108 réponses à ce sujet

[Fidite Nemini]

Tali's sweat?

 

Oy, don't besmirch the glory that was Tali's sweat. That thread was comedy gold.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

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

If you want but i don't think that's art.

[Ridwan]

Calling games art, just makes you sound desperate in trying to justify your hobby. 

[bEVEsthda]

Everything is not art. That's nonsense.

For something to be art, there are two conditions: It has to be made by an "artist", and the intention has to be to make "art".

 

It's all in the intention!

 

Art is absolutely NOT  any kind of quality stamp! It does not need to be preserved for posterity just because it's art. If it's trash, just burn the crap and be rid of it. Much graffiti is definitely art. The creator can have very good reasons to call himself "artist", and the intention is often exactly to create "art". So it's definitely art. But that doesn't mean it deserves to be preserved. Most graffiti is garbage and only deserves to be washed away asap. (But that doesn't mean I'm saying all graffiti is crap or uninteresting. Some deserve to be documented, so posterity can enjoy it.)

A lot of garbage art is created because the artist wants to make a name for himself. Like dead, rotting pig cadavers for instance. It's "art" because of the intention and the originator, but it's less than garbage. It has no value. Not even artistic value.

 

As for video games, I have a hard time seeing the game itself being viewed as art. But I wouldn't say it's impossible. Playing a game could be an art-experience. The problem is that there is no coherent intention.

 

Video games do contain art though. And quite a lot of it. I don't see why there should be any doubt or discussion about that. A lot of the content is made by artists with an artistic intention. But as before, "art" is neither a quality stamp nor indicator of value.

[Cyonan]

Video games are art in the same way that movies are:

 

Some of them want to make you think or make some kind of an artistic statement about something.

 

Some of them you're there just to see boobs and explosions.

 

I'm gonna say that video games can be art but aren't automatically art just because they're a video game. Otherwise I feel like we'd have to start calling whatever it is that Michael Bay does art.

[L. Han]

^Well, there are limits as well. I find it hard to accept that a soda can stuffed with human poop is art, let alone something you put up on a pedestal in an art museum.

[jeromefiefdom]

Well, Honestly, Roger Ebert is an idiot. All the modern day critics are and they really have no appreciation for real, Subjective art. They all have this realist elitist view that movies should all be about social commentary. That there's only type of art and that what expresses and talks about realism. Which is essentially why the Realism movement was created. And that if something challenges that notion, Then they're not art. But honestly, They're all just a bunch of self-righteousness cynical idiots who really know nothing at all about art or its subjectivity. The thing is, Unfamiliar concepts will always bug cynical people, And that has always been the struggle in the art world, The fight between people who want to do something personal and respect subjectivity and ingenuity and encourage the new, "The Avant-garde, Romanticism, Modernism", and people who doesn't like change and prefer just one version of anything. "Realism, Postmodernism". There was an interesting quote in Birdman that what would actually go on in one's life so that they'd become a critic. And another quote from the movie is that a critic is someone who loves the job but can't do it himself and i find that to be quite accurate.

 

I do agree, but it isnt just about Realism. Thres so many pretentious films that are lauded for the insignigatn things they do. For example, American Beauty, Tree of Life, and Citizien Kane. Each of these films, while having their own merits, are simply pretentious little works, that are ultimately pointless. Just because the subject tackles different subject matter, means in no way that the film is good.  The same can be extended to gaming. Gone Home was showered with praise, but it simply shows a character who would be hated if her gender was flipped.

[Ridwan]

So are painters, movie directors, comic book writers, and the like just desperate to justify their hobby as well or nah?

You're confusing content creators with consumers. So yeah, if you try and justify playing games by calling it art, you're missing out the one thing games are, entertainment. 

[Jorji Costava]

You're confusing content creators with consumers. So yeah, if you try and justify playing games by calling it art, you're missing out the one thing games are, entertainment. 

 

Who says a game can't be both? And why think that there is only one true reason to ever play games?

[Ridwan]

Who says a game can't be both? And why think that there is only one true reason to ever play games?

Cause playing games is recreational. I doubt almost anyone gives a **** about the meaning of some level, or written note they find. People just want to have fun being a hero, jumping around, shooting ****, casting spells, or swinging a sword. Even turn based strategy games are in the end just entertainment, there's a stigma though that video games are childish (who gives a ****) and if you ask me, the people that call games are art, are trying to defend themselves against that stigma instead of just admitting that they like to shoot **** up.

[Torgette]

^Well, there are limits as well. I find it hard to accept that a soda can stuffed with human poop is art, let alone something you put up on a pedestal in an art museum.

 

I took art classes in college a long time ago, a lot of art is cynical - people come up with ideas by accident and then ascribe vagueness to it by attaching -isms (like that means anything). Video games are the sum of different arts like music, graphic design, sound design, writing, etc. but whether that sum means jack is different. I like to say Call of Duty is art because the sum of those parts makes you feel like you're in a war, but I get nothing out of something like Fez other than "my character is kind of cute" or "that 2d-3d effect is cool" or "the music is haunting" (aka, the sum of the parts means nothing).

[Gravisanimi]

Cause playing games is recreational. I doubt almost anyone gives a **** about the meaning of some level, or written note they find. People just want to have fun being a hero, jumping around, shooting ****, casting spells, or swinging a sword. Even turn based strategy games are in the end just entertainment, there's a stigma though that video games are childish (who gives a ****) and if you ask me, the people that call games are art, are trying to defend themselves against that stigma instead of just admitting that they like to shoot **** up.

I don't think I'm defending or lying to myself at all if I say I don't care.

 

If I want to play a game where most of the fun is from gameplay, then I'll play the game for gameplay. If I want a game that's fun or entertaining for it's story, then I play the game for it's story.

 

I'm the kind of person that got in trouble when we went to the Art Institute in Chicago for ditching my group and chaperone because I wouldn't get to see everything if I went at their pace.

 

I enjoy art, and that tends to add to my enjoyment of videogames, which are filled and are themselves a form of expression.

[Jorji Costava]

Cause playing games is recreational. I doubt almost anyone gives a **** about the meaning of some level, or written note they find. People just want to have fun being a hero, jumping around, shooting ****, casting spells, or swinging a sword. Even turn based strategy games are in the end just entertainment, there's a stigma though that video games are childish (who gives a ****) and if you ask me, the people that call games are art, are trying to defend themselves against that stigma instead of just admitting that they like to shoot **** up.

 

First of all, it's pretty crass and insulting for you to just unilaterally decide you know why someone like me might enjoy games better than I do (on the basis of no evidence whatosever, to boot). How the heck would you be able to know this?

 

And second, if there's any truth to anything you're saying, it's just as true of movies or books. Way more people watch Transformers or Avatar than watch European art house movies, Harlequin romance novels sell millions of copies every year, etc. There's always going to be a "two cultures" problem in every medium, where you have a split between the majority of people who just want to enjoy media recreationally, and the minority who enjoy talking and thinking about it just as much (if not more than) consuming the actual work. Video games aren't any different.

 

No one says that you have to be in the second group, but you don't get to decide from your armchair that everyone who doesn't enjoy games the exact same way you do is just a disingenuous phony. This whole argument that "If you don't turn off you're brain when you play games, you're doing it wrong" just makes no sense at all.

 

EDIT: Changed phrasing.

[Ridwan]

That's like saying people watch porn, not to jack off to naked people, but because of the plot. 

[bEVEsthda]

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?

 

 

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

 

 

I see many, Many things. I don't want to dig deeper into the subject of paintings because i haven't really studied their art history quite thoroughly yet. But that's the example here, It's true that only some people can see art, Sometimes, Even artists can't see any depth to anything that portrays a different field from their interests. This whole integration of pop culture and art was created by the post-modernism movement for some reason that i can't seem to fathom. "Duh, Art" is a lazy response to criticism, Yes. And art as label has been severely misused lately, But sometimes, It's really the answer. However, You must explain the answer, Explain how it's artistic and how it's subjective and why people can't see it. When your answer is "Duh, Art", You're just basically dodging the question.

 

Which begs the question: What's your point? Are you suggesting the first painting isn't art?

 

 

What you experience, when you see a painting, listen to music, read a poem, read a novel, is very much a product of the 'languages' your brain has already learned. You respond to the patterns through a synthesis with the patterns you already have.

Without an acquired history of experiencing art - of any kind - some art can be hard to appreciate or find interesting. At the same time, those who pretty much define the value of art tend to particularly appreciate art which builds upon layers of other expressions, culture and preconceived concepts, but does something new, something fresh.

But that can also often be the art that is most difficult to digest for the majority. Thus a musician like Miles Davies tend to be intensively loved by people who listen, and have listened, to a lot of music. But he's rather inaccessible to the big audience. And thus a painter like Van Gogh finally exploded into the faces of a group of new collectors, actively and highly interested in art, who had already assimilated and championed the Impressionist movement. Nobody saw his stuff before. The story of Andy Warhol is pretty similar, though I must confess he's rather inaccessible to me. But then he should be, because I've never been interested in any of the culture that he builds upon. I lack the language. But those who defined Andy Warhol's worth didn't. They were in the middle of it.

 

 

I quite like the first painting, Eva Lundsager's painting. It both conveys a mood and a feeling to me, as well as I instinctively finds it attractive. It makes me feel good to watch it. I also see an image in it.

I think I know how it does that to me. Are you familiar with J.M.W Turner? If you're not, look up a painting named 'Fighting Temeraire'.

So some of the feelings come from feelings already established by other paintings. I don't think I'm too far off there, because a number of Lundsager's images have similarities with Turner's paintings. But they're different. A personal voice.

The price tag of that painting is likely much higher than I would pay or value it. But it does have value to me. I wouldn't mind having it on my wall.

 

My immediate impression is that the first painting is more sophisticated than the second. I don't really think it is. It's likely just some amount of luck, because I don't see the same level consistent in Lundsager's other work. But luck is part of artwork.

 

I'm not quite that big fan of the second painting. Marcus Jansen's 'Surreal'. But I do think that Marcus - looked across the volume of his work - is a better artist than Eva. That, at least, is something we can agree upon. Just like that Roger Ebert is an idiot. He is that.

 

Videogames deserve to be preserved because they are culture. In that regard the question if they're art or not is irrelevant. They have value regardless.

 

Otherwise, I continue to insist that art or not is in the intention of the artist. You seem to take the view that art is some value that the work reaches? Well, I wholeheartedly disagree, and I think an argument can be made that it cannot be that way. Because both the work and the experience is subjective and that experience is so precariously dependent on a million other things. Some great art undoubtedly reaches a value eventually. By marketing, visibility, influence of critics and dealers. But I happen to think that's beside the point.

 

So my resistance to calling videogames art, remains that I think it's hard to see an artistic intent. But it's not impossible. Psychonauts? Grim Fandango?

[X Equestris]

Cause playing games is recreational. I doubt almost anyone gives a **** about the meaning of some level, or written note they find. People just want to have fun being a hero, jumping around, shooting ****, casting spells, or swinging a sword. Even turn based strategy games are in the end just entertainment, there's a stigma though that video games are childish (who gives a ****) and if you ask me, the people that call games are art, are trying to defend themselves against that stigma instead of just admitting that they like to shoot **** up.

Sure it's recreational, but that doesn't mean much. Watching a movie, reading a book, or watching a play may be just as recreational. And being recreational doesn't stop it from being art.

[bEVEsthda]

My point is that I'm no painter, That's why i didn't find any meaning to the first painting. But because the second one portrayed a similar set of chaos to my my own mindset, I could see its depth. Seeing the depth of art is not something that you learn to have, Or get by experience, It's something you're born with. Whether it's fictional art, Cinematic art, Musical art, ... etc. The artistic intent of videogames is to tell you a story, A fictional story or sometimes to give you social commentary. Just like movies. And no one can influence the subjectivity of art or it will lose its value. You can't tell a movie director to do a particular thing in order to please the audience or else it would be truly and objectively meaningless. Like the Fast and Furious series for example. But fiction in itself, Has a depth and beauty that only daydreamers like me can sense. Just as some people, Like you, Think that the first painting in my post is beautiful and really meaningful and i don't.

 

Whereas I would maybe suspect, and suggest, that you're more familiar with Marcus Jansen's language? I'm saying that because you confessed somewhere that you liked Comic Book Movies.

There's no doubt in my mind that experience changes your taste for things. Food, novels, music, movies, images. And it does so by evolving. Your mind looks for something beyond what is already familiar, but close enough that you "can sense" it. But of course you have to be interested in the first place. I wonder what you would say ten years from now?