Artist or Creator?

[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.

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

I'm sorry, but this is where I quit. I really don't know how to explain it.

 

[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?

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.

Do you think that's always the way it's been, or is this something you thought up yourself? Because that sounds like a wacky precedent for language in general.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

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.

Determined, then. fair enough. And sadly, that argument draws to a close.

 

[Motti]

When games stop being about entertainment and start being about conveying an emotion of some sort, then they become art. I'm still not sure whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing.

 

[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?

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.

\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.[/quote]

The War Museum in Ottawa was built specifically to resemble a military bunker. Form before function.

 

[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?

I'm sorry, but this is where I quit. I really don't know how to explain it.

So you also just feel art, no specific category?

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

"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.

Who's people? Which people? Who's full of shit and who isn't?

 

[Knonsense]

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

I suppose that the main argument you could make here is how deliberate the arrangement of elements is. This, of course, varies. A lot. Ranging from super-linear FMV point & click adventure games to randomly generated Diablo. Most games, however, have their elements pre-placed in the work.

Another issue is the sorts of emotions that the games invoke in the players.

Given how many mediums fall under the category of art, it would be difficult to argue that video games have no potential to be art. Some games are produced for the sole purpose of being art. These are aptly named art games.

*snip*

I think your definition of art is a bit too narrow. I don't think we were talking exclusively about static visual arts, like paintings, drawings, sculptures, holography, photography, etc. Literature, films, music, theater, etc. also fit here. Hell, I'm probably going to end up taking an art class on robotics for my minor.

You also claim that there are artistic elements, but that the game itself is not art. However, are not paintings arrangements of colors and values, shapes and textures? In well made games, visual, audible, and interactive elements are carefully and aesthetically paced and placed.

If you are referring to a specific post that narrows this down, please quote it for our information, so I don't end up typing up an irrelevant rant. I noticed you used the word "fine art" where I thought we were talking about the arts in general.

 

[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.

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

I'm sorry, but this is where I quit. I really don't know how to explain it.

So you also just feel art, no specific category?

In some ways, yes.

As I've said, art is hard to describe. "Art" is as general a term as is "intelligence".

 

[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?

I'm sorry, but this is where I quit. I really don't know how to explain it.

So you also just feel art, no specific category?

In some ways, yes.

As I've said, art is hard to describe. "Art" is as general a term as is "intelligence".

Hm. good call.

 

[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.

Who's people? Which people? Who's full of shit and who isn't?

Not at all, by "people" I was merely referring to those who view the "art" in question: If they view it as art then it is art to them, others may have varying opinions but to them it is art.

And in the way I view it no one is "full of shit" as long as they have some reasoning behind their rationalization. It may be flawed and with many faults but it is their opinion and it is their right to express it.

It's all a matter of opinion in the end.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

*snip*

Eh, to me saying the art assets in a game are the *real* art is like saying the backdrop in a play is the real art. Sure, you might be right that it's art, but you'd be missing the point. I don't see why a game can't be art. Just because it's not an illustration doesn't invalidate it as an art form, because you still have music, stories and all manner of performance. No reason why a game as a whole can't be considered art.

"Concept art" is just another term for mockup sketches.

You know what? This whole conversation's turned into a semantic argument.

 

[sumanoskae]

I believe any and all things we create are art, but my personal definition is a creation that we give our hearts and soul to, any piece of gaming, cinema, theatre or literature in which the artist in question allows the creation to come from within. I also consider media that has an emotional effect on me art

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

So although your idea is cute gaming is going to have to get abit more history behind itself to be considered an artform and not just a mass produced product to stimulate the masses that is made so some corporate body can become fat and wealthy.

That's like saying all cinema is Hollywood. First, I disagree with the distinction between a mass audience and art, second, there's more to video games than Wii Fit and Halo. I don't like how you assume your opinion is more valid than mine because you're trained as an illustrator. I'm in a Communications Studies program - I'm studying this "shit" too. And I don't really care if your professors would hypothetically scoff at my ideas without providing a reason.


If you don't think something mass produced for the wealthy to to make us all fat can be considered art (because books, paintings, and quality theater encourage a healthy lifestyle and were always available to the poor) check out TIGsource. [http://www.tigsource.com/] Independent games, many of them created for free.

Please don't talk down to me. Demeaning other people rarely leads to a pleasant discussion.

 

[Ancientgamer]

The War Museum in Ottawa was built specifically to resemble a military bunker. Form before function.

It still has to stand and function as efficient housing for everything inside. As well as lights, water, ect.

Function before form. It's made to be ascetically pleasing, but that's not it's purpose.

For a building to become art, the definition would switch to sculpture. Because a building by definition is made to serve a practical purpose.

 

[Hitman 43]

Is there a difference?

Yes.

 

[RollForInitiative]

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.

To which I must point out that game designers aren't the ones slinging the pixels anyways. We have artists to do that. If anything, game design is a science that draws all of its fundamental laws from psychology.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

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.

To which I must point out that game designers aren't the ones slinging the pixels anyways. We have artists to do that. If anything, game design is a science that draws all of its fundamental laws from psychology.

Okay, number one, the game designer is like the director. The director is the auteur of the film, the video game designer is the auteur of a video game. The person in a movie blowing shit up isn't the artist, he's the special effects guy. The people in charge of the tech behind the HDR lighting are special effects guys. Character designs? Makeup and costume.

You might as well say movie directing is a science or psychology. You might as well say that about a writer. You could say the same thing about a composer. I'd say you're wrong in making that distinction away from artist.

 

[RollForInitiative]

Okay, number one, the game designer is like the director. The director is the auteur of the film, the video game designer is the auteur of a video game. The person in a movie blowing shit up isn't the artist, he's the special effects guy. The people in charge of the tech behind the HDR lighting are special effects guys. Character designs? Makeup and costume.

You might as well say movie directing is a science or psychology. You might as well say that about a writer. You could say the same thing about a composer. I'd say you're wrong in making that distinction away from artist.

Sorry, but game design is what I do for a living and I'd never equate it to being a director -- not on a large team, at least. It's a flattering analogy, but half of us deal in abstracts and psychology while the other half deal in mathematical formulas and spreadsheets. The "director" is the project's collective leads and often the producer.

On a small team, I'd happily concede to the designer taking the equivalent role of the director.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

So although your idea is cute gaming is going to have to get abit more history behind itself to be considered an artform and not just a mass produced product to stimulate the masses that is made so some corporate body can become fat and wealthy.

That's like saying all cinema is Hollywood. First, I disagree with the distinction between a mass audience and art, second, there's more to video games than Wii Fit and Halo. I don't like how you assume your opinion is more valid than mine because you're trained as an illustrator. I'm in a Communications Studies program - I'm studying this "shit" too. And I don't really care if your professors would hypothetically scoff at my ideas without providing a reason.


If you don't think something mass produced for the wealthy to to make us all fat can be considered art (because books, paintings, and quality theater encourage a healthy lifestyle and were always available to the poor) check out TIGsource. [http://www.tigsource.com/] Independent games, many of them created for free.

Please don't talk down to me. Demeaning other people rarely leads to a pleasant discussion.

LOL kk and saying you would put a mario brothers lcd screen next to a rembrandt is not demeaning to A visual artist at all??. ONe of the most respected genius's of the art world and put a computer game next to it. Ok mate you better open your eyes on who's demeaning who. You saying a rembrandt having an equal value to nes console game just shows your lack of understanding or even to WANT to understand the essence of why a rembrandt is so important or why its so special. To any artist that statement you made is a slap in the face and DEMEANING.
I said a game is produced to make a corporate body fat with riches (not the person) AKA nintendo sega EA they couldnt giv a flying fck what is put in a game as long as it SELLS. thats not art thats just smart business go with what the public wants and feed them to get the revenue. Just because a few games called artsy doesnt make the whole medium an artform.

Nintendo and EA are primarily publishers. You're ignoring Spielberg and focusing on Warner Bros Studios. Am I the one who's demeaning, putting video games beside "art" or are you the one who's demeaning by refusing it? Just because a few games aren't artistic doesn't mean a game can't be. I'd argue that Super Mario Bros 3, as a whole, is a work of art. You can disagree with me, but provide reasons. Don't presume you're right.

I could draw a lot of parallels between video games and studio era Hollywood. You know what happened when American audiences were shrugging off films as commercial wastes of time? In France, in the Cahiers du Cinema, they were studying Hollywood movies. They treated cinema as an art form. They were studying the mass produced films, the stuff RKO and Warner Bros got "rich and fat" from, as art.

So, no. I full heartedly disagree with you.