[Fantasysci5]

Aah, too true. I was just thinking about what Myst reminded me off, did not think to actually look it up. My apologies.

[mszv]

Everything is influenced by something. Everything looks are feels and sounds and acts a bit like something else. Otherwise we could not understand it. That's why we do compare and contrast. Sometimes you don't even know or can't articulate what influenced you when you made a thing. Then there's language and culture, all that.

Myst - you've got puzzles unlocking another level - more places in the game to go to. You have a backstory. You've got videos. You've got a Jules Verneish but "realistic" sort of design. You've got a roller coaster! There was a talk at GDC that spoke about the parallel's between the things at Disneyland and level design in games.

I'm not a game designer, so I'll leave it to the game designers in the group to come up with all the other influences for Myst.

-----
I still think the "is it art" thing gets in the way. We want to say that something is so beautiful and wonderful and evocative and arouses emotion and it makes us think - so it can't be a game! I think we should describe it, talk about it, and not care so much if it's "art".

As for art being made for profit - looking back, lots of famous artists did work for hire - that's what the famous Renaissance artists did - work for their patron - a church, a guild, or a private patron. Most of them, from what we've read (some exceptions, such as Charravagio) did not have an "attitude". They didn't seem to go on and on, worrying about their artistic expression. And the best of them - their work is brilliant, innovative, sometimes intellectual, and it arouses emotions. Were they not artists? That "artistic temperment" - that started with Byron. It's also something that some contemporary artists just loved, because it gave you an excuse to get away with bad behavior, because you were an "artist". Whether or not you act like the diva version of an "artist" - it depends on whether your culture permits and/or encourages it. It has almost nothing to do with the work.

[Giligan]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Paintball? Playground games? War?



Film? Theatre? Literature? Logic puzzles? And in Telltale's case, TV?

Okay, let's do it the other way around. Name one video game that isn't influenced by anything at all.

Feeding Frenzy.

Well, there's no way I can do that. Of course anything people do is evolved and adapted. We're getting a bit away from my original argument, and I might have boxed myself with what I said in my second post; "shooters or even adventure games don't have any rules borrowed" was probably a poor choice of statement. What I meant originally wasn't so much that video games aren't influenced by art as it was that video games aren't affected by other art.


Or not. After thinking about it for a while, I'm not really sure where I stand on the issue anymore. I'm going to withdraw from this argument.

[Fien]

This discussion hasn't produced any definitions of "art". However, most posters seem to agree that the question whether a game is "art" is not all that important or interesting. I'd already said the same thing in the thread where this discussion originated, so I guess we agree on that.

But I will maintain till my dying day that there can be no "art" without talent and skills.

@Moriarty: I'll give your second game a try.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

This discussion hasn't produced any definitions of "art".

That's incorrect- I have suggested a definition of art in this thread. ("Art is anything made in an art form, an art form being a discipline through which one can express oneself.") Not a definition you'd agree with, I'm sure, but I did post it.

I will maintain till my dying day that there can be no "art" without talent and skills.

Could you please clear something up for me? In your opinion, is there such a thing as "bad art", or is the very idea a contradiction in terms? If I see, say, a sculpture that I don't think accomplishes anything of value, and I say, as I have been known to do, "This piece of art is trash!", is that statement nonsensical in your view?

[mszv]

Not trying to derail the discussion but there are some interesting things that came out of GDC - the Game Developers Conference, San Francisco, last week. Gamasutra had some interesting write-ups.

This isn't so much about "games as art" per se, but some interesting stuff about things like emotionality in games, also the obligatory article about game art (as in, you know, what appears on the screen), and some nice discussions on experimental gameplay.

http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2009/

[Fien]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

That's incorrect- I have suggested a definition of art in this thread. ("Art is anything made in an art form, an art form being a discipline through which one can express oneself.") Not a definition you'd agree with, I'm sure, but I did post it.

So you did. I should have mentioned it.

Could you please clear something up for me? In your opinion, is there such a thing as "bad art", or is the very idea a contradiction in terms? If I see, say, a sculpture that I don't think accomplishes anything of value, and I say, as I have been known to do, "This piece of art is trash!", is that statement nonsensical in your view?

It might lead to confusion or misunderstanding if I didn't know your definition. Depends. If you said it about a sculpture in a museum, I would assume you acknowledge the fact that obviously other people consider it a work of art. It would sound odd if the sculpture was made by a 3-year old.

Like I said, in my opinion your definition of art doesn't add anything new. It's a general parent categoy. When a friendly dog comes up to you do you say "nice mammal" or "nice doggie"? What's the point of calling it a piece of art when you could simply call it a sculpture or a painting or a poem? That's what most people do anyway, at least where I come from. So I would say something like "I hate that sculpture".

[MoriartyL]

Why are you dodging the question? It's a perfectly simple question. Is "bad art" a contradiction in terms?

I apologize for being so blunt, but I can't understand what your position is when you keep dancing around like that.

[MoriartyL]

Look, I'll come straight to the point. If you think "bad art" is a contradiction in terms, then we actually agree on everything but semantics. A lot of the things you've said that struck me as strange would make perfect sense if by "art" you actually meant "great art". For instance, you said that only a very few games are art, which is weird, because if one game is art then why isn't a similar game art? But if you meant that very few games are great art, then you're only stating the obvious. And you said that what's art to one person isn't art to someone else, which is strange because I thought everyone agreed that paintings are art whether or not they like a particular painting. But if you're talking about great art, and not just art in general, then I agree.

[Fien]

No, I don't.

[MoriartyL]

Um. Okay.

Then when is a work which is not successful, or not interesting, or not well-made, or maybe not well thought-out to begin with, still technically "art"? And why do so few games qualify?

If we're not talking about quality, and we're not talking about the format, and we're not talking about authorial intent, then what exactly are we talking about? There are many quality games, and there are many kinds of games with the potential for artistic expression, and there are many game-creators who fancy themselves artists. What's missing here?

[Fien]

Originality perhaps?

[MoriartyL]

Nothing's particularly original, as has already been said. It's all new versions of ancient ideas. So I guess the only art in the universe is the art God created.

[Fien]

shrug.

End of non-discussion.

[Foozwah]

Well that was illuminating and well worth the effort to read through the entire thread.

No, wait. The opposite.

[Fien]

Hehe... yes, real art does have that effect on many people.

[MoriartyL]

Well, I tried. If no one's willing to take the discussion seriously, it's not my fault.

[Squinky]

Personally, I think the best way to take this kind of a discussion seriously is to practice it rather than talk about it... which we both already happen to be doing.

[Lee in Limbo]

Agreed. Talking about the definition of art is like talking about sex; you only think you're learning something until you have to put it into practice (assuming you ever do).

[Fien]

Heh... it's great to know that you self-proclaimed artists do have a sense of humor.