|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:39 am 
Perhaps they aren't the same, but they are both. Both a game, and art. A video game is both art and recreation. Problem solved. 
Has anyone played the game "Machinarium"? That game is so beautiful, I just sit and stare while playing. It's clear the designer had a "point of view" when creating it. Definitely a form of self expression! _________________ You can't find love; you have to create it. Flickr |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 31 May 2004 | Posts: 2018 | Location: Sacramento, CA
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
   |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:45 am
DRMS_7888 wrote: a work is art is an object created for the purposes of individual self-expression.
a musical performance is the perception of the compression and rarefaction of air molecules against a vibrating membrane. How can those two things be the same? ah, but a "musical performance" isn't a work of art — the music produced during a performance is. the “performance”, as such, is just the act of creating that art in front of an audience. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:52 am
Boom. _________________ Do I even need a signature anymore? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 02 Jul 2008 | Posts: 1403 | Location: Texas
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:05 am
PWNT! _________________ 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 26 Jan 2006 | Posts: 2599 | Location: GA
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:31 am
do not be afraid. wrote: that question is impossible to answer directly, because it contains a blatant category error, which makes the entire sentence, well, senseless. it's as patently ridiculous as asking, say, “why can't a game be a sentence?” First of all, everyone in this thread grasps the point of the thread, which is to determine whether video games can be art. Obviously, though we all have divergent opinions on the matter, considering the question does not produce within us all some kind of "does not compute!" category error. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Secondly, hypothetically assuming you're right and it's impossible to answer that question, you need to reevaluate your stated point, which was: do not be afraid. wrote: 1. i don't think a “game” can ever be a work of art. You said it. We asked why. You can't answer. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:48 am
why do you think that video-games can be art? i've reread this entire topic, and i haven't seen that anywhere. the only arguments i've seen in defense of video-games as art are: 1. “video-games are art because i said so.” 2. “video-games are art because people who disagree are stupid/irrelevant/whatever.” 3. “video-games are art because some random video game i like is art.” 4. “video-games are art because they contain art (graphics, music, story-telling, etc.)” the first three aren't really arguments at all, just disagreements, and so i can't really argue with them, just disagree. the fourth isn't a convincing argument to me because, while video-games undoubtedly contain art, so do all other games. there's a great deal of artistry in the design of a football stadium, not to mention the uniforms, the ball itself, and any number of other elements of the game, but is football art? i've never heard anyone call it that, and i've never known anyone to feel the need to call it that! certainly, playing — or even watching — a football game can be as intense and powerful an emotional experience as even the greatest novel, play, or film, but that's not because it's a great work of art, but because it's a great game! which, of course, is me just restating what i've said over and over and over again. i know where i stand, and i why i stand there, but i honestly don't know how to explain it any better than i have… i wish i did… not that anyone else actually cares. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:53 am
do not be afraid. wrote: why do you think that video-games can be art?
i've reread this entire topic, and i haven't seen that anywhere. the only arguments i've seen in defense of video-games as art are: 1. “video-games are art because i said so.” 2. “video-games are art because people who disagree are stupid/irrelevant/whatever.” 3. “video-games are art because some random video game i like is art.” 4. “video-games are art because they contain art (graphics, music, story-telling, etc.)” the first three aren't really arguments at all, just disagreements, and so i can't really argue with them, just disagree. the fourth isn't a convincing argument to me because, while video-games undoubtedly contain art, so do all other games. there's a great deal of artistry in the design of a football stadium, not to mention the uniforms, the ball itself, and any number of other elements of the game, but is football art? i've never heard anyone call it that, and i've never known anyone to feel the need to call it that! certainly, playing — or even watching — a football game can be as intense and powerful an emotional experience as even the greatest novel, play, or film, but that's not because it's a great work of art, but because it's a great game! which, of course, is me just restating what i've said over and over and over again. i know where i stand, and i why i stand there, but i honestly don't know how to explain it any better than i have… i wish i did… not that anyone else actually cares. Why is art art? _________________
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 26 Jan 2006 | Posts: 2599 | Location: GA
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:54 am
johnip wrote: Why is art art? because i said so. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:56 am
do not be afraid. wrote: johnip wrote: Why is art art? because i said so. Exactly!  _________________
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 26 Jan 2006 | Posts: 2599 | Location: GA
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:46 am
do not be afraid. wrote: why do you think that video-games can be art? Well, your definition of art is "an object created for the purposes of individual self-expression." I believe video games can fall into that category. Obviously I can't declare that all video games do. Just like nobody can claim that all movies are works of art. By your standards, it seems that any popcorn flick is not art. They can contain great special effects, etc., but aren't art as they involve no self-expression. It's purely for entertainment value. So then, if we claim some movies as art but not all, why are all video games suddenly disqualified? Because you can win and lose? I can certainly call some picture books art. They contain stories and pictures, both working together to form a coherent whole. But you can't call Final Fantasy 12 art? Your definition states it's for the purposes of individual self-expression. Why aren't video games allowed to be in that category? I've already pointed out several video games that seemed to be created for individual self-expression. Take Portal for example, though you're going to dislike that I'm throwing just some game around. Valve had no idea that anyone would even like the game, but they created it based on a need for expression. They slapped in together with Half-Life 2 because it might not have sold ANYTHING if they released it itself. It turns out to be a success, etc. Point is, they didn't make it for a blockbuster. They made it because they wanted to. I'm not making sense, and am in the middle of writing a psychology paper so forgive the excessive vocabulary. But I just don't understand why an objective automatically disqualifies something from being classified as self expression. _________________ patrock wrote: Grandma: What are you thankful for?
Me: My fake husband. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 28 Apr 2005 | Posts: 3505 | Location: In your dreams
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:37 am
Roger Ebert this is ALL YOUR FAULT, look what you did to our LC   _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB         
 = personal fave  = Eisley fans should dig it
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:05 am
do not be afraid. wrote: why do you think that video-games can be art? Back up a second. You made a statement, which I pointed out in my previous post, in direct contradiction to another statement you made that basically said your previous statement was a logical fallacy. The burden of proof, such as there is in this situation, is not on me, especially when I've already made statements to back up my own assertions about video games being art. But since you asked, I'll reiterate... do not be afraid. wrote: i've reread this entire topic, and i haven't seen that anywhere. the only arguments i've seen in defense of video-games as art are:
1. “video-games are art because i said so.” 2. “video-games are art because people who disagree are stupid/irrelevant/whatever.” 3. “video-games are art because some random video game i like is art.” 4. “video-games are art because they contain art (graphics, music, story-telling, etc.)” I've used the latter two arguments in my posts thus far. Myst and The Dig were my main examples. Beautiful concepts, beautiful storytelling, beautiful execution--I don't feel that a lot more is necessary to define those games as works of art. One thing I haven't mentioned yet is that I don't believe all video games are art. Halo--not art. I find nothing compelling about the story or the graphics or the gameplay. But I still enjoy playing it, because when I dual-wield Needlers I can kick my husband's ass.
do not be afraid. wrote: the first three aren't really arguments at all, just disagreements, and so i can't really argue with them, just disagree.
the fourth isn't a convincing argument to me because, while video-games undoubtedly contain art, so do all other games. there's a great deal of artistry in the design of a football stadium, not to mention the uniforms, the ball itself, and any number of other elements of the game, but is football art? i've never heard anyone call it that, and i've never known anyone to feel the need to call it that! certainly, playing — or even watching — a football game can be as intense and powerful an emotional experience as even the greatest novel, play, or film, but that's not because it's a great work of art, but because it's a great game! Art is self-expression. Roughly put, I do not consider sports of any kind a valid form of self-expression (and therefore art) because there are so many factors involved. The other team, injuries, weather, etc. ad infinitum. There is no single artist--or even necessarily a group of collaborators--completely in charge of the direction of the work. When there's a great quarterback on the field playing the best game of his life and obviously doing what he was meant to do, that's as close as sports come to art. Video games are a contained, controlled environment where you go where the creators want you to go and do what the creators want you to do. You are interacting with that person or group of people's form of self-expression. You are in the art, but not creating it, the same way someone playing chess is interacting with a beautifully-made set but not actually creating art, the same way a quarterback could wear an artistically made uniform and play in an artistically beautiful stadium (and for the record, I've never seen such a thing), but is not himself creating art. Does that make sense? do not be afraid. wrote: which, of course, is me just restating what i've said over and over and over again. i know where i stand, and i why i stand there, but i honestly don't know how to explain it any better than i have… i wish i did… not that anyone else actually cares. I care, but (at the risk of sounding condescending because emotions don't transmit through the Internet) it's not worth getting worked up over. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:29 pm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art (see the fourth entry under the noun version) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aesthetic I like dictionaries. They help people understand me, because I often use the obscure definition of words. This prevents people from gleaning the wrong meaning from my words. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artistic The one thing I'm not sure I agree with, pertaining to these definition I am providing, is the idea that art necessarily has anything to do with beauty. That seems to be emphasized in the above definitions, but perhaps the idea of an ideal as the goal of art is more appropriate. Not an ideal as in something we strive for, but an ideal as in #3 in the noun version of the below definition. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideal Based on these, art is a work produced by the conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially if an aesthetic object, but absolutely toward an ultimate object or aim of endeavor(i.e. that which the artist(s) is(are) trying to convey). What I find most confounding, coming from Roger Ebert, is how he draws a division between movies and video games. They are basically the same medium, from the patron's perspective. The only real difference is that video are MORE interactive. I emphasize the word more, because movies are obviously interactive to a lesser degree. From the production end, they both take many people to create and require different levels and types of technical skill. Also, I found this neat-o blog that, while it doesn't quite take the proverbial cake, does offer some good arguments that I had not previously considered. http://locustsandhoney.blogspot.com/2010/04/roger-ebert-video-games-ca n-never-be.html One note: The author combats Ebert's point that no one knows the names of any video game designers, whereas the names of some movie directors are known world-wide. While that may be true, many other names that are involved in the production of movies are also forgotten (key grips, make-up artists, THE MYRIAD PROGRAMMERS THAT ARE NOW INVOLVED IN CGI), meanwhile names like BLIZZARD, MIDWAY and ACTIVISION are widely known. I believe that those names are the equivalent to the names of movie directors, in the genre of video games that is. You people are all nuts. N-V-T-S, nuts!
JD _________________ "Well, hopefully that's our job, to strap rockets onto everything." - Adam Savage, Mythbusters |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 | Posts: 3655 | Location: Waterloo, Tejas
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:38 pm
Saellys wrote: Back up a second. You made a statement, which I pointed out in my previous post, in direct contradiction to another statement you made that basically said your previous statement was a logical fallacy. The burden of proof, such as there is in this situation, is not on me, especially when I've already made statements to back up my own assertions about video games being art. But since you asked, I'll reiterate... well, i don't think my statement contains a logical fallacy at all. again: art is a tangible, physical, thing, used to express oneself, while a game is simply a series of objectives, rules, etc. “chess” isn't a chess board or chess pieces, and in the same way a "video-game" isn't the graphics, storyline, music, etc — the game in both cases is the various objectives, rules, etc, that make up the “gameplay”, and those can't be considered art because they're not tangible things, and they don't express anything. that's why the question “why can't games be art?” contains a category error in my mind, and also why it's impossible for a game to be art. Saellys wrote: Art is self-expression. Roughly put, I do not consider sports of any kind a valid form of self-expression (and therefore art) because there are so many factors involved. The other team, injuries, weather, etc. ad infinitum. There is no single artist--or even necessarily a group of collaborators--completely in charge of the direction of the work. When there's a great quarterback on the field playing the best game of his life and obviously doing what he was meant to do, that's as close as sports come to art.
Video games are a contained, controlled environment where you go where the creators want you to go and do what the creators want you to do. You are interacting with that person or group of people's form of self-expression. You are in the art, but not creating it, the same way someone playing chess is interacting with a beautifully-made set but not actually creating art, the same way a quarterback could wear an artistically made uniform and play in an artistically beautiful stadium (and for the record, I've never seen such a thing), but is not himself creating art. Does that make sense? yes, it makes sense, because it's the very point i've been trying to make. i just feel that everything you've said about football applies equally to video-games, and for the same reason: while you may “interact” with art while playing a video-game, the video-game isn't that art you're interacting with, but, rather, the interaction itself, and, so, not art. edit: or, in others words: i consider “video-games” to be a “sport”, and so not art according to your own definition. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
Last edited by do not be afraid. on Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:43 pm
 _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> General -> Art or not?
Page 4 of 7 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
