Metanet Forums

For longer than I've been alive, people have been bickering over what is definable as art, and what isn't. Fans of a movement outside of the mainstream have been described as being overzealous, while those who follow traditional art forms have been accused of being too conservative, unrelentlessly preventing a loosening of what many see as a far too rigid evaluation of worth.

In the early 20th century, the argument was about whether Dada, the heathen of the art world could be considered art. Ironically, it ultimately ended with third parties declaring it art, while the involved adamantly stated that it was infact, not.
Half a century later with the invention of film, a new debate surfaced. Was this new medium capable of producing art, or was it going to become the mind-controlling device that we had all feared since the invention of science fiction?
Now we jump forward to the present. With the introduction of motion control, video gaming has all but hit the mainstream market, and with it has come a fresh debate about the validity of games as art. The outcome of this discussion is yet to be decided, however I'm pretty certain that I know the answer already.

See, while observing talk on this subject, and looking back on similar instances of controversy, I've noticed something. Whenever a new form of creation is made, there is inevitably talk of classifying it of art, and yet for some reason, the discussion is always repeated. I believe that art is inherantly subjective, as to declare something as art is to make an judgement of worth. Everything and anything is art, and to exclude /anything/ from such a description, or to state definitively that something is not art is outrageously ignorant, as since it is a subjective evaluation, one could interperet even the odour of a fart to be art. Granted, it would be surprising and unlikely, but it is possible, regardless.

So if that is the case, which I think any reasonable person would agree is, then why, after all this time, do we fall back to the same outdated argument?

I recently stumbled upon this article by a highly respected critic, considered an intelligant and level-headed man, and yet the first thing that I noticed was that he was attempting to assert his opinions on what can be considered art onto another person. I was somewhat disgusted by this, especially considering that he is considered so highly by his peers.

So what are your opinions on this? I realise that my entire argument is based on the assumption that anything can be interpreted as art, so I'd love to hear some alternative ideas.

Video games aren't necessarily art, but they can be art. I've made video-game related art in some of my art classes this year, such as creating 8-bit art of a scene of 2 people fighting a dragon, an image of Megaman shooting up a hockey scene, and making a video collage of animated GIF's I've made, which were mostly forum-based images and video games and appropriated Youtube footage. Super Mario Brothers isn't art, but a painting of Mario stomping mushrooms can be considered art.

What about games that challenge the norm, and are intended to challenge the way we think? Things like Flower and Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem.

Anyway, I realise that I mustn't have been clear in the first post...I didn't mean to question the validity of games as art, but rather the way we attempt to label and define art. We're as a society attempting to put an objective label on something that is inherantly subjectave, which to be frank, is rather stupid. I think this issue needs some attention.

What "we" define as art is relative. Everyone has a different notion of what art is to them.

squibbles wrote:... since it is a subjective evaluation, one could interperet even the odour of a fart to be art.

Here's where I feel I need to dispute. Art may not have an tangible definition, but there needs to be some context in how and why it is there to influence the senses. A mountain may be beautiful, but it, in itself, is not art. It is only beautiful. There was a conscious point in art history where artists would test the integrity of context (see: Duchamp's Fountain), and I think this is where art, in becoming so idiosyncratic and ethereal, gained something at least close to a definition.

Perspective: Art is something put into the context of art.

I would find it impossible to debate with Ebert. We can simplify things almost ad infinitum. There are "games" that make Samorost look like a graphical representation of the n-body problem but I feel like Ebert would just argue that those don't fulfill the necessary definition the word "game" because there's no winning clause and no or almost no player interaction. I completely agree that we've yet to make the PYRAMIDS OF BOK+CHOY of games but that we've yet to reach the level of cave paintings? I simply can't agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

Edit: Really, maestro? 5istine Chapel, apparently, is a hot word on these forums.

Video games are definitely art. Look at the game this forum is based on. Every atob level I play, I feel like I am experiencing a work of art. Think of all the aesthetics that go into a map, all the specific details, I think that makes it art.

Anyone who claims Okami is not art has no right to speak about video games.

I always thought art as every object a man thoughtfully does.

Object is totally the wrong word, but hopefully the idea will pass.

I agree with Donfuy and Aldaric, I think. I definitely see N as a sort of creative outlet. But then the game is the medium, and not the art, right? I guess this is why I'm an N-gineer*.

*Thanks, Techno, for pointing out the typo. :P

Pheidippides wrote:I agree with Donfuy and Aldaric, I think. I definitely see N as a sort of creative outlet. But then the game is the medium, and not the art, right? I guess this is why I'm an engineer.

N-gineer*

This is art. Many video games are art. I think we've had this discussion before.

As for a broad definition ... maybe anything that was, er, created with the intent to create? That doesn't seem right.

flagmyidol wrote:This is art. Many video games are art. I think we've had this discussion before.

As for a broad definition ... maybe anything that was, er, created with the intent to create? That doesn't seem right.

So is this.

flagmyidol wrote:This is art. Many video games are art. I think we've had this discussion before.

As for a broad definition ... maybe anything that was, er, created with the intent to create? That doesn't seem right.

"Well, I don't necessarily know what this 'art' thing is but I'm dead fucking certain that this grayscale rendition of Majora's Mask is it."

Don't get me wrong, these N-Arts are impressive. But we've got computer programs that can autonomously create images with more depth and complexity than either of these examples and, as much as I appreciate the effort put into them, these maps do not conform to the idea of what has classically been thought of as art, ever, from any period. Not even close. Sabrina the Teenage Witch and Zelda evoke an emotion but it's more nostalgia than fear, love, rage or sadness.

Edit: Penny Arcade weighed in: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/4/21/

hairscapades wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:This is art. Many video games are art. I think we've had this discussion before.

As for a broad definition ... maybe anything that was, er, created with the intent to create? That doesn't seem right.

"Well, I don't necessarily know what this 'art' thing is but I'm dead fucking certain that this grayscale rendition of Majora's Mask is it."

Don't get me wrong, these N-Arts are impressive. But we've got computer programs that can autonomously create images with more depth and complexity than either of these examples and, as much as I appreciate the effort put into them, these maps do not conform to the idea of what has classically been thought of as art, ever, from any period. Not even close. Sabrina the Teenage Witch and Zelda evoke an emotion but it's more nostalgia than fear, love, rage or sadness.

I question that just because a computer can mimic it, it's not art.

As for the second bit, about conforming, that's just not a valid way to approach the problem. Of course video games don't conform to classic art standards -- they're brand new. You can't arbitrarily say that one creation is art and another isn't. Besides, the reason you give for doing so, emotion, is a stretch.

If I drew that MM N-Art with a pencil, on paper, you'd call it art, right?

flagmyidol wrote:If I drew that MM N-Art with a pencil, on paper, you'd call it art, right?

It would depend, primarily, on your motivation for doing so.

hairscapades wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:If I drew that MM N-Art with a pencil, on paper, you'd call it art, right?

It would depend, primarily, on your motivation for doing so.

I'd like an explanation of that statement, please. My motivation would either be to entertain myself or to impress others, I guess. Which is precisely why the MM N-Art was made.

flagmyidol wrote:

hairscapades wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:If I drew that MM N-Art with a pencil, on paper, you'd call it art, right?

It would depend, primarily, on your motivation for doing so.

I'd like an explanation of that statement, please. My motivation would either be to entertain myself or to impress others, I guess. Which is precisely why the MM N-Art was made.

Motivation is important because, as Yahoozy's already said, "A mountain may be beautiful, but it, in itself, is not art. It is only beautiful." It becomes obvious, then, that the computer rendition of your N-Art isn't art, the monkey painted rendition likely isn't art, and the N-Art you made to entertain yourself and impress your friends is... not my call. I would be skeptical but wouldn't call you on it.

I understand that motivation is important, and why. I just wonder where the line is drawn between art, accident (?), and frivolous creation.

Some artists aren't motivated at all.

hairscapades wrote:Edit: Penny Arcade weighed in: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/4/21/

I was gonna post this, then I noticed that you only linked to the comic. The best part is the accompanying news post. http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/4/21/

flagmyidol wrote:I understand that motivation is important, and why. I just wonder where the line is drawn between art, accident (?), and frivolous creation.

I also wonder that... but not enough to devote the time to form a sturdier opinion on the thing. I think I'll just continue to be wishy washy about the whole deal. That seems like the popular thing to do.

I am of the opinion that anything that has a creator has the potential to be considered art, and thus it is impossible to catagorically declare something to /not/ be art while it fufills this prerequisite.

Hell, I would not be surprised to hear about a religeous person praising their God's artistic creation upon seeing the Great Canyon, or the Himalayas. As long as you can believe something to have been created with intent of creation, it can be considered art.

At least, that's how I feel.

hairscapades wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:I understand that motivation is important, and why. I just wonder where the line is drawn between art, accident (?), and frivolous creation.

I also wonder that... but not enough to devote the time to form a sturdier opinion on the thing. I think I'll just continue to be wishy washy about the whole deal. That seems like the popular thing to do.

I know! Let's read books by the acknowledged authorities and pretend their thoughts as our own!

Hahaha, and Cracked just did an article today presenting a counter-argument :D

http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-ebert-i ... mes-as-art