You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 06:12:49 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.  (Read 10929 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Will

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2011, 04:38:03 PM »
I don't think I would be, as you say, hard pressed to find many people who disagree with the points you're making, Dudel.  This thread is fantastic evidence of that.  So, saying that you're putting forth the opinions of the majority is a tough claim to support.

In my opinion, the fact that we find tits and blood crass says more about our screwed up sensibilities as a culture than about our ideas of art.  I don't think it has much bearing at all on the situation, to be honest.

I really have to agree that the qualifications you're setting down for what makes art seem incredibly arbitrary.  Your arguments are full of false dichotomies - among other things - such as the idea that something can't be art if it makes any money.  For example, you say that the various components of a video game are art, even though the finished product is not.  I assume you mean the soundtrack, the character art, the story, etc, etc.  But someone got paid to do each of those things.  Probably lots of someones.  They feed, shelter, and clothe themselves based on the money they make off of that art they produced.  Does that mean they don't love what they do, and put their heart into it?  If an artist does a commission, does that suddenly make it not art?  That's insane.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 04:39:11 PM by Will »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2011, 05:14:14 PM »
In my opinion, the fact that we find tits and blood crass says more about our screwed up sensibilities as a culture than about our ideas of art.  I don't think it has much bearing at all on the situation, to be honest.

Actually, I just spent a rather enjoyable half hour or so surfing through various fine art galleries with lots of nekkid boobies (rather partial to the PreRaphs, but there were plenty of examples in other schools).  I was looking for one that also involved blood, but failed at that - the paintings with blood seemed to all involve men.

Offline WolfyTopic starter

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #52 on: May 31, 2011, 05:17:22 PM »
Actually, I just spent a rather enjoyable half hour or so surfing through various fine art galleries with lots of nekkid boobies (rather partial to the PreRaphs, but there were plenty of examples in other schools).  I was looking for one that also involved blood, but failed at that - the paintings with blood seemed to all involve men.

Well of course...culture and society dictate that Men are the wolves, while women are the sheep. :/

It's a dumb thing, I know, but eh, what can ya do.


Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2011, 05:46:58 PM »
Well, I did find a study for Dali's 'Honey is Sweeter than Blood' that involved a naked female torso and a pool of blood, but the image didn't show up in the finished piece.

Offline DudelRok

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #54 on: May 31, 2011, 05:49:25 PM »
Pasta is separated very specifically from lettuce. Is pasta better or worse than lettuce? No, but it is very different and not all audiences interested in the one are interested in the other.

Pasta is not a vegetable.

Lettuce is not a grain.

Quote
Your assumption is flawed. Quality is not the only quantifier for categorization.

It is not the only quantifier at all, I agree.

Quote
As to the latter part, I'd like you to show me how profit invalidates a creation's art status. Your declaration that it is the case is not convincing on its own.

We're missing the point on this one.

CREATION FOR PROFIT =/= Art

Art exists because it's art, not because the artist wanted to make money from it. Andy Warhol made his pop art because he wanted to. He got famous, sure, but that's not why he did his work.

Quote
Thirdly, a game having multiple endings as opposed to only one doesn't really matter; it's interactive either way. Having multiple endings is no different than the way a painting will elicit multiple emotional and intellectual responses depending on how you view it on any given day, or the reaction you have to a song depending on when and where you hear it.

Problem: The second example is the exact same piece of work viewed from a different angle. the former is not the exact same piece of work, and it's typically viewed from the same angle.

Quote
Clair d'lune (I'm sure I fucked up that spelling) is one of my favorite pieces to hear on piano partly because I have a new, if only slightly different from previous, reaction to it every time I hear it: always a bit haunting, always a bit mournful, but always bringing up different memories to mull over.

Having a different reaction to the same piece of art is not the same as getting the "good ending" vs "the bad ending." You can react to a game that's identical the last time you played in multiple different ways, that's how emotions work and can be applied to anything, including an oil stain on concrete. And that makes things "artistic" in your personal view but that doesn't quantify the oil stain as art, suddenly.

Quote
Likewise, the player can change a song simply by how it's performed - a little softer, a little louder, tiny tweaks here or there can have a curious amount of influence on the piece overall. Does that make it not art?

Now we are an artist giving our own rendition of another's art. This is different. That would be the equal of hacking and altering code, something which others told me was not okay. :p

Applied to literature: Fan-fiction

Quote
Your rules about what makes something not art just seem awfully arbitrary and based on your preferences and point of view rather than some concrete ruleset for what is and is not art, which is what you sound like you'd have us believe.

You'll find, if you ask anyone who works at a museum, has a job in art, is part of the community period they wont find this rule-set arbitrary or biased. And how am I biased? I play games and love them! I mean, I've even given examples of games that push the boundary of what art is, just like the rest of everyone who's played a game in the last 20 years.

I don't think I would be, as you say, hard pressed to find many people who disagree with the points you're making, Dudel.  This thread is fantastic evidence of that.  So, saying that you're putting forth the opinions of the majority is a tough claim to support.

Uh... you're aware that the thread is biased and is a very minor selection, yes? Go ask real people. People who play games AND do other stuff. People who don't play games, and don't go to a gallery. Though this is equal to Ebert's poll and proves nothing either way on the actual issue.

In the real world, no one cares about video games. In the real world, video games are for children. (Not that I agree with those mentalities, mind you). In the real world, video games, webisodes and all other kinds of things are as far away from art as you can get. I don't disagree with that one, though.

Quote
In my opinion, the fact that we find tits and blood crass says more about our screwed up sensibilities as a culture than about our ideas of art.  I don't think it has much bearing at all on the situation, to be honest.

The manner it's done is the problem. Remember the "message" part of my criteria? In most cases "Tits and blood" are for shock value and exploitation, that's it. There isn't a message other than "OMG Tits" and "OMG Blood" most of the time. I like Zombie Grindhouse type stuff, but I wouldn't call it art... remember?

Quote
I really have to agree that the qualifications you're setting down for what makes art seem incredibly arbitrary.  Your arguments are full of false dichotomies - among other things - such as the idea that something can't be art if it makes any money.  For example, you say that the various components of a video game are art, even though the finished product is not.  I assume you mean the soundtrack, the character art, the story, etc, etc.  But someone got paid to do each of those things.  Probably lots of someones.  They feed, shelter, and clothe themselves based on the money they make off of that art they produced.  Does that mean they don't love what they do, and put their heart into it?  If an artist does a commission, does that suddenly make it not art?  That's insane.

I'm going to put it this way: A commodity is not art, it's a commodity. A commodity has no soul. A commodity has no purpose other than to feed pockets. A commodity is what KILLS art and drags away what art is supposed to be. Any artist will tell you that. Any artist who hears people singing into voicetone correct will roll their eyes. Any artist who sees a weak Photoshop c/p will call art thief. Such things are deemed not art by even the smallest of art communities.

Making money off your talent is FANTASTIC. But abusing your talents for the soul purpose of cashing in is ugly and takes away a drastic feeling of what art has always been. Those designers, those musicians, those character artists make TONS of designs that never even touch the game... why? Because their deigns WONT SELL! In fact, when a creative idea DOESN'T sell, all further ideas that might have sprang from it are killed. Art doesn't need a publisher. Art just is. A video game's soul purpose 9/10 is "Make money." Not express an idea, not tell a story. Money should be secondary in art and it's something that must be primary in video games because their process is so involved.

Actually, I just spent a rather enjoyable half hour or so surfing through various fine art galleries with lots of nekkid boobies (rather partial to the PreRaphs, but there were plenty of examples in other schools).  I was looking for one that also involved blood, but failed at that - the paintings with blood seemed to all involve men.

Yeah that's not "modern media" either. :p The message in those photos or paintings wasn't "Hey look, boobies!" I'm sure.

I was, and still am, referring to "modern media." Which includes "The Blockbuster" and "The Single." It also includes video games. Safe, easy to consume, mass produced, money making not-art.

Offline Shjade

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #55 on: May 31, 2011, 05:59:33 PM »
Pasta is not a vegetable. Lettuce is not a grain.

CREATION FOR PROFIT =/= Art
Pasta is a food. Lettuce is a food. They are different kinds of food.

Art is the umbrella. Anime is one of the styles underneath it.

Restating your premise that art created for profit cannot be art is not showing me the truth of that statement. Again: your declaration that it is so is not persuasive on its own.

Offline DudelRok

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #56 on: May 31, 2011, 07:26:14 PM »
Pasta is a food. Lettuce is a food. They are different kinds of food.

Art is the umbrella. Anime is one of the styles underneath it.

No, artistic talent is the umbrella. I've already stated: "Even bad art is art" doesn't count. "Bad art" is not hitting the ball, it's missing the ball. Quality is not the only thing which counts, but it is one of the things that counts. It does get blurry with "bad on purpose" kind of stuff, though. But the other points help with that.

Stop latching onto only one single thing I say. :p All you heard, and keep hearing is, "Anime is bad." Which it isn't and it's not what I'm saying.

Quote
Restating your premise that art created for profit cannot be art is not showing me the truth of that statement. Again: your declaration that it is so is not persuasive on its own.

-
Quote from: Dudel
I'm going to put it this way: A commodity is not art, it's a commodity. A commodity has no soul. A commodity has no purpose other than to feed pockets. A commodity is what KILLS art and drags away what art is supposed to be. Any artist will tell you that. Any artist who hears people singing into voicetone correct will roll their eyes. Any artist who sees a weak Photoshop c/p will call art thief. Such things are deemed not art by even the smallest of art communities.

And I can't explain any further without explaining a crap load of economics I can't be arsed to bother with.

If your intent is the almighty dollar, you missed art's point by 5 billion miles. If you want money, go into business, don't cheapen your graceful talents. Video game creators ultimately want money. Which is understandable considering how expensive the medium is.

You also have to remember that video games where created with the intent as toys, and have not changed that much from that mentality either. The entire "game" part of "video game" is also an issue. Are board games art, now, too?

Though, ultimately, my issue is that I've repeated multiple times. Video games are a product, not an art form. If you don't know product from anything else, I can't help you.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #57 on: May 31, 2011, 07:33:28 PM »
You also have to remember that video games where created with the intent as toys, and have not changed that much from that mentality either. The entire "game" part of "video game" is also an issue. Are board games art, now, too?
Maybe?

 

Offline WolfyTopic starter

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2011, 08:36:14 PM »
I'm sure painting utensils were considered toys as well until an artist came along. :/

Offline Shjade

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #59 on: May 31, 2011, 09:38:55 PM »
No, artistic talent is the umbrella. I've already stated: "Even bad art is art" doesn't count. "Bad art" is not hitting the ball, it's missing the ball. Quality is not the only thing which counts, but it is one of the things that counts. It does get blurry with "bad on purpose" kind of stuff, though. But the other points help with that.

Stop latching onto only one single thing I say. :p All you heard, and keep hearing is, "Anime is bad." Which it isn't and it's not what I'm saying.
I like how you say "'anime is bad' isn't what I'm saying" right under your qualifier that the separated material is separated because it's bad. If it seems like the only thing I'm hearing, maybe it's because you're repeating it.

Art is, itself, a commodity, therefore a commodity can be art. I see no reason why a person with artistic talent who decides to use that talent to make money should have their work invalidated as art: if it is equally evocative emotionally and/or intellectually as a piece made because of peace, love and being groovy, how is it not art?

Offline Noelle

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #60 on: May 31, 2011, 10:51:27 PM »
At last, a topic I can use my degree to discuss! You'll have to excuse me on this, I can already foresee my response running long, but hopefully with this being Elliquiy U, I can be forgiven for my passion on the subject :)

Dudel, I am primarily going to address your posts.

Quote from: DudelRok
CREATION FOR PROFIT =/= Art

Art exists because it's art, not because the artist wanted to make money from it. Andy Warhol made his pop art because he wanted to. He got famous, sure, but that's not why he did his work.

This is where I would make the buzzer noise and you'd lose the new car behind door number three. This is the career equivalent of saying "fixing cars for profit != mechanic". It doesn't make sense and simply doesn't hold true in the art world. Passion for your work and desire for profit are not mutually exclusive concepts and this is actually a very dangerous mindset to have, as it can conversely lead people to devalue art. I've had enough people ask me for free art (even businesses), and tell me I should give it to them because "I like to draw anyway". That is one of the most insulting things you can tell an artist, just FYI.

Anyway, I am an artist -- what I mean by this isn't just that I enjoy illustration on the side, but I literally make my living doing art. I just sunk a large quantity of money into getting a degree that shows I'm qualified to make art at a professional level and that I'm serious about my craft. I want to make money with my art. Artists are not a special breed of human being that has no care for obtaining large amounts of currency. On the contrary, money is widely considered the best way to support an artist, gives their work tangible value, not to mention pays their bills. Being an artist isn't just something I do for fun, it's my career. Graphic design and typography are amazingly complicated arts, but yet you see it everywhere, especially in commercial places. You can't escape graphic design -- advertisements, brochures, posters, business cards, nutrition labels, everything right down to books you read and the spacing in the letters, the way fonts are actually made from scratch, the meticulous kerning between letters -- this is commercial art and it takes a lot of skill to make it. I know this because I've had to work my ass off to get my foot in the door as a graphic design artist, which is coincidentally THE most popular job for artists right now because it is also the most commercially successful. Yes, I do it for profit. No, I probably wouldn't do it if there were another artistic job that I could get into that paid better, but if anyone tried to argue with me that what I do isn't art, I have to be honest, I'd probably shoot them down with laser vision from where I'm standing.

Andy Warhol isn't the best example you want on your side, either. You know what he did before he got famous? He was a commercial illustrator, and a widely successful one, at that. Once he started diving into pop art, he got merciless criticism for selling out and making art that was blatantly commercial, capitalist, and mass-appeal in nature. Kitsch art is all about taking things that are pre-loaded with certain emotion and selling it back to the public because you know it has mass appeal. Jeff Koons made giant metal balloon animals because who can't identify with balloon animals? We're all familiar with them, it reminds many people of their childhood, has positive emotions attached, and it's hard to hate. Mickey Mouse is huge in kitsch art. Jeff Koons cut a giant bush into a statue of a puppy because seriously, only terrorists hate puppies. The guy bronzed a statue of Michael Jackson and his monkey.

If, however, the source and point of these creations were to "make a bucK" we are talking an entire different beast. Think "The Blockbuster Movie" and "The Single" as the equal to what video games basically are. It's about selling consoles and game copies, nothing else. It is not, nor has it ever been, "about the experience." Art is "about the experience."

Not exactly!

Actually, art as an experience is something you can thank the postmodernists for. Before Marcel Duchamp in the early 20th century, art was merely a product of an artist's two hands and was viewed in a relatively sterile box from a typical viewpoint. Anything an artist could not produce with his own two hands was not considered. There was no interaction between artist and art, there was no initiative to get into the art's space and be engaged with it, to look closer, to maybe even become a part of the piece. It wasn't until Marcel Duchamp mounted a urinal with a pseudonym on it to a wall that we began to collectively challenge what art is, who can create it, and what the audience's role in the art is. That's where the theory of art for art's sake began. Postmodernists made a pronounced effort to make art more accessible to the common man and to make art a more active part of life instead of the other way around.

If you'd like personal proof, go read my interview with EH&P this month (shameless plug!) -- I don't make art to give others an experience. I don't put meaning into my art because I find it pretentious...at least for me. I don't make art to express deep, hidden emotions. I don't make it to make political statements or to preach my beliefs. I make art that I find aesthetically interesting and that's literally it. I see things that inspire me, but I am not motivated to make a spectacle of what I do. If someone gets some kind of personal meaning out of it after the fact, that's really great and I'd like to hear about it, but it's not why I do what I do. I understand that this isn't the same approach all artists use, but it is my process.

Also, if you'd like a disgusting example of artist hacks who are only in it to make a buck, give ol' Thomas Kinkaid some Google love. He is almost universally reviled in the art world, but has HUGE commercial success...mass amounts of people eat his stale artwork out of the palm of his hand and they even tried to make a literal, real-life gated community based on the houses in his bargain bin Wal-Mart prints. (Can you tell how I feel about him?) As much as I hate to say it, he is, indeed, an artist.

Quote
When film was created, film makers didn't shout at the top of their lungs that they where artists and had an art form. Musicians, too. They let it happen naturally and continued with their art regardless of naysayers.

I'm not so sure about musicians, but I'm almost positive that film-makers had to fight to be considered art and didn't actually gain acceptance until -- guess who! -- postmodernists began to expand out into performance art and the like. Photography, to this day, still fights for legitimacy in certain spaces because the contents of a photograph are not of the artist's actual making. People claim that photography requires no skill, and especially in the age of easily accessible digital cameras and Instagram. There's no way they just sat back passively -- photographers had a hell of a time getting their feet in with traditional artists partly because they made things like traditional paintings somewhat obsolete. Why paint realism when you can simply take a photograph? What skill does a photograph even require? The photograph was also devalued as too commercial because you could make an infinite number of prints from the negative and so the concept of an original was more or less destroyed (another postmodern subject).

Quote
Oh, no, I like those things just fine... doesn't make them art. I like me some Lady Gaga, too, but to call her an artist is to shit on Beethoven.

You're using your own preferences as a defining factor as to whether someone is an artist or not. I think Lady Gaga is an artist, how would you possibly go about proving me wrong about this? Art is subjective. It literally only takes one person to find something artistic to make it art, even if it's despicable, skill-less, or otherwise deplorable. I hate Picasso with an unrivaled passion. I think his stuff looks terrible. I hate most of Henri Matisse's work, I think his paper cutouts are the most mindless, horrendous-looking pieces of steaming crap I've ever seen. I still consider them artists.

AND THE GRAND FINALE:

Quote
    I'm going to put it this way: A commodity is not art, it's a commodity. A commodity has no soul. A commodity has no purpose other than to feed pockets. A commodity is what KILLS art and drags away what art is supposed to be. Any artist will tell you that. Any artist who hears people singing into voicetone correct will roll their eyes. Any artist who sees a weak Photoshop c/p will call art thief. Such things are deemed not art by even the smallest of art communities.

I hope from my response thusfar, you're starting to see maybe what's wrong with issuing a statement like this. It is unwise to make statements like "any artist will tell you ______" -- especially if you are not an artist yourself. Forgive my indiscretion if you do make art (I don't know if you do or not), but if so, shame on you even more! :) As an artist, I'm telling you that this blatantly isn't true.

I think most anime art is very poorly done and yet it retains a massive niche market of people who adore it. Take a look around DeviantArt.com -- self-portraits of moody teenage girls are a dime a dozen, and I'd love to play a drinking game to find all the pictures that have some combination of hearts, music notes, and close-ups of words on book pages. One photographer is especially well-known and well-loved and all he/she does is draw faces on inanimate objects like food and take a picture, run a few Photoshop filters, and posts it. These things did not start out as commodities, but the audience gobbled them up, so the artists started producing more like them. Who can blame them? Many artists -- the majority I might dare to say -- care to some extent what their audience thinks of their work. Many artists want to be successful. They want money. If their audience loves what their doing, why wouldn't they continue to do it and why wouldn't others seek to emulate them to get in on some of it too?

The real issue I have with this statement, however, is your assertion of what art should be. That is an entirely subjective statement for an entirely subjective topic. There is no "supposed to be" in art. It's not supposed to be anything, and again, you can thank postmodernists for making it possible. Pre-postmodern art was considered what you could make with your own two hands...By contrast, now there are artists who have pissed in a bottle with the crucifix in it, collected their own bodily fluids in jars, vomited on canvases, masturbated under some floorboards, made rape tunnels, pulled scrolls out of their vaginas, simply wrote instructions on how to make their art and made other people assemble it, filmed themselves having sex, painted a canvas blue and hung it on a wall, put a mustache on the Mona Lisa...the list goes on and on. The fact that you dislike postmodernism is okay -- I hate it too -- but without a proper understanding of art history, it's hard to understand why it is and what greater purpose it's served for art as you know it today.

To bring this back around, even if video games had no artistic elements to them (they do), anything is art if you think it's art. If it sounds like a pretty crazy idea, it's because it is, but it's no less true. Art has already had this conversation long before any of us were born and ironically enough, by trying to elevate its own status in society, art destroyed any definition it had, which makes any attempt at trying to give it boundaries a lesson in futility. The only difference between a vacuum cleaner and a piece of art worth millions of dollars is a glass case.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #61 on: May 31, 2011, 11:38:31 PM »
Just to clarify, I was the one who brought up Andy Warhol, specifically as a counter to the initial 'You can't call this art with a straight face' comment.  Obviously, people do consider Warhol an artist, but it doesn't make that picture any less a banana (or Magritte's famous piece a pipe - no matter what he says about it.)

Offline Noelle

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #62 on: June 01, 2011, 07:13:42 AM »
But it wasn't a pipe at all! It was the image of a pipe. It's a tongue-in-cheek way of talking about reality, or what we consider it. A picture of a chair is not a chair, it's a picture, and yet we treat it as a symbol of a chair. There's a certain suspension of disbelief like when you become engaged in a book where, for a time, you imagine the contents of a painting to be real...The text is there to remind you that it's not. Ahh, the glories of modern art!

There are other artists more worthy of indignation than Magritte or Warhol, but that's the thing...they're artists all the same.

I've read a bit more of Dudel's arguments and since the issue seems to be with mass production, quantity, and reproduction, I suggest you take some time and read about modern art instead of dismissing it as garbage. Modern art already had that dialogue without you, especially when photography began to emerge and pushed for acceptance as an art form, but met resistance because it destroyed the idea of what's 'original'. Read about appropriation -- and of artists taking photos of paintings and calling that art. Kitsch/pop art both deal with mass-produced, capitalist art. Sol LeWitt wrote instructions for art that could be created over and over again. Hell, I have the capacity through digital art to make a billion copies of one picture, if I so choose. Art as a commodity is not a new concept.

Offline Jude

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #63 on: June 01, 2011, 12:08:50 PM »
Adding a bit of art to elaborate on Noelle's point:

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #64 on: June 01, 2011, 12:32:30 PM »
But it wasn't a pipe at all! It was the image of a pipe. It's a tongue-in-cheek way of talking about reality, or what we consider it. A picture of a chair is not a chair, it's a picture, and yet we treat it as a symbol of a chair. There's a certain suspension of disbelief like when you become engaged in a book where, for a time, you imagine the contents of a painting to be real...The text is there to remind you that it's not. Ahh, the glories of modern art!

There are other artists more worthy of indignation than Magritte or Warhol, but that's the thing...they're artists all the same.

I've read a bit more of Dudel's arguments and since the issue seems to be with mass production, quantity, and reproduction, I suggest you take some time and read about modern art instead of dismissing it as garbage. Modern art already had that dialogue without you, especially when photography began to emerge and pushed for acceptance as an art form, but met resistance because it destroyed the idea of what's 'original'. Read about appropriation -- and of artists taking photos of paintings and calling that art. Kitsch/pop art both deal with mass-produced, capitalist art. Sol LeWitt wrote instructions for art that could be created over and over again. Hell, I have the capacity through digital art to make a billion copies of one picture, if I so choose. Art as a commodity is not a new concept.

Assuming that you're talking to me, you're reading indignation where there isn't any.  Probably a bit of whimsy, but no indignation (actually, I'm rather fond of surrealists as well as PreRaphaelites).  MC Escher, one of my absolute favorites, and one that is reproduced heavily, was commissioned (read: hired for money) to produce wall murals in certain buildings.  I'm sure that his sons still get royalties, since his work is still under copyright.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #65 on: June 01, 2011, 12:34:45 PM »
MC Escher is the bomb.

Offline Noelle

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #66 on: June 01, 2011, 05:10:40 PM »
Quote
Assuming that you're talking to me, you're reading indignation where there isn't any.  Probably a bit of whimsy, but no indignation (actually, I'm rather fond of surrealists as well as PreRaphaelites).  MC Escher, one of my absolute favorites, and one that is reproduced heavily, was commissioned (read: hired for money) to produce wall murals in certain buildings.  I'm sure that his sons still get royalties, since his work is still under copyright.

Nah, I think about half of that was aimed at you, the other half was me rambling on and on and on since I so rarely get to discuss this with other people ;___;

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #67 on: June 01, 2011, 05:36:25 PM »
Heh.  I can completely understand that.  We seem to be on the same side of the idea that artists can make money, and most of 'em probably want to.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #68 on: June 01, 2011, 05:41:41 PM »
Heh.  I can completely understand that.  We seem to be on the same side of the idea that artists can make money, and most of 'em probably want to.

 I think of it this way. Which would you rather be? A rich artist or a poor starving one?

Offline Shjade

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #69 on: June 01, 2011, 05:47:35 PM »
Can we compromise and be rich starving artists?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #70 on: June 01, 2011, 05:54:23 PM »
Is that along the lines of 'you can never be too rich or too thin?'

Seriously, though.  The great painters and sculptors of the Renaissance had wealthy patrons.  There aren't too many solo donors on that level any more.  Things have evolved so that the donor is now 'the public'.

Offline Noelle

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #71 on: June 01, 2011, 06:03:09 PM »
The Pope had some pretty deep pockets and a massive set in his trousers to bother commissioning Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel :q

Offline rick957

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #72 on: June 01, 2011, 07:19:55 PM »
Quote
To bring this back around, even if video games had no artistic elements to them (they do), anything is art if you think it's art. If it sounds like a pretty crazy idea, it's because it is, but it's no less true. ...

Question for Noelle or for anyone else who holds this view --

People do certain things with certain works of art, things they would not do with other works of art, or with things that are not art.  How are people to determine which things to do those things with, that is, which things to treat as art?  If, for example, certain artists are being awarded grants by the government based on an assessment of the merit of their work, how should the government decide who gets the money?

For example, what's to keep a bunch of plumbers or mechanics or engineers from snatching up all the NEA grants to fund their "art"?  Similarly, what's to keep a bunch of terrible artists from doing the same and leaving better artists without grants?

These aren't facetious questions or argument for argument's sake.  It seems to me that there are practical problems with the definition of art given above.  I'm curious how those practical problems can be surmounted without making at least a provisional attempt at defining art vs. non-art, and -- trickier still -- defining good art vs. less-good art.  My guess is that the definition above is useless when it comes to most practical applications.  It's a fine definition unless and until one actually needs a definition, but it's not very helpful in any of those circumstances.  Agree?  Disagree?

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #73 on: June 01, 2011, 07:58:02 PM »
Two problems I see with that - first, that being a plumber and being an artist are mutually exclusive, or an engineer and an artist, etc. That should be fairly obvious, though.

Second, and the thornier one you pointed out - who gets to decide what is good art and what isn't? It can't be based on previous work, because then no new artist would ever be able to enter the field. If it's determined by the people dispensing the grant, it becomes a political issue as only artists who match their tastes and sensibilities become eligible in truth. There's a lot of problems that make defining 'good art' very problematic.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.
« Reply #74 on: June 01, 2011, 08:05:08 PM »
According to the National Endowments for the Arts, grants are typically given to organizations, not individuals.  So, these hypothetical plumbers and engineers would have to first get involved with a 501(c) non-profit organization.