JohnG: derekjr: Yes, but by this argument I could flick a turd on the ground and call it art... (not that I would) Oh, you are a fan of Andres Serrano's art?
derekjr: Yes, but by this argument I could flick a turd on the ground and call it art... (not that I would)
Yes, but by this argument I could flick a turd on the ground and call it art... (not that I would)
Oh, you are a fan of Andres Serrano's art?
My list of most artistic games In No particular Order:
Dreamfall the Longest Journey
Heavy Rain
Demon's Souls
Oblivion
Fallout 3
Bioshock 1 (NOT #2!!!)
Shadow of the Colossus
I think ART needs to create an emotional response NOT just based on Adrenaline and also interpreted differently by different people.
Gary Johnson For President 2012!
As we've seen here, art is hard to define. However, there is one trait of great art that, I think signifies better than anything else what art is supposed to be:
The ability to effect not only the way a large number of people feel, but also the way they think.
The art we see in museums challenged conventions. It created new ground to work on, new techniques, new ideas, ect.
The words of MLK jr and other black authors changed the way an entire country thought about an entire race. That is art.
Hell, even Grunge is art -- it paved the way for a new style of music.
However, I take issue with the idea that a turd flung on the ground could be art. That doesn't change anything. It might disgust some people, but it doesn't effect the way they think about things, unless you can find a large group of people to say "this challenges my preconceptions of society as a whole", it's not art.
That is what I would call "pseudo-art". It is art designed to evoke nothing, hoping that a group of people who have far too much time on their hands and way too broad a definition for what is and isn't important and thought provoking will latch onto it as if it were important in some way, shape, or form. Since it's not designed to evoke any thoughts or feelings, nor to change or challenge any thoughts or feelings, it's not really art -- it's just something someone is hoping will be construed as art by people who have lost all appreciation for what art really is and what it's function is in the world.
To give art that broad of a definition is to rip away whatever meaning it does have in the world.
This reminds me of that book about this person who sees garbage floating around in the wind (yes, Family Guy parodied it) and finds art in it.
It's not the GARBAGE ITSELF nor the WIND that moves it which gives it an artistic definition, it is the PERSON DESCRIBING IT and the WAY they describe it. Unless there are 20 other people around the person experiencing the exact same feeling, it's not art in my book. Art is a shared experience. By SHARING the experience, the person makes his personal experience INTO art because then they are not the only one who can experience it.
I think Human Beings are a necessity throughout all art -- we are the conduit by which it can be created, by which genuine artistic experiences can be shared with many. However, I think the difference between the artist and the person experiencing it second hand is absolutely essential.
You see, in the example of the turd as art, it isn't the person who flung the turd, the "Artist" as he is dubbed, who gives it meaning. It is the people who should be experiencing the genuine experience of the art SECONDHAND who are giving the "art" it's FIRSTHAND meaning and definition. This isn't the way art works, because it is not about a group of people deciding that something meaningless has meaning, it is about one person explaining the meaning of something through their personal eyes and having that experience reflected throughout a group of people.
This is how I define art.
In other words, films made by groups of people trying to give definition to a "turd on the ground"? Not art.
Films made with the idea of only one single person in mind, their ideas and experiences flowing throughout all the people he works with to make his vision a possibility? Art.
That films based on video games for the most part ALWAYS SUCK is a testament to the fact that, not only do you have a group of people completely disconnected from the original artists working on the project, but you've also got an art form that has not quite gotten on it's feet yet.
This leads me to want to define the difference between "pseudo-art" and "communal art", all my opinions, still.
Communal art to me is what defines most Video Games. Where pseudo-art is a group of people defining something with no meaning, communal art is a group of people working together to create ideas and give them meaning. It's not based on the process of taking something someone else did and making it art, it's based on the process of creating art from the ground up, but doing it with a group of people. They run ideas past eachother, test them out, see what works for almost every facet of the production of a video game. When they are done, the art is complete -- created communally.
I only mention these two differences in what I consider art because what I'm seeing in these definitions so far is a lack of understanding the difference between a group of people giving something meaningless an artistic meaning and a group of people creating something from the ground up. Another important facet of pseudo-art is the idea that one person can take something meaningless and force an artistic expression of it that is not genuine. Any one person can say "this turd is art" and explain themselves in a manner that makes sense. It's possible to create art from something generally percieved to be meaningless. However, how are we to know if their act of doing so is a genuine artistic expression? Is it done to express a new idea? or just enforce old ideas? In enforcing old ideas does it bring anything new? Or is it just a tired old concept that someone is trying to play off as being new?
There's a lot more to the definition of art than one would assume at first glance. To say that the definition is extremely broad and then leave it at that is to enforce the supposition that because it's extremely broad that attempting to define it is a pointless endeavor. This isn't at ALL the case IMHO. Refusing to give it definition on the basis that it's definition is "too broad" only makes it easier for one to blur the lines between what is and isn't art. An attempt to define it is important because without that definition, art would have no meaning. If art had no meaning, nobody would ever change their thoughts or opinions on anything -- racists would remain racists, poor people would stay poor, the very act of enjoying art would become entirely meaningless. It is because it changes who we are and how we percieve the world that art is important, and that is also why an attempt to define it is so important, regardless of how broad it's definition may be.
For the latest news on Games, Movies, and everything geeky!
Please note that I never said flicking a turd is actually art. I said by the definition from wikipedia my example fit. Therefore that definition I was refereing to was not good. That is all I was saying.
My example was meant to be rediculous as I felt the definition was to vague and can be used to call anything anyone wanted to "art".
I also don't see the need to lable something in order to appretiate it more. I am honostly not trying to be rude or trolling.
By many definitions it is easy to argue that a video game could be considered art just the same as a painting or even flicking a turd, however, art is usually created wtih a primary purpose of inflaming temprament or displaying beauty. As someone already noted video games are created primarily for entertainment and the artistic essence of these games is usually a secondary characteristic. There are definitely games that have a much higher sense of artistic integrity than other. For example, MW2 is more about gameplay than anything else where as a game like Bioshock would be nothing without its extremely beautiful and artistic atmosphere and scenery. Ultimately though, I would like to argue that most agmes do not fall under the category of art. I'd like to further my argument by elaborating on the turd idea. While we each drop turds daily, we aren't doing it to create art (usually), we are doing it for the main reason of excreting waste. If we decide to call it art that is merely a secondary function. I think that games such as Heavy Rain are driving towards the idea of a video game becoming art by combining beauty and gameplay, but ultimately the primary function of a video game is entertainment.
I agree with you, and you can get a good grade from assessing your point, but as a real arguement, too many people have jaded opinions about games to agree with you. So at this point, its a loss.
ericengler: By many definitions it is easy to argue that a video game could be considered art just the same as a painting or even flicking a turd, however, art is usually created wtih a primary purpose of inflaming temprament or displaying beauty. As someone already noted video games are created primarily for entertainment and the artistic essence of these games is usually a secondary characteristic. There are definitely games that have a much higher sense of artistic integrity than other. For example, MW2 is more about gameplay than anything else where as a game like Bioshock would be nothing without its extremely beautiful and artistic atmosphere and scenery. Ultimately though, I would like to argue that most agmes do not fall under the category of art. I'd like to further my argument by elaborating on the turd idea. While we each drop turds daily, we aren't doing it to create art (usually), we are doing it for the main reason of excreting waste. If we decide to call it art that is merely a secondary function. I think that games such as Heavy Rain are driving towards the idea of a video game becoming art by combining beauty and gameplay, but ultimately the primary function of a video game is entertainment.
I think this is spot on.
There is no debate. Games are art. The medium is not what defines art. It is the content. This is true for any medium. A three year-olds finger painting is not art, despite the lies his parents may tell; just as NHL2k10, while being a good game, I don't think anyone is going to confuse for art. Final Fantasy IV, VII, and X, however, just to name a few, are most certainly art, and anyone who says differently is ignorant (literally).
thanks for clarifying... i was thinking metaphorically ignorant at first
ericengler: thanks for clarifying... i was thinking metaphorically ignorant at first
LOL!
I actually just wanted to say to derekjr that I'm sorry if my post seemed like it was picking on him. I didn't mean to come off as offensive at all, dude. I was just using your example of the now infamous "flung turd" to explain my point of view when it comes to art.
What is and isn't art isn't impossible to define in my eyes, but to attempt to completely define it and remove all mystery would be a travesty IMHO. I'm not sure if it would be impossible to do, but it would denegrate the meaning of art as a whole. It's just one of those things, if you don't explore its depths enough, you probably aren't going to get everything you COULD out of it, but if you explore its depths too much, you might not like what you find.
Reminds me of Journey to the Center of the Earth. The story, not that god awful Brendan Fraser remake.
But yeah, this has been an awesome discussion and I just wanted to say that if anything I have said so far in the discussion has offended anyone, I do apologize, and that was not my intent.
I went to a museum exhibition at the Vancouver contemporary arts museum about video games. It had some interesting displays about the history of video games with actual game systems set up to play. Some of the games that were featured included Super Mario Bros as an example of how gameplay and design could be considered an art, Zelda: Windwaker as an example of how graphics can have a strong artistic component and GTA as an example of how games (much like art) can inspire social reactions and make us think about issues like censorship.
Are there any games that you have played that you feel approach art and that may be set up to view in a museum a hundred years from now? I'll start: Muscle March (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZd-QIbolZ8). Okay, just kidding, but I would be curious to hear any serious responses.
I guess it depends on your interpretation and definition of art. Off the top of my head:
GTA: San Andreas -- seriously. It's pop-art at a lot of levels!
Loom -- yeah it's old, but it was beautiful
I was thinking about this topic after watching Avatar the other week. So much of it seemed like something I've seen before in one game or another. From the flora of Pandora (my new wrestling name, btw) to the final mech battle. Same for the heavenly parts in "Lovely Bones" (to name a couple)-- so I guess it depends on whether you're talking about game play, stage design, cut scenes, etc.
Checkout Goozex Top 10 RSS List Top 10
I guess I have always thought of art, or at least good art, as a creation that deepens (or changes, broadens, etc.) your perception of the outside world. This is a fairly limited definition, but it's how I distinguish between someone simply recycling old ideas and themes and an inspired creation.
I don't really feel that way about many games. However, as my avatar attests, Earthbound does fall in this category (for me).
Thanks for linking my post up with this thread, btw.
WarioGonnaWin:I have always thought of art, or at least good art, as a creation that deepens (or changes, broadens, etc.) your perception of the outside world.
That's interesting. I've never really put much thought into what I consider art. I've always used video games as a means to escape from real world pressures for a few minutes. Whether I'm traveling around in space trying to nail blue aliens, leading a crew of random characters in a quest to save the world or tearing up the NHL as a rookie, my sole focus is the task at hand.
edit #1:
WarioGonnaWin:Thanks for linking my post up with this thread, btw.
I had a deja vu moment for a second...turns out I had seen something recently
edit #2: I enjoyed your feedback note.
Forum Moderator
WarioGonnaWin:I guess I have always thought of art, or at least good art, as a creation that deepens (or changes, broadens, etc.) your perception of the outside world. This is a fairly limited definition, but it's how I distinguish between someone simply recycling old ideas and themes and an inspired creation.
That's still too relative to be considered for a true definition, though. Very good for how someone individually views art, but "deepens your peception..." is very different to a child compared to an adult.
Some very, very bad games on the NES still affect the way I view the world, because I played them when I was very young and impressionable. Are they art because they deepened my view of the world at a child due to playing them many times, or not art because as an adult I would consider them not worth my time?
Goozex Forum Moderator