foxmccloud64 said:
Of course there is that part about being more centered an using more sucint definitions, as you point we could focus on the "fine arts" and then again i would make a short anlysis about what points are present of fine art definitions, i think i will do it later, but let's not fool ourselves part of what i pointed out have been the problems that have plagued the classifying of something as art and later as "fine art" for a long time now, and this not only applies to videogames: "fine art is developed primarily for aesthetics or creative expression" "The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline according to traditional Western European canons. Except in the case of architecture, where a practical utility was accepted, this definition originally excluded the "useful" applied or decorative arts, and the products of what were regarded as crafts. In contemporary practice, these distinctions and restrictions have become essentially meaningless, as the concept or intention of the artist is given primacy, regardless of the means through which this is expressed" Who decided what passed as fine art? why did they gave a leeway to architecture? why exclude applied or decorative? when even since their conception nowadays people used the fine "pure art" products for other purposes, like the Sacred music, architecture, sculpture and painting produced during several centuries by church orders for spiritual or other purposes, and despite that still are considered on top of several fine art artistic expressions, same for others that were made to represent "things" in accordance with the desires of their contractors and still qualify as "fine art", why despite the decline of the concept of "fine art" by specialist like George Kubler and others to around 1880-1900, and by other scholars of art theory by about 1920-1930, there are still people that champion the use of "fine art" and also do it so selectively, while not recognizing the aesthetic intention of other expressions like photography, comic books(or as Will Eisner called it "sequential art"), or older ones like potery or clothing that not necessarily serve a utilitarian purpose, or not eurocentric ones like chinese caligraphy, the carvings/engravings several cultures of the world did, traditional tatooings of piercings that in some cultures served tribal or ritualistic purposes , but now are done only for the "love to the art" and others. I get your point, but that's why I say there are still lots to take in consideration and why i also think sometimes we should broaden the definitions or revise them to see if we aren't just being over restrictive to certain expressions while giving free pass to others. |
I don't necessarily subscribe to the definition of fine arts. I would include some things like comedy, comic books, wrestling, and etc in the category of art that are not traditionally included. But I do agree with the creative expression part. That is the key, and I'm pretty sure that's what 99.9% of people mean when they ask if videogames are art. I think the reason fine arts are defined as those that are purely aesthetic is to isolate that creative expression.
Pretty much no art is ever purely produced for creative expression, but video games require functionality in a way that the other mediums really don't. Even architecture has less functionality required, because typically, based on my understanding, making a building that stands up is pretty simple and what the building looks like is then completely up to the architect. With games, you have to worry a lot about players being able to actually play it, and enjoy the gameplay systems, and I think with a lot of games that is more of a focus than telling a story or creating the visuals etc. I don't know if that disqualifies games as art, but it makes me question it with a lot of games. Like, Undertale I'm pretty comfortable in calling art, but Mario Kart I'm not so sure.
