41 replies to this topic

[alphadog]

Damn you, dannthr! I laughed so hard that I now shorted out a monitor with coffee spray...

Craft is simply "something done with and requiring skill". A woodworker could make Art by creating a wonderful armoire, and then exercise his/her craft by repeatedly making 100 of them for clients. The repeating requires skill, and thus is a craft, but there is no expression (creation).

But, we start drifting away from starstutter's question, I think...

BTW, what is your question? Is it just "Can a video game be an artistic medium?", or something else?

[DracheHexe]

Well, I won't argue what is or isn't art but in the original statement it said "The argument is that a piece of art must be created in the original artists vision."

In the case of a game isn't the original artists vision to create an interactive environment? So with that argument the game isn't art unless it's being played. The mere act of playing the game makes it art because only then the artists original vision is being fulfilled.

And I don't think art has to evoke any sort of emotional response. I worked as security in an art museum and was able to appreciate and enjoy the talent of many artists where their pieces didn't evoke an emotional response in me. Of course I appreciated and enjoyed the pieces that did evoke the emotional response moreso, but I would styill consider all of them art.

[starstutter]

alphadog said:

But, we start drifting away from starstutter's question, I think...

Don't worry, this is actually pretty interersting :D

[dannthr]

The reason I say "communicative expression" is that is the very reason that the intention of art is not always to evoke an emotional response, though we often have one associated with the art.

As someone who studied post-modern literature at my university, I can say that there are a lot of works that are meant to express some kind of communication as we have multiple levels of artifice and auditors, but I can appreciate works that are also meant to communicate something highly superficial.

The problem that we have with the games industry is the word itself. Games, as most people understand, are meant to simply exist as a form of entertainment--the other problem with our nomenclature is the use of the word "industry," since we automatically associate industry with craft.

This is the same problem that the comic book industry has with attempting to garner authoritative or academic respect for, what I would consider, largely legitimate artistic endeavors.

Comics and games have their labels working against them.

Our job is to either redefine those labels through our own artistic endeavors--to change the way that our industry is perceived--or relabel ourselves.

What confuses everything, however, is the merger between industry and art. Now we have methods of recording art, of packaging art, and selling art. So we sell 10,000 duplicates or prints of an artistic work, but does that belittle the artistic work itself? Must our art be unique?

I don't think so.

We still consider Moby Dick to be a classic novel--yet is printed a million times over and sold world-wide.

Leaves of Grass is still an important leap in poetry, though you can buy it at your local Barnes & Noble.

So long as our duplications are meant to communicate an expression to someone, somewhere--that's all that matters.

Will you see copies of Luxor 4 or Diner Dash in museums? Probably not, but you don't see copies of Dorian Gray in museums either.

[alphadog]

DracheHexe said:

I worked as security in an art museum and was able to appreciate and enjoy the talent of many artists where their pieces didn't evoke an emotional response in me.

IMO, "appreciation" is an emotional response, if not the full range and intensity the artist may have originally intended. You are being a little harsh on yourself.

Seems to me that Ebert bases his opinion mainly on:
a) a very limited collection of games, mainly the most popular and controversial, (classic case of "virgin-telling-us-sex-can't-be-all-that-good" Back at you, dannthr!)
with an inherent bias ("...video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic...")
c) with an excuse that an art form that is at best two decades old, if it is Art, should have equivalents in civilization to art forms that are decades or centuries old.

Time will prove him wrong, as it did for those critical of film (vs plays), photography (vs. painting), rock music (vs. jazz, which also has its own "vs" in classical), etc.

Another thought: Mozart's "high art" was considered pop music of the times...

[alphadog]

dannthr said:

The reason I say "communicative expression" is that is the very reason that the intention of art is not always to evoke an emotional response, though we often have one associated with the art.

I don't quite follow. What is an example of a "communicative expression" that is Art, but is not intended to evoke any particular emotion or thought, or combination thereof?

[Reedbeta]

Art can be designed to force the audience to confront/question an assumption, for instance, which is more of an intellectual activity and doesn't necessarily involve an emotional response (although it might still be accompanied by an emotion such as discomfort in many people).

[dannthr]

It doesn't have to cause a reaction, it just has to say something. The auditor is a recipient of an expression, not the person making the expression--if their response is in itself an expression, that's not good or bad, necessarily, but it might be the intention of the artist to evoke that (it might not).

The substance of that intention is always subjective which is why I prefer to evaluate art (which is a very controversial practice) by whether or not the intended effect/affect was successful or not.

Ebert misguidedly believes that game designers do not have control over that expression, that's his argument, what he doesn't understand is that we do--in fact it could be argued that our expression (as game developers) is more sophisticated because we have to more carefully be aware of the psychology of our auditors so we can tune our artistic expression more personally.

It might even be argued that a very good game (although more abstract games often offer this) can provide a more specific expression for each player. Something special each time they play.

But good and bad are totally subjective.

[alphadog]

But, doesn't art have to have an evocative purpose to be Art? Art is usually used in relation to entities that have an aesthetic property of some sort (where "aesthetic" is used in its philosophical sense, not just meaning "beautiful").

If I understand dannthr and Reedbeta position correctly and, purposely, in a limited and unflattering way, Art does not have to evoke an effect, it just needs to broadcast "something".

Therefore, a restroom sign is Art? I mean, sometimes, with me, it evokes the emotion of relief, but that's usually only because I drank too much beer too fast...

Or, a math/science textbook is Art since it forces you to question assumptions? ("The earth isn't flat?")

It may be semantics. When I say "art needs to evoke one or more emotions", the reaction does not have to be an intense one. It could evoke a "quizzical look", "mild comfort", "happiness", or "slight nausea and headache". But, Art usually has intention, and the intention is not necessarily a rational product.

Although I am debating, I think we may be circling some agreement. Immanuel Kant called Art "...a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication." You can see the "cultivation of the mental powers" as the "makes you think" that maybe Reedbeta intends. The use of "purposive" implies that the artist has a goal in creating the Art; I just think that part of the "makes you think" must involve an emotional component. I can teach you math and "make you think". Art does something else; it changes your subjective perception of the world and, as such, must involve an emotional component.

[dannthr]

Well, that's why installation art with urinals etc became popular--people needed to challenge the boundaries of art.

The math/science book is an example of an evokative display, so I'm not sure if that's an example you're using to challenge your own definition of art.

Artists are choice makers. They make deliberate choices to compose, form, sculpt, print, whatever in a specific way in order to produce a specific result.

I could get into semiotics but I think we should steer away from that for now. Our aesthetic theory is what allows us to say one thing represents another. It makes way for metaphor and allows us to expand our palette of communicative choices.

I don't think that Immanuel's version might is wholly objective (if objectivity is desired in a discussion about art)--is he talking about art in a qualitative way? It sounds like he might be describing his thoughts on "good" art rather than just art in general.

Those kinds of judgements, in my opinion, might be best avoided if it can be helped.

[3DModelerMan]

What about the legend of zelda twilight princess?, or super mario galaxy?.
I would consider those the games that most fall into the "art" category.
I'm also a traditional artist, and I think that art, is just anything that really makes someone think "I wish I could create something like that".

[ville-v]

If games are art, who is the artist? Is it person who makes games, or person who plays them?

[alphadog]

ville-v said:

If games are art, who is the artist? Is it person who makes games, or person who plays them?

Depends, but generally and IMO, under my definition, the one who makes. The player is not attempting to purposely evoke an emotion -- he/she is experiencing the creation.

The same can be said of a interactive sound installation: is the artist the one who created the installation, or the one who waves his hands in the lightbeams, giggling at the "coolness factor"?

OTOH, take an RPG, MMO or otherwise. Can someone who really works hard at creating an online character (not just stat-building, but evolving a personality for the character) be considered an artist? I'd say yes. So, that's why I said "generally" in my first sentence.

[alphadog]

dannthr said:

The math/science book is an example of an evokative display, so I'm not sure if that's an example you're using to challenge your own definition of art.

Actually, to solidify it. I think the great majority of people would not call a science textbook Art, fundamentally because it evokes no emotional component.

dannthr said:

Artists are choice makers. They make deliberate choices to compose, form, sculpt, print, whatever in a specific way in order to produce a specific result.

That's too broad. Anything is art. Art is when you do something to something to produce something.

dannthr said:

I could get into semiotics but I think we should steer away from that for now.

Yikes, "semiotics" huh? While I have seen the word, I had to look it up to make sure I had it right... Yeah, let's steer away from it... Hard right.

I guess my fundamental difference from you is you define Art as anything that communicates, that is a sign (in a semiotic sense). Whereas I further narrow it to anything that is a sign that is intended to evoke an emotion. Would that be a good way to delimit things?

[dannthr]

Possibly, but is anything that evokes an emotion art? Is a sunset "God's" art? Or are the viewers artists because their brains assemble the sunset into something that evokes emotion?

If I stab a man, and he feels pain, is it art?

If I stab my girlfriend, and she feels anger, is it art?

If I carve a design into a man's chest with a knife, is it art?

If I paint a picture and my girlfriend and her new boyfriend merely acknowledge its existence but are not subject to an emotion, is it art?

If I cut someone off in traffic, and they are upset and honk their horn, is it art? If it's not initially, when does it become art?

I just don't see "emotion" as the defining feature of art--rather I see the deliberate use of communicative expression as the defining feature, and that's why I stand there.

If you require the subjective evokation of emotion to be the defining feature of art then art is something completely out of our control to define as every person will have an individual perception of whether or not something is art.

This makes, in my opinion, the discussion of art and the theory and criticisms of art completely useless. Which is fine, but you have to realize that you're throwing out about a millenium of writings and dialogs on the subject.

Even though I'm a post-modernist at heart, I'm not really prepared to do that.

[ville-v]

Art is defined by the audience, so it has to be published. Artist is the person who has to be jacked by emotions.

If I stab person on stage, in front of audience, it is art.

If a huge pile of snow that is standing in front of local museum of modern art has been created by impressions of artist, it is art. Had it been created by a person who has been hired to create huge piles of snow, would it be not.

If I express my emotions into a picture and hide it, it is not art, before somebody else finds it and decides that it is.

If my job is to paint walls white, those white walls are not art, no matter if they are in a public place.

If I am feeling strong emotions when painting my own walls and calling those walls art, they might be, depending if any audience is thinking them as art.

[Sol_HSA]

ville-v said:

Art is defined by the audience, so it has to be published.

This is getting all philosophical.

A famous artist dies. His relatives find several paintings he had never published anywhere. Are they art?

Seriously, this is getting silly. Everything is art, by some definition.

[dannthr]

ville-v said:

Art is defined by the audience, so it has to be published. Artist is the person who has to be jacked by emotions.

If I stab person on stage, in front of audience, it is art.

If a huge pile of snow that is standing in front of local museum of modern art has been created by impressions of artist, it is art. Had it been created by a person who has been hired to create huge piles of snow, would it be not.

If I express my emotions into a picture and hide it, it is not art, before somebody else finds it and decides that it is.

If my job is to paint walls white, those white walls are not art, no matter if they are in a public place.

If I am feeling strong emotions when painting my own walls and calling those walls art, they might be, depending if any audience is thinking them as art.

If that's true, then no one has claim to call themselves an artist. I create music soundtracks for money, since I am hired, it is not art. Right?

I don't buy it.

[ville-v]

Sol_HSA said:

His relatives find several paintings he had never published anywhere. Are they art?

If his relatives do ever publish them, they are. Or maybe it is enough if they are found and his relatives say: "These were painted by him. They are art."

Quote

If that's true, then no one has claim to call themselves an artist. I create music soundtracks for money, since I am hired, it is not art.

If person who pays you considers you artist, then it is art.

If I am feeling strong emotions while painting walls white as my work, my boss might not consider it art. If he really does, that makes me artist.

dannthr said:

Who has the right to label someone an artist and who does not?

Anybody, everybody or majority. Depends how you understand it.

[dannthr]

But the problem inherent in that defining methodology is that authority becomes completely inconsistent.

Who has the right to label someone an artist and who does not?

I feel like your theory is very problematic.