Artist or Creator?

[BlackIronGuardian]

Is there really a difference? My father and I had a really intense discussion about art and what it is exactly (it started with me whining about video games), though we couldn't come down to any concrete definition (which you would think a high school English teacher of 30+ years would have by now) as to when an entertainment medium becomes an art form. We ended up agreeing that it was just too subjective, vague and pompous a term to really have any defined category, and settled on ''creation'' instead.

The question I put to the Escapist is: we make quite a big deal about video games being art. And yet, what is art? What is it that it is more than just entertainment? Is there really a difference? Am I thinking about this too much? Are we all thinking about this too much, applying meaningless terms to meaningless forms of communication that only serve to cover up our own insignificance as a species subject (as everything is) to the laws of entropy that will see us all doomed...

Am I thinking about this too much?

 

[TaborMallory]

You are probably thinking too hard. Art can be applied and labeled in almost infinite ways. The most general definition would be expressing one's self through objects or actions (a canvas, instruments, a play, etc.)

Some games can be considered art; take... perhaps Shadow of the Colossus for example.

 

[Calobi]

I think of art as something that one looks at and feels something about. Paintings, music, acting; those sorts of things. Entertainment is something that you do to alleviate boredom. Art can fall under this category, as watching TV or playing a game is a way to entertain oneself. The two things are related, but can fall into one category and not another or into both.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I don't think you're thinking too hard. I do think you're making arbitrary distinctions between different art forms. I think that a game designer could be considered an artist because game design is an art. You can't just throw pixels and HDR lighting at a screen, stuff a CD in a box, and call it a day. Well, you can, look at the me-too development studios that flooded the Atari, but those games aren't going to be well regarded. Those games wind up in landfills in Odessa.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Some games can be considered art; take... perhaps Shadow of the Colossus for example.

Why?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I think of art as something that one looks at and feels something about. Paintings, music, acting; those sorts of things.

Balls no. In Shakespeare's time, people would go see plays because they were violent and bloody. They were literally competing against bear baiting and dog fights. The distinction you're making, between theater and TV, is that one runs on electricity and one doesn't.

Just because you think something's dead and stuffy doesn't make it art. If anything, film is more potentially expressive than theater.

 

[TaborMallory]

Some games can be considered art; take... perhaps Shadow of the Colossus for example.

Why?

I haven't played it yet, but from what I hear, the game is more about telling a story than being a game.

Anyone, feel free to correct me on this.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

My argument is that, if I had an art gallery, a LCD displaying Super Mario Bros 3 would be hung proudly beside a Rembrandt.
Okay, that's technically more a statement than an argument.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

I don't think you're thinking too hard. I do think you're making arbitrary distinctions between different art forms. I think that a game designer could be considered an artist because game design is an art. You can't just throw pixels and HDR lighting at a screen, stuff a CD in a box, and call it a day. Well, you can, look at the me-too development studios that flooded the Atari, but those games aren't going to be well regarded. Those games wind up in landfills in Odessa.

What distinctions?

I'm asking why they do what they do could be considered art. Or what anybody does could be art.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Some games can be considered art; take... perhaps Shadow of the Colossus for example.

Why?

I haven't played it yet, but from what I hear, the game is more about telling a story than being a game.

Anyone, feel free to correct me on this.

But why is that ''art'' and not just a game about telling a story.

 

[Mozared]

I use 'artist' for musical active folks mostly, though not consciencely. I very very rarely use the word art, because it's impossible to define. I guess that says something about my personality.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I don't think you're thinking too hard. I do think you're making arbitrary distinctions between different art forms. I think that a game designer could be considered an artist because game design is an art. You can't just throw pixels and HDR lighting at a screen, stuff a CD in a box, and call it a day. Well, you can, look at the me-too development studios that flooded the Atari, but those games aren't going to be well regarded. Those games wind up in landfills in Odessa.

What distinctions?

I'm asking why they do what they do could be considered art. Or what anybody does could be art.

Play a bad video game. Not just a game with a bad story, or crappy controls, but a game with crappy level design. Play a BAD game on the NES. Then play Super Mario Bros 3. There is art in level design. You're not only making a world for someone to go through, you're creating a progression. It's like music. Peaks, valleys, rising tension, breaks, you can't just throw everything at the page and hope it works out. To make a good game, you have to know what you're doing. You have to have a creativity that can only be called artistic.

Maybe I'm romanticizing game design a bit - but I think there's something to what I'm saying.

Archetecture's an art. Writing is an art. Cinema is an art. Why not "games"?

 

[AkJay]

Any fool can merely "Create" a bunch of colors splattered on a peice of paper, or moving pixels, but it takes an "Artist" to make them come to life before your eyes, and force emotions from your body that you wouldn't otherwise dare release. Some poetry in that statement, take it as you will.

 

[Calobi]

I think of art as something that one looks at and feels something about. Paintings, music, acting; those sorts of things.

Balls no. In Shakespeare's time, people would go see plays because they were violent and bloody. They were literally competing against bear baiting and dog fights. The distinction you're making, between theater and TV, is that one runs on electricity and one doesn't.

Just because you think something's dead and stuffy doesn't make it art. If anything, film is more potentially expressive than theater.

By acting I meant the term in general. Hollywood actors included right beside those who do Broadway and those who played in the theaters back when Shakespeare was new.

Also, just because theater were competing against things like bear-baiting and dog fights doesn't mean it was only a form of entertainment by my definition. Sure, people watched them to get away from their troubles and lives, but the same could be said for your example of Super Mario Bros 3 today. If you watch the levels, the way it flows, it's art. However, if you have a bad day and want to relieve some stress, well those Goombas have nice squishy heads. Same for the plays. I could watch a play for the fact that it is a diversion and nothing more. That's not hard. I could also watch one and try and feel what it's conveying; the emotions put forth by the writer and the actors as people.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

I don't think you're thinking too hard. I do think you're making arbitrary distinctions between different art forms. I think that a game designer could be considered an artist because game design is an art. You can't just throw pixels and HDR lighting at a screen, stuff a CD in a box, and call it a day. Well, you can, look at the me-too development studios that flooded the Atari, but those games aren't going to be well regarded. Those games wind up in landfills in Odessa.

What distinctions?

I'm asking why they do what they do could be considered art. Or what anybody does could be art.

Play a bad video game. Not just a game with a bad story, or crappy controls, but a game with crappy level design. Play a BAD game on the NES. Then play Super Mario Bros 3. There is art in level design. You're not only making a world for someone to go through, you're creating a progression. It's like music. Peaks, valleys, rising tension, breaks, you can't just throw everything at the page and hope it works out. To make a good game, you have to know what you're doing. You have to have a creativity that can only be called artistic.

Maybe I'm romanticizing game design a bit - but I think there's something to what I'm saying.

Architecture's an art. Writing is an art. Cinema is an art. Why not "games"?

I'm not saying you don't have a point because, for the most part, I agree with you. But my question is why is that art. Why Architecture an art and not just fun to look at. Why is writing an art and not just fun or engrossing to read. Why is cinema art and not just fun or engrossing to watch. Why are games art and not just fun to watch or play?

 

[randommaster]

Entertainment is anything that isn't necessary for survival. Art is creating entertainment, either for yourself or others.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I don't think you're thinking too hard. I do think you're making arbitrary distinctions between different art forms. I think that a game designer could be considered an artist because game design is an art. You can't just throw pixels and HDR lighting at a screen, stuff a CD in a box, and call it a day. Well, you can, look at the me-too development studios that flooded the Atari, but those games aren't going to be well regarded. Those games wind up in landfills in Odessa.

What distinctions?

I'm asking why they do what they do could be considered art. Or what anybody does could be art.

Play a bad video game. Not just a game with a bad story, or crappy controls, but a game with crappy level design. Play a BAD game on the NES. Then play Super Mario Bros 3. There is art in level design. You're not only making a world for someone to go through, you're creating a progression. It's like music. Peaks, valleys, rising tension, breaks, you can't just throw everything at the page and hope it works out. To make a good game, you have to know what you're doing. You have to have a creativity that can only be called artistic.

Maybe I'm romanticizing game design a bit - but I think there's something to what I'm saying.

Architecture's an art. Writing is an art. Cinema is an art. Why not "games"?

I'm not saying you don't have a point because, for the most part, I agree with you. But my question is why is that art. Why Architecture an art and not just fun to look at. Why is writing an art and not just fun or engrossing to read. Why is cinema art and not just fun or engrossing to watch. Why are games art and not just fun to watch or play?

Why is painting art? Why is music art? Why is photography art? Why is theater art?

The human urge to show and create.

You don't get to distinguish between which mediums are art and which aren't. They're all different facets of the same thing.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Entertainment is anything that isn't necessary for survival. Art is creating entertainment, either for yourself or others.

This is the smartest thing I have read so far. Well done, sir.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

I don't think you're thinking too hard. I do think you're making arbitrary distinctions between different art forms. I think that a game designer could be considered an artist because game design is an art. You can't just throw pixels and HDR lighting at a screen, stuff a CD in a box, and call it a day. Well, you can, look at the me-too development studios that flooded the Atari, but those games aren't going to be well regarded. Those games wind up in landfills in Odessa.

What distinctions?

I'm asking why they do what they do could be considered art. Or what anybody does could be art.

Play a bad video game. Not just a game with a bad story, or crappy controls, but a game with crappy level design. Play a BAD game on the NES. Then play Super Mario Bros 3. There is art in level design. You're not only making a world for someone to go through, you're creating a progression. It's like music. Peaks, valleys, rising tension, breaks, you can't just throw everything at the page and hope it works out. To make a good game, you have to know what you're doing. You have to have a creativity that can only be called artistic.

Maybe I'm romanticizing game design a bit - but I think there's something to what I'm saying.

Architecture's an art. Writing is an art. Cinema is an art. Why not "games"?

I'm not saying you don't have a point because, for the most part, I agree with you. But my question is why is that art. Why Architecture an art and not just fun to look at. Why is writing an art and not just fun or engrossing to read. Why is cinema art and not just fun or engrossing to watch. Why are games art and not just fun to watch or play?

Why is painting art? Why is photography art? Why is theater art?

The human urge to show and create.

You don't get to distinguish between which mediums are art and which aren't. They're all different facets of the same thing.

Would you consider something by Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll art? Is a bowl of poutine considered art? Is a five year-old scrawlings considered art?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Also, just because theater were competing against things like bear-baiting and dog fights doesn't mean it was only a form of entertainment by my definition. Sure, people watched them to get away from their troubles and lives, but the same could be said for your example of Super Mario Bros 3 today. If you watch the levels, the way it flows, it's art. However, if you have a bad day and want to relieve some stress, well those Goombas have nice squishy heads. Same for the plays. I could watch a play for the fact that it is a diversion and nothing more. That's not hard. I could also watch one and try and feel what it's conveying; the emotions put forth by the writer and the actors as people.

And 16th century kings could have, in their private collections, masturbated to what are now museum pieces. What's your point? (Not making this up.)

The way we view things is different depending on the context of the time. Before people had TV, the theater was entertainment. Before they had the internet, or photography, pictures were the porn of the elite.