Pasta is not a vegetable.
Lettuce is not a grain.
It is not the only
quantifier at all, I agree.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.