What actualy makes something Art? I never got this.
Even more, What is art?:confused:
Like, at the time being the class im in is full of the type of people who say "holywood is a crap factory, the only good movies are the Independant ones that arnt in the cinemas" so does that mean 'Independance' is art?:confused:
Does art have to be entertaining?:confused:
If something is good is it not necisseraly art?:confused:
I remember going to an art museum and looking through all the crude blobs that were supposed to represent people and objects, but then i seen work done by 'El Greco' but it wasnt the 'meaning' or whatever was behind the painting(it had a boy, a monkey and a fireman/fisherman looking at a candle or something) that interested me, it was the way he could paint light and shadows, so does that mean my mind is "shallow and unartistic" since it was just looks that gained my interest?:confused:

I could never get this stuff, I either like something or i didnt, if it was catchy, entertaining, fun or interesting I didnt care, some could make me feel happy/sad or make me think. or they could just be mindles fun. whichever way it was I feel it done what it set out to do, and if it isnt there to entertain you then whats the point?

Art shouldnt be the soul focus when your making something like this, it should come naturaly. Like take blade runner for example, at the end

Spoiler:

when the android lets go of the dove and it flies up into the the clouds opening up to reveal the blue sky

, people saw that as art but it was a mistake, Ridley never meant for it to be like that (he only had one day to finish it so when day began to break out there was nothing he could do)

So what is it that makes art art? is it the Meaning? or how the medium its based on is delivered?(such as the sound for music and visual for film/painting/photography)

and if games are seen as just different mediums of art pulled together why arnt films seen like this? after all it is just Music and photography/painting brought together. If the art in film it combineing those two effectively the wouldnt the art of games be combining these with interactivity effectivly?

God I have so many questions... i strayed off in so many directions...and Im half asleep so no doubt im gonna read over this again next morning and see something I regret :crazy:

Well no turning back now..or well there was untill i pushed the submit button...or well there still is since I could delete it....or...

Quiet me
:pan:
:crazy:
Me

Independence isn't art, nor is Hollywood (completely) a crap factory. Good stuff comes out of Hollywood on rare occasions. The reason people say Hollywood is crap and independent films are good is a matter of control. In Hollywood, producers are always looking over the shoulders of directors, questioning their every move. And what is their goal? Greenbacks. That's it.

Movies are a business in Hollywood, and many producers see it as nothing more. Hollywood films are tailored to meet the demands of as many brain dead people as possible. They have "test screenings" where they hand out feedback sheets to audiences. If the majority of the audience doesn't like the ending (maybe finding it too sad or depressing, regardless of whether or not that ending is the only one that makes logical sense) then Hollywood execs have been known to reshoot the ending or other scenes that don't "play well".

It's all about marketing and demographics with Hollywood. They want to squeeze as much money out of the public as they can. On the other hand, independent movies are made with heart and soul, by directors with a real creative passion. The goal isn't money, nor is the goal to please as many people as possible. The goal is to make what they want to make, how they want to make it, and allow that film to find its own audience. These films are generally more respectful of an audience's intelligence, and we don't tend to feel so much like a statistic when we view them. Also, since they don't have the interference of a producer interested in cash, they can achieve artistic heights that are generally unattainable in Hollywood.

It's like Woody Allen said: "If my films don't show a profit, I know I'm doing something right."

Or they're crap, in the case of anything made by a certain Uwe Boll... ;)

I can understand his point, but I personally find it incredibly snobbish to equate financial success with a lack of artistic merit. And even if Allen meant it as a joke (which I suspect he did), I still find it an irritating comment.

Like
http://www.poster.net/pirates-of-the...pp-4900831.jpg
:D

So Art = Financial loss?

Uwe Boll is a problem. He's actually too crappy to be a major Hollywood player, so he's forced to be crappy indendently. Heh.

Woody Allen just means that his films needn't score big with 80% of white audiences, 60% of black audiences, 70% of women, 40% of homosexuals, etc. That's what Hollywood looks at, it's a numbers game. They mold their films to bring in as many people as possible. It generally has nothing to do with having anything personal or important to say, or a meaningful story to tell.

But...if thats the case then he cant tell if hes doing something right, wether its making a profit or not, thats like saying

"If People are sending me hate mail and letter bombs then I know im on the right track"

It must have been around thirty times so far that I've decided, "There must be a way to define art!". Every time, I come up with some really complicated wording, which falls down instantly. But when I see art, I know it.

You are taking his comment way too seriously... Don't you know who Woody Allen is and what kind of movies he makes? :) He's just making a statement about Hollywood and mainstream audiences. If the mainstream American audience that rushes out to spend their money on Armageddon or The Lost World doesn't come to see his picture, then it's practically a compliment.

Oh so if you like bruce willis then your not good enough for his movies? :shifty:

I have to say ive only really roperly watched one movie of his, one of his new ones and it was bad. although his older movies look funny...but in small time crooks he was just dead....whiney
"oooh ooh lets rob a bank"
"ooh no what are you doing? we dont want to have a crowd for your cookies were plotting a heist!"
"ooh no were in the wrong building and theres a cop, lets sell the cookies instead"
and then some documentry about hwo money corrupts you :Z

the idea was funny but he just delivered it badly.

Look, there IS no definitive definition of "art". I've said this before in a post, but if you want the literal definition of what visual art is and how it differs with the medium, then I can provide that for you at the very least.

The art historian's definition of the visual, or spatial arts include architecture, sculpture, and painting. A work of art can be defined as a man-made object of aesthetic significance, with a vitality and reality of its own. Regardless of the medium of expression, a work of art is a unique, homogeneous, complex, irreplaceable, nonreproducible, in some ways even mysterious, individual whole. These salient characteristics distinguish a building, sculpture, or painting from the other arts. If a master copies one of his own works, he makes a new creation, another unique object existing in space. A photographer cannot adequately reproduce a work of art because of its three-dimensional nature and specific materials; buildings and sculpture are especially difficult to photograph, although even reproductions of paintings and the graphic arts suffer from the technical limitations of the camera. Moreover, the photographer may be tempted to try to transcend mere recording and create a new work of art by adopting a certain viewpoint, arranging the lighting, or developing the negative with certain values of texture, tone, and color. Hence the spatial arts differ from the other arts - literature, music, the cinema, theatre, and dance. Literature and music can be preserved by translation into handwritten or published form or by memory, the cinema by prints of the original film. The theater and the dance pose different problems. On the one hand, a play or choreography can be preserved by written form or by memory; but on the other, each performance by an actor or dancer can be characterized as an individiaul work of art. However, these performances are man-made actions, not objects of permanent physical reality as are the spatial arts.

Of course, that just barely skims the surface of things because surely it will arouse more questions. If you want to get into the meat of the art world, you have to factor in countless ways to approach, and define, this amazing phenomenon known as "art". There's art theory, art criticism, aestheticism (where you care purely about aesthetics), and many many other ways for approaching art and defining it. So you see, there really is no one definition for what "art" is, it's simply too broad and too generalized a term to try and define in a few sentences. This is why you'll have many different schools of thought and many opposing opinions, but it does not necessarily make one or the other right. What is art to one person may not be art to another, but it does not make either person the right one. They simply define "art" differently, granted they approached the work of art with sound logic and reasoning and not just some dilettantish effort.

Hope that helped clear up some things for you rather than confuse you more... :crazy: and sorry for the long post :P

The Pandora's XBox? *giggle* I like that! :) Coming next (to stir things up a bit more.. or not):

Random quotes!



All art™ is quite useless.

(Modern) art™ is an excuse for a lack of talent.

Art™ is hell.

Art™ is an excuse for people to jerk off and wax their own egos in exchange for the misappropriated claim that they've been productive.

Art™ is dead.



Discuss! (If ya like to). :P

Personally, I refuse to acknowledge the concept of 'art'. The only reason why someone would make the distinction between something that's art and something that's not art, is because he's made a personal, subjective judgement on those two things and deems one 'better' than the other. It's purely subjective and essentially useless to make this distinction. The concept that the general public accepts as being art (architecture, paintings, ..., but NOT games, and only recently cinema) is only based on the opinion of important, influential historical persons, and actually has nothing at all to do with the quality or emotional value of those things.

Hence, I refuse to categorize things as art or non-art, and I will ALWAYS revolt against people doing so.

This has got to be the most ignorant statement I've ever read. It's fine that you have your own personal opinion about acknowledging the concept of "art", but please don't mix up the facts. On what grounds exactly are you basing this statement on? That what is classified as "art" in modern day is ONLY based on the opinion of important, influential historical people, and nothing to do with the quality and emotional value? That is where you are wrong, my friend. Look at a Bernini sculpture and you'll understand the genius that went into his work. For example, Bernini always employed a technique called the "double-undercut" on the eyes of his sculptures so that it would cast the same shadows on the face whether it was lit from above or underneath. That sort of quality and attention to detail that goes into a slab of marble can be acknowledged by all, and it's not just because an important person says it's good.

But let's forget all that for a second and remember the different approaches to "art". As I mentioned in my previous post, there are many approaches to determining the value of something, and whether it can be "art" or non-art. It is far more than just someone making a personal, subjective judgment. How do you think it makes those of us in the art community feel when you say it's "useless to make this distinction"? Just an art historian's approach to art alone is far more complicated than just throwing out some personal subjective judgment about whether something is better than the next. Art historians aspire to analyze and to interpret the visual arts by identifying not just their materials and techniques, makers, time and place of creation. We also strive to determine the meaning or function - in short, their place in the scheme of history. Art historians concern themselves with unique historical phenomena, with aspects of human history, humanity, and social lifestyle. It is incumbent upon them to discover the historical niche that a work of art occupies and to assess that work in the light of its unique position. Art historians, therefore seek to identify its materials, technique, creator, school, period, and culture, as well as to relate it in a meaningful way to other works of art of the same school, period, and culture. At the same time they must remain sensitive to its essential aesthetic individuality.

So you see, not only do we look at the aesthetic value of a work of "art", we also have to look at how it influenced society, or how society influenced it. That is why we deem it so important in the context of the history of art, and not just because Pope Clement VII decided it was "art". The reason why we label these items as art is because of how it fits into the signs of the times, how it affected individuals as well as the society as a whole. It can evoke an emotional response, an insipid response, but what matters is that it stirred up something in someone at some point in time. Yet that is just one side of the coin itself, because there is a whole other side of the coin on which we can approach "art".

There's more to the world of art than just people's personal, subjective opinion. I'm perfectly fine with your attitude on the acknowledgment of the concept of "art" (because hey, art isn't for everybody), but it really offends me when people pull random things out of the air and seemingly state it as a fact. I know the internet is a place where you can be as tactless as you want, but for the sake of the wonderful community we have here... please watch what you say before you offend not just one person, but potentially an entire crowd. Thanks :)

BTW Sam, love those quotes! :) Especially "Art™ is an excuse for people to jerk off and wax their own egos in exchange for the misappropriated claim that they've been productive", LOL

You're kind of missing my point, I think. Of course I acknowledge the quality and craftmanship of those classical paintings and sculptures, and I can appreciate the beauty and attention for detail that went into them. But that has NOTHING at all to do with what the general public accepts as art nowadays.

It's a matter of fact that people associate the word art with something that is superior to non-art. Your reply boils down to this: apparently you interpreted my reply as stating that I refuse to accept those classical examples as art, and you immediately get all defensive, implying that I would consider them inferior if I didn't consider them art. It's also a fact that during the course of history, important people have made their opinion on what is art the general opinion of the public. They basically decided for us what we should consider to be better and more important than other stuff. I'm not saying that they just randomly decided that sculpture x was art and movie y was not, but they did create some kind of dogma, intentionally or not, that's been accepted by the general public over the centuries.

Go ask a man on the street if The Mona Lisa is art, and then ask him if GTA3 is art. Then ask them why. They probably won't be able to answer that question. I'm sure a lot of people are moved a lot more by the storyline of GTA3 than by the Mona Lisa. GTA3 evokes emotions, and that's the essence of art, right?


THAT is what I revolt against, right there. It's not up to anyone to decide that sculpturing is better than designing sport cars, making movies or creating games. It's not up to anyone to label one as art and the other as not. It pisses me off that certain people actually have the nerve to do so.


I actually find this comment offensive and denigrating towards me. As if I'm just too stupid to understand those complex works of art, and should stick to superficious non-art entertainment forms like television or whatnot. I can appreciate certain forms of art (I like architecture a lot, for example), but that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

As a matter of fact, I could call myself an artist, since I create (game) worlds and write stories. However I refuse to do so, because as said before, I refuse to use the term 'art'. I'd rather call myself an entertainer.

While i'm playing half-life or the sequel i often make facial expressions to express how i'm feeling, like i'm there. It's just those two games that provoke these emotions in me in this way, but Shadowman 64 to me was a very touching game. It really made me feel sad or angry at parts because of personal relation. It was great because you could read loads of background information on the serial killers and such fantasial creations. Good Stuff.

There's a big difference between trying to make art, and catually calling oneself an artist. I can't abide people who do that.

"What's your job?"
"I'm an artist."
:frusty:

I personally think that anything that has creativity involved in its creation should be called art.

Yes, that's an extremely broad umbrella, but why shouldn't it be? Granted, most definitions of art tend towards things primarily designed for viewing by an audience, but even that includes a lot of things most people wouldn't readily consider art... like video/computer games.

For one, games include a lot of things we would ordinarily classify as art. There are artists (heh) who create backgrounds. Writers who write dialogue and in-game text. Composers who create music. Sometimes actors who provide voices or full-body work. And yet when you put that all together, games somehow become *less* than the sum of their parts (I.E. not art)? Why is that?

Someone said that they wouldn't consider Counter Strike as art. Well, why not? If war films can be considered art, then why are games based on war not art? Do they not do the same thing, translate the real experience of a battle into an abstracted experience (passive in the form of a film, interactive in the form of a game)?

If anything, I think games are an evolution of art. To me, art is a collaboration between the artist and the audience... no art is truly complete until someone "adds" their reaction and interpretation to it, if you will. While there are some forms of art that include active audience participation, I think games are one of the few forms where active audience participation is integral to the experience. We get to add our game-playing experience to the creators' vision to make something new.

Many of the arguments I see here seem centered around arguing the quality of things, and the notion that quality=art. I personally disagree with that. Certainly there is good art (something that shows off the aspects of its medium with excellence) and bad art (something that uses the aspects of its medium poorly), but I don't think something has to be good to be art. After all, I think those occasions where people put random bits of trash on planks of wood and call it modern art are moronic, but other people obviously take them seriously... ;P

Peace & Luv, Liz

Yes, I completely agree with you. People (ab)use the term 'art' to give their subjective opinion about a particular form of expression, stating that one form is art, while the other is not.

As you say, everything that ever evoked an emotion in anyone is art to me. This is almost everything, and hence the word kind of loses any meaning to me, so I just don't use it altogether. Or I try not to use it, but I find it very difficult.

For example, whenever I find something very, very beautiful/good, I tend to call it art, as if 'art' is a synonym for 'extremely good stuff'. It only proves how much we all associate the term art with superior quality products.

This is going to be a little bit off-topic (but really only a little bit, if at all). I've got the feeling this might (or might not - decide for yourself!) even fit in here. Somehow...

Question: Has anybody ever tried to challenge the definition of the term video game? We're playing Pac Man over and over again, after all. I know what you're thinking now: "This guy is nuts." Of course I am (and proud of it). But that's not the thing. The thing is: Ever since the first arcade games, there has been this very specific formula that still applies to all kinds of games 'till today. From Pong to Half Life, from Super Mario to Guybrush Threepwood. There's a goal to reach in each game (top of the highscore list, next level, ..). There are obstacles to overcome (enemies, puzzles, whatever). And there's some form of gratification that helps to get you hooked, sometimes even terribly, terribly addicted to the game (like points, new worlds, new characters...). Anyway, perhaps somebody is actually getting what I'm trying to get at here. It's a winning formula, of course, because it's (probably) the (let's call it just that now) maximum_fun formula. It's like those verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus formulas for cheesy pop songs - easy to grasp and just plain, old fun (if they're used to create something interesting, at least). Wash, rinse, repeat 'til game over, and voilá, a video game. Sure, people have been playing around with the variables (like the level of difficulty, kind of challenges etc.), but at its most basic, every video game still comes in the same form.

So, back to my question: Does anybody know of a game (commercial or not) that truly tried to challenge the term video game? Grabbed that formula by its balls, twisted and turned it a bit around? I'm sure this sounds a little off and theoretical... but does a video game have to be about (instant or not so instant) fun per definition? And even if it does, couldn't it be that there is a better formula that just hasn't been discovered yet, because... oh, crap. I'll stop. But if anyobdy knows of such a video game (would it be still a video game?), let me know. :D

I'm afraid it has to, because that's exactly the definition of a GAME. And you can't have a video game without the game in it. Also, I really can't think of anything that I don't actually enjoy (find fun) and still spend time on, except for working, which I only do to be able to pay for the things I have fun with :).

And that's perfectly okay. :) It just got me thinking... I made the pop song analogy for a reason. While it's cool to have fun with some easy listening music and catchy tunes, music (as the established art form it is) comes in so many more different shapes and forms that are about more and something deeper than "only" (instant) fun. I guess that's what got me thinking about it.

I understand. But your comparison with pop music and more 'difficult' music can be applied more easily to games than you think: pop games are the big console blockbuster games like GTA, who drive on popular culture and instant, bite-sized fun, and appeal to the masses. RPG's take much longer to get into, and it's easy to give up after the first couple of hours even before you have familiarized yourself with your own character. You need some time to get 'into' a complex RPG, much like getting into jazz can be a big challenge.

I think it's impossible to get rid of the goal-oriented aspect of a game without losing the essence of what actually makes a game a game. But I can imagine there are other, unexplored ways of presenting those goals out there that have yet to be discovered and that can result in some very original and interesting gameplay.

Hey! TV can absolutely be art!

I think I'm offended. :D

By the way, I think it's the wrong approach to think of art as greater than entertainment. They're two different types of quality. Artistically speaking, 2001: A Space Oddysey is a masterpiece whereas James Bond is trash, but if we're talking about sheer fun then James Bond is the superior.

Animal Crossing, Metal Gear Solid, Electroplankton, The Endless Forest, and Fahrenheit, to name a few obvious ones.

Oh, and by the way, I absolutely do not see the resemblance of, say, Zelda, to Pong.

I think you completely missed MY point. I don't doubt your acknowledgement of the beauty of artworks, I'm offended because from your initial post it felt like you're implying that my job as an art historian is obsolete. Part of my job IS to properly inform the general public of what is art and what is not. I also think that you have this misunderstanding of what the general public views as art is superior to non-art. You still haven't answered my question, what are you basing this on? Can you show me proof that things people call "art" is superior to non-art? In fact, in my experience... modern day "art" is actually not held in high esteem in the eyes of the general public.

I don't see how something that is your opinion can prove how we all associate the term art with superior quality products. :shifty: In fact, many of my colleagues and myself will often call something hideous a work of art and something beautiful an absolute piece of shit.

I got defensive, because from your initial post it felt to me like an insult to my life's work and research. How would you like it if someone said that your games and your stories are "useless"? Now that I know it may not have been your intention, but you should have been more specific in the first place. Your initial statement, as it stands, can be misinterpreted... which is exactly what happened in this case, and I apologize for that.

However, please stop putting words in my mouth. I am not implying that you consider things inferior if you didn't call it "art", I am simply saying that there is more to determining the validity of a work of art than just pure, subjective opinion. There is nothing "superior" about the way we go about doing things in the art community, and quite frankly those of us that do have that superiority complex I DESPISE.

NO, the essence of art is NOT to evoke emotions, surely you must've gathered that from my first post in this thread... or did you not read through that at all? Like I said, that is just one way to approach this phenomenon called "art".

Your comparison of Mona Lisa and GTA3 is poor because those are two completely different things in different time periods. Keep in mind, that everything that's established as "art" these days has deep roots in history: paintings, architecture, theatre, dance, sculpture, and only just recently... cinema. I'm sure given time, video games will probably transcend its current niche in society and be accepted as "art" as well. It's just that video games are still very much a new phenomenon, and people are not sure what to make of it yet. Also, as I said in my previous post... it's NOT because someone important brainwashed the public to believe these things are art, the approach to determining these things is actually quite complicated. Most importantly, how it fits into society during its time, and how it fits into society over the course of time. Sure, the words dictating that these things are "ART" probably came from the mouth of an important person at some point, but these are not all baseless conjectures. Yes, I'll agree with you that it DOES happen, but most of the time when something is labeled as art... there's firm ground beneath it based on many factors. That's what our job is as art historians - to assess this firm ground and bolster it, and that is exactly why I got offended because you're implying that our job is obsolete.

Now you're just taking my words and twisting it, I did not intentionally want to offend you or belittle you. If that's what you gathered from my statement, fine, I apologize. The same thing happened with your initial post though, you did not have the intention to offend yet I took it as offensive anyways. So I'd say we're about even :P

See, you should have explicitly said so in the first place, because I completely agree with you there too. I can assure you though, that none of my colleagues nor myself have this superiority complex about "art", and think that Michelangelo's David is superior to a Ferrari or something. However, you must understand that it is OUR job and our life's work to research this so-called "art", and in my experience... we don't label certain things as "art" out of feeling superior, but simply because it is the proper term and category to put it in. What I'm understanding from your post is that you revolt against people that label things as art because they feel it is superior to other things, but you shouldn't have to revolt against people that label things as art because it's their job to do so.

For what it's worth, I absolutely hate modern art and abstract art, despite me being an art historian. I really don't think the general public accepts things that are "art" to be superior either. The majority of "artists" these days are struggling to push their crazy abstract ideas onto the public, and aren't very successful in doing so. Interpretive dance always gets made fun of. The majority of people will rather go to the movies than to the ballet or opera. Not to mention the abstract sculptures and paintings folks... they're just downright nutty in the eyes of the general public. As Jeysie said, quality does not equal art, and yes there can be good art and bad art.

Thanks for the nice debate, it's a welcome departure from writing up final exams :frusty:

I got the impression that this is what Phantom was taking umbrage to (though correct me if I'm wrong!). The question being asked is, what is your basis for informing the general public what is art and what is not art, both in terms of authority and in criteria. I don't mean this as a challenge, but as a genuine question.

In my experience, both in general and from the replies this thread, the general public *does* consider art to be superior to non-art... unless I'm misinterpreting your post.

I got the impression that is what this thread about essentially... the fact that games are often not considered art but useless frivolity...

Peace & Luv, Liz

I've stated this already in all my previous posts. The tasks confronting the art historian are as difficult as they are pleasurable, for she is dealing with art as a historical document that demands interpretation and evaluation. She performs her task through verbal discourse or historical writing, of which a multiplicity of genres flourishes in our day. This great variety of approaches constitutes the essence of modern art history.


You all keep saying this, but I keep asking for examples and yet you don't provide me with any. I provided some examples of my experience with how the general public considers art to not be superior to non-art. I hardly call the replies in this thread the census of the "general public". I like what MoriartyL says about art and entertainment, and how they are two different types of quality. Yet it's true that the average joe will prefer "entertainment" to "art", how is that considering art to be superior?

Yes I got that too, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make with that statement. Perhaps the REAL point of all this is to get back on topic... :shifty:

I don't have any concrete examples I can point to URLs for at the moment, just my own experiences with people. Laypeople tend to think that something that is labelled art is automatically superior in *quality*, which is entirely divorced from whether they *like* the piece of art or not. (I'm reminded of the old quip "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like!") I suppose it's a problem of ambiguous semantics.

It's kind of like how in English class you had to read all the books that were considered "classics", and your teacher would wax on about how they were shining examples of literature and all that jazz, yet most of them were boring as hell to read and you'd rather have a cheesy pulp novel that's more fun, even if it isn't a "classic".

(Not to say that all classics are boring, far from it, but... well, for instance, I am convinced that forcing us to read Hemingway is simply legal torture of students...)

Same thing with "art"... the general public thinks that stuff that is art is superior and to be cultured you have to develop an appreciation for looking at it... even if you don't like some of it and you'd rather be looking at something more flashy that isn't "art".

In addition, the general perception among the general public is that to admit to liking a creative work that isn't labelled art makes you uncultured and shallow. (Or conversely, saying you think that something that is labelled art is completely boring.)

Well, seeing as how the topic is "Are games art?", I think it's relevant. Perhaps I should refine my question in regards to your first comment... how do the historical techniques of art evaluation apply (or not apply) to games? The thread seems to have been trying to reach a set of criteria to which games should be matched to see if they fit... perhaps a set of professional criteria might help?

Peace & Luv, Liz

Again, I point you to what I said previously about interpretive dance and abstract art. Surely there is nothing superior about the "quality" of a canvas that is painted one shade of gray, you can't even tell how well the artist paints because anyone with a paint-roller can make something like that. Yet modern abstract "art" has now been widely accepted as "art", why is that? Wasn't it you that said:

Now in my experience, most people think along the same lines as you do, and I've dealt with many, many students that come into class with the same line of thinking. 90% of the students I've taught in the years that I've been a professor all agree: quality does not = art. Now that is what I'm basing my observation and conjecture on, the average college student - and a good amount of them at that. Now your example about the classics is a good one, but the reason why these works are considered "classics" to say, a pulp novel, is because again, of the historical context and the niche in which they reside in history. Think about how these novels and authors responded to what was going on around them during their era. I think perhaps that's why "artsy" films are considered art, because they are a statement in response to something in our time, a sign of the times. Another reason would be the language used in most of these novels, simply because nobody speaks like that anymore... it's considered to be "cultured" and "tasteful". Perhaps that's what Phantom was getting at, how lame it is to label something as "art" just because nobody else does it that way anymore, or hasn't done it that way.

Perhaps the phenomenon you're thinking of is "connoisseurship", which is a grave misconception that was already present in society even before our time. In reality, works of art interest laymen as well as art historians because they serve as documents and illustrations of persons, events, and ideas in history. So you see, it's not the "superior quality" of art that draws the general public, but the depth and scope of the stories behind it. Some of these things are harder to understand than others, and that is why we might think they're "boring" or "uninteresting". As for this misconception that you have to be cultured to understand art, or that art makes you a cultured person... Phantom was perhaps on the right track about this, it really is like a brainwashing of the masses that's been inveterate in our society for a long time. However, as deeply rooted as it is in our society, still only a small handful of people truly believe in connoisseurship (at least, from my personal experience). As I said before, from gauging the minds of my students, they all admit to the existence of this connoisseurship, but do not believe that quality = art. Same goes for my colleagues and friends, and that's what I'm basing my judgment on. If everyone around you firmly believes otherwise, then yes in your opinion the general public would be under the influence of connoisseurship. However, with what's given to us at this point I can say that there's no solid evidence of what the TRUE general public really thinks, because of our different experiences.

Let me offer you another piece of my mind, though.

When I see a Renaissance painting that many others consider to be "boring" and bland, I think otherwise. This has always been the case for me, even before I knew anything about art. It wasn't because some important person said "this is a masterpiece, so love it!". For some reason, when I see a Michelangelo or Raphael my heart just sets aflutter with excitement. That's why I got into art history, because of my natural affinity for the subject matter. Does that automatically make me more superior and cultured compared to everyone else? Hell no. So you see, there will always be people out there that simply like the boring artsy-fartsy stuff for what it is, just like how there are people who looovvee that abstract art while people like us just loathe it. Are they superior to us and more cultured? Is their artwork really that superior in quality? Not in my mind, at least. We're living in a world where the criteria for defining art is quickly getting blurred by all that is going on around us, and the only thing that I as an art historian can rely on, is history.

So with that said, I'd like to address your question:

BTW I was just joking about going back on topic :P , this is a GREAT discussion and I'm enjoying it thoroughly. In my honest opinion, and approaching video games with the techniques of art evaluation that we employ, I would have to say that video games is a very potent art form. With the concerns about the aesthetic beauty and graphics of games these days, we got the aesthetic value aspect covered. Now in terms of the way it tells a story, it is far more a potent tool than any other art form in terms of audience interaction. I'd like to draw one of your quotes again Jeysie, if you don't mind:

Bingo, you hit it right on the nose! In fact many artists in history strived for this artist-audience interaction, however intangible it may be. For example, Caravaggio actually leaves spaces open on his paintings for the viewer to "step in" and literally become part of the scene, as if he is there himself. Another way Caravaggio accomplishes this is instead of inviting the viewer to participate, he forcefully intrudes into the viewer's space and presents the viewer with an "in-yo-face" approach to the scene. There will be elements in his paintings that will seemingly protrude from the painting and enter the viewer's space, engaging the viewer in a different way.

Now back to games, video games tell a story and engages the audience in no other way that can be achieved by paintings, sculptures, architecture, literature, music, theatre, cinema, dance, or any other art form. It both actively forces the viewer as well as invite the viewer to participate in its presentation, and a combination of visual, aural, and tactile stimulation invade the senses all at once. This is a degree of art stimulation that cannot be matched by any other type of art form.

In regards to its historical context, video games still hold its own merit. Although relatively new, it has accomplished in a short span of time what other art forms can only dream of. Since the time of its introduction, video games has captivated audiences of all ages, evoked emotion, aroused controversy, been in the news, been the subject of criticism, been the subject of praise, have been "commissioned" by some rich, powerful party, and have been independent developments. All these are similarities that video games share with some of the timeless masterpieces that we consider to be "art". Most importantly, video games have influenced society as well as have been influenced by society in very large, consequential ways. It has also maintained a steady progress and held its own throughout the course of history (however short it may be). Personally I believe video games to be an art movement in itself, which is probably why I love how Nintendo's next-generation console is so appropriately titled "Revolution". But meh take all this with a grain of salt because that's just my opinion, and I don't know if you want to consider it "professional" :D

Gah I think I typed too much already, had to split the post into two posts :\ I think there's more I want to say but this should be sufficient for now. Hope that's enough for you to chew on for now :D

(grin) Trust me, you're preaching to the choir. I never meant to imply that art (in the "technical" sense) can never be entertaining... Just that perceptions of quality and perceptions of entertainment don't always coincide.

Now that you've defined it, I will say that "connoisseurship" is something I've seen as an issue... indeed, I think it's probably at the heart of why we even bother to debate this topic, both in humble message boards and in courtrooms where judges ask "Do games have artistic merit?" If "art" wasn't such a loaded term in public opinion, I doubt the general public would fuss much over whether games were art or not... or at least, probably not in the same manner.

(Of course, I think the absolute center of the matter is that something that is "art" tends to get more of a free pass to be uncensored and subject to "free speech" rights as opposed to "non-art", but that's its own discussion, I think.)

Thank you very much for your thoughts on the matter... labelled as "professional" or no, it's interesting to hear the opinion of someone who's studied this sort of thing. :)

Peace & Luv, Liz

P.S. To jaunt back to the earlier title-dropping bits briefly, I wish somebody would just lock a sufficiently open-minded judge into a room with Planescape: Torment and a PC and make them play the game to the end... that might clear up the matter. ;)

Indeed, perceptions of quality and perceptions of entertainment don't always coincide, and I doubt that it ever will be homogenous. There are too many different opinions out there to ever reach a general consensus, I think... but at least we can be idealistic and er... optimistic, I guess? :P :D At the very least, we know that the few times that quality and entertainment go hand-in-hand will be deeply appreciated; maybe in that respect we're "connoisseurs" in our own way :)

Thanks for such a great discussion :) , and for thinking that my opinion has some merit to it :D

I was talking about the basic structure that every game has... But perhaps it doesn't matter that much. Perhaps. :)

I apologize as well for accidentally insulting your work. I think we're just talking about two different uses of the word 'art'.

You, as a professional art historian, try to match things against a complex definition of art, much like one could study objects and decide if they can be called 'food' or not. That's a useful occupation, and in that context I don't really mind the use of the word 'art' at all.

What I was revolting against is the use of the word 'art' by common people to call something superior to something else. I'm sure you, especially with your background, know very well that a lot of people who are not at all educated in arts just (ab)use the word to insult certain forms of expression and entertainment. I'm talking, for example, about those rich snobs who only buy paintings and go to galleries just because it's art and not because they like it, and refuse to occupy themselves with television (or games) because it's below them. I'm also talking about the people who haven't really thought a lot about it (and haven't had a discussion like this), and just accept that paintings are in fact superior to games, only because someone labeled it art, even though that label might have nothing to do with quality or entertainment value at all. It might sound a little weird to you, since you're probably surrounded by people who are educated in arts, but if I talk to friends about art they really haven't had any deep thoughts on it.


Thank you too. I learned a lot from it.

Thank you for understanding, and I'm sorry for jumping the gun on getting all defensive. I hope we're all a big happy family again :D

Now that we're on the same page, yes I do know where you're coming from and let me just say... I despise the people that abuse the term "art" too. I'm not sure how we can solve this "connoisseurship" problem we have because it's so ingrained in society, but at least each of us can go about educating those that are willing to learn. I guess I'm lucky because college students are usually willing to learn. Now those rich snobs that go to galleries just for the sake of going to a gallery... I'm not sure if any of them are ever willing to understand "art" (perhaps a few, but still probably one in a million), and there's probably nothing we can do about it. Perhaps that's another reason why we detest them, because of their uncompromising attitude.

And that attitude poses a very real threat to the true advancement of art, and that's probably why video games are still not considered to be an art form. That's probably why all these debates are going on, and why folks make a huge fuss over topics such as "are game art?" (as Jeysie stated). You've brought to the table a very real issue, Phantom, and thanks for clarifying that up.

This has been most edifying y'all, thanks :)

Maybe I should reword my statement: "I do not see any resemblance between the basic structure of Zelda and the basic structure of Pong." :P Are you talking about the fact that you play both with some type of controller? Or are you talking about the fact that the player is challenged in some way? Hmmm... I think you're right- there's been no progress at all! When games stop using a controller of any kind, and stop requiring any effort at all, of any kind- now THAT will be progress! :devil: :D

Well, they're just ignorant, because as we all know there is no art which could ever hope to come close to the greatness of games. ;)

Sorry, a password issue has kept me away for about a week. Anyway, just wanted to say that you should see more Woody Allen films. I agree completely that Small Time Crooks was crap.

The one with the cookies? His worse movie, and perhaps the only bad one he's done (I didn't like the Harry one, but it wasn't nearly as unineresting).

Yup. That's the one. :r