From what I'm understanding, Techno, you're basically saying that you believe a final product is not the sum of its parts; that despite any amount of creative work put into an object, that final object itself is not considered art simply because it is technical or functional in nature?

I'm sorry but that's...it seems incredibly narrow in thought. Or very overly-technical thinking. It says that something aesthetically pleasing, something artistic, cannot be functional or mechanical and still be appreciated for the creative work that went into it. It strongly implies that art is meant to sit on display and not meant to be used for a purpose.

I could be wrong that this is how you feel (or what you're suggesting), but if not I'm incredibly saddened and appalled by that.

If a carpenter hand-crafts a dining room table...are you saying that the finished product is not art because it is a technical/functional creation? That you can't look at the artistry and craftsmanship that went into the product and appreciate the beauty of it, while eating your dinner atop it?

To say that a finished building can't be considered art diminishes the effort put into its creation. And by that token, I'll stand by my opinion that a finished video game IS MORE than the sum of its artistic parts, and can be appreciated for its creative value as much as - or more than - the artistry that went into its construction.

Programming CAN be artistry; it depends on the goals and motivation of the programmer, and the ability of the person looking at the code to see the creative work that went into its design. Programming is part of the design process, you can't simply separate the two into definitive tasks when you're analyzing the creative process.

[edited by - EricTrickster on November 26, 2003 11:25:24 AM]

quote:

---

TechnoGoth:
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art

---

definition a) Some games are very aesthetic. There are several games I have seen that I though were very beautiful (visually) and other games that were just fun to play. Do you think that no skill or creative imagination when into them? I do not find all games aesthetic, but then there is a lot of paintings in museums that I don't find aesthetic either. That doesn't make them any less art.

Definition b3. Are you saying that computer games are NOT a graphic art?

Back to the dictionary:
graphic arts
1 any form of visual artistic representation, esp. painting, drawing, photography, etc.
2 those arts in which impressions are printed from various kinds of blocks, plates, screens, etc. as engraving, etching, lithography, serigraphy, dry point, offset, etc.

Even if you pick the 2nd definition, you have screen shots.

You can fit games under two points of your definition. Does that make game art? If that doesn't convince you, then likely nothing short of it showing up explicitly in the dictionary will convince you otherwise.

[edited by - kars on November 26, 2003 11:46:27 AM]

Techno:

quote:

---

In fact a complete and accurate design should allow any programmer to pick it up and program, provided they have the technical skills to do so.

---

By that same exact token, a paint-by-numbers canvas should allow any painter to pick up a brush and paint, provided they have the ability to follow a template.

Does that make them artists? Not necessarily. Does that mean the original painter is not an artist? Of course it doesn't!

Continuing with your own example, you see a programmer simply as a member of a construction crew, building the final product.

That does NOT, however, mean that the finished product itself cannot be classified as art.

It also does not mean that the designer of the building - himself or herself fully capable of handling parts of the construction, but understanding that to get it done in a reasonable time period needs others to handle other tasks - it does not mean that the designer is not an ARTIST.

He/she simply works with a different medium. Concrete and steel and glass, rather than clay or oils and canvas.

Or bits and bytes.



[edited by - EricTrickster on November 26, 2003 12:00:03 PM]

liquiddark:
Actualy I have been involved in over a half dozen plays over the last 5 or 10 years. I have to disgree with you, at no time when I was on stage did I feel that the audience effected the performance in fact they really wheren't an issue they where just shapes beyond the lights, that laughed at durring the funny bits. But perhaps if you could give an example from your own experince and how that equates to games then we could all understand it better.


As far as programing is desgin that a common misconception from people who arn't used to work in either group environment or planning in advance what there working on. I'll admit I was one of those people to and for the most part still am. But what really happens is that we do all the design work in our heads and program according to those abstract notions in minds and and honest and truley is probly the most ineffectint way to go about the whole process. Programming is about assembling code and desgin is about assembling ideas and concepts.

Futhur in response to EricTrickster comments on how programming is part of the design proccess. Thats in fact completely inaccute, at no time is there any programming involed in desgining a piece of software, nor should there be. Case in point for the software engineering course I took as part of Computer sciences degree we had to work in a group 6 strangers, To complete a game. As part of that process I desgined the entire game based on the input of the other group members and the assistance of one other member. That design was then taken by the programmers and turned into the finshed game as laid out by the design. At no time did I do any coding or include any code into the technical desgin, unless you count class artifacts as code. So as far as programming and designing goes they are two seperate entities a good analogy would be that a software desginer is the same as archetect desgin a building, while the programmer is the same as the construction worker building said building.

EricTrickster:

"From what I'm understanding, Techno, you're basically saying that you believe a final product is not the sum of its parts; that despite any amount of creative work put into an object, that final object itself is not considered art simply because it is technical or functional in nature?"

No thats not what I've been saying all. For the most part I've been trying to get across the idea that the fact that creativity goes into something does make something art. If you need example how about this Euclids algorithim required creativity in order to devise but I don't know anyone who consider it art? A mathmatician would probably appreciate the algorithim but the fact that you can appreciate something doesn't make it art. The fact that something is technical of factional in no way effects wether or not it art. You have to relize that because a task requires creativity does not make the task art.

Again, I'd like to repeat nothing says an artist can't be a designer or a designer can't be an artist. That does make what they are designing art. DaVinci designed and built seige weapon but no one would consider those weapons art. Even if they included elgonate designs or covered in beautaful paintings.

Kars:
Once again your repeating the idea that because a game includes graphics it is art. Which not the case anymore then the fact a musem is art because it contains art. Does that mean the text based games arn't games, because they don't have visuals?


-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I'm a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document



[edited by - TechnoGoth on November 26, 2003 12:44:18 PM]

Techno:

quote:

---

DaVinci designed and built seige weapon but no one would consider those weapons art. Even if they included elgonate designs or covered in beautaful paintings

---

And once more we disagree. A sword, by example, can be absolutely functional with a razor-honed edge - and at the exact same time can be exquisitely crafted such that it is considered a work of art. Ask anyone familiar with Japanese swordmaking if they feel the same as you do.

You used my example of the architect/construction workers as a design/programming analogy but failed to get the point behind it - that a) the architect has others do the construction because its simply more efficient, it isn''t necessarily true that he himself isn''t capable of the work, and b) it still does not diminish the artistry of the finished product.

Note yourself that you chose not to do the programming in your project - or that you were commanded not to, it''s an irrelevent point. It does not mean you were not capable of it, or that a certain amount of artistic - i.e., creative - ability wasn''t responsible for that code. It doesn''t matter if it is a technical work, it is still a CREATIVE work; you simply drew the outlines for others to color in.

Collaborative art is still art, no matter the medium.

I see art in the design of a computer keyboard; you, I guess, see a mass-produced boilerplate design of plastic and metal wire. We simply see the world differently, and I can happily agree that we...disagree (although you seem to walk a grey line back and forth between the two views).

Games can definitely be works of art, just like movies can. But just like Hollywood produces much more entertainment than art, most games are just entertainment. My definition of these terms hinges on the intentions and attitudes of the artist/craftsman.

In art, the work itself is the goal along with anything the artist learns and experiences while making it. You could say the artist "discovers" the work rather than consciously assembling it. He may sell a painting or a play or a book later, but this is not relevant to the creation of the work itself.

In entertainment, the entertainer works with the audience in mind and produces something that he knows will be accepted (usually something he''s done before) in order to make a buck.

The entertainment model obviously fits the industry better than the art model. However there have been a number of games that came out of an artistic inspiration and self-discovery ie. pet projects and became huge hits (from Elite to Myst to The Sims). Similarly, a Coen brothers movie can still be art even if the rest of the movie biz is mainly concerned with cashing in on sequels.

quote:

---

Original post by EricTrickster
Then I truly pity you, if that''s what you honestly believe. Can you tell me you''ve never had a sudden inspiration in the middle of the night about some piece of code you''ve been struggling over, leaped to your keyboard and spent the rest of the night in fevered typing and writing? Been excited as you drew close to finishing, almost quivering with anticipation?

---

That inspiration is not an artistic inspiration, because it doesn''t come from emotion, but intelligence. And the excitement comes because I wanted to finish it so badly and I did it. Pretty much the same in sport. You set a goal that you must be able to run 10 miles in 20 minutes for example. You practice and you practice and when you finally did it, you are excited. It''s the same excitement. They are completely irrelevant to art.

quote:

---

Others have said it on this thread. Architecture is mechanical, and yet we don''t question whether it is art or not. Engineering is mechanical and technical, but again - we don''t question whether the finished product is considered art. We''ve built museums specifically to display eye-pleasing ergonomic designs for furniture, cars, vacuum cleaners, computer cases, pens, coffee mugs, cookware...

---

The reason why architecture is within the gray area because its final result can be considered art. We have so many unique buildings built by great architects. People call them art because they are different than the other regular blocky buildings. Sure there is a technical and mechanical work behind them, but what other people see is the art part of that building, which is how that building looks.

quote:

---

Original post by TechnoGoth
What you''ve mentioned as being game design is really only a part of the process the majority of the design consist of creating technical documents, planning and organizing game elements, devising formulas, creation of physics models and so on. You''ve also stated a point mentioned by several others. "But in RPG games with good storylines, that definitely is art." Aren’t you really referring to the storyline as art and not the game?

---

Storyline is part of the game. Without a storyline, a game could be unplayable because there is no reason to play it. Storyline directs player where to go and what to do next.

The gameplay itself is also art, but it doesn''t contain the same artistic value as live theatre or paintings. I don''t know I think it''s because the gameplay is a group work. There are several people working together. And most importantly, the gameplay can be copied without losing any of its value. I think a work is art if only one or two person is involved in creating it and it''s unique by itself. Have any of you seen paintings painted by more than two painters? If so, then I am wrong.

quote:

---

Couldn''t you in fact take the same story and turn it into a book or film and get the same artistic value you’re associating with the game?

---

You could and you would probably get the same artistic value, or maybe not, but it''s still artistic. We have games that have been turned into movies and novels today, though I don''t get the same excitement as I got it from the game due to the fact that I don''t like reading or watching something that I have already been familiar with, but that''s a personal reason.

quote:

---

Original post by TechnoGoth
I have to disgree with you, at no time when I was on stage did I feel that the audience effected the performance in fact they really wheren''t an issue they where just shapes beyond the lights, that laughed at durring the funny bits.

---

I feel sad for you, then. You weren''t doing good theatre. You may, in fact, just as well have been doing film, which is not at all the same.

quote:

---

But perhaps if you could give an example from your own experince and how that equates to games then we could all understand it better.

---

Let''s take, two examples, a comedy and a drama. I performed in a play called "Picasso at the Lapin Agile" three years ago. We ran four nights, twelve bucks a ticket. I was Elvis. Night one was a normal opener, some jitters and whatnot, and a very supportive audience. We had a lot of fun, the play was funny but it wasn''t sharp. There was more work than there was craft in getting it done, but the audience gave us excellent cheers because they were friends and family. It was not, however, "art". Night two was a whole different scenario. Everyone was tight, knew they had it working full speed, and we went at it like a freight train. And hit a brick wall of an audience, didn''t get the jokes, barely even laughed at the thing. The actors were giving tight comic genius, art and noise, but the audience just saw a bunch of dumb jokes and foolish characters. Night three was a consequence of that, the actors very downtrodden, but the audience on top of our every word, and they managed to pull us up by the end of the show. By the time I made my entrance, the show had morphed completely - it was a bright, fun, very loose interpretation of the script and the direction. Not art, but very entertaining. Night four brought us an audience we couldn''t have begged for - they laughed at all the right places, in just the right amounts, and we gave them the show they deserved. That was art, as I interpret it.

I did another show this past year, this one a fringe festival piece, an hour long and about some very serious material. Much more involved on my end; I had input on the script, the locations, the set, the characters, etc. The show sucked for most of its lifetime, I''m afraid to say, and near the end of the process my partner had completely alienated me. She finally clued in to that fact the night before our first show. "Mike," she said, "we need to discuss this." I acquiesced, but as we were only a couple of minutes away from curtain, we couldn''t exactly take the time before show. That night, our personal conflict was expunged on the stage, and I maintain to this moment that it was some of the best work I''ve ever done. Moreover, the show, normally a somewhat in-the-head dialogue between the two characters, became an emotional train wreck of a piece.

Ergo, not only does the audience (player) affect the experience, but so does the performer (AI/NPC/Game rules). Whenever either changes state, the whole character of the production changes.

quote:

---

As far as programing is desgin that a common misconception from people who arn''t used to work in either group environment or planning in advance what there working on.

---

I''ve no misconceptions on this front. I''ve been senior and/or lead programmer for business apps my whole career so far.

quote:

---

I''ll admit I was one of those people to and for the most part still am. But what really happens is that we do all the design work in our heads and program according to those abstract notions in minds and and honest and truley is probly the most ineffectint way to go about the whole process. Programming is about assembling code and desgin is about assembling ideas and concepts.

---

You aren''t reading any material on agile software development, then. Fair enough. Agile software development holds as its fundamental principle that The code is the design. Everything else is secondary, and is likely obsolete compared to the code. Requirements dictate what the design must do, but the design itself is embodied wholly and solely within the code.

ld

Alnite:

quote:

---

That inspiration is not an artistic inspiration, because it doesn''t come from emotion, but intelligence. And the excitement comes because I wanted to finish it so badly and I did it.

---

Forgive me, but I don''t agree. Even in painting, an artist may struggle with a particular image he''s having trouble portraying. The inspiration that comes is drawn from INTELLIGENCE, from knowledge - not pure emotion. The same is true of a writer, a carpenter, an architect, a scultor...and a programmer.

My excitement comes from seeing my ideas come to life, no matter the medium. In fact there''s a certain sadness associated with finishing the product, because it was the creative process itself - complete with its emotional highs and lows - that excited me. It isn''t the need to finish that should be exciting; I get that with my cubicle-job, the excitement that the work-day is done and now I can enjoy myself. With the creative process it''s the DOING that is exciting, not the FINISHING.

quote:

---

The reason why architecture is within the gray area because its final result can be considered art. We have so many unique buildings built by great architects. People call them art because they are different than the other regular blocky buildings. Sure there is a technical and mechanical work behind them, but what other people see is the art part of that building, which is how that building looks.

---

Which is exactly what I''ve been saying. By that exact same analogy, people can call certain games "art" because they are different from the other games out there.

I''m very strongly of the opinions that any form of creative work is artistic in nature, and can be considered art subjective to the creator and the viewer. Yes, there are games - and buildings, and books, and chairs, and paintings - that seem to the mainstream to be uninspired, unartistic, dull and repetitive. I would not disagree that these are not, necessarily, works of art.

But I also would not declassify an entire artistic medium simply because of it''s technical nature.