kingthrall said:
ragsnstitches said:
What's your background in art? Heck, what's your experience? Did you read about it in a book? At the very least I would guess you never heard of interactive art... you know, that art form that makes the interpreter a part of the piece via interaction... sort of like what games do. That sort of completely shits on your theory and blows your reasoning to pieces.
LOL. Interactive art still does not reward you with treasure as my previous point stated as well as the options to choose your outcome with set conditions. you might as well say life is art you imbecile since it is constantly interactive. Yet interactive art is still under the perception and interpretation of the user with no perimeters.
Oh and games may look like art, and have the same characteristics but they are still .different
Okay, I'll bite. This post tells me 2 things, 1: You have limited comprehension of what games can be and 2: You have limited comprehension of what Art can be.
Where do I start? For such a short piece of text you make one mess of a point. I'll just quote each component and point out the fallacies you stuffed into them.
*"Interactive art does not reward you with treasure"...
Okay, so how does Dear Esther fit into this? Or are you going to redefine what Dear Esther is (for your own convenience of course)? Also, despite what you say, there is reward added to interactive art (and art in general)... though it isn't a shiny trinket or some levelled gear, there is in fact a pay off to partaking in interactive art. That pay off is understanding the piece, which is impossible without partaking (or at the least observing someone partake, though that doesn't always work). The concept is the same as reading a book. You don't read just because, you read to discover more of the story. That is the reward.
*"Interactive art is still under the perception and interpretation of the user with no perimeters"
Eh? This begs the question again, have you ever experienced art? Not all art is outrageous and undefined, neither is art specifically subjective. Fine art is usually very literal and is intended to give specific feelings... it can be completely and deliberately defined in a way that limits the level of interpretation on the piece. Look at all the portraits painted by great artists of the past, or even contemporary amateurs, ignoring the particulars of artistic movements. Look at a few of these random google image searches:
Despite your own logic, these images are actually fairly narrow in potential for interpretation... it's not to say there isn't room for some interpretation, but it's a far cry from having "no perimeters". Put another way, you won't be contemplating the meaning of life from the guy singing to a mic, and you'd be hard pressed to see anything beyond the literal in the picture of the baby. (Also, try NOT to look at that guys eyebrows).
*"(Interactive art does not allow you) the options to choose your outcome with set conditions"
Sigh... really? Okay, first off, can we agree that art CAN allow for multiple interpretations (also known as an outcome when appreciating art). Though it isn't spontaneous and concious choice that makes you take a specific meaning from an image, it is still choice... the features of the image your brain focused on first is a subconscious choice. The degree in which you filter the information from the image is also choice, though again, subconscious. As for set conditions? Ever here of themes? Yeah, a theme can be used as a form of "condition" within an image which is used to focus a point. It is fixed and unshakable, if that is what the artist intends.
I will grant you that currently I have not played a game that has allowed for an unguided experience, but rather we get some sort of multiple choice quiz in some form or other (usually hidden under dialogue or quest triggers). But as I have established above, art too can be forward and literal... not obscure and subjective.
Whether or not any game from this generation can be considered art is still debatable, but what's to say games can't BE art? There are plenty of students in art courses trying to make something unique and unseen in the art world, via games... and I don't mean the industry, but rather the medium.
I don't get the hypocrisy people use when denying the plausibility of games as art. Especially yours. You say art is undefined (quote: "with no perimeter"), but then claim that games can't be art because art is defined as such? That's ass backwards logic. I'm aware you BELIEVE art is as you describe, but it's also more then that... if not undefinable.
And finally:
*"you might as well say life is art you imbecile since it is constantly interactive"
Well, I won't say that it's art because it's interactive... I'd say it's art because it's "under the perception and interpretation of the user with no perimeters". Considering science as we know it is still an incomplete source of understanding, I'd say Life is virtually without perimeters and it's definitely open to interpretation.
It's so delicious to use your own logic against you.