Clearly that art teacher has no knowledge of art.
art is whatever someone considers to be art. there is no definition.
I think (most) video games, movies and TV series aren't art - they are merely entertainment. If you admit entertainment as art, then the likes of Chess, Monopoly, heck, even some sports could be called art, and before the collective of video games at that...
However, does it matter? It's a meaningless label with a loose definition at best. It isn't going to earn games and gamers more respect. Its a paradox, really, that ensures they never do so. Art games like Flower are mostly niche while massive brainless fests like Call of Duty are going to have a much bigger cultural impact and recognition...
P.S. - You see, I'm probably going to publish my first book (according to my agent) by 2016. However, I don't consider myself an artist. It's just a book. It's just fun. Really.
I'm a painting student at RISD, video games can be art, and they should be, that does not mean all of them are high art. For example I don't think flower, which I have played, is "high art". It looks pretty, but its way too fluffy IMO to consider it art. On the other side, I might consider something like a minecraft multiplayer game more of an art form, open to discussion that also works within contemporary ideas ( see Relational Aesthetics by Nicolas Bourriaud).
The other thing, is that for us to consider video games as art we need to be a lot more serious about it, when an art gallery does a video game exhibition and more than half of the people that show up to the opening are in cosplay, we aren't taking it seriously enough(not that there is anything wrong with cosplay intransically).
Thats my two cents
| Rogerioandrade said: While story is very important on games like Rpg´s and Adventure´s, it is basically a background where the challenges are proposed. And if the player can´t overcome those challenges, be it strategic or skill challenges, they won´t be able to "experience" the story and any artistic pourpose it may have won´t be accomplished. Here's the problem with saying that: it's assuming that just because it requires one to be able to overcome those challenges that those challenges are the focus. However, Final Fantasy would barely even be a game, let alone deserving of what people consider "final fantasy" if it included 0 story elements and was simply a turn-taking roleplaying game. No one would play that (figuratively speaking). The story is NOT a background in Final Fantasy (and many RPG's alike). The story is what people remember these games for, not for it being a challenge. Most discussions about Final Fantasy will not be about its difficulty level or how challenged the person felt playing it. Most of them would be about the characters, the story, or whatever. However, we can even say the gameplay mechanics of a game can be considered art as well. What exactly limits art to not include this? It´s not like a movie or a theather play, where you don´t have to interact directly with your skills, but rather observe it. Games are not simply contemplative/observative, there must be some kind of intervention from the player. And from this intervention some feelings may wake up, or not. However, books are neither observatory nor interactive. Art concept is quite vague and controversial, basically anything that is made with the pourpose of expressing feelings or waking feelings on the audience can be somewhat considered art. But videogames are not designed primarly to do that. They are designed to offer a challenge. As they use art elements on it, then this feature may be present in them, not through the game itself but in artistic portions of it, like its music, story or visuals. Again, I disagree. We can't assume all games are out to do only offering a challenge. That especially doesn't make sense for Visual Novel games that CLEARLY have challenge elements (999 and Virtue's Last Reward), but OBVIOUSLY focus on expressing feelings. This also applies to quite a few OTHER games as well. You're making the assumption that games are only played, made, and are enjoyable if they offer a challenge. Kirby's Epic Yarn is also a good example of a game that doesn't fit your criteria. PS.: Of course blind people can experience and create pieces of art. Music is art, poetry is art, crafting is art. Many forms of art can be (and are meant to be) appreciated without vision. This was made in retort to the idea that art is only something that can be observed. By definition, that would make it that blind people cannot experience nor create art (given they were born blind). A person who is blind cannot make something that can be observed intentionally a certain way unless they have experienced observation. |
There's "art" and then there is "fine art". Most mainstream interactive media (just like hollywood blockbusters) do not fall under the fine art banner despite it having creative input, I believe that this is what the art teacher was referring. It's a very layman's understanding that everything is art, therefore everything is fine art. I have experienced fine art interactive media, and trust me, it's a lot artier and far more intellectual than "Flower" or anything you can buy on consoles.
The games is art argument always frustrates me, it's like gamers are desperately clawing to get some form of recognition for games to justify playing them. And in the process are trying to compare them to the high art of museums rather than enjoying games just because they are GAMES.
Games are games. Now let us enjoy what they are!
rolltide101x said:
I think I am going to get a picture of professionally printed and say I drew it and colored it and see what he says. He does not know me and would have no idea if I was an artist or not. Will probably need to refine this idea. I will think about it for the next week or 2. |
That's the thing. The quality of the art is subjective. So it's up to interpretation of it is good or bad art. But by asking the question confirms that the subject is unquestionably art.
It’s like Jackson Pollock. People say, “hey I could dump paint on a canvas and it would be the same.” Well, yes an no, because he had the option of doing other things as a master painter. And the intent is different. But the results might be similar in apperance to a layperson.
|
Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon! |
|
 |
Tell me a funny joke! |
| allenmaher said: The dictionary definition is: art ärt/ noun noun: art; plural noun: arts; plural noun: the arts 1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. "the art of the Renaissance" synonyms: fine art, artwork More "he studied art" works produced by human creative skill and imagination. "his collection of modern art" synonyms: fine art, artwork More "he studied art" creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture. "she's good at art" 2. the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance. "the visual arts" Do video games meet this definition? "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination" absolutely "typically in a visual form" check "producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." still works here They often include music, dance, story and other branches of the arts... so frankly unless the person is claiming another definition of the word art than the one the rest of us use... Probably just another art snob. Thankfully the term is not limited by one person's personal taste. |
I´m not sure about that. Games are made primarly for a skill or brain challenge. Many games do not take advantage of such "beauty or emotional power". Some games even do not require such things. If they´re just about appreciation and emotions, then they don´t need to be games at all.
This is the small line that differs videogames from art. Videogames goes beyond art, because it mixes its main elements (challenges) with supporting elements (art) in order to create an experience. But the supporting elements alone, while present, don´t make the final product a "game", but something else.
No wonder many developers refuse to consider games as an art form, and while that doesn´t mean that they can´t be apprecitated, a game is not made for that. The player intervention is required for a fully experience. That´s why I think videogames is something beyond art.
Anyway..... art is also interpretative, if a person enjoy just sitting and watching videogame action he can say it´s art for him and he won´t be wrong, because he prefer to enjoy the product like that.
That teacher doesnt know shit. Change classes or find a better school.
If someone can put a cross into a jar of urine and call it art? but something that has real illustrated designs and models isnt somehow art? That fucktard has no clue.
MDMAlliance said:
|
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
