|
Posted By
|
Message
|
Matt Boothman
The Nissan Micra of forum members
Registered
20/09/2002
Points
109
|
17th April, 2011 at 19:52:50 -
You do not need Greek to tell me what you mean by 'truth', I am well aware of duality of meaning. I completely understand what you meant the first time.
"Art does not reproduce the visible; it makes things visible." - Paul Klee
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.
|
s-m-r
Slow-Motion Riot
Registered
04/06/2006
Points
1078
|
18th April, 2011 at 15:13:04 -
Originally Posted by Phredreeke
I disagree with your comparison with sports equipment and sex toys. Those are tools, just a means to an end. Like the paintbrushes an artist use to make a painting, or the controller you use to play the game.
Very well. I'd then compare computer games to playing sports and masturbation. Creative, certainly. Art, not likely.
n/a
|
Chizuko
Registered
18/02/2011
Points
521
|
18th April, 2011 at 16:53:20 -
I see many people here jumped too fast into the debate, I'd start by checking out the dictionary and see the several definitions of arts, you'll see it's open to interpretation. You can't believe you didn't do that earlier, do you? Anyway, the definition I like the most is art as the creation of beauty, the more you put your heart into something, the more artistic it is, and there's no reason that shouldn't include game development.
n/a
|
Alonso Martin
Registered
29/12/2010
Points
294
|
18th April, 2011 at 17:04:14 -
Again, Chizuko, it seems you're the one that most quickly jumps to conclusions. I very much recommend reading Heidegger's perspective.  He explains several understandings of art, matter and form (which is something nobody has mentioned yet), truth and beauty. Dictionary definitions are not very handy, unless you're trying to define something very simple.
Matt: Precisely this duality is what I tried to leave out when I brought the Greek understanding of truth. Whether unconcealed or concealed, it is all simultaneously part of the same something (which inaugurates a new perspective). It's more about monoism, rather than dualism.
www.hfalicia.com
www.alonsomartin.mx
|
Johnny Look
One Happy Dude
Registered
14/05/2006
Points
2942
|
18th April, 2011 at 17:28:47 -
For me art is something that means something to someone. That being said, I do believe games are art.
s-m-r: Put it this way: Playing a video game is the same as watching a movie. By making a game or a movie you are making art. You can't "make sport" or "make masturbation", or in others words, there is no creation involved with sports or masturbation whatsoever.
Masturbating or practicing sports have no emotions involved, only physical stimulus and therefore, enjoyment. A videogame is much more than that, there is the experience factor. When you look at a painting, watch a movie or play a videogame you are connecting your personal experience with what you are currently experiencing. Once you're done with the movie/painting/game, you will gather what you just felt/experienced and add it to your personal experience.
That's the ultimate goal of every piece of art, having a long lasting experience, have a strong meaning/impact on the spectator, and that's something videogames have but sports or masturbation don't.
n/a
|
s-m-r
Slow-Motion Riot
Registered
04/06/2006
Points
1078
|
18th April, 2011 at 17:48:15 -
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
For me art is something that means something to someone. That being said, I do believe games are art.
s-m-r: Put it this way: Playing a video game is the same as watching a movie. By making a game or a movie you are making art. You can't "make sport" or "make masturbation", or in others words, there is no creation involved with sports or masturbation whatsoever.
Masturbating or practicing sports have no emotions involved, only physical stimulus and therefore, enjoyment.
You're saying there's no emotional involvement, no imagination, no intellectual stimulation or learning, no passion in those activities? Then you've either never played a sport, or never masturbated. I've done plenty of both and experienced much, much more than only "physical stimulus." But maybe that's just me.
I certainly don't want to jump to conclusions here, but if you've never experienced those phenomena while doing something other than making a piece of art or making a video game, then please try them again. But different this time.
I for one have the opinion that there is plenty to be learned and experienced from activities beyond "making art." however, I won't have so much conceit to say that I'm making art by doing those other things. I'm living in the moment and putting my energy and attention toward what I think is important at the time. I draw from and appreciate what that experience has to offer throughout my later life, in a wide variety of circumstances.
n/a
|
Chizuko
Registered
18/02/2011
Points
521
|
18th April, 2011 at 17:50:14 -
Because art is abstract and open to interpretation it doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge its definition on the dictionary, we must agree on that. If it comes to the point one has to disregard whatever the dictionary says to define a word, it's no longer a fair debate.
Another definition of 'art' is doing something right. The art of doing things the best you can, example: the art of game development.
n/a
|
s-m-r
Slow-Motion Riot
Registered
04/06/2006
Points
1078
|
18th April, 2011 at 18:51:54 -
Then why discuss anything at all, if to settle any debate all we need to do is look in the dictionary?
Secondly, "the art of game-making" is a euphemism; it's an expression that describes the process of creation of video games. So, by definition, video games are not to be considered as art, but making video games could be.
If you want to go that route, then hell, "excreting waste" is art. Every time I've taken a dump, it's art. This is because I only go when I really, really need to. Others can see it, smell it, taste it, touch it; this elicits a natural response from them as I'm not sharing the response only with myself. And since I'm 34 years old now, I've become really good at it. I'm practically an Old Master at it. 
My point is that you're arguing to support the idea that everything is art. I don't agree with such a statement.
You want to say that video games are art, go right ahead. I can't be one of them. The only concession that I'll ever give video games is that it takes a lot of discipline and creativity (among other qualities, of course) to make them. They are the end result of the creative process and what I would consider "judicious technical application." But that does not make them art, in my opinion.
n/a
|
Johnny Look
One Happy Dude
Registered
14/05/2006
Points
2942
|
18th April, 2011 at 19:28:38 -
Originally Posted by s-m-r
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
For me art is something that means something to someone. That being said, I do believe games are art.
s-m-r: Put it this way: Playing a video game is the same as watching a movie. By making a game or a movie you are making art. You can't "make sport" or "make masturbation", or in others words, there is no creation involved with sports or masturbation whatsoever.
Masturbating or practicing sports have no emotions involved, only physical stimulus and therefore, enjoyment.
You're saying there's no emotional involvement, no imagination, no intellectual stimulation or learning, no passion in those activities? Then you've either never played a sport, or never masturbated. I've done plenty of both and experienced much, much more than only "physical stimulus." But maybe that's just me.
I certainly don't want to jump to conclusions here, but if you've never experienced those phenomena while doing something other than making a piece of art or making a video game, then please try them again. But different this time.
I for one have the opinion that there is plenty to be learned and experienced from activities beyond "making art." however, I won't have so much conceit to say that I'm making art by doing those other things. I'm living in the moment and putting my energy and attention toward what I think is important at the time. I draw from and appreciate what that experience has to offer throughout my later life, in a wide variety of circumstances.
Firstly, tone down. This is supposed to be a constructive discussion, being aggressive doesn't make your point any more valid.
Secondly, you obviously missed my point entirely. When you practice a sport or masturbate, who or what do you relate your experience to ? When you watch a movie, play a game, look at a painting, etc there is a message,a pre-defined experience to be had that the artist(creator) wanted you to gather/relate to. You are relating your experience to the creation of someone else. That's communication, art is a form of communication. Practicing sport or masturbating aren't forms of communication or anything even close to art but videogames, at least a good bunch of them, are. Sport or masturbation aren't physical objects, they are activities so I don't even know you brought this into the discussion.
Also, making a game or a movie isn't art. The game and the movie are the piece of art, and the creator(s) are the artists.
n/a
|
Phredreeke
Don't listen to this idiot
Registered
03/08/2002
Points
4504
 
|
18th April, 2011 at 19:33:39 -
Johnny Look's post sums it up pretty well.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363
|
s-m-r
Slow-Motion Riot
Registered
04/06/2006
Points
1078
|
18th April, 2011 at 20:40:03 -
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Also, making a game or a movie isn't art. The game and the movie are the piece of art, and the creator(s) are the artists.
The discussion about the definition was related to someone else's post about agreeing on the definition of art, as represented in the dictionary. It wasn't meant to diffuse your point.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Practicing sport or masturbating aren't forms of communication or anything even close to art but videogames, at least a good bunch of them, are. Sport or masturbation aren't physical objects, they are activities so I don't even know you brought this into the discussion.
If you consider art as communication, I can understand your disagreement about masturbation (generally speaking, it's not something that has an audience) so I'll drop that for the moment. That comment of mine stemmed from someone else's disagreement that certain tools were used to create an experience; I likened video games to sports equipment and sex toys. That was argued against, saying that those physical items were simply a means to an end, like paint brushes or game controllers. I rolled with that, and responded that the acts of using those tools may still be creative experiences, but not making art in itself.
There is a creative process in the conception of tools (the "means to an end" described previously), but just because the creative process was utilized to develop a tool does not mean that the tool itself is art. By extension, the use of artistic talent, creative writing skills, new ideas, and technical prowess to bring a game to market does not mean that a video game is a work of art.
Going on what I've proposed above, I still say that video games are not art. They are not created specifically for the communication of ideas. They are there to facilitate an experience through a given medium. Whether it's an abstract twitch game, Final Fantasy VII, Serious Sam, Pac-Man, Tetris, Super Meat Boy, Mario Kart 64, Braid, Half Life 2, whatever people are playing these days...They may have ideas within them that are aspects of the experience, but - to use someone else's phrase - that idea is a means to an end.
If art is about communication, then what are games communicating that sports are not? The passion and excitement experienced not only by the players but the coaches, spectators, and fans can also communicated during a video game. How are the two so different? Wouldn't the physical object of the CD or game controller be a means to an end, and therefore not art? And what about digital downloads, that are not so much physical objects as pulses of electricity? Sure they can be converted to physical media, but it's not necessary to access. But then again, computers would be required to access the games...does that make computers art? They are communication tools; does that make them art-worthy?
If you want to say the practice of sports is not art, but a video game is, then it's like saying a World Cup '98 cartridge is art while the act of sitting down in the seats of the stadium and watching a soccer game is not. (not to belabor the point, but I have an opinion that sporting events and video games are similar, while you propose that they are altogether different).
Perhaps I'm looking for a level of sophistication from works of art that I don't currently see in video games, and that's where our disagreement comes from.
n/a
|
s-m-r
Slow-Motion Riot
Registered
04/06/2006
Points
1078
|
18th April, 2011 at 20:43:39 -
@ Johnny: And hey, it's unfortunate if you see my response as aggressive. I reckon I really can't do anything about that.
EDIT: Ah! I don't mean to be insinuating that/accusing you of either masturbating or playing sports, or needing to. I realize I later used that as a personal anecdote to make a point, but that wasn't intended as a "get thee to a nunnery!" jab or anything. I apologize...!
 Edited by s-m-r
n/a
|
Johnny Look
One Happy Dude
Registered
14/05/2006
Points
2942
|
18th April, 2011 at 21:22:28 -
If you consider art as communication, I can understand your disagreement about masturbation (generally speaking, it's not something that has an audience) so I'll drop that for the moment. That comment of mine stemmed from someone else's disagreement that certain tools were used to create an experience; I likened video games to sports equipment and sex toys. That was argued against, saying that those physical items were simply a means to an end, like paint brushes or game controllers. I rolled with that, and responded that the acts of using those tools may still be creative experiences, but not making art in itself.
There is a creative process in the conception of tools (the "means to an end" described previously), but just because the creative process was utilized to develop a tool does not mean that the tool itself is art. By extension, the use of artistic talent, creative writing skills, new ideas, and technical prowess to bring a game to market does not mean that a video game is a work of art.
Tools can be art if the artist wants them to be, but generally they are not meant to offer an experience, at least not directly. It doesn't matter how art is made, what matters is the intent of the artist.
Pollock was famous for his paintings but all he did was throw paint at some huge blank canvas and call them art. Video games aren't art because they contain art within, they are art because of the experience they want to convey.
Going on what I've proposed above, I still say that video games are not art. They are not created specifically for the communication of ideas. They are there to facilitate an experience through a given medium. Whether it's an abstract twitch game, Final Fantasy VII, Serious Sam, Pac-Man, Tetris, Super Meat Boy, Mario Kart 64, Braid, Half Life 2, whatever people are playing these days...They may have ideas within them that are aspects of the experience, but - to use someone else's phrase - that idea is a means to an end.
Movies, music and even a painting might not be created exclusively for the communication of an idea but that doesn't exclude them from being considered a piece of art.
However, I strongly disagree with you, games are actually made for the communication of ideas/concepts/experience, it's just that a lot of people don't even notice that.
Game design revolves mostly around the concept of experience, or more exactly around summing up all the possible experiences you can take out of an idea and make them enjoyable/fun. I'm sure that every game you played has offered an experience of some sort to you, regardless of how memorable or enjoyable it was. Still, whether a game fails or not at crafting a solid experience on you doesn't make it more or less artistic. Like I said previously, what matters is the intent of the artist, and if his piece of art meant something to someone then he was successful.
If art is about communication, then what are games communicating that sports are not? The passion and excitement experienced not only by the players but the coaches, spectators, and fans can also communicated during a video game. How are the two so different?
That's not the same sort of communication I was talking about. All art is communication but not all communication is art and like I said sports is an activity so that automatically excludes it from being art.
Wouldn't the physical object of the CD or game controller be a means to an end, and therefore not art? And what about digital downloads, that are not so much physical objects as pulses of electricity? Sure they can be converted to physical media, but it's not necessary to access. But then again, computers would be required to access the games...does that make computers art? They are communication tools; does that make them art-worthy?
The art isn't the file, the game controller or the cd, but the game itself. It's very much physical since you can see it and even interact with it. The same can be said for a painting or a movie, except they can't be interacted with. Music is art, but you can't see it, only listen to it.
You can't see or hear sports, you can see people practicing it but that's about it. It's an abstract thing while a game is not.
edit:
Originally Posted by s-m-r
@ Johnny: And hey, it's unfortunate if you see my response as aggressive. I reckon I really can't do anything about that.
EDIT: Ah! I don't mean to be insinuating that/accusing you of either masturbating or playing sports, or needing to. I realize I later used that as a personal anecdote to make a point, but that wasn't intended as a "get thee to a nunnery!" jab or anything. I apologize...!
Ahaha no it wasn't because of that. 
I just thought your tone was a bit too agressive, as if I ofended you or something but it's all good by me, apologies accepted.
Edited by Johnny Look
n/a
|
s-m-r
Slow-Motion Riot
Registered
04/06/2006
Points
1078
|
19th April, 2011 at 03:32:25 -
Ah well, if you're comfortable in saying that art is all in the intent of the artist, and that art only needs to mean something to someone somewhere, but then you want to put arbitrary limits on the variety of communication that qualifies as art, then I'm stepping out. It's interesting to me that you're willing to say that it's simply up to the individual artist to determine what is art, but then limit the types of communication that could be considered art.
...Of course, I could simply jump back in later after lurking for a few weeks, and break all my promises of not contributing anymore. It's been known to happen.
n/a
|
Johnny Look
One Happy Dude
Registered
14/05/2006
Points
2942
|
19th April, 2011 at 04:00:14 -
To have art (communication) you need two things, the artist (the communicator) and the work of the artist or piece of art (the message). What you were talking about is something entirely different, it's not even communication. There are no ideas/experiences being communicated by an individual, and there isn't an actual message.
I don't put arbitrary limits on what kind of communication counts as art, art is communication there are no right or wrong sorts of communication. You must have misunderstood something, or I did.
n/a
|
|
|
|
 Post Reply
|
|
Advertisement
