Artist or Creator?

[BlackIronGuardian]

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?

My point (Which I admit I may have missed in the way I tried to convey it) is that theater isn't considered art to me because it's dead and stuffy; it wasn't only entertainment back then because it had to compete with entertainment. it exists as both depending on how the person chooses to interpret it.

But this could apply to just about anything.

As could art. And beauty. And most anything that isn't a material in and of itself.

Sorry, sir, you're going to have to clear that one up. I like this discussion, but that went over my head.

Art, beauty, genius are examples of things that aren't in themselves material. You can't touch them. They are represented in other objects, and those objects are given those things as titles. But the things (art, beauty, genius) themselves could be applied to anything. What you find jaw-dropping gorgeous could garner nothing more than a passing glance from me. The thing which keeps me up at night in cold sweats could be something you laugh at.

Brilliant. Okay, so if that's the case, how do you, or better yet can you, term anything by those abstract ideas and why would you bother if it's so completely subjective?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Still, I don't believe that there is any reason why the medium chosen for a work of art should have any impact on whether it is, or is not, art.

That's a belief you can take to the grave sir, though it has nothing to do with this argument. And while I personally don't disagree with you, I wouldn't mind knowing what you would argue to those who would.

Rephrase: There is no reason why the medium chosen for a work of art should have any impact on whether it is, or is not, art.

Peachy?

1) ''There is no reason a video game can't be art because it is a video game''. Understood. The first time. Don't know why you bring it up. Nothing to do with this argument.

2) What would you say to someone who, unlike me, disagrees with you?

3) What makes art art? Regardless of medium, which, I will rephrase, has nothing to do with this.

4) Peachy?

1) Ah, I thought this topic was "are video games art?" Well, this changes things.

2) I'd bring up all the diverse things that are art, such as painting, theater, cinema, music, architecture, writing and I'd ask why something outside these medium wouldn't be considered art. Then I'd bring up examples within the mediums of painting, cinema, theater, music that don't have the same perceived artistic value as the zenith of the medium.

3) I'm pretty sure the greatest philosophers would disagree. Do you really expect me to have an answer that we can agree on? The best I can come up with is a human urge to create, and that, on it's own, isn't a satisfactory answer.

4) You said "you can take that belief to the grave" because I used the word believe. I removed that word you objected to and reposted the statement. "Peachy?" is a phrase (or word) that means "is everything okay now?" I was (failing at) being funny.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

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.

Yet when you look at a smattering of colours on a canvas, you obviously seethe with disapproval. Emotion, no?

Yeah, I'm going to make a judgement call here and say that's too much of an abstraction. Anyone agree?

How? Unless this gentleman regularly goes about raging at shit he doesn't like, which I highly doubt he does being no doubt an exemplary citizen, something that he holds obvious disdain for would be one that would ''force emotions from your body that you wouldn't otherwise dare release.''

Unless the intention of the work of art was to create frustration, I'd hesitate to call that art. That'd be the artistic equivalent to constantly talking gibberish to piss someone off.

If I punch someone in the face, I'm sure to get an "emotional response," but is that art? Nonverbal communication, perhaps.

But a punch in the face was created with the purpose of pissing off and/or hurting the other person to a varying degree, so, yes by that call it could be considered art. But by his definition a complex creation is art because of it's ability to instill a strong emotion, but something that's very ''bad'' (subject pending, of course) can also elicit a strong emotion just as easily as something ''good'' can, regardless of purpose.

I think you're defining a segment of communication instead of art. All art is communication, but is all communication art?

"Hey Dave, how was your sandwich?"
"Oh, it's good. I guess."

If you say "yes it is" then you should be applauded for having a definition of art that is more liberal than mine.

 

[z121231211]

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

Why?

A better example (IMO) would be ICO, playing to the end made me feel something. Though I'm not sure how to describe it, I believe that is what art is.

I know it's not the best explanation, but just play it. You'll see what I mean, though you might not.

 

[Calobi]

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?

My point (Which I admit I may have missed in the way I tried to convey it) is that theater isn't considered art to me because it's dead and stuffy; it wasn't only entertainment back then because it had to compete with entertainment. it exists as both depending on how the person chooses to interpret it.

But this could apply to just about anything.

As could art. And beauty. And most anything that isn't a material in and of itself.

Sorry, sir, you're going to have to clear that one up. I like this discussion, but that went over my head.

Art, beauty, genius are examples of things that aren't in themselves material. You can't touch them. They are represented in other objects, and those objects are given those things as titles. But the things (art, beauty, genius) themselves could be applied to anything. What you find jaw-dropping gorgeous could garner nothing more than a passing glance from me. The thing which keeps me up at night in cold sweats could be something you laugh at.

Brilliant. Okay, so if that's the case, how do you, or better yet can you, term anything by those abstract ideas and why would you bother if it's so completely subjective?

Calling something by one of those terms is easy. Because they are just words all you do is use them.

The real question is why would you. Like I've said and you've chosen to agree with me on (at least as far as this thread is concerned), they have no real common meaning. The reason to use them, then, isn't to convey some universal truth. We use the words to get across a personal truth. While the objects being praised or reviled are different for everyone, the words keep their meaning. When I say that a sunset is beautiful, you know I mean I like the appearance. You can disagree completely, but you still know what I mean.

If you use the word art, rather beauty, you still know what I mean. I'm merely trying to get across that the piece of work struck a chord somewhere in me and that I feel the thing deserves to be called art. Whether you feel it does or not doesn't change the fact that I do.

I really hate how this sounds when I re-read it. I can't come up with a better way, though, so there's that.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Still, I don't believe that there is any reason why the medium chosen for a work of art should have any impact on whether it is, or is not, art.

That's a belief you can take to the grave sir, though it has nothing to do with this argument. And while I personally don't disagree with you, I wouldn't mind knowing what you would argue to those who would.

Rephrase: There is no reason why the medium chosen for a work of art should have any impact on whether it is, or is not, art.

Peachy?

1) ''There is no reason a video game can't be art because it is a video game''. Understood. The first time. Don't know why you bring it up. Nothing to do with this argument.

2) What would you say to someone who, unlike me, disagrees with you?

3) What makes art art? Regardless of medium, which, I will rephrase, has nothing to do with this.

4) Peachy?

1) Ah, I thought this topic was "are video games art?" Well, this changes things.

2) I'd bring up all the diverse things that are art, such as painting, theater, cinema, music, architecture, writing and I'd ask why something outside these medium wouldn't be considered art. Then I'd bring up examples within the mediums of painting, cinema, theater, music that don't have the same perceived artistic value as the zenith of the medium.

3) I'm pretty sure the greatest philosophers would disagree. Do you really expect me to have an answer that we can agree on? The best I can come up with is a human urge to create, and that, on it's own, isn't a satisfactory answer.

4) You said "you can take that belief to the grave" because I used the word believe. I removed that word you objected to and reposted the statement. "Peachy?" is a phrase (or word) that means "is everything okay now?" I was (failing at) being funny.

Is that really what peachy(?) means? Thought it had more to do with, well, peaches.

...

And the grave thing is just something I've always wanted to say. Either that or the bank. Funny, these little misunderstandings of ours.

Bust what would you in turn say to someone who wouldn't call video games an artistic medium not because they don't fall into the parameters of conventional art, but because they simply couldn't be artistic as they are, simply, ''games''. Creative, but no more so than a toy/doll brand.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Is that really what peachy(?) means? Thought it had more to do with, well, peaches.

...

And the grave thing is just something I've always wanted to say. Either that or the bank. Funny, these little misunderstandings of ours.

Bust what would you in turn say to someone who wouldn't call video games an artistic medium not because they don't fall into the parameters of conventional art, but because they simply couldn't be artistic as they are, simply, ''games''. Creative, but no more so than a toy/doll brand.

Again, I'd ask them what they think of movies, theater, music, and paintings. What makes a doll different than a sculpture or a painting? Surely there are toys and dolls with artistic merit.

I'd look very carefully at what they consider art and try to distinguish it from the "best" examples of video games.

 

[klakkat]

Art is the creation of something in which function follows form.

Visually, the spectrum would be:



Artist____________Designer_______________Engineer
Form_____________Compromise_____________ Function



Anything on the left side could be considered art, and the creator and artist of sorts.


It doesn't have to be good to be art. We'd do well to keep that in mind.

So anyone who makes something for no practical purpose can be considered an artist?

Yes, to some extent. Just keep in mind that to be a professional artist they must be capable of making a living with just their art. Anything else is an amateur (this is largely by definitions). Still, quality art depends on the culture surrounding it; if no one thinks of it as art, then it is not. If people think it is bad art, then that's exactly what it is.

But what would you in turn say to someone who wouldn't call video games an artistic medium not because they don't fall into the parameters of conventional art, but because they simply couldn't be artistic as they are, simply, ''games''. Creative, but no more so than a toy/doll brand.

I would say that is a bit of an ignorant point of view. Yes, most games are only superficially more sophisticated than a conventional toy. Those aren't art, you'll get no argument about that. However, there are games out there that don't just tell a story, they draw you into the story in ways books, movies, and theater can not. Often, these games make you think, they have genuine literary technique, a carefully crafted plot, relateable characters, and literary themes. The fact that they are a "game" does not diminish the fact that they are a work of literary art in their own right.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

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.

Yet when you look at a smattering of colours on a canvas, you obviously seethe with disapproval. Emotion, no?

Yeah, I'm going to make a judgement call here and say that's too much of an abstraction. Anyone agree?

How? Unless this gentleman regularly goes about raging at shit he doesn't like, which I highly doubt he does being no doubt an exemplary citizen, something that he holds obvious disdain for would be one that would ''force emotions from your body that you wouldn't otherwise dare release.''

Unless the intention of the work of art was to create frustration, I'd hesitate to call that art. That'd be the artistic equivalent to constantly talking gibberish to piss someone off.

If I punch someone in the face, I'm sure to get an "emotional response," but is that art? Nonverbal communication, perhaps.

But a punch in the face was created with the purpose of pissing off and/or hurting the other person to a varying degree, so, yes by that call it could be considered art. But by his definition a complex creation is art because of it's ability to instill a strong emotion, but something that's very ''bad'' (subject pending, of course) can also elicit a strong emotion just as easily as something ''good'' can, regardless of purpose.

I think you're defining a segment of communication instead of art. All art is communication, but is all communication art?

"Hey Dave, how was your sandwich?"
"Oh, it's good. I guess."

If you say "yes it is" then you should be applauded for having a definition of art that is more liberal than mine.

You're going to have to try a bit harder than that. The argument is: if a creative piece instills a strong emotion, one that ''forces emotions from your body that you wouldn't otherwise dare release'', it is, apparently, art. Disgust and disapproval are equal emotions to awe and wonder, even if they weren't intended to be transferred. It's a creation with the specific purpose of bringing emotion out of it's observers. Wouldn't negative emotion be just a valid as positive?

Unless, of course, you say that both sides are just segments of communication and the whole point becomes moot. No matter what emotion it brings out, it's equal to ''Oh, it's good. I guess.''

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

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

Why?

A better example (IMO) would be ICO, playing to the end made me feel something. Though I'm not sure how to describe it, I believe that is what art is.

I know it's not the best explanation, but just play it. You'll see what I mean, though you might not.

So, you just feel it, then? no way to categorize it?

 

[Ancientgamer]

Art is the creation of something in which function follows form.

Visually, the spectrum would be:



Artist____________Designer_______________Engineer
Form_____________Compromise_____________ Function



Anything on the left side could be considered art, and the creator and artist of sorts.


It doesn't have to be good to be art. We'd do well to keep that in mind.

So anyone who makes something for no practical purpose can be considered an artist?

Not just a lack of practical purpose, just in that's it's purpose is it's form. You can't say any random crap is art. It's form must be intentional and of singular importance from the very foundation of it's creation.

Beyond that, yes. Anything could be art.

 

[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.

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

I really don't know how to explain it. Your question is like asking if the Mona Lisa was just Leonardo drawing some woman's portrait.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Is that really what peachy(?) means? Thought it had more to do with, well, peaches.

...

And the grave thing is just something I've always wanted to say. Either that or the bank. Funny, these little misunderstandings of ours.

Bust what would you in turn say to someone who wouldn't call video games an artistic medium not because they don't fall into the parameters of conventional art, but because they simply couldn't be artistic as they are, simply, ''games''. Creative, but no more so than a toy/doll brand.

Again, I'd ask them what they think of movies, theater, music, and paintings. What makes a doll different than a sculpture or a painting? Surely there are toys and dolls with artistic merit.

I'd look very carefully at what they consider art and try to distinguish it from the "best" examples of video games.

Right. So you'd widen what they'd consider art. Teach them, essentially.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

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?

My point (Which I admit I may have missed in the way I tried to convey it) is that theater isn't considered art to me because it's dead and stuffy; it wasn't only entertainment back then because it had to compete with entertainment. it exists as both depending on how the person chooses to interpret it.

But this could apply to just about anything.

As could art. And beauty. And most anything that isn't a material in and of itself.

Sorry, sir, you're going to have to clear that one up. I like this discussion, but that went over my head.

Art, beauty, genius are examples of things that aren't in themselves material. You can't touch them. They are represented in other objects, and those objects are given those things as titles. But the things (art, beauty, genius) themselves could be applied to anything. What you find jaw-dropping gorgeous could garner nothing more than a passing glance from me. The thing which keeps me up at night in cold sweats could be something you laugh at.

Brilliant. Okay, so if that's the case, how do you, or better yet can you, term anything by those abstract ideas and why would you bother if it's so completely subjective?

Calling something by one of those terms is easy. Because they are just words all you do is use them.

The real question is why would you. Like I've said and you've chosen to agree with me on (at least as far as this thread is concerned), they have no real common meaning. The reason to use them, then, isn't to convey some universal truth. We use the words to get across a personal truth. While the objects being praised or reviled are different for everyone, the words keep their meaning. When I say that a sunset is beautiful, you know I mean I like the appearance. You can disagree completely, but you still know what I mean.

If you use the word art, rather beauty, you still know what I mean. I'm merely trying to get across that the piece of work struck a chord somewhere in me and that I feel the thing deserves to be called art. Whether you feel it does or not doesn't change the fact that I do.

I really hate how this sounds when I re-read it. I can't come up with a better way, though, so there's that.

No, actually that's VERY interesting. So to you, it's definition is wholly up to how you use it? It has no universal meaning?

 

[Calobi]

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?

My point (Which I admit I may have missed in the way I tried to convey it) is that theater isn't considered art to me because it's dead and stuffy; it wasn't only entertainment back then because it had to compete with entertainment. it exists as both depending on how the person chooses to interpret it.

But this could apply to just about anything.

As could art. And beauty. And most anything that isn't a material in and of itself.

Sorry, sir, you're going to have to clear that one up. I like this discussion, but that went over my head.

Art, beauty, genius are examples of things that aren't in themselves material. You can't touch them. They are represented in other objects, and those objects are given those things as titles. But the things (art, beauty, genius) themselves could be applied to anything. What you find jaw-dropping gorgeous could garner nothing more than a passing glance from me. The thing which keeps me up at night in cold sweats could be something you laugh at.

Brilliant. Okay, so if that's the case, how do you, or better yet can you, term anything by those abstract ideas and why would you bother if it's so completely subjective?

Calling something by one of those terms is easy. Because they are just words all you do is use them.

The real question is why would you. Like I've said and you've chosen to agree with me on (at least as far as this thread is concerned), they have no real common meaning. The reason to use them, then, isn't to convey some universal truth. We use the words to get across a personal truth. While the objects being praised or reviled are different for everyone, the words keep their meaning. When I say that a sunset is beautiful, you know I mean I like the appearance. You can disagree completely, but you still know what I mean.

If you use the word art, rather beauty, you still know what I mean. I'm merely trying to get across that the piece of work struck a chord somewhere in me and that I feel the thing deserves to be called art. Whether you feel it does or not doesn't change the fact that I do.

I really hate how this sounds when I re-read it. I can't come up with a better way, though, so there's that.

No, actually that's VERY interesting. So to you, it's definition is wholly up to how you use it? It has no universal meaning?

It has a definition, but where and to what that is applicable is completely up to the individual using it. The definition is something that anyone can understand, but what deserves the use of what words changes based on the person and even when they see it, since people's views change all the time and how you see things is just as important in the use of words as what you see.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Art is the creation of something in which function follows form.

Visually, the spectrum would be:



Artist____________Designer_______________Engineer
Form_____________Compromise_____________ Function



Anything on the left side could be considered art, and the creator and artist of sorts.


It doesn't have to be good to be art. We'd do well to keep that in mind.

So anyone who makes something for no practical purpose can be considered an artist?

Yes, to some extent. Just keep in mind that to be a professional artist they must be capable of making a living with just their art. Anything else is an amateur (this is largely by definitions). Still, quality art depends on the culture surrounding it; if no one thinks of it as art, then it is not. If people think it is bad art, then that's exactly what it is.

What about architects? Architecture has style, form and art in and of itself, yet my house is fucking practical, if you know what I mean. Not to mention that humanities and sciences are considered ''arts''. Ludicrously practical stuff. Martial and mixed arts. Questionably practical. All arts.

So to you the definition of art is wholly dependent on majority ruling?


[/quote]I would say that is a bit of an ignorant point of view. Yes, most games are only superficially more sophisticated than a conventional toy. Those aren't art, you'll get no argument about that. However, there are games out there that don't just tell a story, they draw you into the story in ways books, movies, and theater can not. Often, these games make you think, they have genuine literary technique, a carefully crafted plot, relateable characters, and literary themes. The fact that they are a "game" does not diminish the fact that they are a work of literary art in their own right.[/quote]

Why aren't toys and the games like them art? And by the same token why are well told stories ''art''? What makes literary genius ''art''? What makes careful plot, characters, dialogue and acting anything more than just entertainment?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Right. So you'd widen what they'd consider art. Teach them, essentially.

More like test. Who knows, maybe they'll have some amazing answer that proves me wrong.

 

[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.

I really don't know how to explain it. Your question is like asking if the Mona Lisa was just Leonardo drawing some woman's portrait.

Actually, that's exactly my question. Why isn't it just a portrait, ignoring for the moment that is, indeed, just that?

 

[TheOneFreeman]

"Art is anything you can get away with."- Andy Warhol

This basically sums up my views on art, if people see it as art, its art.

 

[Ancientgamer]

Art is the creation of something in which function follows form.

Visually, the spectrum would be:



Artist____________Designer_______________Engineer
Form_____________Compromise_____________ Function



Anything on the left side could be considered art, and the creator and artist of sorts.


It doesn't have to be good to be art. We'd do well to keep that in mind.

So anyone who makes something for no practical purpose can be considered an artist?

Yes, to some extent. Just keep in mind that to be a professional artist they must be capable of making a living with just their art. Anything else is an amateur (this is largely by definitions). Still, quality art depends on the culture surrounding it; if no one thinks of it as art, then it is not. If people think it is bad art, then that's exactly what it is.

What about architects? Architecture has style, form and art in and of itself, yet my house is fucking practical, if you know what I mean. Not to mention that humanities and sciences are considered ''arts''. Ludicrously practical stuff. Martial and mixed arts. Questionably practical. All arts.

So to you the definition of art is wholly dependent on majority ruling?

I would say that is a bit of an ignorant point of view. Yes, most games are only superficially more sophisticated than a conventional toy. Those aren't art, you'll get no argument about that. However, there are games out there that don't just tell a story, they draw you into the story in ways books, movies, and theater can not. Often, these games make you think, they have genuine literary technique, a carefully crafted plot, relateable characters, and literary themes. The fact that they are a "game" does not diminish the fact that they are a work of literary art in their own right.[/quote]

Why aren't toys and the games like them art? And by the same token why are well told stories ''art''? What makes literary genius ''art''? What makes careful plot, characters, dialogue and acting anything more than just entertainment?[/quote]
I know you haven't been to reply to my last post yet, But I just wanted to point out; For an architect, by the jobs nature form has to follow function. Thus, not and artist. Though certainly not denigrated because of it. In extreme cases one could be considered a designer.