Quote:

Original post by Ravyne A movie like Unacompanied Minors is very much an entertainment experience. While it has artistic merit in its concept and execution, its not artistic in the same way that Gone With the Wind is. The same comparison can be made of Moby Dick vs. a dime-store romance novel, Bethoven vs. Nsync, or Ico vs. Mario Kart.

But, are you saying that the "worse" of the two in each comparison is "not art" or just "bad art"?

Quote:

I also hear the arguement that the interactivity of games precludes the possibility of artistic merit (Roger Ebert, I'm looking at you!) However, I would point out that much of the best art encourages interation in the form of interpretation and that there is a signifigant movement of modern, interactive art often driven though computers.

I disagree that much of the best art encourages interaction, especially if that interaction is interpretation. The modern art I've seen that supposedly encourages interpretation usually falls into one of three categories:

1) Its point is to ask a question but does not provide an answer. I say that stating an open-ended question is, in this case, being mistaken for it being open to interpretation.

2) The artist is trying to substitute the viewer's intepretation for actual content. You're the artist, content is your job, not mine.

3) Its point is to be confusing, at which point people who "get it" smugly snicker at people who foolishly ask, "What does it mean?". Similar to calling a friend to ask for their phone number and then laughing at them when they tell you, or that cursed "three words that end in -gry" riddle.

Then again, perhaps all you mean is that the best art sparks discussion, but I see that as being quite different from the work being open to interpretation.

Games are not only art, they are the most highly interactive form of art, and possess the potential of most other forms of art: illustration, music, literature, etc.

Quote:

Original post by CyberSlag5k Games are not only art, they are the most highly interactive form of art, and possess the potential of most other forms of art: illustration, music, literature, etc.

I don't know if it's what you're saying, but it's not uncommon to hear people claim that movies are more expressive than music because they contain music and visuals and, in turn, games are more expressive than movies because they contain everything movies have and interaction. I disagree. It's not that an artform is less/more than the sum of its parts, but that it is not the sum of its parts. Movies don't "say" the same sort things that music does.

Posted by Way Walker: ...

I don't know. I agree with you and yet I agree with myself. Embrace the paradox. Not to leave you hanging like that, I believe art exists purely by its form, yet a subject is always necessary. Sometimes, as in music, the form itself becomes the subject. This is why the work of someone like Pollock is often called "musical."

What's most important here, and ironically what we agree on, is that choice should be the foundation of interactive art. The danger is from games like Final Fantasy, which I feel are counterfeits of interative art. Like I said earlier, the effect of any art depends on the quality that is unique to its form. Games such as the Final Fantasy series are being judged great works because the storyline is moving, the graphics are breath-taking, and the music is beautiful - in other words, for all the wrong reasons. Because it is a video game (type of interactive art), all it should be judged by is its interactivity, the choices it provides. Everything else is meaningless. I'm afraid the same school of thought that says cinema is a pastiche of other artforms is going to ruin this one.

[Edited by - JimDaniel on January 3, 2007 8:58:22 PM]

Quote:

Original post by JimDaniel Posted by Way Walker: ... I don't know. I agree with you and yet I agree with myself. Embrace the paradox. Not to leave you hanging like that, I believe art exists purely by its form, yet a subject is always necessary. Sometimes, as in music, the form itself becomes the subject. This is why the work of someone like Pollock is often called "musical."

I don't think it's what you're saying, but, just to be clear, you're not saying that music is the subject of all music, right?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "art exists purely by its form" and "the form itself becomes the subject". If what you mean is that art can be made for the sake of art, then I'll agree that it's possible to do such a thing, but I'll disagree if you call that anything other than "bad art". If you mean that artforms can be subjects just as much as emotions, events, places, etc., then I agree.

In other words, I'd say that a work of art exists as something distinct from its subject (a love poem is not love), but the work is only as good as its ability to "speak of" its subject (a love poem that does not convey anything about love is still a poem, and I'd even say it's still a love poem, it's just a bad (love) poem). A work of art for art's sake is, to me, is like listening to one of those people who can talk for hours without saying anything.

It's interesting to hear that Pollock's work is often called "musical" because I first began to appreciate his works when I saw The Blue Poles (or perhaps another work of his with strong, vertical lines) and associated it with the beat and drive of bluegrass (which I was also just beginning to appreciate at the time).

Quote:

What's most important here, and ironically what we agree on, is that choice should be the foundation of interactive art. The danger is from games like Final Fantasy, which I feel are counterfeits of interative art. Like I said earlier, the effect of any art depends on the quality that is unique to its form. Games such as the Final Fantasy series are being judged great works because the storyline is moving, the graphics are breath-taking, and the music is beautiful - in other words, for all the wrong reasons. Because it is a video game (type of interactive art), all it should be judged by is its interactivity, the choices it provides. Everything else is meaningless. I'm afraid the same school of thought that says cinema is a pastiche of other artforms is going to ruin this one.

Yes, what we disagree on is whether or not those choices must be of a moral or existential variety, although now I'm beginning to wonder if we don't agree further on that count than I thought. I agree there must be something "behind" the choice, and perhaps I was taking "moral" and "existential" a little too literally. I don't think Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte is a lesser work of art than the Pieta because it has less moral significance. There is something "behind" both, they're both about something.

What you're saying is also why, more and more, I think game stories should be getting shallower in most genres rather than deeper. I think there must still be something to work towards, something to push against, and I think a story can provide that. Super Mario Bros. would have lost something if you weren't saving the princess. However, there are other media better suited to story telling. Once the story has done its job, it should get out of the way. (Note, for some sorts of games, having a great story is good, but that's more the sort where figuring out the story is the game.)

Quote:

Original post by CTar Quote: Original post by HJvK once I heard a professor say: "Technicaly everything created by human beings is art, but good or extraordinary art should be considered as the real artwork we like to call art" And yes, in this definition games are art. According to that definition nuclear waste, CO2 and holes in the ground are art.

Maybe they are... designing neclear bombs and power instalations is something only talented and skilled people can do, co2, ain't really art by then because it isn't created by humans, and extraordinary holes in the ground can be art in my opinion

Quote:

Original post by HJvK Quote: Original post by CTar Quote: Original post by HJvK once I heard a professor say: "Technicaly everything created by human beings is art, but good or extraordinary art should be considered as the real artwork we like to call art" And yes, in this definition games are art. According to that definition nuclear waste, CO2 and holes in the ground are art. Maybe they are... designing neclear bombs and power instalations is something only talented and skilled people can do

But we're not talking about nuclear bombs or power plants, we're talking about nuclear waste. Nuclear waste may require a fairly sophisticated "paint brush", but that paint brush doesn't take nearly so much talent or skill to use.

Quote:

co2, ain't really art by then because it isn't created by humans

I'm fairly certain I qualify as human and, if I remember my middle school biology well enough, I'm creating a relatively steady stream of CO₂ at the moment. Heck, by this definition, I flushed a work of art down the toilet this morning.

Quote:

and extraordinary holes in the ground can be art in my opinion

But by the definition you gave, ordinary holes not only can be art, but are art, so long as they're created by humans. They needn't even have taken much thought or effort: I created several works of art on my way to class today by walking over soft ground.


Over all, I think it's a bad definition. It doesn't fit common usage (the professor even said it encompasses much more than what "we like to call art"), it removes a useful distinction (art vs. other things created by humans), and we already have a word for what it describes ("manmade").

Art is very slippery to define, but I would go so far as to make the bold assertion that not all art is "Art" -- which is to say that just because the production involved some amount of artistry in some way does not magically make that object true Art. In much the same way that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, Art is greater than the sum of its techniques.

This may be an unpopular assertion, and for good reason -- I believe that *one* of the many reasons we staunchly hold that all art must be Art is that its largely a legal and political neccesity. To concede that any small subset of what could be considered art sets a precident whereby any piece of Art with which someone disagrees is open to be classified as "not art" and thereby removing the right to protection afforded to artistic expression. Forced to choose, I too err on the side of caution that all art must be Art, but I see it as an unfortunate neccesity that art must remain a black-and-white word in today's society.

Another black-and-white word to which it can be likened is "sin" -- the concept of sin is that all sin is Sin, no matter how great or how small. All art is Art, no mater how great or how small. However, most people logically acknowlege that all sin is not created equal, all evil is not created equal, and that the punishment must fit the scale of the infringement. This is why we don't execute shoplifters or fine convicted murderers. Is it such a stretch to believe that if there are varying degrees of sin or evil that the same is not true of art? And if you can conceed that art comes in varying levels, then is it that far of a jump that some things are so low on the spectrum that they can't rightly be defined as art or that some things pretending to be art are just simply not art at all?


Subjectivity is such a burden, isn't it?

Quote:

Original post by Ravyne Art is very slippery to define, but I would go so far as to make the bold assertion that not all art is "Art" -- which is to say that just because the production involved some amount of artistry in some way does not magically make that object true Art. In much the same way that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, Art is greater than the sum of its techniques.

I don't think anyone has come up with a completely satisfactory definition of art. I more or less agree. I think most of my caveats would be against the last/second sentence.

Quote:

This may be an unpopular assertion, and for good reason -- I believe that *one* of the many reasons we staunchly hold that all art must be Art is that its largely a legal and political neccesity. To concede that any small subset of what could be considered art sets a precident whereby any piece of Art with which someone disagrees is open to be classified as "not art" and thereby removing the right to protection afforded to artistic expression. Forced to choose, I too err on the side of caution that all art must be Art, but I see it as an unfortunate neccesity that art must remain a black-and-white word in today's society.

A technical and legal definitions aren't always applicable in all contexts. Let's say I hand you a very heavy box and ask you to hold it. You may say, "Man, this is a lot of work". However, one may point out that the displacement of the box since I gave it to you is 0, so I would've done all the work in handing it to you while your lazy ass hasn't done any work at all!

Quote:

Another black-and-white word to which it can be likened is "sin" -- the concept of sin is that all sin is Sin, no matter how great or how small. All art is Art, no mater how great or how small. However, most people logically acknowlege that all sin is not created equal, all evil is not created equal, and that the punishment must fit the scale of the infringement. This is why we don't execute shoplifters or fine convicted murderers. Is it such a stretch to believe that if there are varying degrees of sin or evil that the same is not true of art? And if you can conceed that art comes in varying levels, then is it that far of a jump that some things are so low on the spectrum that they can't rightly be defined as art or that some things pretending to be art are just simply not art at all?

As you may have gathered, I agree that there are varying levels of art. I've read good poems and I've read bad poems. Earl Scruggs plays a mean banjo while I can sort of play "that song from Bonnie and Clyde".

On the other hand, I do think it is a jump to say that some things are so low on the spectrum that they can't rightly be considered art. I'd say if it can't rightly be considered art, it's not on the spectrum at all. A sin that is not very bad is still a sin.

Or, consider liquid metal. As you cool it, it becomes less and less fluid. However, at a certain point, it stops becoming "less fluid" and becomes "not a fluid". Note, it doesn't become "so little fluid we can no longer consider it a fluid", but it becomes "not a fluid". We encounter a different sort of change, a phase change. The change to "not a fluid" is a qualitative change rather than the quantitative "less fluid".

Or, put it this way: Can we rightly define Bud Light as beer? [smile]

Granted, some things may be, to a very good approximation, so little fluid we may consider them to be not fluids. However, that's an approximation, like using 10m/s for Earth's gravity while doing a back-of-an-envelope calculation.