Are video games a religion?
Art says "maybe?"
Art says "maybe?"
Dragon Age: Inquisition
- Thread starter Idiotfool
- Start date
AskWazzup said:
And yet, Desert Bus transcends being an even crappier game to qualify as a form of art in the eyes of half the internet. This "art" thing gets a bit confusing, no?
We need to petition the universe to change the meaning of art to "Anything people do other than reproduce and die".
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
AskWazzup said:Akratus said:
Well, you criticize my definition, which is fair, but you don't provide a definition yourself, so your statement doesn't have much to stand on for now.
To be fair, defining art is pretty hard (and i do not claim i have it figured out), since there is a whole lot of things that the definition would depend upon, but if not delving to deep into that, i think Yes, the artist has to be skillful in his craft, because without it , you are depending on luck, that is if you have a grand idea in your head, but cannot materialise it, then you are playing on chance occurrence (which i found out when dabbling with my "projects"). However, as i stated before, one also has to posses passion for the subject, since passion is fuel for ideas and expressivenes. And finally, the work of art may come about by perception, reason, or logic, but it has to have a structure (can be structure of chaos, or structure of logic), and interesting structure, one which has the capacity to go beyond the everyday thinking. Now this is also where it gets sketchy, since an interesting structure is as interesting as the observers mental skill to be able to recognise that structure and the interesting part about it.
So if someone is generating a project that is compliant and not striving out of interest and passion to go beyond, or at least near the bar that was set before, or to tackle new grounds, for me it is not a piece of art. It might still be good, but it will lack that sting. Games by bioware i think of decent or good but they do not surprise, or tickle my mind the same way that i find the games which are nearer to that definition.
Now my thoughts on this, i will confess, have some fallacies that i see myself, but i am not articulate enough, or have a good enough understanding on the subject to fix them. So i will be glad if someone else might help with their critique, as i am interested to have a deeper understanding on the topic of art too, even if it is not that much connected to the topic of the thread.
Here's my definition of art: An expression of human thought put into a form that can be seen or heard by others.
Let's go to probably the furthest extreme here: Japanese hentai games. EVEN that is art in my eyes. Really shitty art, made for only one purpose, not enjoyable in a literary, aesthethic or intellectual manner. But still art. Because it is a piece of work made by one person or a group of people, to be distributed amongst people. It is a visual thing, that you can hear see and touch, and it is made for you to do so. That is why it is still art under my overarching definition.
Really I see it as elitism to add any subjective qualifiers to one's definition of art. Art is just a word, a classification. A very broad one that can basically be applied to any work of mankind.
So if you want to mark something as being special, significant or good, why not use a term that actually directly specifies one of those things?
I feel like people are stuck in the mindset of art that the art appreciators over the years have set down. You could make a painting with a cool idea behind it, but if you didn't get known or made any good paintings before, and you are dismissed by critics and coinosseurs then it won't be placed in anything like a museum and your work will be forgotten. Thus the definition of art has somehow become things worthy to be displayed. Or rather, found to be worthy to be displayed by the critics and experts. And that is just a useless sentiment in my eyes and only something that creates debates which go nowhere because it is all so intrinsically subjective.
It's useless to say: "This is GOOD enough for me to CALL it art." and it just irritates me. If something is good people will realize it themselves and the art stamp is not a requirement for anything.
why? because there are a lot of people talking about the topic while the only education they have is from google? Creating games is clearly a form of business and the conditions today are not really great for the people that decide to work in that field, it is a form of industry just like many other branches. You don't go around calling all of the other industries art as well, regardless that SOME people there posses so much skill that what they do is a form of art. This is really not a black and white scenario. I would even go so far and for example call a very nice and well done car or movie or book a piece of art, because there is eventually a lot of great craftsmanship and creativity involved. But would that mean I suddenly start to see EVERY car or movie that was ever made as art? I would say no.Ilosar said:
And the same is absolutely true for games as well. There are pearls and there are clear products.
The problem is that you have a lot of people talking about the topic which have either no or only very little education in that field. I know that sounds pretty cocky, but you cant just forget the value that education can give you as I had as well a different view on it in the past.
AskWazzup
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Akratus said:
I feel that we are discussing different things, as i have no interest in discrediting works of other people as useless, or creating some elitist barriers. I can appreciate the moon, even though it's not a work of art, i can listen to hip hop, or some funk even though it's often done by people who are not fully engaged in their craft, because these things serve their purpose in entertaining, relaxing, or some other shit. I'm learning to compose, however i will not call my work as art yet, because i feel that much of it is not a free expression of the things that i really have in mind, of the things that would not merely be a variation of some other thing, but a whole new, interesting, skillfully accomplished, thought out in every detail, personal, structure. So to be clear, i don't use the term as a deterrent against everything that is not art, -that does not interest me-, as i enjoy and experience many things, just not the same way as i do "art".
But as i said, everything above is my personal opinion on the matter and it will surely change in the future. But it was interesting to hear what other people feel about the topic.
Crni Vuk said:
That is cocky, and I do have education "in the field", but I have always hated, hated, hated to bring up non-relevant points to support my statements.
The statement should be true on its own, not because I back it up with my personal history.
That's like beginning to name-drop famous people and whatnot, to up ones legitimacy.
I also think the above discussions make it evident that this is a difficult topic. In fact, it has always been difficult - historically.
Ideas such as "degenerate art" and "anti-art" have been used to classify art "better" (or worse).
One person and his education isn't going to clear this up.
I admit I was a bit blunt in my own definition of what art is. I maintain my conviction that "Art is in the eyes of the beholder", at all times.
yeah, you're right, lets just ignore people with years of education and working as professionals in such fields. Why should anyone care about their opinion?
Sorry if I am proud about my education and that I feel that I know a bit more about art and design compared to those that yeah, lack the education. Is that cocky? So be it. I sure have spend a lot of time, work and resources in to it, so I guess I have earned some of it.
And its rather strange to see that people give "gaming" a credit they don't give out to other industries, despite the fact that people there work just as hard and can achieve just as much if not even more while you have in the gaming industry enough people which don't even care an INCH about their work because they hate it, like in many other jobs. its really not all to different. Just how you have the guys sitting on the assembly lines you have the people coding all day boring stuff on the computer.
Calling it art? As I said already. SOME of it can be seen as art, I am sure this is a debate that has no clear "yes" or "no" answer. But that doesn't mean that you can declare gaming as whole as art now or some art industry because then you could go on and say the same about the car industry or any other branch out there. And this in turn makes the term art completely meaningless because suddenly its an umbrella for everything.
I am sure not trying to force MY view or opinion on you that you HAVE to accept what I say about art. But its like this discussion about daddaism, and how much value it holds today which is a bit ridiculous, because the reasons that spawned dadaism doesn't really exist anymore today, considering the freedom that you have with art today. And this is where education can play a huge role.
Sorry if I am proud about my education and that I feel that I know a bit more about art and design compared to those that yeah, lack the education. Is that cocky? So be it. I sure have spend a lot of time, work and resources in to it, so I guess I have earned some of it.
And its rather strange to see that people give "gaming" a credit they don't give out to other industries, despite the fact that people there work just as hard and can achieve just as much if not even more while you have in the gaming industry enough people which don't even care an INCH about their work because they hate it, like in many other jobs. its really not all to different. Just how you have the guys sitting on the assembly lines you have the people coding all day boring stuff on the computer.
Calling it art? As I said already. SOME of it can be seen as art, I am sure this is a debate that has no clear "yes" or "no" answer. But that doesn't mean that you can declare gaming as whole as art now or some art industry because then you could go on and say the same about the car industry or any other branch out there. And this in turn makes the term art completely meaningless because suddenly its an umbrella for everything.
I am sure not trying to force MY view or opinion on you that you HAVE to accept what I say about art. But its like this discussion about daddaism, and how much value it holds today which is a bit ridiculous, because the reasons that spawned dadaism doesn't really exist anymore today, considering the freedom that you have with art today. And this is where education can play a huge role.
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I'm also educated. I go to art school for the second time at the moment. If someone considers something is art, then it is art. 
Get off your high horse, Crni.
Get off your high horse, Crni.
someone standing on a table shitting in front of the audience is considered art because someone says "its art" then?aenemic said:I'm also educated. I go to art school for the second time at the moment. If someone considers something is art, then it is art.
Get off your high horse, Crni.
oookkeeeey....
Is it that hard to accept that we need sometimes classifications, and that we should not simply see everything as "art" just because a few people say "its art"?
Lets see how far we can play this! Hmm, maybe we could see rape as act of art? Or violence in general? I am not sure if that is really usefull.
So, for "art" to be "art", it must pass through a quality check, an integrity check, a number-of-collaborators-involved check, etc.
Can someone direct me to the official organ performing these checks? k, thanks.
Can someone direct me to the official organ performing these checks? k, thanks.
Surf Solar
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Those discussions are fruitless anyway, I've had similar ones with musician-police guys who claimed that as long as you don't master your instrument 100% then you are not able to create "art". Everyone has a different definition of the word, the end.
I am not in a position yet where I could make a statement about where we should draw the line.
Maybe we should decide from case to case?
Dadaism is a very good example here. When you consider Dadaism for it self, its pretty meaningless, a bottle drying rack standing in the corner of some black room? Thats nothing worth. But if you start to think about the historical context and where Dadaism comes from, it gets a new meaning. Thats why it is today very difficult if not impossible to follow dadaism I think, because we don't have to deal with the same kind of limitations anymore and the context is completely different.
And things change again when you try to make a difference between design work and art.
Its not a simple black and white situation where its only about extremes. But I think it should be really obvious for anyone that you just cant always explain everything simply as art.
Maybe we should decide from case to case?
Dadaism is a very good example here. When you consider Dadaism for it self, its pretty meaningless, a bottle drying rack standing in the corner of some black room? Thats nothing worth. But if you start to think about the historical context and where Dadaism comes from, it gets a new meaning. Thats why it is today very difficult if not impossible to follow dadaism I think, because we don't have to deal with the same kind of limitations anymore and the context is completely different.
And things change again when you try to make a difference between design work and art.
Its not a simple black and white situation where its only about extremes. But I think it should be really obvious for anyone that you just cant always explain everything simply as art.
Surf Solar
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Crni Vuk said:
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Discussing what is art and what isn't is such a clichéd crock of bull. That's the whole point of my previous post: there's no reason to discuss it, because people will have varying definitions and it is extremely subjective. But if something is considered art by someone, then that is clearly art for them. What's the point in debating that? People who do so are either self-proclaimed art experts who want to be better educated than the dumb masses surrounding them, or people who know absolute shit about art and say everything they don't like isn't art.
My personal guideline is simple: if the creator(s) had any artistic intent with their work and consider their work art themselves, then it's art.
My personal guideline is simple: if the creator(s) had any artistic intent with their work and consider their work art themselves, then it's art.
so, technically, serial killer murdering people could be art if I suddenly would come up with the idea that he is performing art with his actions.
The word art as term becomes completely meaningless though if we simply argue like that using "everything is opinion" like a shield, because it makes it suddenly impossible to even draw a simple line which can or at least should allow for some flexibility of course (again not just simply black and white here!). Then why even attempt to discuss anything at all? Everything is art. Maybe Stalin was just a fancy surrealist who wanted to create a new form of artistic expression by creating a very distorted state and culture. Who knows? The world was his canvas and the violence his tools. its art now! Because I say so! It was art for me! What? You don't agree! How dare you! It's all opinion!
The word art as term becomes completely meaningless though if we simply argue like that using "everything is opinion" like a shield, because it makes it suddenly impossible to even draw a simple line which can or at least should allow for some flexibility of course (again not just simply black and white here!). Then why even attempt to discuss anything at all? Everything is art. Maybe Stalin was just a fancy surrealist who wanted to create a new form of artistic expression by creating a very distorted state and culture. Who knows? The world was his canvas and the violence his tools. its art now! Because I say so! It was art for me! What? You don't agree! How dare you! It's all opinion!
Crni Vuk said:
What if the serial killer is also a sadistic psycho who carves the most beautiful pictures upon his victims' skins after he gouges it off?
well played, I was not prepared for someone attacking my ridiculous hyperbole with another hyperbole :p
still, I hope you get the point that I wanted to make.
still, I hope you get the point that I wanted to make.
Crni Vuk said:
Oh sure, the point is a valid one, but I couldn't resist.
But still, defining what is art is meaningless, since it's subjective. There are no facts, only interpretations.