Are Video Games Art?

[CptStern]

dont be lazy read before voting:


?Here we go again.?

That was Tim Schafer?s reaction when I recently asked him the question, ?Are video games an art form??

No doubt, it?s a topic that has been bandied about many times before. But with games like Okami, Katamari Damacy, Electroplankton?not to mention more mainstream releases like Metal Gear Solid?being hailed by critics (if not always consumers) these days, it?s hard not to bring it up once again.

Schafer, founder of Double Fine Productions (www.doublefine.com), the San Francisco-based development studio responsible for 2005?s award-winning Psychonauts (an artistic game in its own right), seems to agree, despite his initial reservations.

http://gamasutra.com/features/20070316/ochalla_01.shtml

interesting article ..the problem though is objectivity; they're asking game developers (the PR guys not the creative guys) whether their profession has reached the level of art form so of course they're going to say yes it has ...however I disagree ..video games have yet to reach the level of high art ..gaming is pop culture bordering on artistic endeavor at best ..till games evoke higher emotions, examine complex concepts and reflect on the condition of man they will remain at the level of a consumable; a marketable commodity that serves no purpose but to entertain. More akin to a blockbuster action movie than a work of art for the sake of art: it's very reason for being is to make money therefore individual artistic vision takes a backseat to creating something that will ensures it will make money.

That's not to say that videos games cant attain this level of artisitc merit or that the devlopers themselves may be artistically gifted it's just that the nature of the medium is counter intuitive to what art aspires to be: Art for the sake of art. Most of you will disagree with me but some of you will be confused between technical skill (craftmanship) and artistic merit ..as a former art teacher and designer I can rightfully say that they dont neccessarily go hand in hand: some of the most brilliant artists are technically weak. Oh and concept art for video games, no matter how intricate is not art; it's advertising illustration

[Ravioli]

I cant see any poll

but yes, it is art. As much art as movies and sports and other activities are.

[CptStern]

sport by definition is not art ..movies are not art ..film is art but only under certain circumstances

please read article before voting

[Samon]

yes but only certain games under certain criteria

[Gray Fox]

Are you sure there are no games that are made just for the sake of art, because I 'm pretty sure there are hundreds of indie games made for free, just for the sake of being made. Not to be sold, or to promote the artist or the company or the ip, just because the artists thought it was fun, or maybe in sake cases because he wanted to make a statement.

In any case did you not not so long ago post what gorgonzola said about games, that they can never be art. Because the player is very much in charge of his experience, games are more akin to tools that give players possibilities then play's. Hence they can contain art, but can never be considered themselves art.

I also want to ask you as an art teacher about davinci then, because a lot of his works are considered art as far as I can see because they were technically far beyond his time, not because they make a statement or give deeper insight in our world or whatever. Isn't he no less an artist then lets say an engineer for Ferrari, those guy's study nature and physics and make stuff thats far beyond what was thought capable. Isn't that what Da Vinci did to with Mona Lisa or David.

[CptStern]

Are you sure there are no games that are made just for the sake of art, because I 'm pretty sure there are hundreds of indie games made for free, just for the sake of being made. Not to be sold, or to promote the artist or the company or the ip, just because the artists thought it was fun, or maybe in sake cases because he wanted to make a statement.

I cant think of any examples ..obviously I havent played every single game out there ..I think it's also the fact that the gaming experience hinges on the player rather than the creative vision behind the game

In any case did you not not so long ago post what gorgonzola said about games, that they can never be art. Because the player is very much in charge of his experience, games are more akin to tools that give players possibilities then play's. Hence they can contain art, but can never be considered themselves art.

gorgonzola? yes that is one sticking point in the argument as to why games cant really be art however I wouldnt say never. It's a distinct possiblity that a game can be a vessel for artistic experssion, I just havent encountered any of it yet

I also want to ask you as an art teacher about davinci then, because a lot of his works are considered art as far as I can see because they were technically far beyond his time, not because they make a statement or give deeper insight in our world or whatever. Isn't he no less an artist then lets say an engineer for Ferrari, those guy's study nature and physics and make stuff thats far beyond what was thought capable. Isn't that what Da Vinci did to with Mona Lisa or David.


well depends because Da Vinci was equal craftsman and artist ..i think the ferrari designer is a craftsman

[Absinthe]

Just the PR guys? Sure, Molyneux and Schafer deal with the public, but they are the heads of their respective creations.

The question posed wasn't whether games are currently high art, but just art in general. By the admission of at least one of the interviewees, we have yet to come up with our Citizen Kane in the video game world. But such can only be expected with the relative infancy of the medium, and even then we've made remarkable progress with not only aesthetic, but social commentary, philosophy, symbolic imagery, atmosphere, and characterization. Naturally, this only applies to particular titles, just like it only applies to particular movies as well.

I found Molyneux's words to be quite resonant in particular. Nobody goes out of their way to make art, unless they're being pretentious. Art is the natural product of another directive - you're aiming to make a film or a painting primarily. If art comes from that process, then so be it.

Can games today qualify as art? Certainly. Whether it's on par with other mediums is debatable. But it would be foolish to think high art would be unattainable.

[CptStern]

Just the PR guys? Sure, Molyneux and Schafer deal with the public, but they are the heads of their respective creations.

art by committee never works out well

The question posed wasn't whether games are currently high art, but just art in general.

yes but I wanted to make sure our members knew the difference

By the admission of at least one of the interviewees, we have yet to come up with our Citizen Kane in the video game world.

which is my mind an admission that video games are not art ..Citizen Kane was an artisitc vision from start to finish

But such can only be expected with the relative infancy of the medium, and even then we've made remarkable progress with not only aesthetic, but social commentary, philosophy, symbolic imagery, atmosphere, and characterization.

agreed

I found Molyneux's words to be quite resonant in particular. Nobody goes out of their way to make art, unless they're being pretentious.

well not really ..professional artists purposefully create art. Molyneux also has somewhat of a stake in this issue as he's doing the rounds promoting ai "love" as a higher concept in Fable 2

Art is the natural product of another directive - you're aiming to make a film or a painting primarily. If art comes from that process, then so be it.

Can games today qualify as art? Certainly. Whether it's on par with other mediums is debatable. But it would be foolish to think high art would be unattainable.

sure, in the long run when developers adopt an art for the sake of art attitude ..that will come in time


oh and thanks for bringing up good points to help clarify the issue ..you too Gray fox

[Laivasse]

Hmm, I find this art vs. commodity thing a bit misleading. Some of the painters we regard as masters nowadays were, in their day, painting in order to put food on the table. That's not to say they that they didn't put their heart into it and produce masterpieces when they did so, because they did.

Personally I voted for 'yes but only certain games under certain criteria'. I don't buy Ebert's comments at all about gaming not being an art 'because you make choices' - even paintings can involve say, interpretative choices. If anything the aspect of choice within gaming makes it a new and exciting form of art, in that the choices can provide the viewer with player insight into the greatest mystery of all...the self! *makes some fancy arse swirly hand movements to emphasize teh ARTE*

For instance, what made you refuse to help the woman's husband after forcing her to sleep with you in Fallout 2? Why does it feel uncomfortable to let go of Yorda's hand in Ico? I'm playing Hitman: Blood Money atm, and weirdly I really didn't want to shoot the guy at the end of the intro level, due to the quality of writing and scene building (although the VO in Hitman is always a bit hit and miss).

Like I said in the other thread, I think strong emotional engagement can be enough to qualify something as art, and the best games never lack in this respect. So it's art to me.

[smwScott]

Just because something is released for public consumption and profit doesn't mean it can't be art. That being said, this whole "is it art or not" debate is pretty pretentious and a little stupid. The idea that games can't be art because they aren't tightly controlled by the artist is also equally stupid - just because something doesn't neatly fit into previously defined sense of art doesn't mean that it can't be. By giving the viewer/player leeway to breathe in this world they can force them to realize things about themselves for instance, or force them to view their work in a completely unique way.

People who like to categorically define what is art or not piss me off. They generally assume that they are more capable/intelligent than the average person and therefore able to decide what is a valid form of artistic expression. The debate is pointless. Let the medium continue as it is and if something comes along that strikes you as an artistic work, then so be it. If not, then just have fun gibbing aliens.

[StardogChampion]

Oh and concept art for video games, no matter how intricate is not art; it's advertising illustration
It's not advertising.

[CptStern]

Just because something is released for public consumption and profit doesn't mean it can't be art. That being said, this whole "is it art or not" debate is pretty pretentious and a little stupid. The idea that games can't be art because they aren't tightly controlled by the artist is also equally stupid - just because something doesn't neatly fit into previously defined sense of art doesn't mean that it can't be. By giving the viewer/player leeway to breathe in this world they can force them to realize things about themselves for instance, or force them to view their work in a completely unique way.

name one game ever to evoke this sentiment ..remember this has to be true for all people, not just a single person who may or may not have gotten outside stimuli as well ..and any one tacks "pretentious" to art doesnt really understand art ..pretention is the stuff of art dealers/the public in general not the artist. the artist's pretention comes not in an air of superority it comes from directly targeting his audience ...which is completely fair because the majority of the general public dont understand art and never will ..anyone who says "I know what I like" doesnt understand art and frankly should never comment on it because art is NOT decoration

People who like to categorically define what is art or not piss me off. They generally assume that they are more capable/intelligent than the average person and therefore able to decide what is a valid form of artistic expression.

sorry but that is your impression ...however it's mostly true ..example: a layman and an architect both comment on the design of a building ..who's opinion would you have more faith in? to even suggest everybody's opinion is on the same playing field is rediculous

The debate is pointless.

no, it's not..it illustrates exactly where we are as a valid form of expression and right now it's at an infacy where very little of importance is created

Let the medium continue as it is and if something comes along that strikes you as an artistic work, then so be it.

opinion does not make art ..however if that's your perogative then this debate is meaningless and you shouldnt concern yourself with anything beyond your own enjoyment ..what's not important to you doesnt hold true for the rest of the people who inhabit this earth


curious: why did you vote "no it's not" when your post sounds like it's supporting the fact that games are art?



It's not advertising.

yes it is, or else it would never be released to the public and only used internally

[Solaris]

Yes, but we've seen extremely little of it.

[Stigmata]

Very few games qualify as art. But they're there.

[CR0M]

I agree with smwScott, art itself is subjective and can only be credibly commented upon subjectively by those who practise it themselves, and as there is far too much opinionated ignorance regarding 'art' in the world already, it's arrogant (and incredibly annoying to artists) to claim to know what art really is.

So, in my professionally arrogant opinion as an artist, my answer is... no. Games involve a cluster of many skills to develop and as a result are not individual pieces of art in themselves, much as members of a band may be called artists regarding their particular musical instrument, the resulting song is not in itself a piece of art. If a game was produced by an individual however, then I would say yes.

One level down in the heirarchy of creation is close enough for most to to argue the point though.

[Hazar]

I think most can be considered art, but most of them aren't as high quality art as other mediums are.

[Atomic_Piggy]

Second option.

[smwScott]

name one game ever to evoke this sentiment ..remember this has to be true for all people, not just a single person who may or may not have gotten outside stimuli as well ..and any one tacks "pretentious" to art doesnt really understand art ..pretention is the stuff of art dealers/the public in general not the artist. the artist's pretention comes not in an air of superority it comes from directly targeting his audience ...which is completely fair because the majority of the general public dont understand art and never will ..anyone who says "I know what I like" doesnt understand art and frankly should never comment on it because art is NOT decoration

Just because I don't know about/haven't played the game that evokes this sentiment, or maybe because it hasn't been made yet, does not mean that the potential is not there. I never said that the art itself was pretentious, I said that the people who think they are the only ones capable of judging it are. You seem to be suggesting that I think BMX XXX or whatever can be compared to great works of art because Joe Shmoe likes it better, but I never said that.


sorry but that is your impression ...however it's mostly true ..example: a layman and an architect both comment on the design of a building ..who's opinion would you have more faith in? to even suggest everybody's opinion is on the same playing field is rediculous

Of course that's my impression, which is why I'm the one who said it. Your example is flawed because architecture is something that comprises technical merit. I would however value an artists' opinion over that of a layman, particularly concering his/her own work. I do not give much credence to people whom themselves do not create art but merely purport to have a superior understanding of it. Art is not always something that can be picked apart and impartially analyzed to form a definitive concept.


opinion does not make art ..however if that's your perogative then this debate is meaningless and you shouldnt concern yourself with anything beyond your own enjoyment ..what's not important to you doesnt hold true for the rest of the people who inhabit this earth

My point is that no one, not even you in all your infinite wisdom, is in any position to tell an artist that what he just made is not art. Nor are you in any position to tell someone who appreciates it that they are not appreciating true art.

curious: why did you vote "no it's not" when your post sounds like it's supporting the fact that games are art?

Because video games suck. I can't think of any particularly good ones, at least not compared to film or literature. Does not mean that art does not exist within this medium already and it certainly doesn't mean that the potential is not there.

[CyberPitz]

I think most can be considered art, but most of them aren't as high quality art as other mediums are.

I'd have to agree there...

But then again, I'm a fond believer of anything that took time/skill to create something from your head and into physical(esque) form is art to me.

[Asuka]

Yes they are. Not all games but not under certain criteria ether.

[Vegeta897]

I don't know what stupid definition of "art" someone is trying to promote here, but it's stupid. I ****ing hate the "art has to give a message, say something about humanity, blah blah" it's ridiculous, and 95 percent of all people don't give a shit about it. If only those types of things are art, what do you call everything else? It's a given that if nobody in the gaming industry had artistic talent it would look like balls. Art is pretty to look at, that's enough for most people. And most art can go a step further to express a mood or feeling, which most art certainly can do. There are such people in gaming that use level design, lighting, sounds, etc. to give the game these moods.

If a video game with a story isn't art, then neither is a film.

[Ren.182]

Yes, certain games I would call art. Especially those with very different art directions, great stories and so on.

One that sticks out for me would be Jet Set Radio (Jet Grind Radio). The art in that game was awesome. The music was great too and really fit the game.

[Space Farm]

There are basically two forms of music. There is music that is made for entertainment (dance music, mainstream singles) and on the other hand there is music that is art and I think the same can be applied for games.

[Jintor]

2nd opinion, now. Should've read the article before voting...

[highlander]

Second option.

[Stigmata]

I don't know what stupid definition of "art" someone is trying to promote here, but it's stupid. I ****ing hate the "art has to give a message, say something about humanity, blah blah" it's ridiculous, and 95 percent of all people don't give a shit about it. If only those types of things are art, what do you call everything else? It's a given that if nobody in the gaming industry had artistic talent it would look like balls. Art is pretty to look at, that's enough for most people. And most art can go a step further to express a mood or feeling, which most art certainly can do. There are such people in gaming that use level design, lighting, sounds, etc. to give the game these moods.

If a video game with a story isn't art, then neither is a film.I think it's just people misconstruing "art" to mean "high art". All games are art, but very, very few are high art.

[Steven]

In many way's, a video game is like a painting you can move around in. However it isn't always a representation of someone's thoughts or feelings.

[Mechagodzilla]

Plenty of art is overtly interactive. Videogames constitute a relatively distinct category of interactive art mediums.

The resulting works are totally artistic, save for the occasional tacked-on multiplayer perhaps, but even some multiplayer games carry some artistic merit.
Team Fortress 2 seems to be shaping up to become an affectionate parody of other multiplayer absurdity.

The question is to what degree specific games succeed as art, but they are artistic regardless.

[Danimal]

yes but only certain games under certain criteria

qft

[Bad^Hat]

Sorry, didn't read the article, or this thread :)

Might be a little by my own personal definition, but I don't see games themselves as an art form. Art is something to be looked at and appreciated. So yes, games can CONTAIN art, and creating them might involved a certian amount of artistry, but the games themselves in their entirety don't constitute art I don't think.

Something like Okami could be considered close. I think I enjoyed it as much for the visual style as I did for the gameplay.

[VictimOfScience]

Best discussion you will find in this thread. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0425/is_3_65/ai_n16832653)

Seriously though, the Free Online Dictionary's first definition of Art is: Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. I completely agree and therefore think that just about anything under the sun (that is man-made) is art. The 'man-made' differentiation is key because while things like honeycomb and coral and geodes are strikingly beautiful and can inspire many various thoughts and feelings, they were not created to serve any other purpose than their specific function in Nature. These are not examples of art because they have to conform to Nature's rules. Art does not have to do that and that is what makes it very special.

[The Monkey]

no, not yet, not until a game is created as art rather than commodity
I have yet to play a video game that can be considered art.

[Solaris]

I don't know what stupid definition of "art" someone is trying to promote here, but it's stupid. I ****ing hate the "art has to give a message, say something about humanity, blah blah" it's ridiculous, and 95 percent of all people don't give a shit about it. If only those types of things are art, what do you call everything else? It's a given that if nobody in the gaming industry had artistic talent it would look like balls. Art is pretty to look at, that's enough for most people. And most art can go a step further to express a mood or feeling, which most art certainly can do. There are such people in gaming that use level design, lighting, sounds, etc. to give the game these moods.

If a video game with a story isn't art, then neither is a film.
I think your misunderstanding, I once heard someone give an interesting definition of art
"Representing idea's or things through a medium". I don't know if thats the proper definition if there is one, but it makes sense to me.

You're right that it takes artists to make games, the textures in super Mario are art, the sounds are art, both made by artists. But the video game itself is not art, no more than a game of tag is. I think defcon is a strong contender for being art, it makes Nuclear warfare into a game, where at the end defeating your enemy with only 12millions deaths on your side is a good victory. The haunting music in the background reminds you of the horror of what is happening. I came out of the game with two impressions, the first was, wow that was fun and I did really well. Then after that I realized I had just killed 120million 'enemy' civilians and lost 10million of my own and how horrific a thing that would be in real life. I left the game with a stronger sense than ever that a nuclear war cannot be won, given to me through the medium of that game. I'd call that art.

[Stigmata]

Solaris is winner.

[Vegeta897]

Did you just contradict yourself in a single paragraph Solaris? You said a video game isn't art then you just said Defcon was art.

???

And is a collection of art combined in an artistic way not art? I don't know what logic you are using there. And comparing this to tag is ridiculous. We're talking about video games, and we're talking about something people MAKE and DEVELOP. Tag is purely gameplay, that's a ridiculous comparison.

""Representing idea's or things through a medium" Fits most video games perfectly. Let's look at Halflife 2. It expresses the story of one man who defies the odds to defeat a strange power that has put the world into slavery, (the setting is artistic itself) who uses his ingenuity (physics puzzles) and leadership to reach his goal. Everyone at Valve has expressed their ideas to make the game. It's like a collage of art, which turns into an experience for the player as well.

[Solaris]

Did you just contradict yourself in a single paragraph Solaris? You said a video game isn't art then you just said Defcon was art.

???

And is a collection of art combined in an artistic way not art? I don't know what logic you are using there. And comparing this to tag is ridiculous. We're talking about video games, and we're talking about something people MAKE and DEVELOP. Tag is purely game play, that's a ridiculous comparison.
I believe I said the video game in question was not art, not all video games. If I did, I retract that and apologise for not getting myself across clearly.

[6Three]

Vegeta wins.

And besides, what inspires you more?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/bdgamer/E3%202006/Alan%20Wake/Alan_Wake_009.jpg

or

http://academics.adelphi.edu/honcol/modconart/img/Warhol-campbellsoup.jpg

Seriously.. wtf..

[CptStern]

ironic that you should post those two images because as art they are exactly the same: pop art .....except the cambells soup can has far more meaning/insight, the mountain range is exactly what it is; there is no meaning to it. I've said time and again you cannot judge works of art in a without understanding the context behind art ..long gone are the days when art is judged solely on technical merit alone




smwScott: I'll reply to your points when I get a chance

[6Three]

Tell me the meaning behind a can of soup.

edit: and the question was "what inspires you more", from the perspective of someone who does not know the context behind either images.

[VictimOfScience]

WTF? No one cares about/has seen 'Mom and Pop Art'??????? Where are the Simpsons fans???!!!

[CptStern]

WTF? No one cares about/has seen 'Mom and Pop Art'??????? Where are the Simpsons fans???!!!

I read most of it ..it's interesting however the simpsons episode in question is called mom and Pop Art which is a dead giveaway that they're skewering pop art

6Three: on the surface (pun not intended) it's about art as mass consumerism commodity ..the meduim is the message in this case ..the mountain says nothing except "hey I'm a mountain"

[Vegeta897]

I read most of it ..it's interesting however the simpsons episode in question is called mom and Pop Art which is a dead giveaway that they're skewering pop art

6Three: on the surface (pun not intended) it's about art as mass consumerism commodity ..the meduim is the message in this case ..the mountain says nothing except "hey I'm a mountain"
So.. photography isn't art?

Stern I want to let you know that your first reply to 6Three is so ridiculous that it sounds sarcastic.

And you didn't respond to the point he made. The mountain picture is inspiring, beautiful, gives you a feeling of adventure or peace.

It's like your drowning in your own politically correct definitions and bullshit and missing the most basic of concepts here.

[Stigmata]

So.. photography isn't art?

Stern I want to let you know that your first reply to 6Three is so ridiculous that it sounds sarcastic.

And you didn't respond to the point he made. The mountain picture is inspiring, beautiful, gives you a feeling of adventure or peace.

It's like your drowning in your own politically correct definitions and bullshit and missing the most basic of concepts here.Photography and that mountain do count as art, but so many photographs and so many mountains have been recreated in so many similar ways that their individual messages are watered down to a point where the message is no longer significant. Taken on its own, the mountain does inspire a feeling of beauty, peace, and so forth. But in the context of our culture as a whole, it doesn't mean anything.

[Vegeta897]

Photography and that mountain do count as art, but so many photographs and so many mountains have been recreated in so many similar ways that their individual messages are watered down to a point where the message is no longer significant. Taken on its own, the mountain does inspire a feeling of beauty, peace, and so forth. But in the context of our culture as a whole, it doesn't mean anything.
Allow me to restate my opinion on this ridiculous "high art" definition.

Big ****ing deal.

Art is art damnit. Art takes artistic skill to make. Are you saying a stick figure drawing and a beautiful painting that doesn't "mean" anything have the same artistic value?

[Stigmata]

I'm not saying it's not art. I'm saying it's art that's been done to death. It took skill, it looks nice, okay, cool, that's great.

[CR0M]

That a debate is sparked so easily about what is art and what isn't is sad evidence of the unbending arrogance of man. Thanks to exploitists in the 50's and 60's, critics have twisted, flayed and lobotomised what it is to actually create, and art has become merely the mass hysterical opinion of art.

Failing to understand the difference between a shark carcass in a box and the sistine chapel ceiling is a trait of modern society that should never have been let out of the cellar.

[Solaris]

Allow me to restate my opinion on this ridiculous "high art" definition.

Big ****ing deal.

Art is art damnit. Art takes artistic skill to make. Are you saying a stick figure drawing and a beautiful painting that doesn't "mean" anything have the same artistic value?
Tip: go to bed, you sound cranky.

Yes, Art is art. Yes it does take artistic skills to make. I don't think anyones saying a little stick figure and a beautiful painting have the same artistic value.

[the show 1347]

Video games are a art just like music is art.Good games are made by good artists and great games are made by great and skillful artists.Therefore i think games are not just thrown together with mapping and sound but with careful thinking of design and gameplay that is games art.

[Gray Fox]

I still don't think any game has reached he high art level.

But at the same time, it's hard not to think of art or even high art when I look at games.
How can something that instills such awe in my mind.
Something that can touch me on a deeper emotional level.
Something that lets dreams and fantasies come true, like no other medium till date.
And most of all something that can bring out the best and most beautiful in people, not be art.

I will admit, by that reasoning, Zinedine Zidane, is an artist, an engineer from BMW is an artist, and what they do could be considered art.

And I'm sure a lot of people have come up with a reasoning like this before me and all were dismissed. Maybe people like me are just to distracted by bells and whistles to see something for what it really is, maybe thats why I have a hard time making a distinction.

[Bad^Hat]

The mountain picture is inspiring, beautiful, gives you a feeling of adventure or peace.
No it doesn't. I look at it and all I think is "cool graphics". It gives you those feelings, therefore to you it can be considered art by your own definition.

So there. Art is only what you percieve it to be. It's too broad a term to have only one meaning for everyone.

Sorry if this post seems redundant, but to me so does trying to convince someone that your's is the one and only true meaning.

(Note, this post wasn't intended solely for Vegeta, his quote was just the easiest to make my point from :))

[6Three]

There you have it, thread closed! Art is whatever you want it to be on an individual, case-by-case basis!

[CptStern]

There you have it, thread closed! Art is whatever you want it to be on an individual, case-by-case basis!

no, I wont settle for that :)

that would mean this:

http://www.hub-bub.com/blogs/justin/wp-content/uploads/P1012860a.jpg


is equal to this:

http://cruises.about.com/library/graphics/florence/101-0112_IMG.JPG

[Laivasse]

Urgh, you can see his willy...!

[CptStern]

Urgh, you can see his willy...!

there ..is that better?

http://gracemonkey.com/david.jpg


;)



or if you prefer the American version:

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/22000/22487_w.jpg

[CR0M]

ah, Michelangelo's Dave :)

Why is Elvis leaking?

[Laivasse]

or if you prefer the American version:


hahahahaha...nice one.

[Crushenator 500]

Oh and concept art for video games, no matter how intricate is not art; it's advertising illustration

And why can't illustration be art?

You're saying there's nothing artistic about the following images?

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/1788/codemastersgrunt001zs6.jpg

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3481/finaltek3.jpg

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4089/mammon001st7.jpg

http://sixmorevodka.com/uploads/DD97.jpg

http://sixmorevodka.com/uploads/BLADE-Issue6-Coverfinal-low.jpg

http://www.cpluv.com/www/medias/dawlazdesign/dawlazdesign_44e449ccd622d.jpg

http://www.narsil.org/politics/HST_by_Steadman.jpg

http://www.coro36ink.com/illustration/bum/tentacle.jpg


As opposed to what, the depth, stimulation, and briliance of "fine art" like this Hockney piece?

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/picture-of-month/graphics/large/hockney.jpg
(note: im not saying all fine art is shit, some of it is absolutely incredible, both old and new, but completely dismissing illustration as an artform is rediculous)

[CptStern]

the first illustration is very similiar to my own style of illustration ..obviously I think I have artistic ability and by association so does the above art ..but you miss the point ..advertising illutration is created for a single purpose: advertise a product ...it's not art for the sake of art, it conveys no message, it doesnt reflect on the condition of man ..it has no other goals excapt to push a particular product ...take Norman Rockwell is an example ..no one would ever dispute he was a talented artist ..however the majority of his most famous work were created for the covers of magazines like Life and Time



the problem is that people are confusing "art" with "Art"


art:

http://www.poster.net/rockwell-norman/rockwell-norman-the-runaway-2105387.jpg


Art:

http://www.learntoquestion.com/resources/database/archives/Norman%20Rockwell,%20the%20Problem%20we%20all%20live%20with.jpg


they're both by Norman rockwell ..but one is advertising illustration the other is commentary on the condition of man

[CR0M]

Absolutely true. Artwork is not art. It's artwork.
And Crushenator, Hockney isn't Fine Art, Michelangelo is Fine Art. Hockney is just an expert in exploitation, as all shit artist have to be to succeed.

[Crushenator 500]

And Crushenator, Hockney isn't Fine Art, Michelangelo is Fine Art.

So you're saying that even though he was commisioned to paint bible illustrations, he wasn't an illustrator?

What makes the artists I posted above not fine artists then?

:)

[CptStern]

artists back then didnt see themselves as artists ..not as we see them today

they were considered craftsmen ..like architects or masonists

[CR0M]

Most people seem to be blind to the divide between art and Art. To understand you first need to know the difference between the artist and the Artist.

Everyone has the ability to scribble, no matter how crap it turns out - the end result is not important. Sometimes it's success is dependent on it's crapness. Monkeys can do it. This is the artist.

But very few can successfully attempt to traverse the dark fissure between the cornea and the hand in which a whole dimension is mysteriously chewed up and lost, to obsessively tear shape and colour out of the dark, slapping it kicking and screaming onto the canvas of the real world again for others to see as the artist saw it, before it's journey began on the other side of his brain. This is the Artist.

[CptStern]

that's why Artists tend to go mad, or hack off their ear, or take out all their frustrations out in the politics forums especially against those crazy right-wingers ...<- I heard that's exactly why Modigliani went insane and drank himself to death :O

[Crushenator 500]

Most people seem to be blind to the divide between art and Art. To understand you first need to know the difference between the artist and the Artist.

Everyone has the ability to scribble, no matter how crap it turns out - the end result is not important. Sometimes it's success is dependent on it's crapness. Monkeys can do it. This is the artist.
And yet you call what i posted "art", which according to you is crappy scribbles... yes?

[CR0M]

No, I did not say all scribbles are crappy, only that it isn't important if they turn out that way. Illustrations like the ones you posted are, compared to classic works of Art, still scribbles. Good scribbles though they are. Not great, but good.
If you want some examples of really good artists, and even some great Artists, you will find them all published here (http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/). Try not to drool down your shirt.

Sketches / comics / concept art etc. are the fast food of artwork, they look like food and smell like food and taste mmmgood to the masses but they are not wild venison in a port and mushroom sauce with steamed asparagus tips. Because of this reason they are not Art. They are art. If you know what I mean.

that's why Artists tend to go mad
Truth.

[Flyingdebris]

i just came back from touring blur studios, i will most definitely say games are art. If for no other reason than the amount of artistic thought that goes into the designs.

For example, everything in doom 3, whether you love it or hate it, was consciously chosen to look sound or behave a certain way. In hellgate London all the creatures, backgrounds, heros, weapons, they were all created based on the ideas of artists. Games are a cumulative effort on part of artists just as much if not more so as they are on codeers.

Games more and more are about crafting an experience, and thats no different than what a painting or piece of music sets out to do.

oh and one more thing, concept art and illustration is most definitely art. The only difference between fine art and illustration is the artist's willingness to bullshit and very little else.

[Kouler]

Art is a way of expressing something. If you can convey certain feelings, or situations through a game, be it graphically, audibly, or through the actual gameplay merging these two factors, then it is art.

[Solaris]

i just came back from touring blur studios, i will most definitely say games are art. If for no other reason than the amount of artistic thought that goes into the designs.

If thats a valid reason then a house is Art as it takes the architect along time to design.

For example, everything in doom 3, whether you love it or hate it, was consciously chosen to look sound or behave a certain way. In hellgate London all the creatures, backgrounds, heros, weapons, they were all created based on the ideas of artists
Little creatures designed to look scary are not Art.

Games more and more are about crafting an experience, and thats no different than what a painting or piece of music sets out to do.
Everything is an experience, so therefore everything is art? No, becuase an experience is not Art, it may be fun, well built, look pretty, but it is not a piece of Art.


oh and one more thing, concept art and illustration is most definitely art. The only difference between fine art and illustration is the artist's willingness to bullshit and very little else.
No it is not.

Have you ever toured an art museum? Layed eyes on the masterpieces painted by genius's such as van gogh and Picasso? Paintings such as the potato eaters, and starry night. Have a look at Picassos Guernica, it's revolutionary, utterly fantastic, if you have ever stood in awe and understanding of such works you would laugh at what you have just said. No game is anywhere near as Artistic as such things.

[99.vikram]

Because of this reason they are not Art. They are art. If you know what I mean.
I know what you mean. You prefer some types of art over others, but being the snob you are, you're here to parade that.

[CptStern]

:upstare: come on, you cant honestly believe that nonsense

you know there's a reason why art is perceived as snobbish/elitist ..I think it mostly stems from the fact that joe six pack just doesnt understand it ..so ignorance breeds fear, fear breeds hate, hate fuels ignorance


oh and one more thing, concept art and illustration is most definitely art. The only difference between fine art and illustration is the artist's willingness to bullshit and very little else.

yes because this has no meaning

http://jude.bloomradio.com/noiseblog/guernica.jpg

it's just bullshit invented by the artist

[99.vikram]

you know there's a reason why art is perceived as snobbish/elitist ..I think it mostly stems from the fact that joe six pack just doesnt understand it ..so ignorance breeds fear, fear breeds hate, hate fuels ignorance
Or that since time immemorial people have have been looking for somthing to make them feel special.
Hence the art "connoisseurs".

yes because this has no meaning

*snip*

it's just bullshit invented by the artist
It is an excellent show of skill, but it has no meaning in and of itself.

I could bullsh1t any meaning into that painting.

[CptStern]

Or that since time immemorial people have have been looking for somthing to make them feel special.
Hence the art "connoisseurs".

special to whom? each other? and connoisseurs are usually the buying public ..the ignorant buying public


It is an excellent show of skill, but it has no meaning in and of itself.

you couldnt be more wrong:

On April 27th, 1937, unprecedented atrocities are perpetrated on behalf of Franco against the civilian population of a little Basque village in northern Spain. Chosen for bombing practice by Hitler's burgeoning war machine, the hamlet is pounded with high-explosive and incendiary bombs for over three hours. Townspeople are cut down as they run from the crumbling buildings. Guernica burns for three days. Sixteen hundred civilians are killed or wounded.
more about the bombing of Guernica

By May 1st, news of the massacre at Guernica reaches Paris, where more than a million protesters flood the streets to voice their outrage in the largest May Day demonstration the city has ever seen. Eyewitness reports fill the front pages of Paris papers. Picasso is stunned by the stark black and white photographs. Appalled and enraged, Picasso rushes through the crowded streets to his studio, where he quickly sketches the first images for the mural he will call Guernica. His search for inspiration is over.

The Spanish struggle is the fight of reaction against the people, against freedom. My whole life as an artist has been nothing more than a continuous struggle against reaction and the death of art. How could anybody think for a moment that I could be in agreement with reaction and death? ... In the panel on which I am working, which I shall call Guernica, and in all my recent works of art, I clearly express my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of pain and death


I could bullsh1t any meaning into that painting.

yes but your bullshit would be just that: bullshit ...anyone with half a brain would see it coming from a mile away ...you cant bullshit philosphy, not without sounding like a fool

[99.vikram]

Let me clarify this point - Picasso painted it with a very specific (and wonderful) meaning, but unless it is explained by a guide or a book, no one can decipher that picture. Think before you counter me - could you have understood that painting if it was by some unknown artist who never explained what it meant?

[CptStern]

Let me clarify this point - Picasso painted it with a very specific meaning (and wonderful), but unless it is explained by a guide or a book, no one can decipher that picture.

sure they can ..look at the image ..it's all there in black and white. And frankly you support my notion that Art is not for the masses ..they're too ignorant of issues surrounding art to take notice so the majority of Art is lost on them ..therefore the rise of the common man's attitude about art: "I know what I like" ...it's just meaningless opinion based on nothing but personal preference ...the average joe should never comment on art just like a Britney spears should never discuss jazz fusion

Think before you counter me - could you have understood that painting if it was by some unknown artist who never explained what it meant?

my parents are from Spain so that's not a valid question ..art should never be seen inside a vacuum ..you should be aware of the specific movement in art before viewing ..anything less would be a waste of time

[99.vikram]

I don't think there's any point in this debate. :P

I never really liked Picasso, cubism and all that jazz.

[Solaris]

I don't think there's any point in this debate. :P

I never really liked Picasso, cubism and all that jazz.
Then please tell me what you are doing in a thread about art if you 'don't like' one of the greatest artists of all time.

I mean, it could be that you have some very good reasoning to dislike it besides ignorance but looking at what you've been writing here I doubt it.

When you look at and read about Guernica it becomes blindingly obvious that most PC games are not art, I'm not sure if any are really.

[Samon]

Don't be a patronising willy Solaris.

[CptStern]

I don't think there's any point in this debate. :P

I agree because you prove me point repeatedly:

I never really liked Picasso, cubism and all that jazz.

[15357]

Video games are like animations/anime, in terms of art...syness.

[Laivasse]

Um, Art (capital a) does not define itself. People define Art. By deciding they like it. The idea that art can somehow exist objectively, distinct from human opinion of it, is absurd. Any art fancier who purports to appreciate the work of every person who has ever been recognised as a great Artist - just because 'b-b-b-but it's Art!' - and appreciate it all equally, is a fraud and a charlatan and a bounder and a cad, also rapscallion.

The amount of pretentiousness in this thread would be funny if it wasn't so irritating.

[Samon]

Read that Solaris?

[Solaris]

Um, Art (capital a) does not define itself. People define Art. By deciding they like it. The idea that art can somehow exist objectively, distinct from human opinion of it is absurd. Any art fancier who purports to appreciate the work of every person who has ever been recognised as a great Artist - just because 'b-b-b-but it's Art!' - and appreciate it all equally, is a fraud and a charlatan and a bounder and a cad, also rapscallion.

The amount of pretentiousness in this thread would be funny if it wasn't so irritating.
I agree, everyone agrees with that.
But some people like to place more value on art than just whatever somebody defines it as.

You cannot prove anything is art, but intelligent and well informed and interested people can discuss it, of course one of them is free to be a dickhead and say 'Super mario is art becuase I think it is' but frankly that's not interesting, anyone who isn't going to use reasoning and perhaps provide insight that somebody else might not have seen isn't really worth debating with.

[CptStern]

Um, Art (capital a) does not define itself. People define Art. By deciding they like it.

not true ..art is not about personal tastes, it's not about something being attractive ..if that were true abstraction wouldnt exist and Francis bacon (http://www.geocities.com/pantherprousa/bacon/schoolofbacon/brocquy_bacon272x340.jpeg) wouldnt be celebrated today ..Art is not about slavishly representing what the eye sees (a photo can do that much more effectively) ..it more about the minds eye


The idea that art can somehow exist objectively, distinct from human opinion of it is absurd.

there's opinion and then there's informed opinion ..someone who collects Velvet Elvis paintings could hardly be trusted to make a judgement on a picasso or whatever ..it's more than likely he has no insight into the particular style ..I mean what will he comment on? the pretty colours?


Any art fancier who purports to appreciate the work of every great artist ever, because it's Art, and appreciate it all equally, is a fraud and a charlatan and a bounder and a cad, also rapscallion.

I may not like Michael jackson but I can recognise that at one point in time he was a musical genius ..so too with lovers of art ..surely people have preferences and may like one style over another but what you're describing is actually very rare: bourgiousie nouvelle riche trying to sound sophisticated nothing more

The amount of pretentiousness in this thread would be funny if it wasn't so irritating.

i'm assuming you mean me ..I assure it has nothing to do with pertentiousness ..would you fault an architect for talking about his profession?

why would anyone in their right mind hold a layman's opinion on the same level as the professional? if a layman tried to pass off his theories on say quantum physics in a roomfull of scientists we would rightfully laugh at his pathetic attempts ..why is it any different for artists? do we lend weight to the credibility of creationists because they sound like pseudo scientists? no we redicule them for being stupid enough to challenge fact with stupidity ..why is art in any way different?

[Vegeta897]

This thread is retarded.

Stern stop comparing art to science and hard facts.

Solaris stop failing to disprove the fellow who went to that game studio by simply saying "no" without any explanation.

Vegeta stop entering this thread.

[CptStern]

This thread is retarded.

Stern stop comparing art to science and hard facts.

prove me wrong and I'll stop


Vegeta stop entering this thread.

agreed :E

[Vegeta897]

prove me wrong and I'll stopComparing the ways of art and the ways of science+physics is just ridiculous. You can't introduce a comparison and then say prove me wrong. You have to prove the comparison works. Art is not about facts or logic.agreed :ENo u

[CptStern]

Comparing the ways of art and the ways of science+physics is just ridiculous. You can't introduce a comparison and then say prove me wrong. You have to prove the comparison works. Art is not about facts or logic.

yes it is about facts and logic; just because you cant understand that doesnt make it so .. and the comparison stands because it was an analogy; at no time did I apply scientific principles to prove my point as you suggest

[Vegeta897]

yes it is about facts and logic;Only pixel art. just because you cant understand that doesnt make it so ..Ouch. That hurts. and the comparison stands because it was an analogy; I know what a bloody analogy is. I'm saying the two things aren't suitable for an analogy in the way you did, as you know I said art is not logical or scientific. So you can't say "I'm a professional at art and therefor anything you do is instantly worse and uncredible." Because that's what you just said in your analogy.at no time did I apply scientific principles to prove my point as you suggestErr, I didn't suggest that at all. You seem to be the one blurring the concepts themselves. Though in an argument, I think logic does apply. Not with the subject matter itself, but when you prove a point things are usually logical :p Otherwise you sound like a silly billy.

[CptStern]

Only pixel art.

nope ..the minds eye uses logic ..art is the extention of the minds eye therefore it is indeed logical ..it's not like they pull justification out of the thin air

"hmm this painting looks like it's a commentary on war ...I'll name it Guernica, boy arent I clever?!!!"


Ouch. That hurts.

it wasnt meant to ..I said it matter of factly

I know what a bloody analogy is. I'm saying the two things aren't suitable for an analogy in the way you did, as you know I said art is not logical or scientific.

and I argued it ..I provided examples ..you must then come up with your own reasoning as to why it's not or concede the point

Err, I didn't suggest that at all. You seem to be the one blurring the concepts themselves. Though in an argument, I think logic does apply. Not with the subject matter itself, but when you prove a point things are usually logical :p Otherwise you sound like a silly billy.


but you did when you suggested logic doesnt play a part ..logic is a scientific principle. Art uses logic to justify it's own existence ..without logic it's just a pretty picture with no meaning

[Vegeta897]

If art were logical then there would be such a thing as the "perfect painting"

And there isn't.

So pee and poop.

And if you are true, let's take this back to videogames. Are they logical and scientific? Yes, developers do everything for a reason and toward a specific experience for the user. Just look at what the bloke who went to the game studio said. Or listen to the commentary on Episode 1. Or be a game designer.

[CptStern]

what does perfection have to do with logic? they still come to their justification through a mental thought process: logic

[Vegeta897]

Logic is about math. Logic is not personal. Something makes sense or it doesn't. If art has logic, you could theoretically develop a "scale" for rating certain aspects of the piece. Just like you could develop scales for science things, like you say. So if one could "rate" art, since it is 100% logical, then one could achieve a "perfect" painting, highest possible "score".

Or forget the scales, just do comparison to other art. If this aspect of piece A is better than the same aspect of piece B, it is "better". If all aspects of a piece are better than all aspects of all other pieces, it is the "best" art.

This sounds ridiculous for a reason. It's the point you made and as you can see it fails.

[Crushenator 500]

http://lecoeurevanaissant.free.fr/pages/Artistes/Bouguereau/Bouguereau-Biblis.jpg

William Bouguereau, a fantastic piece of artwork in any language, and just that. No commentary on the history of man, no crazy cubist masterpiece, just a damn fine figurative piece. So what would you call it?

"art" instead of "Art"?

What about this Sargent piece?

http://jssgallery.org/Paintings/Emily_Sargent.JPG

"art" again, with no deep meaning?


Here's something you might find interesting also, a letter from picasso


Picasso had talent, as he demonstrated in his youth, but in the end, he openly admitted that he was a con man. He laughed about how he deceived everyone, and benefited from the pretentious, pseudo intellectuals that made him a very rich man.

Here, in Picasso's own words, his confession:

"When I was young, like all the young, art, great art, was my religion; but with the years, I came to see that art, as it was understood until 1800; was henceforth finished, on its last legs, doomed, and that so called artistic activity with all its abundance is only the many formed manifestation of its agony. Men are detached from and more and more disinterested in painting, sculpture and poetry; appearances to the contrary, men today have put their hearts into everything else; the machine, scientific discoveries, wealth, the domination of natural forces and immense territories. We no longer feel art as a vital need, as a spiritual necessity, as was the case in centuries past.

Many of us continue to be artists and to be occupied with art for reasons which have little in common with true art, but rather through a spirit of imitation, through nostalgia for tradition, through mere inertia, through love of ostentation, of prodigality, of intellectual curiosity, through fashion or through calculation. They live still through force of habit and snobbery in a recent past, but the great majority in all places no longer have any sincere passion for art, which they consider at most as a diversion, a hobby and a decoration. Little by little, new generations with a predilection for mechanics and sports, more sincere, more cynical and brutal, will leave art to the museums and libraries as an incomprehensible and useless relic of the past.

From the moment that art is no longer the sustenance that nourishes the best, the artist may exteriorize his talent in all sorts of experiments with new formulas, in endless caprices and fancy, in all the expedients of intellectual charlatanism. In the arts, people no longer seek consolation, nor exaltation. But the refined, the rich, the indolent, distillers of quintessence seek the new, the unusual, the original, the extravagant, the shocking. And I, since cubism and beyond, I have satisfied these gentlemen and these critics with all the various whims which have entered my head, and the less they understood them, the more they admired. By amusing myself at these games, at all these tomfooleries, at all these brain-busters, riddles and arabesques, I became famous quite rapidly. And celebrity means for a painter: sales increment, money, wealth.

Today, as you know, I am famous and very rich. But when completely alone with myself, I haven't the nerve to consider myself an artist in the great and ancient sense of the word. There have been great painters like Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt and Goya. I am only a public entertainer who has understood his time. This is a bitter confession, mine, more painful indeed than it may seem, but it has the merit of being sincere."

[CptStern]

Logic is about math. Logic is not personal. Something makes sense or it doesn't. If art has logic, you could theoretically develop a "scale" for rating certain aspects of the piece. Just like you could develop scales for science things, like you say. So if one could "rate" art, since it is 100% logical, then one could achieve a "perfect" painting, highest possible "score".

Or forget the scales, just do comparison to other art. If this aspect of piece A is better than the same aspect of piece B, it is "better". If all aspects of a piece are better than all aspects of all other pieces, it is the "best" art.

This sounds ridiculous for a reason. It's the point you made and as you can see it fails.

nope, not all logic is strictly mathematical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Philosophical_logic

philisophical principles of logic still apply to art


and you can apply mathematical principles to Art; some artists use scientic principles in creating abstraction ..escher instantly comes to mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._C._Escher)

[CptStern]

William Bouguereau, a fantastic piece of artwork in any language, and just that. No commentary on the history of man, no crazy cubist masterpiece, just a damn fine figurative piece. So what would you call it?

"art" instead of "Art"?

What about this Sargent piece?

<snip>

"art" again, with no deep meaning?

i've already explained this ..it wasnt up until the last century that higher concepts became synonomous with Art ..coincidentily with the advent of photography ...why pay an artist to paint a portrait (before the invention of the camera even the poor could afford their portrait in oils as painters were seen as craftsmen) ..they're celebrated for their technical skill not for the themes that run throughout their work ...oh and the overwhelming majority of paintings in existance today were commissioned by someone ..the artists themselves rarely painted for themselves


and picasso seems to be talking about his particular skill ..during his blue period (when he drew realistically) he was a mediocre portrait artist at best ..it wasnt until he started delving into various forms of abstraction that he became well regarded in art circles. And you cant blame him from creating art for his public ...i mean at some point he has to feed himself ...in every single artists lifetime there comes some point where they must submit to the will of others in order to sustain themselves ...man cannot live on painted still life alone

[Crushenator 500]

i've already explained this ..it wasnt up until the last century that higher concepts became synonomous with Art ..coincidentily with the advent of photography ...why pay an artist to paint a portrait (before the invention of the camera even the poor could afford their portrait in oils as painters were seen as craftsmen) ..they're celebrated for their technical skill not for the themes that run throughout their work ...oh and the overwhelming majority of paintings in existance today were commissioned by someone ..the artists themselves rarely painted for themselves

So you refuse to see that Bouguereau or Sargent piece as high art, completely ignoring skill, technique, and understanding of their sitter? And this is because they were craftsmen and not "Artists", a simple linguistic difference?

[Vegeta897]

*tags Crush*

I've got a lan party to get to.

[Crushenator 500]

*tags Crush*

I've got a lan party to get to.

I wont be here much longer, I have a showing of 300 to catch :P

[CptStern]

So you refuse to see that Bouguereau or Sargent piece as high art, completely ignoring skill, technique, and understanding of their sitter? And this is because they were craftsmen and not "Artists", a simple linguistic difference?

I never said those particular artists are not artists ..I consider myself an artist despite never having exhibited in a gallery. What I am saying is that those particular pieces are more along the lines of craft ..highly skilled technique and artistic talent however with no meaning behind it besides the obvious ...again it's the deeper meaning behind the work that makes it Art, not the skill involved ...look anyone can take a dump on canvas and call it art ..but it doesnt make it so, there no thought processes behind there is no raison d??tre besides as a money making venture

[Crushenator 500]

One may argue that there's more thought and care behind such a stunningly beatifull, technically brilliant piece such as a Bouguereau, than there is of a piece such as cubist picasso.

Going back to the concept art thing, the thought needed to create some of the characters and worlds in those pieces may also take a higher level of thinking than in a regular piece of "art", as you explained it

[Space Farm]

and one more thing, concept art and illustration is most definitely art. The only difference between fine art and illustration is the artist's willingness to bullshit and very little else.

I personally am a digital artist and recently did a two year course in fine arts. You couldn't be more right about this.

May I remind everyone that Art isn't just about paintings and it doesn't have to be in a museum to be considered Art. Art is not limited to one particular medium. Film is Art, music is Art and certain games can be considered as Art too and if you don't agree with it your just bullshitting yourself. This thread could go on forever but here are two quotes that pretty much answer the OP's question:

There is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity.

Video games and role-playing games are both fields where some recent critics have asserted that they do count as art, and some have asserted that they do not.

All this arguing is just everyone's individual opinion. This'll just keep on going on and on and on...

[Flyingdebris]

I have in fact been to many art museums. The works of the old masters while certainly exceptional are not more or less legitimate as art as say, Sid Mead's designs for Blade Runner or Giger's design for the Alien. The only difference between the work of the old masters and the work of today is time and perspective. As for what i said about bullshittting, don't tell me its not true, because i've seen it practiced a lot. I've seen way too many pretentious hacks try to pass off crappy art skills as having meanings when they probably made it up later. Granted there are fine art works that are indeed quite legitimate in their ability to stir emotion and convey an idea, but to say that they are a more legitimitate art form i feel is a big mistake.

As for Doom 3, i brought it up because i'm giving it another play through. And i'll say it very much deserves to be considered art. Not particularly deep art, but from beginning to end it tries to carry a consistant aesthetic and a cohesive design. It tries to convey to you the impression fear and/or action.

Halflife 2 for example tries to make you feel the emotions of a man who's been forced along a path not of his choosing.

If it is crafted by someone's imagination and is designed to make you feel an emotion, combination of emotions, or skillfully convey an idea, then it is art. The quality may vary greatly, but it IS art.

[99.vikram]

Then please tell me what you are doing in a thread about art if you 'don't like' one of the greatest artists of all time.
I dont want to insult all HL2.netters, so just see the attachment to find out what I think of you.

I have a high opinion of most artists, esp. Rembrandt, I just think Picasso's style was a regressive fad.
And Stern, I can't believe you would put Picasso's work over true classics that have stood the test of time...a fine philosopher he may be, but he isn't in the league of the pre-Impressionist masters.


...
<3

[Laivasse]

Damn, take a day's break and you need an electron microscope to be able to find a space to jump back in on the debate.

There's a lot of talk about the distinction between art and 'High Art', but what everyone seems to gloss over is that much of what people here class as High Art was not recognised for its importance or quality until a long time after it was produced. Flyingdebris' point about time and perspective were bang on.

Video games are currently very unlikely to be classed as high art because of the infancy of the medium which means that:
1) technological limitations can flaw the message/the creative expression of the developers
2) gaming hasn't been around long enough for enough people who value it to reach maturity and speak with authority about the artistic quality of gaming.

The fact that noone recognises gaming as a medium of 'High Art' at the moment is a red herring, because gaming hasn't yet had the opportunity to undergo the process of becoming acknowledged as 'proper'. Therefore the opinion that gaming can't be truly great art 'because there is High Art and there is art' is completely irrelevant. Maybe there aren't many games that offer 'social commentary' atm, but I'll be f*cked if I limit my definition of good art to just 'has to have social commentary' (although a lot of great art does). But I can toss out about all the social commentary I need to get through life in a few (swear-)words tbh. The truly visionary thing is to be able to recognise genius of expression where noone else does, not parrot 10,000 other people who talk about the suffering of the proletariat while looking at some bland centuries-old painting.


@Stern - I wasn't talking about just you with the pretentiousness comment, but you're really getting there with some of the things you've said.

You can try to talk about art in terms of layman and professional, or art as some kind of objective force divorced from human taste, but as Vegeta said, that would make it theoretically possible to have the perfect painting. Likewise you should be theoretically able to create a machine that would tell you how good any given piece of art would be.

Yes, humans can appreciate stuff logically through the mind's eye but fortunately every mind's eye is at least slightly different, and that is why people create such a distinction between subjective opinion and objective fact - and also between art and science.

To me, art is just any work of 'creative expression'. That's it. How highly I rate it is based on how much it resonates with my own feelings, knowledge and experiences; on the insight it provides; on how it compels me to think or feel a certain way. 'High Art' might overlap with art I consider to be good, but as a category of art to me it is less interesting.

I interpret High Art to be 'creative expression' that has at some point by relative consensus opinion been deemed to be important to the human race as a whole, or as granting unique insight into the human experience. However, importance to the human race is not necessarily the same as importance to me as an individual; I don't consider every unique insight particularly worthwhile or valuable; and most importantly I disagree with majority opinion too all too often. As such, I think this distinction between art and High Art is a bit of a bogus one that should not be overemphasised.

YES, it would be nice to have some games accepted as 'High Art', but the fact that they do not currently get that recognition is not a particularly significant fact, nor is it a reflection of any lack of artistic potential in video games. In 50 years there could well be lots of people looking back and saying 'such-and-such game provided amazing insight into the human experience - what a masterpiece'. I won't list here any games that I think could be candidates because people will just be like 'pshaw! taht game is ghey!', and I've already said that contemporary opinion doesn't have to figure in :p

Apologies for haphazard use of semi-colonic annihilation.

[Mikael Grizzly]

Yes, without a doubt.

Art is not science and cannot be defined. Matters are made worse by the extreme subjectivity of it's perception.

[<RJMC>]

honestly this whole discution is squizing my brain

I allways hav heard that something artistic is something that remarks emotions and stuff like that,so lets say a videogmaes whit some good storyline can be considered art? well as I hav see maybe not for thousands of reasons explained here that end up confusing me
and this confusion can be considered art? if I put this whole thread in a museum it will be considered art cuz it show confusion?

I love the movie forrest gump cuz it hav a very emotive story and stuff but sure is not art,then what is art? well from what I see is something that some "elitist" as some people said comprend,so that means that since I am not one of those elitist them I can speak shit?

this whole thing depress me,is that art too?or should I write it Art?

[Laivasse]

@RJMC

Judging by the way things are currently done in the art world, this thread is not a work of art because there is no single artist who has made it. You could perhaps consider the posts within this thread as works of art on an individual basis, but if you tried to submit this thread to a museum, people would probably ask 'who made it??'

However if CptStern came forward an d said 'HAHAHAHA! this is exactly what I expected to happen! You are all brushstrokes in my work of art' - or maybe if he said 'what a masterpiece my thread is! I made it and look at the insight it provides into the human psyche!' - then he would maybe have a greater chance at having this thread recognised as a work of art in a museum or gallery (although it would have to be a quite crap gallery, no offense cptstern).

For some reason, the way art has developed dictates that there almost always has to be a single person who can claim credit for it. The only exception I can see to this trend is in cinema, where films are occasionally recognised by people as works of art despite being collaborative efforts between the director, producer, crew, cast, etc. However even this isn't much of an exception if you look closely - how many films have people cited as great art? People tend to say 'Citizen Kane' and then trail off into mumbling. Most 'arthouse' cinema is the worst shit you can ever have defile your eyes. People don't like to cite music as 'high art' either, unless maybe it classical music composed by a single person. I don't really know or care why this is, since I didn't make these rules and they don't interest me.

Conclusion: the rules that have grown up around art don't make much sense and maybe they shouldn't be there. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's so don't worry about it (btw I am drunk soz lol).

[<RJMC>]

so one thing that define art is that is made by one person?

so if I write a crazy story it hav "more chances" of being considered art that a story written by more persons?

I always hav heard that "the art is defined by the eye who see it"
so is all about personal preference?

[Laivasse]

so one thing that define art is that is made by one person?

so if I write a crazy story it hav "more chances" of being considered art that a story written by more persons?

I always hav heard that "the art is defined by the eye who see it"
so is all about personal preference?
The answer to all that is: it depends who you ask. And no matter who you ask, they will pretend that their opinion is the definitive one.
>.>
<.<

[Bad^Hat]

So then the real meaning of art is just as an excuse to sound smart and/or important?

[<RJMC>]

So then the real meaning of art is just as an excuse to sound smart and/or important?

yeah thats my point
whats the real meaning of art?or it dont hav a meaning after all?

[Jintor]

Convey feelings without the person's physical presence?

-_-

> >

...is propaganda art?

[<RJMC>]

after read a bit of what stern said

something is considered Art if it hav a meaning/purpose?

for example a movie about war that shows the horror of war is more art that a action movie like die hard?

[99.vikram]

Art is something that forces the audience along the artist's train of thought, IMO, to feel the same emotions (s)he does.

I feel Calvin and Hobbes and Dilbert are as "High" as any art in the past century, but that's not saying much really.

[Qonfused]

Art is whatever anyone wants to be art. Everything is art. Therefore nothing is art.