Video games are not art

I'm taking the meaning of the original post as more "games are not a group of upperclass people staring at canvas on a wall sipping wine" and I actually like that idea; anything that disassociates gaming from a type of "expressionism" where a group of nonchalant fools are trying to sound intellectual and philosophical whilst discussing some arbitrary brush stroke or twist of metal is great in my book.

Not saying that people shouldn't enjoy a painting or whatever, but they shouldn't expect everyone else to respect a piece of "art" as something nontrivial and sophisticated when it quite clearly is not.

Besides, to be quite frank I'm not concerned whether gaming is classified as artistic. Gaming is still formerly an escapism and for some of us that requires something that we can relate to with more than a little depth and complexity. That's all I expect from a game.

 

If an artist is only pussy footing around and doesn't actually care what he's producing, it becomes incredibly obvious when you see the final result.

If you look at a painting and say "This painting has no meaning and is bad", it says more about you as the viewer than it does about the artist. The artist at least put out the effort to dribble on the page. The viewer, as part of the experience, needs to put out an effort to decide what the painting really means to them. This is part of the artistic process.

Sometimes it can be difficult to work out the answer, and you might want to give up, and that's okay. But by examining art and trying to figure out what it means to you, you learn a lot about yourself, as well.

You can't get it 'wrong', either. An artist who tells you you interpreted his work 'incorrectly' is an idiot (unless he's calling you out for trying to censor it, which is a major issue in your part of the world).

 

Writing literature is an art, but is it in itself not art. It's literature. People seem to think that everything is art when in reality it isn't. Art is escentially something that has been produced to stimulate us visually (sometimes with enhancements in form of sound), but the definition is slightly more narrow than that. If something is to be considered as art, it must have been produced in the purpose of being art. Furthermore, the viewer must agree that the object is indeed art. An example: every single houshold item we have has a design, but you wouldn't call a simple houshold item art. They're not designed to be art, and therefor they aren't. But you can, in a museum, come across a beautifully crafted mug, and all of a sudden it is art (in comparison to your mugs at home). This is my definition of art.

 

Porn is art. Sort of...

 

I don't agree with that. Poetry is poetry and movies are movies. If they aren't produced in the purpose of being art, then they aren't. A typical hollywood movie including some sort of drama is not what you would call art, but certain movies have been made in the purpose of being art (like some films by Dali), and therefore they are.

The general idea is that art can be anything, but everything isn't art.

 

I believe allowing someone to judge what art is for themselves, is a wonderful thing.

Art is to me, what art is to me.

Art is to you, what art is to you.

More discussion than this is really just one person attempting to impose their views on another.

 

I think Planescape: Torment qualifies as art.

 

He's not judging them outside of art, as I understand his intent, Gross.

Clearly, his post is sarcastic in intent. Therefore, Frigo's mocking of 'modern' art in comparison to the video game examples he provides is to show a sharp contrast between the two, which he did quite well, IMO.

This does, indeed, appear to be a quality of a piece that meets the minimum to be qualified for the definition of art. I would further classify it as a communication, or type of.

 

My definition has nothing to do with the quality of the finished product, but with the purpose of the production. If you design a chair for household use, with no intention of calling it art, then it simply isn't art. It's a designed chair, end of story. The same applies to all the other cases as well. You can always choose to disagree with the artist, though, by stating that his or her product isn't art (an example: while being at the biannual in Venice last year, I came across photoes of a man dressed in he muscles of a freshly slaughtered animal. That was all there was to it. I didn't think it was art, just sick, and so, to me, it wasn't art.)

I don't know what's not to get about this. A song can be good, a movie can be great, a piece of poetry can be overwhelming, but if the producer has not flagged his or her work as art, then it simply isn't.

 

There's quite a lot not to get about that, for example if I write a poem that meets all the formal requirements of a limerick but I call it an Ode instead, which is it?

It's fairly naive to think that you need the creators permission to label something - a label is, after all, just a label and even though some are more abstract and less formal than others they can all still be applied equally.

It's sort of like you're giving away your creation to the world, you can have your own ideas about what it is and isn't, but as soon as it goes public it will be judged and labelled, dissected, examined and as a result people will think differently of you despite their individual interpretations.

I should really break what I'm trying to say down as a direct reply to parts of your post but hopefully you're smart enough to fill in the gaps.

'Censorship' is a necessity in many cases, though the artist may not have had any bad intentions the interpretations of his work and the consequences of making it public can oft result in abuse of one form or another. I'll give one example (and this may have been what you were talking about), a couple of years ago a Brisbane artist took nude pictures of a young girl between ten and twelve in various, sometimes erotic, poses and displayed them in a gallery. Though it was confirmed he never touched the girl you cannot call all "interpretations" valid and nor can you call such a thing "art" in good conscience. If the artist finds the human body attractive, fine, but he did not need to exploit the girl in such a way; she could not have been fully aware of the ramifications of the shooting at such an age and it is undoubtedly something she'll live to regret if she's not already significantly traumatised. Even if others found it artistic and could 'relate' to the artists expressionism, the eventual damage done to the individual and the damage it'll do to others seeking that sort of imagery invalidates any excuse or reasoning the photographer might want to put to it. That's just one example but hopefully you can understand that I don't think everything can be called 'art' or 'valid' (regardless of the label) and neither is censorship a bad thing.

I don't buy into this artistic process nonsense either, If I can see or hear something and I can relate to it, I'll call it art but to say it promotes personal growth is wrong. Understanding of self comes from introspection, extrospection will teach you nothing beyond what you can see.

I'm also not willing to force an interpretation when it isn't entirely obvious, either. If I can't instantly associate an experience with the so-called artwork then it is meaningless to me and hence not art. To say and to pretend otherwise does nothing more than confuse both the artwork and my understanding of 'self' as I fumble with my memory to make a connection where there isn't one.

 

Looking at the responses, I'm starting to think art is definitely subjective. These different opinions, these different culminated realities are what we use to identify self, self being all of what one is. All selves are different, as all opinions of art are different. Upon that, all opinions of what art is are different.
If art can be anything, as Wolfsbane said (and also everything isn't art), that means there are different things people will produce artistically. If this is true, anything has the capacity to be considered art, and this allows art to be subjective.

 

Charonte: If you're not willing to put out the effort to analyze the art, the artist is not the one who failed. It's not really about creating an instant 'Holy shit' moment for the spectator, though it often does. If an artist wants to be painfully straightforward and one dimensional, he will produce a sign that has his message on it. It's not about forcing the interpretation. It's about analyzing until you find it. If you can't back up what you're seeing with evidence from the work, then yeah, you've made a weak interpretation. But if you can, even if it's not what the artist had in mind, then you're still "right". And hey, if you spend five or ten minutes analyzing something, and can't figure anything out about it at all, then move on. At least you did your half of the work and put out an effort.

Art does promote personal growth and introspection, for precisely the fact that your intepretation is your own. It's like the ink blots that psychologists use: everybody sees something different, and it says something about who they are and the experiences they've had. Good art will also cause you to reflect on your own life experiences and emotional development. It's very much an introspective thing.

You seem to be confusing the concept of censorship. Taking photographs of a naked ten year old girl is unethical because it is arguable whether or not the girl really understands what is going on. You're looking at this concept in a very narrow way, though this is indicative of the thought processes of the people who would censor things that other people (probably most of us on this forum) would think is okay: Works about homosexuality, about religion, works which question our way of life, etc. etc. often receive censorship. It can be extremely easy for those of us who going through/having finished secondary education to realize how sensitive people can be about minor things. A friend related to me recently that she went to watch a performance of the Second City Comedy Tour, and in one improv scene, the actors swore repeatedly ("Fuck fuck fuck!"), triggering many audience members to leave and come back when that particular sketch was over. During a question period afterwards, the actors asked "What was that all about", and those who left proclaimed that they had been deeply disturbed and offended. This is pretty bizarre by the way you and I think (I imagine), but the fact is that there are many, many people who are uncomfortable with new ideas and/or minor infringements on the societal norms they are used to. And some of these people will do whatever they can to combat them.

 

I partially agree with this statement. Most 'modern' and 'abstract' art probably does need interpretation. However, I find that often there is no meaning. I look at a Jackson Pollock I don't see some great work of art, I see shit on a canvas. Or this year's Art in the Park in my city (an annual, month long event, for local 'artists' displaying their 'art') I just see it as an excuse for these 'artists' to dump their trash in the park until the city cleans it up.

I've never found art to be a relfection of my inner-self, but more a reflection of the artist's inner-self. This could be why I prefer most of the works at Quent Cordair Fine Arts (especially the works of Bill Macek, Bobbie Carlyle, Sandra Shaw, Michael Wilkinson, and Bryan Larsen). I find that they reveal the artist's inner vision of the world.

 

I wasn't saying that *all* censorship was a good thing, but your last post was indicative of "no art should be sensored"; and I disagree with that, though it seems that you do too.

If I have to fumble for a meaning then I'm not learning anything and I as an individual cannot call it art. If I see something and it moves me, I'll call it artistic. If someone else sees something that I find bland and it touches them, then it's artistic to that individual. Not saying everything should be one dimensional, just that art for one is not necessarily art for another. If an artist comes out at an art expedition and proclaims "this is my art" and I cannot instantly see some pattern or distinction that I can relate to, it isn't "artistic" as much as the author may wish to believe otherwise. Again, the requirements for labels can be formed either by an individual or a group but if the label the author imagined isn't equally applied then they've failed in atleast one regard.

The ink blots are a poor example as they rely on instantaneous reactions; If that is the case with the piece I'm looking at then fine, it may remind me of something (that I already knew - nothing in life is not an experience) but if I have to spend 10 minutes looking for something that frankly isn't there then sorry, but both intro and extro spection are out.

Don't even get me started on how easily people get offended, suffice to say it's the only reason I watch Good News Week (probably the most un-politically correct show around at the moment).

 

Do you not see any....common patterns? Discard any items which are not related to the very heart of the definition of art....any tangents, that is. Things like the above discussion of censorship.


One may find the 'subjective' argument in the beginning of many a philosophic conversation. Precision definition does not work on ambiguities and differences so much as commonalities. What can we agree upon and find common concession about this word?

 

So what I must see is the pattern of opinions? This is going well over my head. I guess art isn't subjective, despite the variety in opinions of what art is.

 

No, I mean: Do you see any common ground that can be linked among the varying opinions? Anything?


I'm attempting to validate my point on art not being subjective...that you can perhaps find solid definition after you whittle away at it for several hours in thought or discussion of some manner, perhaps in the Socratic manner.


Perhaps that's the wrong question. Are there certain attributes amongst the various opinions offered that seem to be in consensus? For example: Are not all the opinions in the previous statements that art is a product of human labor?

 

Yes, but common ground isn't individuality. Art affects individuals as well as the masses, so anything considered art by the individual should be just as valid a claim as one from the masses. Things made outside of artistic purpose can still be considered art. A car made to be the epitome of function may appear a minimalist masterpiece.