[Karmillo]

What actualy makes something Art? I never got this.
Even more, What is art?
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?
Does art have to be entertaining?
If something is good is it not necisseraly art?
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?

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

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


Me

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Karmillo

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?

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."

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

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.

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

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

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.

[Karmillo]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Good stuff comes out of Hollywood on rare occasions.

Like

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

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

So Art = Financial loss?

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by RLacey

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

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.

Originally Posted by Karmillo

So Art = Financial loss?

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.

[Karmillo]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Woody Allen just means that his film 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"

[MoriartyL]

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.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Karmillo

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"

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.

[Karmillo]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

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?

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

the idea was funny but he just delivered it badly.

[Mishale]

Originally Posted by Karmillo

What actualy makes something Art? I never got this.
Even more, What is art?
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?
Does art have to be entertaining?
If something is good is it not necisseraly art?
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?

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

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


Me

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... and sorry for the long post

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Wow. You know, I read that edition of Ebert's Answer Man when it was new, and as soon as I saw his comment I thought, "That's going to piss a lot of people off." Guess I was right. I like how Jim Emerson put it: " Roger Ebert recently opened Pandora's Xbox when he wrote that video games have yet to rise to the level of art."

I guess hell hath no fury like a gamer scorned...

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).

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Karmillo

What actualy makes something Art? I never got this.
Even more, What is art?

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.

[Mishale]

Originally Posted by Phantom

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.

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

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Mishale

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mishale

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)

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.

[SCRUGAtes13]

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.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Phantom

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.

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."

[Jeysie]

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

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

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.

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.

[samIamsad]

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.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

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?

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 .