces large will be ugly to look at but the face in which the surfaces are so joined together that has pleasing lights pass gradually into agreeable shadows and not very sharp angles, we may rightly call a handsome and beautiful face (71). Diego Velázquez wanted to show how beautiful the little girl Margarita is so he makes her face bright with the right shadows, give her a little face and a tiny waist when we look to her right however wee see a figure that has a large head, shadows that makes her face uglier and sharped chin that takes kindness from her so we can say that Diego Velázquez may used Alberti’s suggestions to make someone beautiful.

Perpective is another thing that is important for Alberti is perspective. He was the founder of the what we call now the linear perspective.This painting makes you feel like you are being watched but also with the help of perspective it makes you feel like you are the queen and king because in the painting we can see the painter Diego Velázquez painting something looking at the viewer and there is a mirror and there we can see queen and king. Not only by this, this painting makes us feel like the queen and king with the help of the vanishing point. Vanishing point of this painting is the door and there we can see a man opening the door and waiting for us. This makes us feel like we have to leave this room.

As conclusion Diego Velázquez used Alberti’s ideas about beauty and perspective to tell the story of this painting and to make viewer feel different emotions by looking at it.

Does Renaissance   Painting matter for Cinema?

                                                                                                                                                                If you are thinking that we go to cinema only to see what is new on the vision, you might be missing the actual delight of the experience. But, I think we expect more than that. The possibility that we will have a chance to enter into another people’s lives and be part of  the story is what really attracts us. According to first French and then British and American film theorists, this is how cinema works at the level of the unconscious. When we sit a darkened room with a desire to deriving visual pleasure from what we see, the pleasure comes from the narcissistic identification we made with the person on the screen. But what makes possible such an identification for the spectator? It would be no exaggeration to say cinema owes it all to Renaissance Painting. Because in the Renaissance Painting, the spectator becomes the subject of the gaze. 

Artists draw the viewer into their paintings by using a variety of architectural structures, such as inner frames and boundaries. Also this helps painters to create a living atmosphere with very detailed internal spaces and rooms in Renaissance Painting. 

Integration of World Politics

       

        The sum of two negative values, multiplied by a negative value, equals a positive value.  It is surprising that even though all the values used in this operation are all negative values, the result came out to be a positive value, but it makes sense once the logic behind it is figured out.  That is the reason why we shouldn’t try to predict the result by looking at the values used, but the value we obtain in the end.  These kinds of uncertainties exist in the world as it does in mathematics, and it is one of the things Machiavelli argues in “The Prince”, but in terms of different values.  The phrase “Ends justify the means”, is a sensible approach to the world politics.  “Ends justify the means” states how the things done to get a certain result doesn’t define the intentions of an an action as a whole, but instead the result does and those actions can be neglected.  Machiavelli says this to the prince, stressing the importance of not being a “good man” all the time and a prince may have to commit evil things to achieve greatness, which makes sense to some extend. “This has to be understood: a prince…cannot possibly exercise all those virtues for which men are called “good”.  To preserve the state, he often has to do things against his word…charity…humanity…religion” (The Prince, page 49).  

        The main sense driving this approach, is that there is evil and uncertainty in the world a leader lives within.   As Machiavelli states, people are unpredictable and self-driven.  Because humans are unpredictable, we can’t think of politics from a deontological point of view.  Machiavelli approaches this issue with consequentialism, thinking the behavior of humans and their outcomes not as a sum of constants, but as the integration of a changing function.  This is a realistic approach to the nature of human, according to Machiavelli.  “…men are ready to change masters in the hope of bettering themselves” proves the fact that we can’t find a common solution for everyone every time (The Prince, 5).  A leader may have a hard time explaining certain actions which collide with the interests of some citizens, but in the bigger picture, they are more beneficial for the bigger whole.  Besides, sometimes you simply need to fight fire with fire.  “As a lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves, you have to be a fox in order to be wary of traps, and a lion to overawe the wolves.  Those who try to live by the lion are badly mistaken” by Machiavelli explains the dynamics of the situation with a firm metaphor (The Prince, 48).  

        One thing Machiavelli didn’t point out is that, he unquestionably believes that all these action should result in a greater good, a greater good for the majority; and this kind of responsibility can’t be given to just anyone.  The reason why Machiavelli may not include this, could be because he writes all this to the prince he tries to prove he is on side of.  People are self driven and unpredictable including the prince himself.  This gap in Machiavelli’s work raises some arguments against Machiavelli’s point.  We have seen many third party benefits of wars made for greater goods, or sometimes no greater good at all.  Because of this, Machiavelli’s statements should be considered as an unpractical, but theoretical approach to the world politics, and shouldn’t be directly implemented to a state; not too far from Plato’s statements on politics, but much closer to the reality.  So “integrating” all the points, the outcome comes out to “ends justify the means” being a sensible approach to the world politics.

            Machiavelli emphasises the role fortune plays in the political sphere by attributing a feminine essence. In the meantime, Machiavelli claims that a victorious prince shall never rely exclusively on the action of fortune if the main purpose is one of success. Machiavelli’s innovation resides in the peculiarity of the qualities he attributes to a man of virtù, because, he divorces exact qualities from the virtues Christianity had defined as being appropriate for a political leader. Machiavelli believes in the selfishness inherent to men, in the sense that within the political arena.He argues that that precise self-indulgence will open the path for chaos and devastation in the political state.

            In my opinion, machiavelli's primary assertion is that a leader is there to make the difficult decisions for his subjects. it is not his responsibility to be liked or loved, but instead to be feared and respected. That isn't to say that he should be cruel. the prince is there to provide for his subjects stability. He is also expected sly, and wise. He shouldn't fear violence and should be prepared to make war; furthermore, he should be ready to use all resources at his disposal to maintain for his kingdom, including the people who live in there.

            In conclusion, it can besaid that although Humanism was the main doctrine pursued in the political arena, Machiavelli accomplished the title of founder of modern politics by successfully introducing a remarkable unprecedented approach to the realm of politics.

Renaissance Stage

The renaissance means  rebirth. This is because renaissance artists think that mediaeval shade work of arts, they wanted to reveal the beauties of antiquity. Renaissance come out in Italy but it spread all over Europe.

Before renaissance stage in Italian painting, byzantine mosaics and frescoes had impact. Pictorial art did not affected from ancient heritage easily. European artists moved away from artists of the middle age because of  the volume of art, perspective and shadow-light. Renaissance period are summarized in two words proportion and balance. Picture was used for ornamental element of large sturcture but painting could be made independently in renaissance period. Artist did research  abput volüme of the human figüre to get perspectives. Artist did not stylize motifs of the natüre and feel free for expressing emotion in their paintings. Artist were able to work independently. When I ask why renaissance is showed up in Florence, I made research and learn that Florence preserved arts and creative artists and intellectuals people came together. The values of human began to understand and scholastic thought was demolished. Then, humanism is came up and humanity has found itself again. Lastly, Leon Battista Alberti which has done theoretical studies was an architect in renaissance but he did not limited itself about architect and he wrote social issues like family patterns and eating morals. As a results, artist touched society in many aspects in renaissance and people had more freedom.

About "Military Duties Of The Prince"

     In Chapter 14, Machiavelli states that military power is the most important value of a state that a prince must only focus on "art of war" especially in peace time. I mostly do not meet up with Machiavelli's opinions but this time, it is not that cruel. (I didn't say that I completely agree with him but... Just wait for it.)

     He gives military such an importance because as we know in previous chapters the big goal of the state is stability and self-preservation. He continued that in order to achieve that goal, the leader must engage in physical and mental trainings like learning the geography of the local region, developing strategies, reading history, etc which are so useful, I think. All these would be advantages in war time and lead to be one step forward from the enemy. But the mission point of Machiavelli is that a prince should be skilled in many disciplines including liberal arts, hobbies, sports, sciences, etc. Ensuring the stability of state is important, of course but such kind of developing (only military stuff) might be resulted in narrow mindedness.

     To sum up, I agree with Machiavelli's opinions about military and a prince must be aware that it is important but I disagree with the words : "A prince should have no other object, no other thought, no other subject of study, than war, its rules and disciplines; this is the only art for a man who commands (...)" (40). There are so many examples of successful leaders interested in science, art, philosophy, sports to develop themselves all-purpose such as Atatürk, Churchill, Lenin, Hitler, etc. Maybe, we should also consider the age Machiavelli wrote all these which is the 16th century but as in present, it is not needed or should not be that a leader must only engage in war stuff. Certainly not. 

The ends do not always justify means

            "Exitus acta probat" is latin for "The ends justify means" which was originally said by Publius Ovidius Naso. In The Prince, Machiavelli says no matter how wrong the means are the ends are always justifiable. I disagree because I think whatever the ends are if the means are illegal, ordinary people must be punished according to the means and the ends should be ignored.

           Machiavelli says a prince must do whatever it takes to save or maintain his state. The consequences will not be huge. Bunch of people being killed versus the whole state being destroyed: the first option is better if not the best. Also, if a prince saves the state he will praised and honored by his people. The reason according to Machiavelli is, "the masses are always impressed by the superficial appearance of things, and by the outcome of enterprise". I think one of the reasons people praise the prince is that they are self-interested(here supporting one of author's conceptions). They do not care about bunch of people being killed as long as they are safe. Machiavelli says, "In the actions of all men, and especially of princes who are not subject to a court of appeal, we must always look to the end". I agree for the actions of princes because he has to keep his power, people care more about their own safety than their prince's wrongdoings, and he cannot be judged in court. But, we must not look to the end in actions of all men. Ordinary people must be punished according to law. Even though if the ends are good, person committed a crime by the means. That's what must count - "committed crime" part. We must look at the means first, then, if it is okay move on to the ends. So, the ends do not(and must not) justify the means for all people.

First Assignment

     As it is one of the most important and key points in "The Prince" by Machiavelli, I want to focus on the subject of virtue, his argument about a prince should always appear good, but also be prepared to be evil if it is necessary. In "The Prince" , Machiavelli depicts virtues as some important features that is to given praise  by other important things like generosity, piety and compassion. He says that a prince should always be virtuous but being these kind of virtuous alsa should be depending upon a principality. What he really means here that, a prince should have some important good characteristics, but in case, he should also be ready to be evil and have some bad characteristics such as cruelty or dishonesty to be beneficial to the state. These kind of bad characteristics should not be pursued, they should be as means to an end as Machiavelli argues. The very important thing here is; these kind of behaviors or characteristics should not be considered as a bad moral value, it should be considered in the light of the effect on the state.

     [Only the expenditure of one’s own resources is harmful; and, indeed, nothing feeds upon itself as liberality does. The more it is indulged, the fewer are the means to indulge it further. As a consequence, a prince becomes poor and contemptible or, to escape poverty, becomes rapacious and hateful. Of all the things he must guard against, hatred and contempt come first, and liberality leads to both. Therefore it is better to have a name for miserliness, which breeds disgrace without hatred, than, in pursuing a name for liberality, to resort to rapacity, which breeds both disgrace and hatred.]

     This quotation from the text shows how Machiavelli suggests prince to be beneficial to the state while being evil.He says prince should not let some perceptions of virtue interfering the state. He says sometimes, some good characteristics can seem very admirable, it can be sometimes not good and avoided. He advises him that a prince cannot be hated too much because of the lack of virtue. Sometimes it can be necessary to lack of the virtue and to be evil, but it should be known that it is not for the morality, it is for the state.
     In my opinion, I totally agree with this idea. According to me, as a prince, he should have both characteristics; good and evil. What I mean here is, unless he has just good or just evil characteristics, he cannot be beneficial for the state and society. If necessary -and sometimes it is really necessary- he should show the bad sides of him to be good.

The Morality of Means and Ends in The Prince

“The ends justify the means” is not a direct quote from Machiavelli's The Prince (or from any of his works, really), but rather a broad generalization of his ideas presented through the book. The closest Machiavelli ever comes to saying this outright is in Chapter XVIII, where he says that “we must always look to the end” especially when princes are concerned (49). “The ends justifies the means” sounds like a call-to-arms to do whatever is necessary to reach a goal, and, of course, like a recipe for general evil. The idea appears to be too cruel to defend for people who have an ounce of morality in them.

In regards to ends and means, Machiavelli does not ignore the moral implications of this idea; for instance, he states that the prince should always be “ready to enter on evil” (49), but only if he must – that is, if it is for the good of his country, not for his benefit. At one point, Machiavelli states that a prince should moderate his actions with “prudence and humanity” (46). This is why I think “the ends justify the means” should not be approached as a free-for-all, morally corrupt method, but a spectrum. He gives two examples that explain this point. His first example is Agathocles, who overtook a city state by force (through deception and by murdering the city's senators and rich people). The city had been under siege by another city for some time. After seizing the power, Agathocles successfully defended the city and repelled the attackers, and the city prospered after that. Machiavelli actually criticizes Agathocles' actions for their “fearful cruelty and inhumanity”, claiming that he has no place among “the really excellent men” (25). Regardless, Agathocles' actions are considered justified and much better than Machiavelli's second example, as they led to a much better result for the state. Oliverotto de Fermo, Machiavelli's contemporary, seized the city of Fermo through similar means, but massacres continued even after he took control. He would execute people for little purpose and terrify the citizens with the help of his military in order to stay in power. In this case, the ends do not quite justify the means, because Oliverotto struggled to remain in power at the risk of the citizens, bringing harm to the “entire community” (45) and therefore going against Machiavelli's idea that cruelty is only justified if it is for the purpose of keeping citizens in peace, united and prospering. In other words, Machiavelli promotes the idea of properly used cruelty; there is no right or wrong for a ruler, but good and bad ways to be cruel. The distinction of “good” and “bad” is based on whether the means lead to a benefiting end for the whole state. For a more contemporary example, Hitler would be an awful leader by Machiavelli's standards (very obvious moral problems aside); not only did the Holocaust not benefit the state and average citizens whatsoever, the economic boost post-Hitler was pretty short-lived as it fed from the war and, while Germany is a prosperous nation today, it still carries a stigma. There are examples where we have morally good means reaching a morally good end, like Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement in the US, which was non-violent and earned African Americans their civil rights. “The ends justify the means” is, therefore, not a concrete rule but a spectrum. Particular means may justify particular ends, and Machiavelli's only standard is that the means bring justifiable benefits to the state as a whole.

So, in general, “the ends justify the means” is not really an absolute statement and not as devoid of compassion and morality as it initially seems. A completely corrupted leader with no sense of morality may use this idea as an excuse, as Machiavelli is solely concerned with the state (his state Florence in the book, to be exact). His idea may excuse conquering another nation if it is for the good of one's country and people, for example, but if this action has a negative impact (economically or socially – such as by causing unrest and a growing dislike for the ruler) then it is not really justifiable. It is also worth noting that Machiavelli writes explicitly for rulers, not common people – he doesn't comment on whether cheating in an exam is justified if you're going to get a good grade, or stealing is okay if you're hungry.

To be Feared or to be Loved?

One of the difficulties I faced in criticising Machiavellianism regarding how a ruler should rule, was doing so from a pragmatic point of view. Especially, since A) I am not a ruler (Machiavelli’s concerned audience) and B) I do not live in the 16th century. Yet I shall attempt to do so, hopefully, in a fashion that goes beyond moral absolutism. 

In The Prince, Machiavelli states: “It is better to be feared than loved.” Machiavelli follows that by adding that the feeling of fear outlasts that of love, since the physical threat of punishment is a more immediate danger. He links this idea to the loyalty of armies. But from the objectivist point of view that Machiavelli espouses, stating that subjects seek their own benefit and would tear a ruler apart if given a whiff of weakness, it can be inferred that people’s loyalties can shift based on the greatest danger in the vicinity. Therefore, it is not a smart idea to rule by fear knowing that you can be outdone by the next invader and eventual conquerer. 

But to engage this idea of fear being the finest trick of the trade in How to Rule 101, concerning the analogy of an army’s loyalty to its commander, it is possible to rebuke it also. This is illustrated in examples from history. Alexander the Great and Roman legion commanders earned legendary loyalty from their soldiers. Was this because they had set strict punishments against disloyalty like  in every other army that has ever existed? Or was it because they took care of their soldiers, giving them their wages on time, being concerned with their conditions and being a part of their training? I believe it was the latter. But to be fair, they did have punishments against desertion and dissent, but it was nothing unique. Not anything that other banal commanders did not have. 

At this point, I have to admit a slight disingenuousness on my part. The entire quote by Machiavelli is: “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” Clearly it is possible to be both. One loves his/her parents but fears them as well. One fears getting caught by mom and dad smoking a cigarette with one hand and reaching for the cookie jar with the other. Therefore, this either-or relationship established in the aforementioned quote is a flimsy assumption.

So to conclude, I do not believe that it is better to be feared than loved but, furthermore, state that both states can exist since people are more nuanced than Machiavelli would give them credit for. That is the case in the real world; it is the more pragmatic view. 

Real Meaning of Visual Work in Video Games

Watching Peter Gornstein’s video, titled “Virtual Environments”, made me, a self-proclaimed gamer, question something: Why are the environments in today’s video games are so lively and detailed? Is it just to make the game look pretty? Although while playing the game you are mainly lost in the experience, when you think about it with a calm mind, the reasoning behind this effort makes sense:  It is to convey the story, the events and the emotions to the audience in a more engaging manner, just like the Renaissance artists did with their paintings.

gematsu.com

Let’s take a look at the game ‘Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood’, a game  taking place in the 16^th century Rome that features historical characters such as Machiavelli, Leonardo Da Vinci and finally the Borgias as the main villain. There are also citizens of Rome, who we never get to know by name, and don’t seem to make an impact on the core game, but why are they there? Well, while playing the game, you inadvertently begin to decide your actions according to theirs. Are they running around and screaming? Then you should know that something bloody has happened, and you might want to get out of there as soon as possible. Instead of telling you directly what has happened, the game shows you the reactions to that event. It sets a theme that you have to take into account and interpret if you strive to give a meaning to what is going on.  Although the reactions don’t directly affect you, they point you to a certain direction, a direction that you have to take if you aim to succeed in the game. Actions of the citizens tell us their emotions, these emotions reflect the incident that took place, and our necessary reaction to this incident cleverly writes the story that the game developers purposely created for us. As you can see, the gamer is helpless and aimless without the existence of such visuals. Although the game developers should be appreciated for such kind of work, are they the ones who developed this technique? Well, this technique can be found in every kind of art, including painting. If we closely analyze and examine, we can perceive that such subconscious guidance was used in Renaissance paintings frequently. Let’s take a look at the painting called ‘School of Athens’ by Raphael. Although the painting is huge and full of details, first thing we notice without thinking are the two guys walking under a dome. They’re surrounded by others who seem to attentively listen to them. From this instance, the audience directly gets the feeling that this is the part they have to focus while reviewing this painting just like a certain mission or an objective assigned to the gamer during the game. However, rest of the painting cannot be deemed unimportant, since it creates the composition that has to be used while interpreting the main focus of the painting, just like the citizens in the video game example sets the tone to focal incident of the game.

wikiart.com

Undeniably, visual details in video games enhance the overall gaming experience. However, they do not achieve this by flooding the screen with unnecessary and trivial visuals, but with visuals which narrate the emotions and the story to the audience nonverbally. They guide the gamer to the focal point of the game, and let the game unravel itself by letting the gamer engage with it in a personal level.

Source Video: Peter Gornstein | Virtual Environments | Building the Picture