In order correctly to define art, it is necessary, first of all, to cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and to consider it as one of the conditions of human life. Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man. Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them.
i think we have to perceive art as an attainable state of being for the very best products of creativity, or we wouldn't be motivated to work on making our output as good as it could be at all. i wouldn't anyway.
you took my second, concessionary point about how the things it's trying to say are said poorly and turned that into my primary argument. it's not. my primary argument is that whatever it's saying is put aside and made virtually redundant by focusing the viewer/reader/audience's experience on repeatedly solving mechanical puzzles. the puzzles themselves are really traditional video-game puzzles, not subversionist at all. it's like echochrome. there's a new bent, sure, but all games need new bents to make them new games
i could probably concede that braid is bad art, if that would make you feel better. but i really think creating art is about having all elements work into a gestalt, and i don't see how that happens with braid. it's a quirky puzzle game and as a puzzle game it would have been more pointed and satisfying if all those counterproductive layers of framing context were shed
not no more to add, nothing left to take away etc. etc.
Well, based on Speed's description, it sounds like the puzzles are intentionally traditional at the beginning to ground the subversion that takes place over the course of the game, and by your own admission you haven't finished it, so, I dunno.
I still think it's more important that you're pinning the status of art on the success of the effort rather than the effort itself. I think this invests an unreasonable amount of responsibility in the audience over the artist.
more important than defining whether something is or isn't art
i think it's important to stop declaring that things like say, video games aren't art, as a way of shitting on them.
which is what Ebert has been doing for years out of ignorance about the nature of the vidya games
whether video games are art or not is obviously debatable, and is probably best judged on a game-by-game basis
but let's not confuse what Ebert and other fellows like him are really doing here: shitting on video games as a medium. by conclusively saying "video games are not art" Ebert's trying to silence all debate on the subject and relegate video games to some kind of childish "art-ghetto"
hilariously enough, Ebert's a huge proponent of animated film as art and the idea that animation shouldn't belong in some "cartoons are for kids" box.
i think we have to perceive art as an attainable state of being for the very best products of creativity, or we wouldn't be motivated to work on making our output as good as it could be at all. i wouldn't anyway.
i think we have to perceive art as an attainable state of being for the very best products of creativity, or we wouldn't be motivated to work on making our output as good as it could be at all. i wouldn't anyway.
really art is more like a design philosophy
All art is quite useless.
then the word 'art' is useless and we should redefine it.
i've been thinking about this today. whatever ebert thinks, whatever i or you guys think, videogames will be accepted as a new art and increasingly it will be an important one; maybe moreso than film and literature.
but 'art' means different things in different places. i work off a literary definition because i know literature. you guys, orikae maybe, might use a broad sociological one; others might use a very specific one that's more akin to what we see as 'visual art'. ie. representative imagery on a page, canvas or wall. lots of spheres have lots of uses of the word art.
if we are to truly say, 'this game is art', we need to decide what that means. it becomes an ethical question almost: what should the best videogames be doing? what is it right to value in creating them? where does this interactive medium need to move?
i do not accept 'art is everything' or 'art is nothing'. if that's the case then it's time to reclaim the word. the good news is it's our job to reclaim it; at the forefront of this medium, who else is having this discussion? not a lot of people. not to this extent. if we were to forget our horn-locking selves for a bit and agree on what videogames need to do to be held high, to advance the medium, to communicate perfectly and challenge implicitly, and understand that we can define that as the art of videogames... well, we never could, i suppose. maybe it could never happen. but if there was a verifiable 'art' to aspire to i think we'd see it a lot more often
edit: christ i'm still at work. i'm supposed to be doing the money
To be honest I kind of prefer to think of art as any manufactured object that provokes a strong feeling of deliberate meaning, rather than a category. That art is almost more that feeling than it is a complex abstract concept. It's been working okay for me so far I think.
For me personally that would be the first thing I would classify as art.
Nature is the furthest from art you will ever come. Art is the result of a concious creative effort. In its essence, it is giving new form to natural materials.
Sure. Art doesn't mean it's good art. And the Squeakquel had nude female chipmunks in it, which those downtown art galleries would consider art of a sort.
SabreMau on
0
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
The whole art debate is super subjective. I think Ebert is completely wrong, however, on the grounds that he clearly has no idea what video games even are and has no desire to find out. This was touched on earlier in the thread but he pigeon-holes games into a narrow definition that doesn't fit the vast majority of modern games. He is just almost entirely ignorant on the matter and is content to stay that way.
I do think heavy rain was art. I got heavily emotionally invested in it, which I believe is an important aspect.
He is right though that there aren't really any games that can be compared to the old masters of various other art forms. But I am going to go ahead and use the argument that video games are, at most, 40 years old. All of those other art forms had to grow quite a bit before the masterworks showed up.
Sure. Art doesn't mean it's good art. And the Squeakquel had nude female chipmunks in it, which those downtown art galleries would consider art of a sort.
If 100 artists working for 5 years means that their final product is art then that means because I worked with 500 other artists for 6 months on this-
Is also art.
Yes artists worked on it, I was one of them.
Yes artistic skill was involved in making it.
Is the final product art though?
It is art, that just doesn't mean it's good art.
For some reason I never think that way. Don't know why. I don't think I'm an art snob, but maybe I am. I guess I have an internal threshold of quality something has to cross.
then the word 'art' is useless and we should redefine it.
i've been thinking about this today. whatever ebert thinks, whatever i or you guys think, videogames will be accepted as a new art and increasingly it will be an important one; maybe moreso than film and literature.
but 'art' means different things in different places. i work off a literary definition because i know literature. you guys, orikae maybe, might use a broad sociological one; others might use a very specific one that's more akin to what we see as 'visual art'. ie. representative imagery on a page, canvas or wall. lots of spheres have lots of uses of the word art.
if we are to truly say, 'this game is art', we need to decide what that means. it becomes an ethical question almost: what should the best videogames be doing? what is it right to value in creating them? where does this interactive medium need to move?
i do not accept 'art is everything' or 'art is nothing'. if that's the case then it's time to reclaim the word. the good news is it's our job to reclaim it; at the forefront of this medium, who else is having this discussion? not a lot of people. not to this extent. if we were to forget our horn-locking selves for a bit and agree on what videogames need to do to be held high, to advance the medium, to communicate perfectly and challenge implicitly, and understand that we can define that as the art of videogames... well, we never could, i suppose. maybe it could never happen. but if there was a verifiable 'art' to aspire to i think we'd see it a lot more often
If you know literature, then you should know why my quote rejects your premises before your argument.
Sure. Art doesn't mean it's good art. And the Squeakquel had nude female chipmunks in it, which those downtown art galleries would consider art of a sort.
Don't god damn remind me.
The film had a bland enough storyline that, while screening it, that's really the only thing that stood out. Chipmunks breaking into synchronized song at any opportunity, slapstick pratfalls from a Home Alone movie. cartoonishly stereotypical sleazy agent guy, and then WHOA what is this you are doing here in a kids film why didn't they tumble out of the bag with shirts on?
Sure. Art doesn't mean it's good art. And the Squeakquel had nude female chipmunks in it, which those downtown art galleries would consider art of a sort.
Don't god damn remind me.
The film had a bland enough storyline that, while screening it, that's really the only thing that stood out. Chipmunks breaking into synchronized song at any opportunity, slapstick pratfalls from a Home Alone movie. cartoonishly stereotypical sleazy agent guy, and then WHOA what is this you are doing here in a kids film why didn't they tumble out of the bag with shirts on?
i never was much a wild fan of him (ahah hah) and even less so that philosophy. for me art is primarily message-bearing and revelatory; it exists to help us understand people and see the world better, in a way that plain language and direct imagery cannot.
or, i say, that's what art should be. in reality we can see the word has more or less been slaughtered. bring on a new one
superart
bsjezz on
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
I think that computer games are art in multiple forms. Not just the writing of the story and dialogue, or the graphics, or the level design. Whilst the code the game is built with is an artform itself, the end-user experience is also art. And it is different for every player, much like every reader may take a different experience away from a classic poem.
i never was much a wild fan of him (ahah hah) and even less so that philosophy. for me art is primarily message-bearing and revelatory; it exists to help us understand people and see the world better, in a way that plain language and direct imagery cannot.
or, i say, that's what art should be. in reality we can see the word has more or less been slaughtered. bring on a new one
superart
i'm not sure why this has to be the definition of art, rather than one possible function of art.
but if you do need a specific term, it seems like 'high art' is pretty close to what you're talking about maybe?
Houk the Namebringer on
0
Options
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
A surprising number of people do. Which is kind of weird, especially since most people refer to me either as art or fartreus.
If 100 artists working for 5 years means that their final product is art then that means because I worked with 500 other artists for 6 months on this-
Is also art.
Yes artists worked on it, I was one of them.
Yes artistic skill was involved in making it.
Is the final product art though?
It is art, that just doesn't mean it's good art.
For some reason I never think that way. Don't know why. I don't think I'm an art snob, but maybe I am. I guess I have an internal threshold of quality something has to cross.
i never was much a wild fan of him (ahah hah) and even less so that philosophy. for me art is primarily message-bearing and revelatory; it exists to help us understand people and see the world better, in a way that plain language and direct imagery cannot.
or, i say, that's what art should be. in reality we can see the word has more or less been slaughtered. bring on a new one
superart
i'm not sure why this has to be the definition of art, rather than one possible function of art.
but if you do need a specific term, it seems like 'high art' is pretty close to what you're talking about maybe?
I've had the art argument about a million times. I stick by the old "art is a matter of perspective".
Which is just a fancy way of saying it's art if you think it is.
for me art is primarily message-bearing and revelatory; it exists to help us understand people and see the world better, in a way that plain language and direct imagery cannot.
or, i say, that's what art should be. in reality we can see the word has more or less been slaughtered. bring on a new one
superart
I mean, I got this already. This is the art pussy I was talking about. I think where the artist's intent might be grossly subjective, the audience's appreciation is more so. I think the art is in the aspiration and the intent and not in the completion or the success. I don't think the word has been slaughtered. I think it adequately encompasses the base concept of art. I think if anything risks slaughtering a word, it is the subjective success you're insisting on.
And I don't think art for art's sake obviates the communication or revelation of art. It just lets the air out of the critical analysis of that revelatory experience.
Posts
this is the only sensible way to look at it, i feel
categorical taxonomy of art aint' getting anyone anywhere
your face
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
droppin' my old ass truth bombs like they fresh out yo' b-52
oh come on someone else was going to do it anyway
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
something about truth bombs and fresh b-52 yo-yos wait can you repeat that
really art is more like a design philosophy
Well, based on Speed's description, it sounds like the puzzles are intentionally traditional at the beginning to ground the subversion that takes place over the course of the game, and by your own admission you haven't finished it, so, I dunno.
I still think it's more important that you're pinning the status of art on the success of the effort rather than the effort itself. I think this invests an unreasonable amount of responsibility in the audience over the artist.
I think it's also more or less where my intuition is going when I say "If you really have to ask, then the answer is yes."
i think it's important to stop declaring that things like say, video games aren't art, as a way of shitting on them.
which is what Ebert has been doing for years out of ignorance about the nature of the vidya games
whether video games are art or not is obviously debatable, and is probably best judged on a game-by-game basis
but let's not confuse what Ebert and other fellows like him are really doing here: shitting on video games as a medium. by conclusively saying "video games are not art" Ebert's trying to silence all debate on the subject and relegate video games to some kind of childish "art-ghetto"
hilariously enough, Ebert's a huge proponent of animated film as art and the idea that animation shouldn't belong in some "cartoons are for kids" box.
yet he is doing the same thing to video games
this is nonsense
All art is quite useless.
Nature.
Satans..... hints.....
then the word 'art' is useless and we should redefine it.
i've been thinking about this today. whatever ebert thinks, whatever i or you guys think, videogames will be accepted as a new art and increasingly it will be an important one; maybe moreso than film and literature.
but 'art' means different things in different places. i work off a literary definition because i know literature. you guys, orikae maybe, might use a broad sociological one; others might use a very specific one that's more akin to what we see as 'visual art'. ie. representative imagery on a page, canvas or wall. lots of spheres have lots of uses of the word art.
if we are to truly say, 'this game is art', we need to decide what that means. it becomes an ethical question almost: what should the best videogames be doing? what is it right to value in creating them? where does this interactive medium need to move?
i do not accept 'art is everything' or 'art is nothing'. if that's the case then it's time to reclaim the word. the good news is it's our job to reclaim it; at the forefront of this medium, who else is having this discussion? not a lot of people. not to this extent. if we were to forget our horn-locking selves for a bit and agree on what videogames need to do to be held high, to advance the medium, to communicate perfectly and challenge implicitly, and understand that we can define that as the art of videogames... well, we never could, i suppose. maybe it could never happen. but if there was a verifiable 'art' to aspire to i think we'd see it a lot more often
edit: christ i'm still at work. i'm supposed to be doing the money
Nature is the furthest from art you will ever come. Art is the result of a concious creative effort. In its essence, it is giving new form to natural materials.
Why do you think of nature as art?
Yes artists worked on it, I was one of them.
Yes artistic skill was involved in making it.
Is the final product art though?
It is art, that just doesn't mean it's good art.
I do think heavy rain was art. I got heavily emotionally invested in it, which I believe is an important aspect.
He is right though that there aren't really any games that can be compared to the old masters of various other art forms. But I am going to go ahead and use the argument that video games are, at most, 40 years old. All of those other art forms had to grow quite a bit before the masterworks showed up.
Don't god damn remind me.
A calculated product lacking originality. Call it art if you want. Doesn't make it any better.
For some reason I never think that way. Don't know why. I don't think I'm an art snob, but maybe I am. I guess I have an internal threshold of quality something has to cross.
If you know literature, then you should know why my quote rejects your premises before your argument.
The film had a bland enough storyline that, while screening it, that's really the only thing that stood out. Chipmunks breaking into synchronized song at any opportunity, slapstick pratfalls from a Home Alone movie. cartoonishly stereotypical sleazy agent guy, and then WHOA what is this you are doing here in a kids film why didn't they tumble out of the bag with shirts on?
And yet Jeanette had glasses already.
Oscar Wilde, art for art's sake, &c.
There is a such thing as just really bad art
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
i understand
i never was much a wild fan of him (ahah hah) and even less so that philosophy. for me art is primarily message-bearing and revelatory; it exists to help us understand people and see the world better, in a way that plain language and direct imagery cannot.
or, i say, that's what art should be. in reality we can see the word has more or less been slaughtered. bring on a new one
superart
I thought your name was Atreus
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
but if you do need a specific term, it seems like 'high art' is pretty close to what you're talking about maybe?
So you're saying it's only art if it's good?
I guess I can see that.
I've had the art argument about a million times. I stick by the old "art is a matter of perspective".
Which is just a fancy way of saying it's art if you think it is.
I mean, I got this already. This is the art pussy I was talking about. I think where the artist's intent might be grossly subjective, the audience's appreciation is more so. I think the art is in the aspiration and the intent and not in the completion or the success. I don't think the word has been slaughtered. I think it adequately encompasses the base concept of art. I think if anything risks slaughtering a word, it is the subjective success you're insisting on.
And I don't think art for art's sake obviates the communication or revelation of art. It just lets the air out of the critical analysis of that revelatory experience.