What is Art?

[Whunpo]

To you. What can be defined as art? What cannot? Do you think video games are art? Are some games art while others are not?
I discussed this in a class once, but there were only two people that had any actual idea as to what they were talking about. So I thought I'd ask the a bit more cultured people of CoG what they think of as art.

So, to start the discussion, my thoughts on what art is:
I think that what constitutes art is anything that someone uses to express themselves to other people. So if someone picks up a stick and calls it a representation of their political views, I would accept that as art. However, I think that the more effort/thought you put into your art, the better it actually expresses your emotions. So modern music that is produced entirely with computers and uses auto-tune may be art, but it means so much less than an orchestra that took years to compose.

[wyeast]

Art is entirely subjective. Both to the performer, and to the audience.

Fundamentally, art speaks to you. Whether it evokes specific thoughts, or a vague sort of feeling of emotion.

Often times, "modern" art attempts to provoke feelings and anger, despair, hatred, or controversy. Thus it ends up being often underappreciated (rightfully or no) when compared to more classical forms.

To extend your comparison of modern music vs the classical. I've found that a well played cello solo can evoke more emotion than an entire orchestral number. The complexity of many pieces doesn't necessarily (for me) trump the raw emotion of the one.

Art is simply what you make of it.

[Ink Asylum]

Art is anything beyond utilitarian function.

Yes, I have a very broad definition of art.

[Hawkzombie]

I don't know art. But I know what I like.

[Spectre-7]

Art is anything beyond utilitarian function.

Yes, I have a very broad definition of art.

I'll go a half-step broader... To me, art is anything a person's done more than once. I believe the refinement of any task, in and of itself, is art. Good art is when the practice reaches a high level of mastery--when technique becomes instinctual--allowing self-expression to fluently shine through.

But video games aren't art. That much should be obvious.

[Whunpo]

I'll go a half-step broader... To me, art is anything a person's done more than once. I believe the refinement of any task, in and of itself, is art. Good art is when the practice reaches a high level of mastery--when technique becomes instinctual--allowing self-expression to fluently shine through.

But video games aren't art. That much should be obvious.
I like that definition. However, I don't see why video games shouldn't be included. I mean, the production of video games I can't even see why that isn't at all. I can understand the reasoning behind saying playing video games aren't an art, but I can't really understand what exactly makes playing them, refining your skills and getting better not count.

[Spectre-7]

Sorry... that should've been in a lovely shade of plum.

[J Arcane]

ART, n.
This word has no definition.
-- Ambrose Bierce

[Whunpo]

Sorry... that should've been in a lovely shade of plum.
Ohhh, OK. That makes a lot more sense.
In my class, a lot of people also had a very broad definition of art. And to them, I'd ask if they thought video games were art. For some reason, they really didn't want them included in their definitions. Yet they were all OK with things like found art.
ART, n.
This word has no definition.
-- Ambrose Bierce
I don't think I agree with that.

[Grifter]

Art is anything created by a person or persons as an expression for others to experience.

[Whunpo]

Art is anything created by a person or persons as an expression for others to experience.
What do you think of those elephants that paint? Is that art? They're not technically 'people'.

[J Arcane]

ART, n.
This word has no definition.
-- Ambrose Bierce
I don't think I agree with that.
Then give me one definition everyone can agree on.

[Hawkzombie]

Art is Art.

That in itself is Art.

MUAWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[EternalGamer]

I don't have a definition, but even as someone who loves videogames, i am insulted and embarassed by the idea that anythong in this medium is of a caliber sophisticated and thought provoking enough to be called art. Even the games that try like Flower are still pretty shalow in terms of what they have to contribute to a cultural conversation.

So, while i can't define it, for me, art implies something that is intelligent, elegant, and something which involves exploring what it means to be human in some capacity. Videogames, up until this point are mostly just really dumb popcorn fun. Hearing people try to argue that the medium has delivered anything comparable to mediums such as painting, literature or film makes me sad because I honestly think most of those people never got the chance to develop a real appreciation for great art.

[KamaItachi]

Art is never having to say you're sorry.

[Cactaur]

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9356/8bit.gif

[Stoke]

The product of creativity.

[DylonCorp]

The opposite of Paul.

[wyeast]

The opposite of Paul.

*nods*

Paper Football. Very clever. :D

[Whunpo]

Then give me one definition everyone can agree on.

Having a definition everyone agrees on and having a definition are two totally different things.

[Shadowmage952]

I don't have a definition, but even as someone who loves videogames, i am insulted and embarassed by the idea that anythong in this medium is of a caliber sophisticated and thought provoking enough to be called art. Even the games that try like Flower are still pretty shalow in terms of what they have to contribute to a cultural conversation.

So, while i can't define it, for me, art implies something that is intelligent, elegant, and something which involves exploring what it means to be human in some capacity. Videogames, up until this point are mostly just really dumb popcorn fun. Hearing people try to argue that the medium has delivered anything comparable to mediums such as painting, literature or film makes me sad because I honestly think most of those people never got the chance to develop a real appreciation for great art.

This is always the biggest problem I see crop up when people try and discuss "what is art". Some people take the opinion that art can only reference something of great quality. It is like there is no such thing as a modifier to the word art to these people. There is no great art, there is only art. By being art, we inherently know that it is great.

Then there are the other people, who gravitate towards a more technical definition and define the elements that comprise "art". If those elements are present then it is art. For these people you can certainly have bad art. Really bad art. But just because it is bad it does not prevent it from being art.

I tend to fall into the latter group myself.

[Shieldmaiden]

A piece of art is a creative work made with the intent of conveying emotion, provoking thought or otherwise broadening the experience of the audience.

How's that?

[burger]

In 500 years humans will still be arguing over what is and what isn't art. Maybe art should be defined as "the word whose definition will never find widespread concensus".

[Whunpo]

In 500 years humans will still be arguing over what is and what isn't art. Maybe art should be defined as "the word whose definition will never find widespread concensus".

But what fun is that? :D

[TheKeck]

This is always the biggest problem I see crop up when people try and discuss "what is art". Some people take the opinion that art can only reference something of great quality. It is like there is no such thing as a modifier to the word art to these people. There is no great art, there is only art. By being art, we inherently know that it is great.

Then there are the other people, who gravitate towards a more technical definition and define the elements that comprise "art". If those elements are present then it is art. For these people you can certainly have bad art. Really bad art. But just because it is bad it does not prevent it from being art.

I tend to fall into the latter group myself.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. Comparing the relative merits of different art is one thing, but simply saying something "is not art" is retarded to me.

My definition pretty much is "Art is anything that someone calls or perceives as art, (especially, but not limited to, the author or creator of said thing)."

[J Arcane]

Then give me one definition everyone can agree on.

Having a definition everyone agrees on and having a definition are two totally different things.
Yup, in the first case you have a useful word, and in the latter, a useless one.

[burger]

I try to exercise the K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple stupid) principle when it comes to defining words like art or religion. I too often see people try and define either word and then you come up with an example that matches their criteria but clearly isn't an example. Then they try to ratchet down their definition and it just gets worse and worse. It's like that old cliche of the cartoon character in the leaky boat and everytime they plug a hole two more open up.

So instead of trying to come up with a very detailed and complicated defintion I use a very broad and simplistic one and it serves me well and seems to line up with most people's notion of what is and isn't art. In this case I'd rather get concensus than accuracy.

To me something is art if it has value beyond what could be described as utilitarian or sentimental value. The thing being qualified as art is anything made by man whether it be physical or logical. It's important to rule out sentimental value because it's specific to one person and requires knowledge of prior use, etc. Artistic value can be appointed by anyone at anytime regardless of prior exposure.

It's a broad and simple definition but it works. ;)

[J Arcane]

The problem, or perhaps the feature, depending on your perspective (I lean latter), is that the "beyond sentimental" qualifier pretty much invalidates a large number of gamer responses and examples in such discussions . . .

[burger]

The problem, or perhaps the feature, depending on your perspective (I lean latter), is that the "beyond sentimental" qualifier pretty much invalidates a large number of gamer responses and examples in such discussions . . .

So what you're saying is that some people might say "pac man is art because man I loved playing it as a kid".

That doesn't sound right. That's additional value placed upon Pac Man. That simply explains why Pac Man might be more special to them than say Donkey Kong which for whatever reason they never played.

Sentimental value has to be distinguished because it's contextual in nature. Someone's baby bottle has extra meaning because of sentimental value. The parents wouldn't place value on a similar baby bottle which wasn't used by their child.

Sentimental and artistic value are different.

[Hawkzombie]

Comic Books are art. End Discussion.

[J Arcane]

So what you're saying is that some people might say "pac man is art because man I loved playing it as a kid".

That doesn't sound right. That's additional value placed upon Pac Man. That simply explains why Pac Man might be more special to them than say Donkey Kong which for whatever reason they never played.

Sentimental value has to be distinguished because it's contextual in nature. Someone's baby bottle has extra meaning because of sentimental value. The parents wouldn't place value on a similar baby bottle which wasn't used by their child.

Sentimental and artistic value are different.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I'm just saying I think some gamers' defense of certain games or gaming in general has more to do with personal and sentimental attachment than merit.

It's one of the reasons why I cringe far more at some of the responses to Ebert's statements than at the statements themselves. A lot of what passes for a defense of games is frankly garbage and more to do with what a particular writers favorite games are than actual merit.

[Whunpo]

Yup, in the first case you have a useful word, and in the latter, a useless one.

But everyone has their own definition. That's the thing. It's like using a variable in a sentence. For example:
I love to watch x in the park.
That could mean something to one person, because they fill x with 'the sunset'. It could also mean 'little boys' to another person. Yet it all comes from the same sentence.
Am I making any sense? I didn't sleep last night. :p

[TheKeck]

Yup, in the first case you have a useful word, and in the latter, a useless one.

Yeah like "set". Word has over 400 definitions. Useless.

[J Arcane]

Yeah like "set". Word has over 400 definitions. Useless.
Ah, but set actually means all those 400 things.

Art is meaningless.

[diablopath]

I'm not so sure you can define art as narrowly as you can a book, but I think we could probably find some common characteristics that it must contain in order for it to be art.

Some of these could possibly include beauty, value, uniqueness, emotional appeal, etc.
Then again, about all of those are still very subjective, so perhaps we would have to narrow those down even further.

[Scaryfaced]

The only thing that seperates art from bullshit is if you can convince someone else it's art. I mean that quite literally. I've seen piles of bull shit used in art. Art's entirely in the sell. Now don't get me wrong, I'd like to think there's more to art than just this, but the bare fact is that it's only true worth is what people are willing to pay for it. Which is dependent on what the general art world deems it to be worth.


I think spending time with artists might have made me jaded.

[menage]

The only thing that seperates art from bullshit is if you can convince someone else it's art. I mean that quite literally. I've seen piles of bull shit used in art. Art's entirely in the sell. Now don't get me wrong, I'd like to think there's more to art than just this, but the bare fact is that it's only true worth is what people are willing to pay for it. Which is dependent on what the general art world deems it to be worth.


I think spending time with artists might have made me jaded.

I think putting a pricetag on art is entirely stupid to begin with, seeing as it turns into an investmennt then and it really isn´t about the work anymore but how much it´s worth in currency. Art should be appreciated on what it is, not the dollarsign in front of it. The artworld is ruined by the poeple who think buying art makes them more important or interesting, trying to hide their own lack or want creativity with the work of others. Yes art should be worth some money, people have to make a living in the end, like every orther profession or craft. But 20 million for a painting is ludicrous. I know it´s because paintings come in 1 and games in thousands, but still, the work should be judged because of the work, not the rarity.

A lot of expensive art is garbage indeed, while some others might find it ecstatic. That´s why I really don´t care what critics and people who don´t play games have to say about them, they should butt out of the discussion why some games are art or not. Leave it up to the experts who pay for the damn things, we´re the Sotheby´s elite buying our Collecter´s edition Last Guardian boxes in the end. I´m not going around judging the Mona Lisa on it´s worth just as Ebert should butt out of the discussion if he doesn´t want to put the effort in.

As to what is art, I do believe art is 2 separate things, the craftsmanship itself, which is more the work put into it. And the endresult. Art can´t be art just because it´s there, there has to be some kind of effort in it. But what pieces are art and what isn´t is subjective and besides the point. My 5 year old nephew draws shit, put´s effort in it, so on his level it´s art. Really nothing more than Picasso or DaVinci did, just on different levels.

Oh and no, taking a shit isn´t art. Elephants painting neither, cause both are done with alternate motives.

[Hotcod]

edit 2: I've just got back from doing a gig and what has mostly been a really messed up day, i'm tired and sore and this likely means I'm rambling at writing at my worst. If I find the time I'll try and rewrite all this in a much more readable form for you fine foke

I ended up in a rather large argument the last time we talked about this. My views on the matter where vastly unpopular in some respects. Having had time to think about and spent a bit more time trying to refine my arguments I've found that some of the points where a bit flawed. The under laying concept of it was mostly sound but I hadn't really been able to build a useful framework around it that satisfied everything an answer like this needs to do to be useful.

At heart, I think, at the moment, I see art as anything created to communicate first hand thoughts feeling or ideas by some one who intends it purely for that purpose.

Having a background in both art and design it's really hard to draw a line between the two but for me it's a hugely important line. When my illustration teatcher asked a class "what is the difference between and illustrator and an artist" and no one could answer until I did with "an artist communicates there own ideas, an illustrator communicates some one else's" the point being that both an artist and an illustrator can produce work that looks exactly the same but one is art while the other is design. It's the personal intent involved that is key.

Now in this case it means anything an designer works on for them self's is art while anything they do for a client is design. That's something I've always felt is a vastly important distinction and why design schools slowly easy you firstly in open end brifes and more and more in to strict client like brifes that have a much more given starting place for responding to them.

I think's there's likely still holes in that view of mine. But it's working well for me so far. I think the main problem is that it gets into a muddle as you start to sell work, as you can't then say that it's only intent is communication when you are trying to make money out of it so you can eat. When you start making art purely to sell to people, so created to other peoples taste (ideas) with the intent of selling the work then you are pretty much standing back in a design space. And I'm not sure a lot of people will agree with that.

But it does have strengths like being able to embrace novles, films, music and even games and so on as it does not have any links to visual ascetic... games being a tricky one because pretty much each bit that makes up the game is designed but the game as a whole can be art. And again if games are being made to purely sell to a market you lose some of the artist integrity of it so to speak. I mean something like portal or SotC where made to sell and to appeal to a wide audience but they had a core idea and story they wanted to put across in a way that is very much in line with my vision of how I see art.

The more I talk about it here the more I think that there needs to be an introduction of a sliding scale. Making art and banking on it being sold to make a living does not automatically destroy the thing as art... but on the other hand if you are not injecting a personal idea feeling or vision you are trying to communicate in favour of pandering to what you think will sell then you start to drown the art in favour of design. You see this most clearly in film I think, you on one hand have things people see as greate artstic works and on the other you have summer "block buster 5 (rebooted)" they have a lot in common but they are at the same time vastly different. #

So I don't know, at the core it's the intent of the work that makes it art. Like menage said what his 5 year old nephew does is art, probably in it's very purest form. It's not going to be good art, as how "good" something is as art is liked to how well it projects the idea that the artist is indending to put over. Picasso clearly does far better as communicating his thoughts than menage's nephew but they are both creating art.

The more I think a bout it the more I'm happy with this base idea and the use of a sliding scale to design. Pretty sure it sorts out the major holes in my last argument that left some amamzing works out of the loop but it also does let for the modernist principle of if an "artist" says something is "art" it's art. They must have an intent of what they want to portray with that art and the reason we see an awful lot of rubbish mondern art is simply that they vastly fail at making there art project the right ideas. I mean this leaves room for found objects and sillyness so long as it works as intended and comminicates the idea behind them to you in a sucsefull manner. It just so happens a lot of that meaning is vapid and so they start form a place that is hard to turn in to great art.

sure you guys will pick it apart but I hope with less hate filled ire than my last attempte

Summed up

Art is a work created purely to communicate first hand ideas feeling or thoughts to other people.

You then have the artistic integrity of any given work. One the pure side you have the above and nothing more. On the design side you have work created purely to express other peoples ideas. In the middle you have a vast array of different places and factors that effect where a work lands on them. A work of art created with the intent of selling has a little less integrity than work that was never to be sold and was purely created for the joy of doing so for example. Art created to sell by expressing other peoples ideas and feeling in an attempt to pander loses it's integrity and becomes design.

Complex and converluted but I think there's never going to be an easy answer to this. I really like this idea of having a starting place of "pure" art and then judging the ingreity of that in any given work. Which is not to do down design, design is wonderful and it makes me a bit hessitent to run with the "lack of artistic integraty leads to desgin" as it seems to do down design. I think it has to be pointed out that either end of the sacle is not inherently bad, they just forfill different intents and ends.

edit:

just been talking this over with a freind and a point that was forming in this post popped at last. Mainly that in view design does not need to have a function to be design. This is become I've lift the the function of communication to be the bedrock of both things. It in a way librates the idea of other forms of function from the "design" label. If i'm going to suggest that a desinger working for him self is working as an artist then I have to say that when they "desgin" there websites they are in fact making art. Art that is very close to being design on my sliding scale but art none the less....... gah the complexity of this part is killing my brain, far to tireds

I think that is going to be the most contentious part of my new view and i'm rather worried about it

[Handmade.Mercury]

http://electricbunker.com/art.png

[TheKeck]

That ain't art, bro. You may have THOUGHT you were creating art, but you failed. Sorry. :p

[Dorkandproudofit]

Art is a creative combination of technical skill and aesthetic design that, while completely useless in a utilitarian sense, is just plain purdy to look at.

[Whunpo]

edit 2: I've just got back from doing a gig and what has mostly been a really messed up day, i'm tired and sore and this likely means I'm rambling at writing at my worst. If I find the time I'll try and rewrite all this in a much more readable form for you fine foke

I ended up in a rather large argument the last time we talked about this. My views on the matter where vastly unpopular in some respects. Having had time to think about and spent a bit more time trying to refine my arguments I've found that some of the points where a bit flawed. The under laying concept of it was mostly sound but I hadn't really been able to build a useful framework around it that satisfied everything an answer like this needs to do to be useful.

At heart, I think, at the moment, I see art as anything created to communicate first hand thoughts feeling or ideas by some one who intends it purely for that purpose.

Having a background in both art and design it's really hard to draw a line between the two but for me it's a hugely important line. When my illustration teatcher asked a class "what is the difference between and illustrator and an artist" and no one could answer until I did with "an artist communicates there own ideas, an illustrator communicates some one else's" the point being that both an artist and an illustrator can produce work that looks exactly the same but one is art while the other is design. It's the personal intent involved that is key.

Now in this case it means anything an designer works on for them self's is art while anything they do for a client is design. That's something I've always felt is a vastly important distinction and why design schools slowly easy you firstly in open end brifes and more and more in to strict client like brifes that have a much more given starting place for responding to them.

I think's there's likely still holes in that view of mine. But it's working well for me so far. I think the main problem is that it gets into a muddle as you start to sell work, as you can't then say that it's only intent is communication when you are trying to make money out of it so you can eat. When you start making art purely to sell to people, so created to other peoples taste (ideas) with the intent of selling the work then you are pretty much standing back in a design space. And I'm not sure a lot of people will agree with that.

But it does have strengths like being able to embrace novles, films, music and even games and so on as it does not have any links to visual ascetic... games being a tricky one because pretty much each bit that makes up the game is designed but the game as a whole can be art. And again if games are being made to purely sell to a market you lose some of the artist integrity of it so to speak. I mean something like portal or SotC where made to sell and to appeal to a wide audience but they had a core idea and story they wanted to put across in a way that is very much in line with my vision of how I see art.

The more I talk about it here the more I think that there needs to be an introduction of a sliding scale. Making art and banking on it being sold to make a living does not automatically destroy the thing as art... but on the other hand if you are not injecting a personal idea feeling or vision you are trying to communicate in favour of pandering to what you think will sell then you start to drown the art in favour of design. You see this most clearly in film I think, you on one hand have things people see as greate artstic works and on the other you have summer "block buster 5 (rebooted)" they have a lot in common but they are at the same time vastly different. #

So I don't know, at the core it's the intent of the work that makes it art. Like menage said what his 5 year old nephew does is art, probably in it's very purest form. It's not going to be good art, as how "good" something is as art is liked to how well it projects the idea that the artist is indending to put over. Picasso clearly does far better as communicating his thoughts than menage's nephew but they are both creating art.

The more I think a bout it the more I'm happy with this base idea and the use of a sliding scale to design. Pretty sure it sorts out the major holes in my last argument that left some amamzing works out of the loop but it also does let for the modernist principle of if an "artist" says something is "art" it's art. They must have an intent of what they want to portray with that art and the reason we see an awful lot of rubbish mondern art is simply that they vastly fail at making there art project the right ideas. I mean this leaves room for found objects and sillyness so long as it works as intended and comminicates the idea behind them to you in a sucsefull manner. It just so happens a lot of that meaning is vapid and so they start form a place that is hard to turn in to great art.

sure you guys will pick it apart but I hope with less hate filled ire than my last attempte

Summed up

Art is a work created purely to communicate first hand ideas feeling or thoughts to other people.

You then have the artistic integrity of any given work. One the pure side you have the above and nothing more. On the design side you have work created purely to express other peoples ideas. In the middle you have a vast array of different places and factors that effect where a work lands on them. A work of art created with the intent of selling has a little less integrity than work that was never to be sold and was purely created for the joy of doing so for example. Art created to sell by expressing other peoples ideas and feeling in an attempt to pander loses it's integrity and becomes design.

Complex and converluted but I think there's never going to be an easy answer to this. I really like this idea of having a starting place of "pure" art and then judging the ingreity of that in any given work. Which is not to do down design, design is wonderful and it makes me a bit hessitent to run with the "lack of artistic integraty leads to desgin" as it seems to do down design. I think it has to be pointed out that either end of the sacle is not inherently bad, they just forfill different intents and ends.

edit:

just been talking this over with a freind and a point that was forming in this post popped at last. Mainly that in view design does not need to have a function to be design. This is become I've lift the the function of communication to be the bedrock of both things. It in a way librates the idea of other forms of function from the "design" label. If i'm going to suggest that a desinger working for him self is working as an artist then I have to say that when they "desgin" there websites they are in fact making art. Art that is very close to being design on my sliding scale but art none the less....... gah the complexity of this part is killing my brain, far to tireds

I think that is going to be the most contentious part of my new view and i'm rather worried about it

You are incredibly long winded. However, I think I agree with you almost entirely. Very well said. Especially after just doing a gig.

[Hotcod]

hehe thanks but ya sorry about it being so long winded.I ended up pretty much forming the idea as I was writing it. I've always found it helpful when trying to grasp an idea to talk it over like I'm explaining it to some one, forces you to sum up in a local manner what you are thinking. What often happens for me is that by doing that I'll realise something or see the next step in the idea... which means you then have to explain that which means going back over old ground. It's very useful for me, just not that useful to read. Like I said if I find the time I could likely rewrite the above and get the point across in a few paragraph now.

[J Arcane]

I think the problem that muddies the issue with respect to video games further is that the interactivity of games makes them inherently more meaningful to their immediate participants. You're engaged by the game because it's "you", to an extent, directing the story. What's more meaningful, after all, watching a film about someone's mother dying, or your own mother dying? Video games offer something in between, balanced a bit towards the latter end of that spectrum.

This creates a problem, however, in that it makes it hard for gamers to take an objective look at the quality of games as creative experiences relative to other media, and thus creates these ridiculous posts that Ebert gets like "If Kirby's Canvas isn't art then neither is Shakespeare", or holding up Bioshock as if it is the definitive creative work of the last two centuries.

There's no perspective, because by their participation they've lost the ability to rationally engage the topic. I think this is also the other reason, besides rampant industry corruption of course, why game reviewers tend to be such sycophantic twats.

It is an unfortunate side effect of the very interactivity that makes games distinct from other media, that the same interactivity inhibits or dilutes critical analysis.

[Whunpo]

hehe thanks but ya sorry about it being so long winded.I ended up pretty much forming the idea as I was writing it. I've always found it helpful when trying to grasp an idea to talk it over like I'm explaining it to some one, forces you to sum up in a local manner what you are thinking. What often happens for me is that by doing that I'll realise something or see the next step in the idea... which means you then have to explain that which means going back over old ground. It's very useful for me, just not that useful to read. Like I said if I find the time I could likely rewrite the above and get the point across in a few paragraph now.
Same happens to me man. I'm just way too lazy to write it all out.

[Hotcod]

I think the problem that muddies the issue with respect to video games further is that the interactivity of games makes them inherently more meaningful to their immediate participants. You're engaged by the game because it's "you", to an extent, directing the story. What's more meaningful, after all, watching a film about someone's mother dying, or your own mother dying? Video games offer something in between, balanced a bit towards the latter end of that spectrum.

This creates a problem, however, in that it makes it hard for gamers to take an objective look at the quality of games as creative experiences relative to other media, and thus creates these ridiculous posts that Ebert gets like "If Kirby's Canvas isn't art then neither is Shakespeare", or holding up Bioshock as if it is the definitive creative work of the last two centuries.

There's no perspective, because by their participation they've lost the ability to rationally engage the topic. I think this is also the other reason, besides rampant industry corruption of course, why game reviewers tend to be such sycophantic twats.

It is an unfortunate side effect of the very interactivity that makes games distinct from other media, that the same interactivity inhibits or dilutes critical analysis.

Bioshock tends to get thrown around for the wrong reasons. The reason it's really important in "is it art" context is that it's one of the best (and highest profile) games in which the conventions of the medium are de-constructed and subverted in order to create a narrative and support an idea. I find it hard to dismiss a medium in which something like that can happen as not being able to be art. It's not proof that it is but one of the halmarks of all artistic mediums is that they often use there own de-construction as a tool to work with.

In fact a lot of major artistic movements start with some form of subversion of the current one. It's just that it's much harder to subvert design (but not imposable by any stretch) and but you can't subvert maths or science or engineering or even sports (or simple gameplay only games) with out losing what it is meant to be. Yes you can turn subverting those things in to art but the subverted art work is something utterly distinct as a thing.

[Serapth]

What do you think of those elephants that paint? Is that art? They're not technically 'people'.

No, but the act of giving elephants paint brushes is art.


As formally defined, art is where giant douchebags congregate to feel morally superior. Art critics exist purely to make film critics seem slightly less pretentious.

Besides, all those liberal arts grads need something to aspire towards.

At an individual level, art is emotion given form or substance for the sake of expressing that emotion. As an example, taking a dump on someones lawn is not art. Using that poo to write the words SHITHEAD on that persons door is. Well, art or vandalism.

[Spectre-7]

As formally defined, art is where giant douchebags congregate to feel morally superior. Art critics exist purely to make film critics seem slightly less pretentious.

Sometimes, you make me smile so hard it hurts.

[Serapth]

As formally defined, art is where giant douchebags congregate to feel morally superior. Art critics exist purely to make film critics seem slightly less pretentious.

Sometimes, you make me smile so hard it hurts.

At least I don't make you so hard you smile, that would just be awkward, wouldn't it?

[EternalGamer]

Came across this definition recently and dug it:


The Russian critic Victor Shklovsky wrote:

"The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are
known. The technique of art is to make objects "unfamiliar," to make forms difficult, to
increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an
aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an
object; the object is not important."

Nature is important to us, but not to art, whose purpose it is to make us
forget what we "know" of nature, so that we may learn to see nature all over
again, just as a nerve cell, having transmitted a sense impression, has to
turn itself off for an instant before transmitting information anew.