In recent discussion about video games as an artistic medium (I know some of you are tired of that topic, but bear with me: this is broader than that), a common answer is that art is subjective. Not only in that different opinions on a given work can be opposite and both valid, but in that the very definition of what art is, what a work of art is, and what an art form is, is completely subjective to the person. I find this interesting, and not in a good way.
I know that relativism has become a popular idea in our culture. We say that all religions are basically the same and should get along, that morality is only defined by individual values, and even sometimes that even an unbelief in something so absolute as gravity makes it "true for you." Besides the obvious logical flaws that occur when taking this worldview too far, I think we've started using it as a cop-out. When someone disagrees with you on the status of video games as art, you don't need to argue, you can simply say, "Well art is subjective, so as long as I believe it is, it's all okay." This has to stop.
Fact is, words have meaning. This is different from a static definition, in that meaning changes with societal, cultural, and technological advancements. Words are simply linguistic cues with which we define a concept. Our language has the word "art," and we have come up with various meanings for it. Sure, it is really difficult to come up with one absolute definition of art. But now that we've taken on such a subjective viewpoint, we no longer even try. We simply explain one's definition of art as being "true for them," and move on without actually getting anywhere. But there are some things that have been agreed to be present in "art." Art is designed with intention. Art is the product of creativity. Art can be seen by one person as good and another as bad, and both opinions are valid (note that this statement does not include a given work's artistic status, only its quality). These are things that define a work of art; it's not a full, complete, and comprehensive definition, but it definitely is a lot more than just, "Art is what you think it is."
My point is simply that we need to stop using relativism as a cop-out to avoid conflict on the subject of art. "Art" is a culturally vital topic, and without some sort of way to tell what it is, it means nothing. For that matter, without definite inclusion as an "art form," growing mediums like video games are held back by a lack of perceived social and cultural relevance. Even if we can never figure out exactly what art is, we need to make as secure a meaning as we can, else the term and its surrounding concepts lose all importance.
So Escapists, what do you think? Is the very meaning of art nothing more than an ambiguous, abstract concept? Or is art a particular thing that must be observed, created, and valued?
I know that relativism has become a popular idea in our culture. We say that all religions are basically the same and should get along, that morality is only defined by individual values, and even sometimes that even an unbelief in something so absolute as gravity makes it "true for you." Besides the obvious logical flaws that occur when taking this worldview too far, I think we've started using it as a cop-out. When someone disagrees with you on the status of video games as art, you don't need to argue, you can simply say, "Well art is subjective, so as long as I believe it is, it's all okay." This has to stop.
Fact is, words have meaning. This is different from a static definition, in that meaning changes with societal, cultural, and technological advancements. Words are simply linguistic cues with which we define a concept. Our language has the word "art," and we have come up with various meanings for it. Sure, it is really difficult to come up with one absolute definition of art. But now that we've taken on such a subjective viewpoint, we no longer even try. We simply explain one's definition of art as being "true for them," and move on without actually getting anywhere. But there are some things that have been agreed to be present in "art." Art is designed with intention. Art is the product of creativity. Art can be seen by one person as good and another as bad, and both opinions are valid (note that this statement does not include a given work's artistic status, only its quality). These are things that define a work of art; it's not a full, complete, and comprehensive definition, but it definitely is a lot more than just, "Art is what you think it is."
My point is simply that we need to stop using relativism as a cop-out to avoid conflict on the subject of art. "Art" is a culturally vital topic, and without some sort of way to tell what it is, it means nothing. For that matter, without definite inclusion as an "art form," growing mediums like video games are held back by a lack of perceived social and cultural relevance. Even if we can never figure out exactly what art is, we need to make as secure a meaning as we can, else the term and its surrounding concepts lose all importance.
So Escapists, what do you think? Is the very meaning of art nothing more than an ambiguous, abstract concept? Or is art a particular thing that must be observed, created, and valued?
