|
Figuratively, you could say anything is art due to skill, talent, aesthetic, whatever. Like the example Archaic gave, "The Art of War". "The Art of Properly Clipping Your Toenails", wtfe. "Art" is used as a value judgement in this way and if this is the meaning anyone is talking about, it's sort of pointless to argue about.
Literal "Art" as in "the sort of thing you'd expect to find in an art gallery" isn't a qualifier for something being good/bad or skillful/not skillful... the key is that it was purposefully created/presented to be art (and, in turn, accepted by an audience to be art). You don't set out to make something mundane and then make art by mistake. If I take a shit, it's not art. If I take a shit in a museum and put it on display and make an argument about it's significance beyond being a piece of shit, then it's art. It'd be retarded and awful art, yeah, but the literal meaning of "art" is not a value judgment.
Most video games are not art because they were not intended to be, and not presented as such. Starcraft is not an art, it's something entirely different that I think is awesome and way more interesting than a lot of art. You could of course, say, that FIGURATIVELY playing starcraft is an art, that it requires the skillful hands of an artist to do proper muta micro, whatever. I'd agree with that analogy, but it doesn't mean much besides "Starcraft is cool". Technically, it's not art. However, there ARE video games that were intended to be art (like Jason Rohrer's work or Tale of Tales), and there's absolutely no reason that something as such shouldn't be considered art because of its medium.
Asking "Are video games art?" is like asking "Are dishes art?" and expecting to encompass both fine-art pottery and crate & barrel. "Are objects art?" Uhh some of them I guess
|
On April 23 2010 14:18 hoborg wrote:Figuratively, you could say anything is art due to skill, talent, aesthetic, whatever. Like the example Archaic gave, "The Art of War". "The Art of Properly Clipping Your Toenails", wtfe. "Art" is used as a value judgement in this way and if this is the meaning anyone is talking about, it's sort of pointless to argue about. Literal "Art" as in "the sort of thing you'd expect to find in an art gallery" isn't a qualifier for something being good/bad or skillful/not skillful... the key is that it was purposefully created/presented to be art (and, in turn, accepted by an audience to be art). You don't set out to make something mundane and then make art by mistake. If I take a shit, it's not art. If I take a shit in a museum and put it on display and make an argument about it's significance beyond being a piece of shit, then it's art. It'd be retarded and awful art, yeah, but the literal meaning of "art" is not a value judgment. Most video games are not art because they were not intended to be, and not presented as such. Starcraft is not an art, it's something entirely different that I think is awesome and way more interesting than a lot of art. You could of course, say, that FIGURATIVELY playing starcraft is an art, that it requires the skillful hands of an artist to do proper muta micro, whatever. I'd agree with that analogy, but it doesn't mean much besides "Starcraft is cool". Technically, it's not art. However, there ARE video games that were intended to be art (like Jason Rohrer's work or Tale of Tales), and there's absolutely no reason that something as such shouldn't be considered art because of its medium. Asking "Are video games art?" is like asking "Are dishes art?" and expecting to encompass both fine-art pottery and crate & barrel. "Are objects art?" Uhh some of them I guess
Firstly, nobody is talking about 'art' in the sense of a craft, or mastery of something.
I suspect however (though i could be completely wrong), "The Art of War" was intended to have the double meaning. Sun Tzu was pretty bloodthirsty, and I wouldn't be surprised if he considered warfare an art form.
Secondly, I don't think anybody is trying to claim Starcraft itself is art (or if they are, it isn't the discussion at hand). We are talking about players using Starcraft as a medium. Can the very best of players be considered artists? Is what they are doing art?
Lastly, I couldn't disagree with you more about your "key" to whether something is art or not. I really can't see how it matters whether something is intended to be art or not. Many archaeological cave paintings and sculptures almost certainly had completely different purposes (for instance, a crude carving of a woman intended to help a man become aroused currently residing in the British museum). Is it intended to be art? No. Is it presented as art? No. Is it art? Undoubtedly. Furthermore, for the most part, the intention of the creator is largely unimportant, it is the observer that shapes their own meaning.
|
Osaka27156 Posts
I think Samwise Didier might take issue with this.
![[image loading]](http://us.blizzard.com/_images/community/contests/holidayfanartcalendar/ss/ss5.jpg)
He might even throw a snowball at you. After touring Blizzard HQ and seeing the work there, everything seems to start with writing and artists. To claim that the way it is shown means it isn't art... well, my opinion differs.
-edit I realize this not actually be his. :p
|
Art is in the eye of the observer.
|
On April 23 2010 07:38 mangomango wrote:
This man couldn't be more wrong. He's using his own perceptual filters to deny the existence of "game as art". Which means he is a sad lonely man. I mourn him.
give him some company?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
PZ is great, you should check out his blog for non-videogame related content.
|
On April 23 2010 14:50 sob3k wrote:
PZ is great, you should check out his blog for non-videogame related content.
I agree entirely. I wouldn't have wanted my OP to lead you to think PZ is a complete ignoramus. He is brilliant, and frequently entertaining.
|
art is not interactive. this is just an argument of definition, not some big insult. games can be artistic, but they can't be "art" until its been an established media form for a long, long time
|
On April 23 2010 14:16 Alethios wrote:
When Flash or Nal_rA demonstrates a new build, with precise timings and hundreds of subtle things (of the like Day[9] always tries to point out to us), could we not see it as a sort of concert? Each unit an instrument, each action a note, blended together to form a beautiful symphony of destruction.
the difference between music composition and starcraft play is that music composition is (almost always) meant to appeal to human aesthetic in some way, whereas the goal in starcraft is to triumph over an opponent in a system designed by humans.
|
Osaka27156 Posts
On April 23 2010 14:54 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
art is not interactive. this is just an argument of definition, not some big insult. games can be artistic, but they can't be "art" until its been an established media form for a long, long time
![[image loading]](http://www.flytecrewblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/obama-etch-a-sketch.jpg)
Interactive art.
Really? Games are based on designs which are started with art. I would say that artistic things = art. And I don't know about your "long long time" thing too. Maybe classical art is old but art mediums doesn't have an incubation process. I mean, just look at Myst. That game is art.
|
i think it's important to distinguish the design process of the game and the process of playing!
|
Everything that ever became art, originally had "no chance at ever becoming art."
Anyways... wtf is art anyways? It's not something objective, unlike "sport," which he mentioned. Sport means there's competition, and rules, and stuff. What's art to one person can be completely meaningless to the other (this must have been mentioned before since it's so dead obvious,) on the other hand I don't see how you can't consider the process of designing and creating a video game art... After all it requires creative processes, and such... but then again that's just me.
|
Despite the fact that this guy might be smart, he doesn't have a really good idea of what art is.
Art is anything that claims to be. Literally I could take a shit in a gallery and call it art, whether it is good art is up to the viewer to decide.
That brings up a new question, what does good art consist of?
Let's make a video game analogy:
It good be could art because of successful formalism: (sick graphics, a beautiful environment).
It could be good art because of fun interaction like an interactive art piece or an installation: (puzzle games or good fun game play in the game.)
It could be good art because of successful narrative: (games with good stories or immersion.)
etc. etc. etc.
There is no way to rate a piece of art, art doesn't need to explain itself and it always lets the perceiver decide.
edit: kurtis the turtle you are blatantly wrong
|
it is an art form, fte pure reason it bring out emotion and after watching it and the players u can gather something about humans overall
|
Art is a kind of distillation and representation of human experience, filtered through the minds of its creators. A great painting or poem is something that represents an idea or emotion, communicated through the skill of an artist, to make you see through his or her eyes for a moment.
Using his definition of art, a game like Braid is art. It actually mixes the philosophical concepts of the game with the game's play mechanics. Replace all the graphics with simple gray shapes and remove all sound, and you still have a game that expresses the creator's life experiences and emotions. That fits his definition of art exactly.
So why doesn't he say they are art? He doesn't play video games. Since both his and Ebert's opinions are based off of misinformation gained from their own assumptions, all I could realistically get out of their articles was that they don't play video games.
Ebert wouldn't review a movie after just seeing the trailer, and he wouldn't call a book "pathetic" after reading one paragraph on one random page. Why is he suddenly doing practically the same thing to video games?
Lastly, they're unjustly forcing all games into one category. Who can blame them, they don't play video games and therefore cannot differentiate between the ones that are art and the ones that are not art. If I were to say to Ebert that movies are not art, he would likely present specific examples of movies that he believes to be art, whereas my statement was that movies are not art (not my real opinion, of course). If I were to say that specific movies are not art, he may actually agree with me depending on the movie, as I would agree with him depending on the game.
Bottom line: Ignorance leads to assumption leads to misinformation leads to opinions that offend leads to this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
