Games and Bugs Come Together as... Art?
- Thread starter Scott Bullock
- Start date
our avatars are art !Onyx Oblivion said:
but i believe what this guy made are either some readymades like Marcel Duchamp, or they have some appeal/impact on the viewer of the exposition.
i say art is getting stupider these years... there's not much of the visual effort of the artist...
To an extent, I can actually understand how this could work. Only to an extent, though. It would be a bit much to call it all art just 'cause it's a picture of a buggy game, but I could see some interesting pictures and even symbolism coming from it. Just not all of it.
I really like that picture, because yes, it is just a game glitch, but I like that there's a road in the middle of nowhere and its not how things are meant to look and all that jazz. I think its nice 
Your forum post doesn't make me question reality like the pic shown (in a Matrix-y way)Onyx Oblivion said:
Therefore, its not art.
Well ... if you are a believer that games are art, that you must also believe that a 'bug' (whilst undesireable) is merely an extension the art that you are enjoying, right?
So I guess a 'bug' (if you so happen to belong to Gs'R'a argument) should be less of a glitch, and more an artistic flourish, or a painter's using the wrong shade ... but ultimately alloweing it to be less of a flaw and more of a individual 'touch' and anomalous extension of colour, shape, texture and form ;P
Of course most times it's just annoying so what are you going to do? XD
So I guess a 'bug' (if you so happen to belong to Gs'R'a argument) should be less of a glitch, and more an artistic flourish, or a painter's using the wrong shade ... but ultimately alloweing it to be less of a flaw and more of a individual 'touch' and anomalous extension of colour, shape, texture and form ;P
Of course most times it's just annoying so what are you going to do? XD
Untrue. Art is art because it is made by an artist, an artist is not an artist because he makes art. Fact. Otherwise it's "just" pretty. A rose might be able to affect you much more than Mona Lisa ever will, but the rose is not designed to be art, therefore it is not. The Mona Lisa was crafted with a purpose. There's a meaning behind, and most importanly - It's created by a humanbeing. If you take a picture of it however, the photograph is art if you as the photographer wants it to be art. Art is not indefinite. It's a very VERY broad term, but not indefinite. Dear people who think they know about art, art is NOT defined at the reception as many think, it is defined at the creation. Now, I know itøs a lot to handle for all you romantics out there, and I'd love to hear your poetic bullcrap about how I am soulless and doesn't understand art, but trust me I know what I am talking about. As a semi-professional musician and art nut.Redingold said:
Bring the shitstorm.
Some find bugs annoying. Some, art. Me, I find them hilarious. Well, as long as they're different. Walking through a wall is nothing special to me. But something that makes charactors act funny, like "Red Dead Redemption"'s bird people, I find hilarious.
While I usually can't appreciate art so abstract, when we're at the point we are in art where the very basic tenets of what is art is being deconstructed, this kind of stuff is art. A very, very weird form of art; but if it does something for someone somewhere, then its art.
I understand, but he didn't really push boundaries at all. I would have more enjoyment packed into 5 minutes of watching the Rooster Teeth team uncover a glitch, then I would altogether in the hour I would use to go to one of his exhibitions. It's not a new light, he's just milking something that's already been done. In my honest opinion.Sporky111 said:
This certain picture has some bit of artistry in it. It's really as written, a facade. Both in-game and as a representation in this pic. Although I've managed to get pics just like this during my early mapping days when I didn't properly fence off things while testing.