• Most Britons believe video games are not art - even regular gamers and young people
    108 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;44292324][URL]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/collingwood-aesthetics/#ArtCra[/URL] Basically, no also on the basis of aestheticians such as collingwood, I find people saying "everything is art" as intellectually bankrupt as people who say that "X isn't art" to sum up a subject that has existed for millennia, no it is not that simple[/QUOTE] I think that anything [I]can[/I] be art. I believe that art is the act of humans deriving meaning from an objectively meaningless universe. Where meaning can be found, art can be found. Art only exists in the minds of humanity. Art is the essence of subjectivity, because art only exists as a subjective experience, one that exists solely within our imaginations. There can be no objective yardstick to quantify what art is or isn't; art is whatever you damn well please it to be. [editline]20th March 2014[/editline] There can be no such thing as something being "objectively art" or "objectively not art." "Objectivity" and "art" are incompatible, they are oxymorons. (I'm not saying this in response to Cloak Raider, I'm just throwing that out there.)
Anybody notice a pattern? The oldest thing (theatre) is considered art the most, while the newest thing (video games) is considered art the least.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;44297570]I think that anything [I]can[/I] be art. I believe that art is the act of humans deriving meaning from an objectively meaningless universe. Where meaning can be found, art can be found. Art only exists in the minds of humanity. Art is the essence of subjectivity, because art only exists as a subjective experience, one that exists solely within our imaginations. There can be no objective yardstick to quantify what art is or isn't; art is whatever you damn well please it to be. [editline]20th March 2014[/editline] There can be no such thing as something being "objectively art" or "objectively not art." "Objectivity" and "art" are incompatible, they are oxymorons. (I'm not saying this in response to Cloak Raider, I'm just throwing that out there.)[/QUOTE] [B]"art is the act of humans deriving meaning from an objectively meaningless universe"[/B] No, because there are times where we derive meaning from the universe that we do not construe as art. Almost all human knowledge is based on deriving meaning, systems and order from the universe. We do not classify these actions as art. Not only this, but we do not classify extremely beautiful things that are found in nature as 'art', because art is a human endeavour. [B]"where meaning can be found, art can be found"[/B] This seriously doesn't mean anything depending on what you think 'meaning' means (lol) in this circumstance. You just said that the universe was meaningless, now you're saying that we're finding meaning. Surely then we don't 'find' meaning, we invent meaning in this situation? [B]"Art is the essence of subjectivity because art only exists as a subjective experience, one that exists solely in our imaginations"[/B] No it doesn't. Art is not a subjective experience. [I]Appreciation[/I] of art is a subjective experience (depending on what you mean by subjective experience; if you're talking about it in terms of qualia then yes, art does illicit subjective experience). It's pretty clear that we have physical representations of art, because we have galleries of art, we have institutions of art that have existed for thousands of years. Just because there is no 'objective yardstick' for what art is, doesn't mean that art is entirely imagined; that's a logical jump you cannot make. Think of it like this, there is no objective yardstick for what constitutes a [I]table.[/I] [B]"art is whatever you damn well please it to be"[/B] This is clearly not the case. You cannot imply this just because we have no "objective yardstick" for what art is. [B]"objectively art"[/B] You're getting confused here. Is a painting 'objectively art' because we understand that it shares qualities that other objects have in the category of objects we define as 'art'? If not, then is a table 'objectively a table' if it shares qualities with other objects that we define as 'tables'? basically, the further down this line of thought you go, the more confused you get about what art is. If you're going to say that art is subjective experience within the imagination, then you're basically going to run into a situation where not only is art "whatever you damn well please it to be", art becomes EVERYTHING that you can possibly experience; which I think is intuitively not the case. Just because I derive meaning from something, does not make it art. Just because I have a subjective experience of something, it does not make it art. I think art is pretty clearly something further than this.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;44297903][B]"art is the act of humans deriving meaning from an objectively meaningless universe"[/B] No, because there are times where we derive meaning from the universe that we do not construe as art. Almost all human knowledge is based on deriving meaning, systems and order from the universe. We do not classify these actions as art. Not only this, but we do not classify extremely beautiful things that are found in nature as 'art', because art is a human endeavour. [B]"where meaning can be found, art can be found"[/B] This seriously doesn't mean anything depending on what you think 'meaning' means (lol) in this circumstance. You just said that the universe was meaningless, now you're saying that we're finding meaning. Surely then we don't 'find' meaning, we invent meaning in this situation? [B]"Art is the essence of subjectivity because art only exists as a subjective experience, one that exists solely in our imaginations"[/B] No it doesn't. Art is not a subjective experience. [I]Appreciation[/I] of art is a subjective experience (depending on what you mean by subjective experience; if you're talking about it in terms of qualia then yes, art does illicit subjective experience). It's pretty clear that we have physical representations of art, because we have galleries of art, we have institutions of art that have existed for thousands of years. Just because there is no 'objective yardstick' for what art is, doesn't mean that art is entirely imagined; that's a logical jump you cannot make. Think of it like this, there is no objective yardstick for what constitutes a [I]table.[/I] [B]"art is whatever you damn well please it to be"[/B] This is clearly not the case. You cannot imply this just because we have no "objective yardstick" for what art is. [B]"objectively art"[/B] You're getting confused here. Is a painting 'objectively art' because we understand that it shares qualities that other objects have in the category of objects we define as 'art'? If not, then is a table 'objectively a table' if it shares qualities with other objects that we define as 'tables'? basically, the further down this line of thought you go, the more confused you get about what art is. If you're going to say that art is subjective experience within the imagination, then you're basically going to run into a situation where not only is art "whatever you damn well please it to be", art becomes EVERYTHING that you can possibly experience; which I think is intuitively not the case. Just because I derive meaning from something, does not make it art. Just because I have a subjective experience of something, it does not make it art. I think art is pretty clearly something further than this.[/QUOTE] Allow me to be more clear, because obviously my wording was insufficient and murky. My use of the term "meaning," would be better suited as being "personal relevance," or "purpose," or some such concept. An artist paints a picture, and might attempt to convey an emotion or an idea. The viewer would then extract their own personal relevance, or "meaning" from the picture. Maybe the picture represents joy or sorrow, or maybe the artist just wanted it to be pretty. When we look at the speed of light, there was no creator who made the speed of light and said "the speed of light represents this, or the speed of light was meant to be pretty." There was no grand scheme to be filled by the speed of light's existence, the speed of light just is. No such connection exists between man and nature as it does with man and art as the universe is uncaring and devoid of purpose, where art is specifically created by an intelligent being to have a purpose. So you caught me, I guess not everything can be art. (I only came to this conclusion as I typed this up.) You mentioned "Is a painting 'objectively art' because we understand that it shares qualities that other objects have in the category of objects we define as 'art'?" The answer is evidently not, otherwise there wouldn't be debate over what art is. Some people see a modern art sculpture and see a wonderful statement on human consumption, and the cleaning lady comes in and think's it's literally just garbage and throws it into the dumpster. Some people see a modern art painting and see skill and talent and emotion, and some see random scribbles of lines that might as well have been totally random which does not count as art, where art would be paintings the Renaissance painters would create. Despite the fact that we can take a reductionist view and say that both a modern art piece and a Renaissance piece are both just oil markings on a canvas hanging on a wall, some people would believe that one was art and the other was random nonsense not worthy of being called art. Some believe that the works of Bob Ross are not art because there is no emotional meaning to his paintings, as he created soulless pictures whose superficial aesthetic quality didn't count as art despite the fact that they were paintings just as the Mona Lisa was. A table is a table because everyone agrees that it is. The US Dollar has worth because everyone agrees that it has worth. But what about paintings or film or television, are they art? Not everybody agrees on what art is. And that's okay. These things are not like the speed of light, which is objectively as fast as it is, because once humans are gone the speed of light will continue to exist as it does now. The USD, tables, and art won't, because there will be nobody around to give them those functions. [editline]20th March 2014[/editline] Can't believe I typed all that. Not sure if I will continue, tbh. Video games.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;44295189]I think you mean the widespread lack of decent writing in most games that USE it, right? It seems to me like you're confusing writing and story; many films and comics have told great stories without a single word of dialogue or description Here's a somewhat popular example: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL-7Xo5QPeY[/media] Would Paperman have been able to tell it's story any better with writing? The answer is indisputably no. That said, I don't think it's always best to rely purely on the strengths of your medium, but the key here is [i]best[/i], not [i]possible[/i]. On the other hand, what do you get when you rely completely on writing without even considering the strengths of your medium? You get waste. Look at the Bioshock series. The original Bioshock was about surviving in the inevitable ruins of a purely capitalistic society by scavenging and manipulating other survivors. You might even argue that the different factions represented the economic classes of that society, and that you survived by playing them off of each other. Compare that to Bioshock Infinite, a game that many have argued is well written but whose gameplay mechanics tell the story of shooting a bunch of targets while occasionally eating garbage.[/QUOTE] Writing is the entire composed work. Including the story, dialogue, and everything. Not just dialogue.
3D modelling? Art Textures for said models? Art Soundtracks? Of course music is art Voice Acting? Acting, for reasons unknown to me, is considered an art Programming? Can be considered to be an art by some Checks out to me, Video games are indeed art
Forgive me if I hammer the point I'm trying to make over the head a bit, but I'd rather get my point across with a wordy diatribe rather than say a sentence or two and have words put in my mouth. I'll [B]bold[/B] the important stuff. What's the difference between a movie and a video game? The audience interacts with the video game actively in order to experience the medium. [B]This is what separates video games from most other forms of artistic expression, in that it engages the audience as an active art, not a passive one.[/B] Watching a playthrough of a video game is basically like watching a movie, so it's important for the work to be played, rather than seen, and a lot of designers fail to realize this and you get sub-par video games with tons of cutscenes, few choices, and other methods to constrain, stifle, limit, bore or remove the player from the work. Like a movie, the parts that constitute the whole are important, but the way it comes together is how it should be judged, and in the case of video games the interaction between the player and the game is the important criteria. Otherwise, the developers should have just made a movie, a book, or a play. [B]In my opinion, for a video game to be accepted as [I]good[/I] art [/b](by art historians, aesthetic philosophers, etc. basically the skeptics of the medium who carry authority in the creative arts and are influential in bringing a medium to critical analysis to help creators to improve and advance the genre) [b]the designer(s) need to use this interaction between the medium and the audience in a novel, creative way[/B]. You can have a game with a good story, good "graphics," good sound and music, and fun gameplay, but you can take it apart and see that it's just a sum of its parts and not something more because it might mishandle the designer/player interaction. Compare the Stanley Parable to a game about walking through corridors and pressing buttons. The former handles the interaction between the player and the work of art in a novel, creative way, while the later does not. The later could be more polished, have a greater story and look and sound prettier, but if it mishandles this interaction than it will be hollow and disjointed rather than a coherent, artistic work. This interaction is the most important criteria in judging the work because it's unique to the medium, so if misused the game might have been better as a different medium. This isn't saying that all games have to be like this: generic shooters have a place in video games just like generic action flicks, puzzle games & jigsaw puzzles, visual novels & choose-your-own-adventure books, button mashers and rock-em sock-em robots. Video games can be entertainment as well as art, just like all other art forms. But if a work wants to give meaning, express creativity, or otherwise use the artform to its fullest potential to fulfill a creative desire, then the reason one should chose a video game over another art form relies on this interaction. Martial [I]arts[/I], diving, gymnastics, and other sports that focus on the creativeness, form and function of the athlete (along with other criteria) can be compared to a video game player, in a way, by the player's handling of his character and his dexterity with the controls. There aren't many games that would judge a player on these criteria other than maybe rhythm, sports and indie games but the potential is there. [B]So discounting video games as an artistic medium solely because there's an entertainment and activeness to it would mean discounting many other types of artistic expression.[/B] [B]Video games are unique in that there's a tug of war between the designer and the player.[/B] There's the active part from the player, who is basically "the athlete", "the performer" as well as "the audience" mixed into one or more people, and the passive part by the developer(s), who create the framework for the player to interact with, and the designer gives and takes control to and from the player. It's a balancing act. I bring up the Stanley Parable again because it's one of the games that understood this idea and played with it. You can choose which way to go, what buttons to press, but ultimately the designer (the narrator as the game would put it) sets the structure and limitations and creates everything for the player to interact with. The designer makes the paths, the story, the rules, the sensual experience, and the player follows those paths, absorbs and takes part in the story, and provides the active, engaged experience. Without the player, the game is just a movie. Without the game, the player is just a sportsman/woman. [B]This balance between the two forces of designer and player is what makes a video game unique, special, novel, and a vehicle for creative and artistic expression that's different from the parts that make it up.[/B] So, hopefully I've been convincing enough as to why video games are a special form of art, and how they should be judged in comparison to one another. A greater man would have summed this up in less words than me, but I've got too much to say I guess.
[QUOTE=Jacen;44300413]Writing is the entire composed work. Including the story, dialogue, and everything. Not just dialogue.[/QUOTE] I didn't intend to restrict it to dialogue, but the word "writing" connotes written word. Does it make sense to apply that term where there isn't any? Would you say that Paperman is well written, for instance? If yes, then would you say that missile command is well written?
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;44304062]I didn't intend to restrict it to dialogue, but the word "writing" connotes written word. Does it make sense to apply that term where there isn't any? Would you say that Paperman is well written, for instance? If yes, then would you say that missile command is well written?[/QUOTE] plays and movies can be badly wrote
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;44304062]I didn't intend to restrict it to dialogue, but the word "writing" connotes written word. Does it make sense to apply that term where there isn't any? Would you say that Paperman is well written, for instance?[/QUOTE] Yes, I would, but it doesn't matter if I think it's well written because we're talking about whether something [i]is[/i] writing as opposed to it being well written. However, the story had to be written before it could be adapted into an animation so it is a writing. The very definition of writing is "a written composition". Which applies to almost every story, not just the ones you can find at a book store, so just because there's no words to see in the final product does not mean it isn't a writing. That's literally how I've always seen it used. [QUOTE=1STrandomman;44304062]If yes, then would you say that missile command is well written?[/QUOTE] No I wouldn't. But that is pretty irrelevant for reasons mentioned above.
[QUOTE=Jacen;44304401]Yes, I would, but it doesn't matter if I think it's well written because we're talking about whether something [i]is[/i] writing as opposed to it being well written. However, the story had to be written before it could be adapted into an animation so it is a writing. The very definition of writing is "a written composition". Which applies to almost every story, not just the ones you can find at a book store, so just because there's no words to see in the final product does not mean it isn't a writing. That's literally how I've always seen it used. No I wouldn't. But that is pretty irrelevant for reasons mentioned above.[/QUOTE] so you don't think game mechanics can be used to tell a story, as missile command arguably does?
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;44304886]so you don't think game mechanics can be used to tell a story, as missile command arguably does?[/QUOTE] What does that even have to do with anything, this argument spawned because you implied that something has to have dialogue for it to be considered a writing.
[QUOTE=Jacen;44305004]What does that even have to do with anything, this argument spawned because you implied that something has to have dialogue for it to be considered a writing.[/QUOTE] my point is that missile command has the non-written components that you're saying are encompassed by the word writing.
Game mechanic or not, if it has anything to do with the story then it is a part of the writing. It had to have been written by someone as part of the story before it was implemented into the game. How else would the programmers or designers know what to do?
[QUOTE=Jacen;44305171]Game mechanic or not, if it has anything to do with the story then it is a part of the writing. It had to have been written by someone as part of the story before it was implemented into the game. How else would the programmers or designers know what to do?[/QUOTE] I can accept that, but it seems like most of the time people talk about game mechanics and writing as if they're separate aspects, and then continue to put more emphasis on the latter than the former.
[QUOTE=TestECull;44289538]Honestly, for me, to call something art is to acknowledge that it has no practical purpose, that its sole reason to exist in the world is to look pretty. Video games do so much more than that.[/QUOTE] If that's all you think of art, you've never truly experienced it.
[QUOTE=Buck.;44291514]It all depends on the game, counter-strike is as much art as football is. A video game can be art, but not all video games are art.[/QUOTE] CS map design though, intentionally designed people react differently. If those maps aren't art then nor is architecture or graphic design.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44289012]6% of people don't believe theatre is art? wat[/QUOTE] I think for most of those people "art" is synonymous with "painting" .
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;44289039]Everything is art[/QUOTE] thank you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.