108 réponses à ce sujet

[Fidite Nemini]

And to just try and seek a mainstream definition of art would kill it entirely. It's the same thing those critics are trying to do.

 

Well, looks like my art teacher was right after all, I'm simply not made to see art. All I see is a painting for example. I can appreciate the craftmanship of it or whether its imagery is something I find particulary pleasing or impressive, but I never get the feeling that I'd have to call something art, or that something in everyday life isn't art. I simply don't seem to process that line of thought the same way, if at all.

 

Which I find rather confusing, because I do occasionally just stop in the middle of taking a walk just to look and appreciate my surroundings and/or close my eyes and just listen for a moment, be it listening to the birds, the wind or even just trying to listen to silence when nothing appears to be making a sound and it makes me happy. I evidently can appreciate things on an emotional level, I'm no psychopath, but anything called art never provoked any reaction worth mentioning, as if somebody trying to categorize it as art dulls the experience. I hate it. You can't for the love of all things decent drag me through a gallery.

[Jorji Costava]

This is what disqualifies art as being its own thing for me. No consequent definition to go by. You can look at a centuries old painting and they say it's art. You can look at a wall that a guy flung feces at and they say it's art. But all I'm actually seeing is either a painting or a wall with feces flung at it.

 

The cynic side of mine continues to observe that people who use the word art the most are the same people who try to create an illusion of exclusitivity as they try to sell it to someone, as if trying to infer that there's no way another random person could dunk his feces in same paint and fling it at the next wall, or that the little sketch your daughter made with the little stickmen titled mommy and daddy with lots of hearts and sunshine drawn around them couldn't be considered art.

 

They should come up with a distinctive definition about it already, otherwise it's just continuing to be an elusive quality added to something simply to put a horrendous price-tag on it - "yeah it's expensive, but it's ART!!!!".

 

In fairness, all of the exact same things could be said about the term "game." What counts as a game? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something's being a game? To date, no one has produced a satisfactory answer to this question. Even worse, "game" has been used as a term of exclusion (witness the ongoing debate about whether or not works like Gone Home, Dear Esther or Proteus count as games). I don't think this means that we should abandon the term "game" altogether, and I think much the same goes for "art."

 

In his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein coined the term "cluster concept" to describe concepts for which you couldn't ever give precise criteria for their application. Instead, there's a list of weighted criteria, which, if you meet enough of them to enough of a degree, you qualify. His original example of a cluster concept was, of course, "game," and what his theory implied was that two things could both qualify as games while having little or nothing in common with each other. And since then, the word "art" has been suggested as another candidate cluster concept.

[Fidite Nemini]

Nothing wrong with that at all. You have your own point of view and i don't think that someone who can integrate with nature that highly is not artistic. It's just maybe you like a certain kind of art but you don't know it yet, Or you like a certain kind of art that isn't invented yet. There are many reasons why you don't see the depth of subjective art. I'll give you an example, I really like comic book movies and TV shows and i find depth in each and everyone one of them while some people don't. I don't see much depth in Disney movies such as Frozen, Brave, ... etc, Pixar is another deal, But let's stay on topic, However, That doesn't mean that they're bad, It's just that we see the depth of the thing according to our own perspectives of the world. We see everything from our own perspective.  So, Unless you're deliberately looking and paying attention to see subjectivity, You won't notice it. But i have to admit, This has been a part of my character ever since i can remember. That i always try to see the world from others' perspective. And that's how you become a good debater, By becoming a good listener. Point is, You can't let anyone define you or what you're capable of. Discover the world and see what you love to do and do it.

 

The problem here is, I'm actually pretty good in seeing the subjective (or rather seeing the difference between the subjective and objective, just to make sure there's no misunderstanding based on semantics) and I'm likewise very empathetic. I can easily enter certain perspectives and/or roles and identify with them to a great degree. One thing why I like narrative media as much as I do (books, comics/manga, TV shows/movies/anime, etc. pp.). And I'm a splendid listener as was attested by many friends (or they're just trying to flatter me, filthy lying friends ).

 

Wouldn't that mean I should qualify to percieve the subjectivity of some if not most art? Are artists so inept at giving context to the required subjective perception to appreciate their work, or are those people who claim to interprete an art objects meaning just wrong/full of it?

 

I refuse to assume that I may just happen to like something that I'm not aware of yet, as that would infer I have a perception bias to something that I don't even know it exists, or even just might exist in some time, which is paradoxical.

[Gravisanimi]

Ar Tonelico is so art.

 

 

I could go on for hours about how this a beautifully crafted universe, story, and my Eoria the soundtrack.

 

Yeah but games meant to use a game as a medium to tell it's story are more artistic and creative than games that were created to be games. Almost in the same way a softdrink logo is less artistic than a Renaissance painting.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Pop music in order to appreciate it as art will make your eyes pop out.

[Fidite Nemini]

When art is meant to give its content subjectivity via the viewer, Like the movie Birdman, Then you define it. But when it's a fictional story that's told, It's completely subjective and people may not see its depth because all they look for is popcorn. Actually, When it comes to subjectivity in fiction in specific, It's very different than subjectivity in a debate partly because of the reason i have told you in my previous post. About that everyone sees the world from their own perspective. And since you say that you look for a mainstream definition of art, That means that you don't see that fictional subjectivity. That's why i have suggested that fiction may not be your thing but that doesn't mean that you can't be artistic. My point of loving something you have no knowledge of is that during childhood, Experiences and the things we like become some deeply embedded parts of our characters and personal philosophy despite the fact that we might even forget the actual memory. That's why sometimes, People like things and they are not even aware of it and it really happens. The point of this whole thing is, Just because one person or even a lot of people don't see much depth into something doesn't mean it's bad. It's only bad when its fictional structure fails.

 

 

 

Fair enough, even though I would claim that under the concept of all art being entirely subjective, it couldn't be defined and as such coining it art is likewise wrong, since it's obviously only art to some people and not to others. Calling it art would be close to the "no true scotsman" fallacy as it implies that people would have to appreciate it as art, or otherwise they simply wouldn't look at it right.

 

Which is where the cynical myself would butt in again and claim that the term art is primarily used as a marketing strategy to sell stuff and to try and inflate it's value because "art, duh". How else could sculptures of twisted metal rods change hands with millions paid when the process of twisting metal rods is hardly equal such amount of money?

 

 

 

I would at this point like to thank you for this discussion. I find it rare to be able to talk about such a subjective ... subject (please don't hit me) without things degenerating into "well, you're wrong!" rather fast.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Which is where the cynical myself would butt in again and claim that the term art is primarily used as a marketing strategy to sell stuff and to try and inflate it's value because "art, duh". How else could scultptures of twisted metal rods change hands with millions paid when the process of twisting metal rods is hardly equal such amount of money?

 

The process itself might cost 500$ at max (putting aside buying the machines themselves). It is hilarious to see some pay for this crap with millions!

 

Dammit, it is so cheap despite being GREAT:

 

About 35$

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

 

For me, The painting is meaningless. Really doesn't have any value. But when i take a look at a painting like this:

 

 

That painting is supposed to devour your soul and make you nihilistic! Does it fail?

[Gravisanimi]

I always try to respect different perspectives as much as i can.

 

Let me ask you something, What do you feel when you stare at painting like this for example?

 

Actually that's just an experimentation with color in landscapes, there's no deep meaning behind it, kinda like that "The curtains were blue" image I can't be bothered to look for. Sometimes the artist just wants to make something that interests them or might look pretty, but is it no less art?

[Gravisanimi]

Art isn't always what the artist wants to see, sometimes he just wants to try something someone hasn't done before, to broaden their or the viewer's horizons.

 

Without experimentation, art wouldn't evolve.

 

I might my entire life draw realistic landscapes, and one day I decide "You know what **** it, this grass is red and blue and the sky is purple and these trees are white, time to break up the monotony".

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

videogame is a product until corporations want to protect their IP. then its art.

[Jehuty]

I see video games as an art, just like paintings, anime, literature and so on and so forth. 

 

Feelings can be expressed extremely well and it can be beautifully crafted. It can also be poorly crafted and poorly made, just like any other form of art. 

Video games can invoke feelings. Anyone remember snowbound or the first time they stepped on Halo? Or perhaps when you fought on the UT99 map face, while the asteroid you were on was spinning and you were just looking up in awe. If a game can invoke feelings into a player, then I consider it art, regardless of form.  

[Queen Skadi]

Art is creative expression essentially. But creative expression has no inherent positive value attached to it.

Can Video Games be Art? Yes, but so what? One of the most important works of Art in the last century is a can of soup.

It's a worthless term that's used primarily by hipsters who feel socially insecure in the hobby. Not saying OP is one but the Art discussion is a pointless one. Games can be Art, like virtually everything else on the planet can be Art.

 

I think when one brings up the subject of "Video games as art" they don't mean it as a discussion of whether or not video games are art but rather a discussion of the merits of the video game medium as an artform.

 

Yes discussing whether or not something is art is pointless however the discussion of the merits of an artform can be an engaging and worthwhile discussion to those with an interest in the artform no? Surely it is a more worthwhile topic than circle jerking about how much we all hate the SJWs hiding in every shadow and Tali's sweat?

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

can videogames NOT be art? And if not, does that mean they cant be?

[bmwcrazy]

I can ****  and ********* TheBunz with a traffic cone and call it art.

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

I can ****  and ********* TheBunz with a traffic cone and call it art.

If you polish a ball of dung enough, it CAN become shiny.