"Having once made the statement above, I have declined all opportunities to enlarge upon it or defend it. That seemed to be a fool's errand, especially given the volume of messages I receive urging me to play this game or that and recant the error of my ways. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that in principle, video games cannot be art. Perhaps it is foolish of me to say "never," because never, as Rick Wakeman informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video game [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important][/COLOR][/COLOR]now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form." Roger Ebert
I usually like his rants but he's way off base on this one. I think it's obvious that what we consider retro games are part of this generations culture. It is an artform imo.
I think art is a perception. Like beauty, its relative to the one looking. When talking about things like this I believe the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" quote works well.
Other types of art I think would have to be looked at by the outcome, something like the art of seduction, or charm.
Art is the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions.
Quote:
Art is a way of communicating ideas to an audience in a way that the audience finds engaging.
My definition is
Art is the result of producing something you hope others will find creative.
The original Mona Lisa is undeniably art by any definition but a reproduction poster of the Mona Lisa that you can buy at Wal-Mart is not art. It is just an uninspired copy cat printed to make easy profit on the back of Leonardo's creativity.
Tic Tac Toe is the same. The very first game of tic tac toe was art. The process of inventing the game was artistic. The reproductions of Tic Tac Toe that kids play today are not art. There is no creative processes.
How can someone claim the video game Dragon's Lair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is not art and the movie [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_of_NIMH]The Secret of NIMH - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] is.
I think art is a perception. Like beauty, its relative to the one looking. When talking about things like this I believe the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" quote works well.
Other types of art I think would have to be looked at by the outcome, something like the art of seduction, or charm.
I think beauty is too much of a one-wayed example, ugliness could strike you just as hard as beauty making it all the more memorable.
In my opinion art is just some kind of imprint of emotion or thought meant to stir other's. I consider video games easily to be art because they make you think about your strength reaction and thinking skills(a weak looking part of the definition, but you tell me that Ninja Gaiden doesn't bring you down a notch when you play it), and they have the three(sometimes two) atmospheric traits of plot, visuals, and sound.
The original Mona Lisa is undeniably art by any definition but a reproduction poster of the Mona Lisa that you can buy at Wal-Mart is not art. It is just an uninspired copy cat printed to make easy profit on the back of Leonardo's creativity.
Where does Marcel Duchamp's painting L.H.O.O.Q., which is a print of the Mona Lisa with a mustache painted on it, fall into that? I would call it art of a different sort: like the rest of the Dada movement, he was using existing art or making his own non-art to make a comment on what people thought was art.
Anyway, I think that video games, like movies and paintings, are a medium for art. Not the same kind of art, but a new, different kind of art; but still art just the same. I believe that the best video games can cause you to think differently about things, just like the best stories, paintings and movies can, so in that sense, you can consider it great art (as opposed to the games, stories, paintings, etc. that didn't, which I might still consider art, just not great, lasting art - it's a matter of personal taste). The best art has the power to move you, to give you an experience they wouldn't normally have without having experienced that art, to take you to a different world. Great video games certainly have that power, so I would call them art, in that sense.
I agree with Dojah, that beauty is what one makes of it and that art is also what one makes of it.
I don't agree with the definitions of art given here. Artists don't make art to communicate to the audience, or anyone else for that matter.
Art is anything that expresses emotions, ideas or concepts.
Many people say that art is strictly that which follows a style, norms and what not. Like the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper. Therefore stuff like expressionism wouldn't be art... or Pop Art or Dadaism. Yet if you study art, you will study Pop Art and Dadaism and many other art movements.
This is why art is personal. What you perceive when you look at the Mona Lisa is very different from what I perceive when I look at the Mona Lisa. Just the same as you parents telling you to stop listening to that trash you call music. Music happens to be art as well... you may like rock, or heavy metal... or maybe you like country music... it's all up to you...
I just remembered something that can be seen as an example... on the radio a guy said the song Viva la Vida by Coldplay (I don't like Coldplay) was the first song he listens to in the morning because it is happy and cheers him up. I don't know if the guy understands English or not (because I'm in Mexico and many people like English music without understanding the lyrics) but I don't like the song and find it rather depressing.
Back on the subject... for me some video games can be called art. Others not so much....
One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game.
One obvious difference between painting and poetry is you can hear a poem. Does that mean painters are artists and poets are not or does it mean art can have multiple aspects.
He says this movie from 1902 is vastly more advanced than modern video games and the director has "superior artistry and imagination."
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz5KKh4R70E"]YouTube - "Le Voyage dans la Lune" (1902)[/ame]
I could not fully understand the movie because it was in French and could not hold my attention for very long but it is increadibly niave to think that any movie director will always have "superior artistry and imagination" than any video game director for ever and ever. Ridiculous!
Movies I think are the great modern art form. I think more people today view art in the form of video than in any other medium. The difference between a movie and a game is often just interactivity.
Interactivity is just an additional layer. The same as adding rhyme and rhythm to a story changes it into a poem and adding multple frames to a photograph changes it into a silent film and adding sound to a silent film turns it into a talky and adding color to a talky turns it into a modern movie. Adding interactivity to a movie turns it into a video game. It is an evolution of the art form not an abandonment of art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenser
Secret of NIMH is awesome. Dragon Lair isn't.
I wasn't comparing their quality. Both are cartoons from the 80s. The only technical difference is Dragon's Lair requires interaction. I don't see that as a large enough distinction to classify one as art and the other as not. That is just silly.
Because it unites people from around the globe to discuss our ideals with one
another and at the same time enjoy and compete in one of man kinds greatest
inventions: Video Games.
@stevencassidy uhm... I hate to point this out... but they are all forms of art... that's why the are called the fine arts... It's not really a question of whether you are comparing one with the other one, at the end of the day they are all representations of art.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art]Fine art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Not just drawing but, painting, sculpture, etching... the kinda stuff you hang on your walls and look at.
I'm not trying to suggest that other forms of creation are more or less than an "artist", I'm just saying that someone who makes music should be called a musician, not an artist. This is just my opinion and I'm not suggesting this is the way it is.
My whole point I guess is that a musician should be content with being called a musician, and this thing where being an "artist" somehow has some special value, should be abolished.
Im just not comfortable with the idea that all theses forms of creativity are "art" and then followed by countless sub categories.
Why is it that so many creative people need to be referred to as an artist is order to justify themselves on what they are doing?
To me it comes off as really lame, everybody striving for this title that carries absolutely nothing.
Why cant a musician just be content with being a musician, why do they need to try to put themselves on this imaginary pedestal by saying they are artists?
---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenser
Is a graphic designer an artist?
I would say no, they are graphic designers. I know that 99.9 percent of people wont agree with me, and a small fraction of that will probably understand my point.
Artist.. I just dont like the word is all. `This is my buddy Steve, He`s an artist`` uughh
Might as well say: ``This is my buddy Steve, he thinks he`s better than you.``
ok, I think I get your point... drop the word artist... use painter, musician, sculptor, etc... instead. That could work but that would mean drop the word art as well... the thing is... art has inspired many people and is so deep in our culture that you can't just try to separate the forms of art. Specially since new art forms, such as cinematography, involve the music, the story and the visual part that I can't find the word for it right now...
Today anyone can be an artist... which isn't bad, it actually helps us express ourselves and find a way to explore our emotions better. This is why I agree video games can be seen as art. Obviously not all video games... for me a game like bejeweled or insaniquarium aren't really that artsy... yet games like final fantasy that have great music and a great story can be art.
---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------
I almost forgot... I do think a graphic designer is an artist. He just doesn't go to an art school... and he is taught to justify his designs. But I have friends who are designers and the can do some very amazing things. I consider that art. Then again I see art everywhere...
Not just drawing but, painting, sculpture, etching ... a musician should be content with being called a musician
Why should that apply to a musician and not a painter, sculpture or etcher? Why call a painter an artist? Art/artist is one large umbrella term that should cover all forms of creation not just a select few.
Quote:
and this thing where being an "artist" somehow has some special value, should be abolished.
I'm not saying that being called an artist some how makes you more special. But I think calling a movie a form of art and saying video games are not implies that there is a creative process involved in movies that is absent in games. That is wrong. My point is creating a game, weather it is sports, board or video, is a creative process the same as creating a movie or a painting or song.
Well, I don`t think that the word artist should be dropped completly, I just think that art serves a specicfic purpose:
Graphic design, comic book art, animator, cartoonist... all of these also serve there own purpose, they all have different goals.
fun fact: I stood in front of that original painting above.... mind blowing in real life.
---------- Post added at 01:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 AM ----------
To clarify, art is there for people to look at and take in whatever they want from it, it`s entirely subjective.
A cartoonist, who maybe just as skilled as the aforementioned artist, has a specific goal in mind, he or she needs to convey a message to the audience, there are rules that are tried and true that he needs to follow to be successful.
Alright I can agree that seeing a painting like that would be mind blowing. I stood in front of the Taj Mahal... we were even tortured by having to wait for about 20 minutes before being able to walk the long path up to the Taj. So I was standing there, looking at it at a distance and seeing it all was just very beautiful. So why isn't that art? Architecture is considered a fine art. I'm not saying my house is art... but the Taj Mahal served a purpose. Just standing in front of it thinking a man had this made for his wife... it's just spectacular. I'd much rather go back to see the Taj Mahal than go to an art museum. Although, if I could choose both I would.
FROM time to time there are things done in the Artistic World which 'raise the bar' in terms of what is 'commonly acceptable'.
Of course this varies in different parts of the World, as some people are more liberal and open minded than others.
{Japanese bikinis come to mind.}
But in terms of 'Art' as in those things which we may go to see in a museum:
My personal 'bar' was raised by a rotting meat sculpture, shown in Vancouver Art Gallery some years back.
Another one was a show consisting of preserved Human bodies, dissected in different ways in an 'exploded view' fashion.
My point is that if those things {particularly the rotten meat} could be considered Art...
Sorry.
;] ART is in the eye of the beholder.
I like all kinds of strange stuff, and given the examples I provided I say video games could very easily be considered Art.
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, where the Beholder {Lord Xantham} in the pic is from, has lots of great Art in it.
Your new nightmare XXVII:
Linear Mode
