What is your definition of art?/why do you consider video games and movies art?

[BlackWidower]

Art is anything that requires creativity to produce,

Does that make mechanical inventions such as a car or a toaster art? It was certainly creative to come up with those.

I think your confusing the words "design" and "art".

The device in and of itself, no. The toaster and car are basically tools, and inventions used for a specific purpose and developed and designed through a logical process of scientific development, and trial and error. Sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view. But most often then not, no.

A toaster can be beautifully designed, but beautiful design falls short of the definition of art.

However i do agree that a toaster can be used or built for art.

But being creative can often involve being a good inventor or good designer. Design and Art are close, but still seperate.

The question was, what my definition of art is, and I still think all that qualifies as art. Some cars can qualify as art, the exception there being if its design is purely inspired by the laws of physics, and nothing else.

 

[BlackWidower]

Art is anything that requires creativity to produce,

Does that make mechanical inventions such as a car or a toaster art? It was certainly creative to come up with those.

I think your confusing the words "design" and "art".

The device in and of itself, no. The toaster and car are basically tools, and inventions used for a specific purpose and developed and designed through a logical process of scientific development, and trial and error. Sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view. But most often then not, no.

I beg to differ. Sure your bargain bin commuter hatch or one-out-of-500,000 pickup truck isn't art, it'd be silly to say otherwise. But I dare you to, with a straight face, look at a Lancia Stratos, Ferrari Daytona, Jag E-type or Lamborghini Miura and tell me they aren't art. They were designed as much to be pleasing to the senses as anything else, perhaps even over everything else, which is generally what art is all about...and at least for me they're genuinely pleasing to look at and watch, much unlike those silly napkin doodles in art galleries.

...what? So you say you "beg to differ" and then explain why you agree with me? I'm so confused.

Unless...oh! Okay, when I said, "sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view," you can replace 'toaster' with 'car,' or 'motorcycle' or 'dune buggy' or 'dildo' and it still applies!

 

[jimahaff]

Thank you all, you have broadened my horizons, and given me plenty of food for thought for the next few days. I'll keep tabs on this thread until it sinks into the quagmire of obscurity that is the forum archive.

 

[Grottnikk]

My own definition would be, "creative self expression". With that in mind, some games are art, some probably not. Whether or not the game in total is art, most games *contain* art of one form or another - the story (if there is one), the models/skins/etc that give life to the characters.

 

[Filiecs]

Something which envokes some emotional reponse and/or give some insight into the human condition.

This, in addition to whether or not the creator intended it to be art.
I'd even count art "in bad taste" as still art.

 

[Gloomsta]

Art is anything that requires creativity to produce,

Does that make mechanical inventions such as a car or a toaster art? It was certainly creative to come up with those.

I think your confusing the words "design" and "art".

The device in and of itself, no. The toaster and car are basically tools, and inventions used for a specific purpose and developed and designed through a logical process of scientific development, and trial and error. Sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view. But most often then not, no.

A toaster can be beautifully designed, but beautiful design falls short of the definition of art.

However i do agree that a toaster can be used or built for art.

But being creative can often involve being a good inventor or good designer. Design and Art are close, but still seperate.

The question was, what my definition of art is, and I still think all that qualifies as art. Some cars can qualify as art, the exception there being if its design is purely inspired by the laws of physics, and nothing else.

Yes but what you talk about is design and not art.

Good design doesnt have a message to qualify as art.

 

[juniorlee]

To me art is like a blank canvas which allows you to express your creativity, imagination, ideas, moods and thoughts. I would relate that more towards movie rather than video games.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

I dont think you "get" Andy Warhol

Oh i get Warhol, but who couldn't "get" an artist with the depth of a dessert spoon.

Simply put the man was a putz and a charlatan, out for a quick buck with little regard for the high station to which he was a shadowy imposter.

The man is the quintisential art snob who with flatfooted drudgery trod the same ground better artists than he had long before. The forebares of which I speak are namely Duchamp and and Picasso who did decades earlier Warhol crudely imitated and with the eloquence of Poesy.

Warhol is the reason hamfisted trulls like Jeoff Kooms manage to thrive in the modern art world.

Throwing down the waxwork shield of opinions and subjectivity i believe anyone who cares about art should find this readily apparent.

EDit And AlSo; (Picasso and Duchamp did their work from poverty not lavish LA luxury in their "factory" like warhol)

 

[MOXron]

So I created my own definition of art; Art is any self expression of emotion through media. To me art is for the benefit of the artist, and if anyone else gets something out of it that's great. If it means something to to person who made it, congratulations it's art.

I think you may be partially correct in saying that. Although for me, art can be explained using the simple term "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" From what I've seen in this thread, it's what almost everyone has been trying to say, compacted down to a simple sentence...

 

[shadow_Fox81]

People seem to give a massive shit about what art is, and how their favorite pastime counts as art.

Why? Why do people care about this?

Is it because we want to be taken seriously? That sounds childish, to be honest.

so caring about something is childish.

oh well great man once said all children are born artists, the problem is to remain an artist as we grow up.

I'd rather be childish

 

[Gloomsta]

Oh i get Warhol, but who couldn't "get" an artist with the depth of a dessert spoon.

Simply put the man was a putz and a charlatan, out for a quick buck with little regard for the high station to which he was a shadowy imposter.

So you used a bunch of fancy words to say he is crap without any facts to back it.

The man is the quintisential art snob who with flatfooted drudgery trod the same ground better artists than he had long before. The forebares of which I speak are namely Duchamp and and Picasso who did decades earlier Warhol crudely imitated and with the eloquence of Poesy.

What Warhol was doing was rather against the art snobbery around the time.

Warhol is the reason hamfisted trulls like Jeoff Kooms manage to thrive in the modern art world.

Shall i hate on Metallica for inspiring Nickelback? Or Black Sabbath for Inspiring Metallica?

Throwing down the waxwork shield of opinions and subjectivity i believe anyone who cares about art should find this readily apparent.

Why?

EDit And AlSo; (Picasso and Duchamp did their work from poverty not lavish LA luxury in their "factory" like warhol)

So your saying Andy Warhol should have been self rightous and submitted himself to poverty? Why?

 

[Gloomsta]

So I created my own definition of art; Art is any self expression of emotion through media. To me art is for the benefit of the artist, and if anyone else gets something out of it that's great. If it means something to to person who made it, congratulations it's art.

I think you may be partially correct in saying that. Although for me, art can be explained using the simple term "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" From what I've seen in this thread, it's what almost everyone has been trying to say, compacted down to a simple sentence...

Art and Beauty are not synonymous.

 

[BlackWidower]

Art is anything that requires creativity to produce,

Does that make mechanical inventions such as a car or a toaster art? It was certainly creative to come up with those.

I think your confusing the words "design" and "art".

The device in and of itself, no. The toaster and car are basically tools, and inventions used for a specific purpose and developed and designed through a logical process of scientific development, and trial and error. Sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view. But most often then not, no.

A toaster can be beautifully designed, but beautiful design falls short of the definition of art.

However i do agree that a toaster can be used or built for art.

But being creative can often involve being a good inventor or good designer. Design and Art are close, but still seperate.

The question was, what my definition of art is, and I still think all that qualifies as art. Some cars can qualify as art, the exception there being if its design is purely inspired by the laws of physics, and nothing else.

Yes but what you talk about is design and not art.

Good design doesnt have a message to qualify as art.

Well, when you look at it: much modern art doesn't have a message either.

 

[Gloomsta]

Art is anything that requires creativity to produce,

Does that make mechanical inventions such as a car or a toaster art? It was certainly creative to come up with those.

I think your confusing the words "design" and "art".

The device in and of itself, no. The toaster and car are basically tools, and inventions used for a specific purpose and developed and designed through a logical process of scientific development, and trial and error. Sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view. But most often then not, no.

A toaster can be beautifully designed, but beautiful design falls short of the definition of art.

However i do agree that a toaster can be used or built for art.

But being creative can often involve being a good inventor or good designer. Design and Art are close, but still seperate.

The question was, what my definition of art is, and I still think all that qualifies as art. Some cars can qualify as art, the exception there being if its design is purely inspired by the laws of physics, and nothing else.

Yes but what you talk about is design and not art.

Good design doesnt have a message to qualify as art.

Well, when you look at it: much modern art doesn't have a message either.

Thing is that unless there is a special toaster designed for an art purpose, their all made to look good and fit in the home. Thats good design.

Wether you like Modern Art or not, the artists that make modern had a message in mind(i hope they did), even the contempory artists. Im not a big fan of contempory, but i guess its still art.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

So you used a bunch of fancy words to say he is crap without any facts to back it.

fine, I'll be rudimentary in my acount for you.(i get some what impassioned over this issue)

the guy obviously didn't care about art; he approachs his work like a production line with a detatched disregard many of his contempories who were putting their heart and souls into work they were crucified for (especially those in russia).

That's not oppinion for you thats fact though i don't know why you need it all you need to do is look a The Fountain by Duchamp to see Warhol was imitating dada through pop art and in a garish throw up of exadgerated colours.(personally i prefer picasso but he's not as relevant as duchamp)

the problem with warhol is better artists have died in the gutter while `he lived in dionysian indulgence, thats why i condemn his wealth its undeserved.

Andy Warhol did not care about art, its easily apparent in the process by which his works were created I'd be straining my memory here but i seem to recall him having workers making his art in his studio he called the Factory.

(and he didn't just inlfuence Kooms, Kooms is almost a carbon copy of Warhol who thinks hes gods gift to art for it and hes not the only one. Warhols the reason blatant plagerism can be passed off as art because he didn't care for the effort others put into real art)

Warhol is also one dimensional their is no real variety in them or style in his work but that makes it clearer warhol was making art a product, he was about quantity over quality.

His work was made to sell not to make a real social statement and that is shallow especially when your pretending to be so deep. And if it was to make a social statement well things mean shit all when you say it as many times as he did.

(see how long that takes without fancy words and i still left stuff out i suggest next time get cosy with a dictionary and work it out).

 

[The Funslinger]

So I created my own definition of art; Art is any self expression of emotion through media.

Every work of fiction, every crossover, incest/wincest/freakcest, Harry Potter meets Naruto fits this description.

Yeah... when you think of it that way, "art" is getting to be like if someone converted the Batcave into a really chavvy club.

Ah well.

 

[The Funslinger]

So you used a bunch of fancy words to say he is crap without any facts to back it.

fine, I'll be rudimentary in my acount for you.(i get some what impassioned over this issue)

the guy obviously didn't care about art; he approachs his work like a production line with a detatched disregard many of his contempories who were putting their heart and souls into work they were crucified for (especially those in russia).

That's not oppinion for you thats fact though i don't know why you need it all you need to do is look a The Fountain by Duchamp to see Warhol was imitating dada through pop art and in a garish throw up of exadgerated colours.

the problem with warhol is better artists have died in the gutter while `he lived in dionysian indulgence, thats why i condemn his wealth its undeserved.

Andy Warhol did not care about art, its easily apparent in the process by which his works were created.

(and he didn't just inlfuence Kooms, Kooms is almost a carbon copy of Warhol who thinks hes gods gift to art for it and hes not the only one. Warhols the reason blatant plagerism can be passed off as art because he didn't care for the effort others put into real art)

Gloomsta, I had this argument with ShadowFox a while back. I still hold my view that even a simple form of aesthetic constitutes some form of art, though it's not necessarily what you may call "high art". That said, having had this argument for something like three days(?) I'm not really up for opening this can o'worms again.

Edit: I suppose "debate" might be the more accurate term. It was quite civilized until that one troll told us to shut the fuck up (clearly the height of 21st century wit).

Edit2: That said, I don't like Warhol or most kinds of pop art either.

 

[MOXron]

So I created my own definition of art; Art is any self expression of emotion through media. To me art is for the benefit of the artist, and if anyone else gets something out of it that's great. If it means something to to person who made it, congratulations it's art.

I think you may be partially correct in saying that. Although for me, art can be explained using the simple term "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" From what I've seen in this thread, it's what almost everyone has been trying to say, compacted down to a simple sentence...

Art and Beauty are not synonymous.

That maybe so. But nonetheless, art must be beautiful. Otherwise anything is art. If you find it beautiful; it is art. If someone else finds it beautiful, it is art. I may not be right in what i'm saying, but hey, it's my opinion, and that's how it is...

 

[Xanadu84]

Art is stuff humans do that doesn't have a practical purpose. It's pretty damn broad. People argue more about what makes good art, which is FAR more subjective.

Personally, I think we should just stop the debate, consider anything that wants to be art art, and then debate over whether or not it is high art, where we ascribe all those lofty definitions.