81 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Games are artistic therefore art, comprise of many artistic elements and combine to create an artistic product. Being a product has no baring at all on whether something is art or not. A book is literary art, a song is musical art, a painting is visual art and games are all of the above...of which all of the above are also products in the sense they are sold in stores, in galleries and such. They can be mass produced or individual pieces but they are art all the same.

I honestly question why people are so against the principle of them being called art, I assume it is fear on their part that by calling it art you give the creators aka the artists the right to refuse your petty demands relating to what you want them to create vs what they wished to create. Like all art there is good and bad art in all mediums from books, movies, sculptures, music and games.. But regardless of whether good or bad they are all art.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 avril 2013 - 09:46 .

[Ridwan]

Are toys art?

[Dragoonlordz]

M25105 wrote...

Are toys art?

Anything is a toy to a child. There are many sculptures designed to be played with yet they are still artistic.

One mans book of art is another mans coffee coaster. One mans artistic figurine is another mans door stop.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 avril 2013 - 09:51 .

[Ridwan]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Are toys art?

Anything is a toy to a child. There are many sculptures designed to be played with yet they are still artistic.

One mans book of art is another mans coffee coaster. One mans artistic figurine is another mans door stop.

A toy is product meant for entertainment that you can interact with, so are games. Are they then both art?

So if a guy thinks solitaire for PC is art, it's art then because it's subjective?

[Dragoonlordz]

M25105 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Are toys art?

Anything is a toy to a child. There are many sculptures designed to be played with yet they are still artistic.

One mans book of art is another mans coffee coaster. One mans artistic figurine is another mans door stop.

A toy is product meant for entertainment that you can interact with, so are games. Are they then both art?

So if a guy thinks solitaire for PC is art, it's art then because it's subjective?

A movie is mean't to be watched, a book read, a song listened to, a sculpture/painting admired and viewed, a figurine/toy or game played with (arts and craft movement is well linked because of this). These are all forms of interaction with the item or piece. Whether you use your eyes, your ears or your hands does not matter. They are all also created to inspire or entertain you...and yes artistic quality (meaning of high enough quality for you to view it as such) is subjective down to individual taste but it does not stop being art for another even if it is not to you as shown by my previous comment in the examples between one mans subjective opinion of a piece of art vs another mans.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 avril 2013 - 10:17 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

I find it insteresting how everyone is trying to define or categorize "art" without as much as considering the point I made earlier (or so it seems at least).

Is art really something as distinctive enough to invent a whole category for it only because people say it's artistic? I find that the difficulty everyone has to properly define art only proves my point.

I never bothered reading what you said earlier, I cannot vouch for how many did but maybe thats why your comment was not referenced. It does not require additional defining, it is already defined as such aka a book is literary art, song musical art, painting visual art and a game is interactive art comprised of many artistic elements at least as far as I am concerned.

This issue is not that people are trying to define it as art I feel, it is an issue that some people are in denial about it being such already. Trying to redefine it as something else such as attempt to limit it to 'product' in order to avoid having to deal with the repercussions of the rights of the artists and content creators have when defined as art. Meaning they have the right to refuse to cater to the demands of those unhappy with the 'artistic' direction the creators wish to explore and go in. The concern that you lose some power over forcing them to change their vision for their product/piece of art just because you did not or might not enjoy or share their vision. To me it is not a movement to define it as art but a movement to prevent it being so by some or those who have not accepted that it is such.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 avril 2013 - 10:58 .

[Fishy]

Pop culture or Low Art Maybe. They're made primary with the intention of entertainment. So you can't really compare it to Pablo Picasso.

[spirosz]

As long as it makes me think and provides a reaction, either emotional or whatever, then I'll consider it a form of art, in general - I personally wouldn't say all games are "art" or are trying to achieve that status, but a few games, especially Indie titles, have made me view certain types of games differently.

As I stated early, I personally believe that art is a form of expression that can be done through any form of a canvas - an instrument, technology (as reference to games), an actual canvas used for an painter, etc. Whatever provides said individual the tools needed to show what needs to be shown from their perspective.

[spirosz]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Are toys art?

Anything is a toy to a child. There are many sculptures designed to be played with yet they are still artistic.

One mans book of art is another mans coffee coaster. One mans artistic figurine is another mans door stop.

A toy is product meant for entertainment that you can interact with, so are games. Are they then both art?

So if a guy thinks solitaire for PC is art, it's art then because it's subjective?

A movie is mean't to be watched, a book read, a song listened to, a sculpture/painting admired and viewed, a figurine/toy or game played with (arts and craft movement is well linked because of this). These are all forms of interaction with the item or piece. Whether you use your eyes, your ears or your hands does not matter. They are all also created to inspire or entertain you...and yes artistic quality (meaning of high enough quality for you to view it as such) is subjective down to individual taste but it does not stop being art for another even if it is not to you as shown by my previous comment in the examples between one mans subjective opinion of a piece of art vs another mans.

^I agree.  

[spirosz]

Not that type of reaction, lol. That's why I stated not everything is meant to be achieving a certain thing, even if it's still the same product.

I stated that I don't believe a lot of games in general can be defined as art, as their sole purpose and from the developers viewpoint, are meant to just be a form of interactive entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.

[The Heretic of Time]

As long as there are people willing to call it art, it's art. That's how it works.

And that's why I think the term "art" is quite meaningless. Who cares whether something is or isn't art?

[spirosz]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

As long as there are people willing to call it art, it's art. That's how it works.

And that's why I think the term "art" is quite meaningless. Who cares whether something is or isn't art?

Exactly, I think the whole flipping a toilet and calling art is a bunch of bull****, but that is what makes me and what makes an other individual seeing it in a total different way, them.  

I am no more right than them, as they are to me. 

Modifié par spirosz, 09 avril 2013 - 11:29 .

[addiction21]

Suprez30 wrote...

Pop culture or Low Art Maybe. They're made primary with the intention of entertainment. So you can't really compare it to Pablo Picasso.

So actors are artists? Movies or television shows can not be art? Music has never been or be considered art?

[The Heretic of Time]

Suprez30 wrote...

Pop culture or Low Art Maybe. They're made primary with the intention of entertainment. So you can't really compare it to Pablo Picasso.

Picasso sucks.

[Fishy]

addiction21 wrote...

Suprez30 wrote...

Pop culture or Low Art Maybe. They're made primary with the intention of entertainment. So you can't really compare it to Pablo Picasso.

So actors are artists? Movies or television shows can not be art? Music has never been or be considered art?

Definitly not high culture for the majority of them. When Picasso was drawing he was not thinking...

''Hmm .. I wonder how many people will purchase it !!!. That why a lot of artist also struggled to sell anything. Yet they never sold themselves to profit. Music can be art, but I don't consider Lady Gaga  high on the spectrum of it.

It's mainstream music. It's equal to the transformer the movie. It's made with the primary intention of making money and selling it to a certain demographic. It's like Korean POP.

Pablo  Or Bach..
They made something with the intention of creating something they wanted to create regardless of  the zerg or mainstream taste. Of course you just can't do ''anything''. You need to have  certain expertise. That the difference between pop culture(Mainstream) and true art (High Culture).

I think movie can be art when the intention is there. Not every actors are artist for the same reason. Some are there just for the bacon, others want to create something regardless of what the zerg want. That why a lot of critic are so bad and actors often feel misunderstood.

The lign is often very thin. Video game can be art, but the industry is there  with the primary motivation of making money.

Modifié par Suprez30, 10 avril 2013 - 01:05 .

[addiction21]

Suprez30 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Suprez30 wrote...

Pop culture or Low Art Maybe. They're made primary with the intention of entertainment. So you can't really compare it to Pablo Picasso.

So actors are artists? Movies or television shows can not be art? Music has never been or be considered art?

Definitly not high culture for the majority of them. When Picasso was drawing he was not thinking...

''Hmm .. I wonder how many people will purchase it !!!. That why a lot of artist also struggled to sell anything. Yet they never sold themselves to profit. Music can be art, but I don't consider Lady Gaga  high on the spectrum of it.

It's mainstream music. It's equal to the transformer the movie. It's made with the primary intention of making money and selling it to a certain demographic. It's like Korean POP.

Pablo  Or Bach..
They made something with the intention of creating something they wanted to create regardless of  the zerg or mainstream taste. Of course you just can't do ''anything''. You need to have  certain expertise. That the difference between pop culture(Mainstream) and true art (High Culture).

I think movie can be art when the intention is there. Not every actors are artist for the same reason. Some are there just for the bacon, others want to create something regardless of what the zerg want. That why a lot of critic are so bad and actors often feel misunderstood.

The lign is often very thin. Video game can be art, but the industry is there  with the primary motivation of making money.

So, you concede that art can be made for entertainment.

Now the goal posts have been moved over to money.  I am done here.

[The Heretic of Time]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

As long as there are people willing to call it art, it's art. That's how it works.

I disagree with this statement, but it's all inherently subjective so an argument won't get anywhere.

there is not much to disagree on, because what I said is a FACT. 

Art is a very subjective thing, but as long as there are enough people to say 'X' is art, than 'X' is art. Period. That's how it is and that's how it always has been.

'X' in this case can literally be anything. It could even be a toilet turned upside-down.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 10 avril 2013 - 02:46 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Superz30, do you even have a single clue what the hell you're talking about, or are you just rambling nonsense without any real knowledge on the subject, I suspect the latter.

Well, I only have 2 words for you:

pop art.


Pop art was created with the sole purpose to defy your very view and perspective on art. So yeah, go figure.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 10 avril 2013 - 02:54 .

[Rawgrim]

M25105 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Are toys art?

Anything is a toy to a child. There are many sculptures designed to be played with yet they are still artistic.

One mans book of art is another mans coffee coaster. One mans artistic figurine is another mans door stop.

A toy is product meant for entertainment that you can interact with, so are games. Are they then both art?

So if a guy thinks solitaire for PC is art, it's art then because it's subjective?

Books are meant as entertainment too. so are movies. Whats your point? Or lack thereoff.

[The Heretic of Time]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Speaking of Pablo Picasso, I love Marcel Duchamp's view on art. He's the one I was talking about earlier with the urinal "sculpture". People take art way too seriously, and it's true that things are considered art once someone gives it that title.

I agree fellow Hanar.

People seriously need to work that stick out of their butt regarding art. Way too many people still think that art is some kind of elite thing. As if art is something elite belonging only to the "high culture". Well f*ck that! Art is whatever the f*ck you want it to be.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 10 avril 2013 - 03:03 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Suprez30 wrote...

Pop culture or Low Art Maybe. They're made primary with the intention of entertainment. So you can't really compare it to Pablo Picasso.

Picasso sucks.

lol yes!

It seems people have forgotten what art is:



Beethoven - Symphony No.3 "Eroica", I - Allegro con brio

Warning: If you disagree with this you have violated a sacred thing to me and you'll be punished!