Art is precisely not a tool. What tools have is that they're half works of art and half tools. Their utility obfuscates the other half, precisely because they are to be used by man. This is all much better explained in the essay I suggested before (The origin of the work of art), but things have been driven to a very unfortunate place. Communication is what modern cartesians use as metaphysics to smear a missaprehended Aristotle unto more originary understanding of the world. For the past 4 years, i've studied a career in communications. Believe me, this is the worst road to take. Art is not about communication (even if it happens incidentally). If it were, then publicity and marketing would be the glorification of the work of art. The world is ugly enough as it is. If art has to be about something, it's about founding the world of man.
I'm also desisting from this thread. Regardless of our differing views, we're not exploring the subject of art, but limiting it. Thanks for reading, though
When a debate is about a word, then yes, we need to check out the dictionary, I would had believed that's pretty obvious. No wonder some people are having such hard time getting around the core of the issue here (no base, no grounds).
Alsonso Martin seems to be living in the world in backwards, haha.
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.
I can go along with that for the moment, but...
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
That's not the same sort of communication I was talking about. All art is communication but not all communication is art...
...Which I can also wrap my head around. And before that, I saw...
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
For me art is something that means something to someone. That being said, I do believe games are art.
I'm having trouble following this line of thinking, is all. On their own, it's permissible and possible. I am having trouble combining the three, and coming up with an answer to the question of whether games are art.
Arguments against games being art are losing their power! For example, implying that games are not art because one should always specify that it's actually the making of games which is art, is like telling someone that paintings aren't art because one should always specify the making of paintings is art.
I'd say this debate requires less writing and more thinking!
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.
I can go along with that for the moment, but...
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
That's not the same sort of communication I was talking about. All art is communication but not all communication is art...
...Which I can also wrap my head around. And before that, I saw...
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
For me art is something that means something to someone. That being said, I do believe games are art.
I'm having trouble following this line of thinking, is all. On their own, it's permissible and possible. I am having trouble combining the three, and coming up with an answer to the question of whether games are art.
Perhaps I didn't use the right words for the second quote, now I think I understand your confusion on your previous post. At first I thought you were talking about the communication between players/coaches/etc so I said that kind of communication is different from art. I then realized what you means and corrected you by saying it wasn't communication at all for the reasons I pointed out.
Alonso: Well I've been studying art for 5 years, almost 6 now.
I don't understand why you say that art is not communication and that publicity and marketing would be the glorification of the work of art. Marketing and publicity and art are only similar in semiology where they are both seen as symbols with a message to communicate but other than that they are distinct kinds of communication because their ultimate goal is different. Simplifying things, publicity aims to raise awareness to a product while art aims to provide an experience. Publicity can also be art (it's called commercial art, and andy warhol is well known for that kind of art) but generally speaking art and publicity have little to do with each other, other than being both forms of communication. Whether someone likes it or not, art IS communication and imo the most beautiful form of it.
I think I understand your position, Johnny. What do you mean by "studying art"? Is it a specific type of art or is the career just generally about art? The reason why I initially made the comparison between film and videogames is because I do both; I simply don't think videogames have been around enough time for someone to develop a road toward finding meaning with the medium. I think publicity and marketing are not very good examples of works of art: a work of art is supposed to be transparent--to point you to an "overwhelming question", as Eliot would say. Publicity and marketing are so opaque that they don't even look for the aesthetic (which is another way of knowing the world; thinking is one, having faith is another, feeling is another)--they just look for beauty shots and creative ways for you to buy the product they sell. That's their use. If a work of art has use, then it becomes a tool. Tools are half works of art (in that anything that humans make is a work of art), but also half utilities (in their usefulness). And this usefulness (communication) is what hides the original condition of their making.
To be clearer, I can't agree with you more about publicity and marketing being works of art, but only half works of art, and dimmed by their usefulness. I seriously encourage you to read, at least, the passage about Van Gogh's painting of the shoes. Besides being incredibly mystical, it gives you tremendous insight. When I was a teenager, I thought I understood what art was, but eventually I noticed I didn't. I just had personal opinions and prejudices about art. Heidegger goes back to the original cartesian definition of art (shape/form and matter) and explains other views. I can honestly say I was handicapped (more than I am now, anyway) before reading that essay.
In any case, I understand your position and probably why you're standing there. I'm just inviting you to read something that perhaps you'll like
Originally Posted by Chizuko
I'd say this debate requires less writing and more thinking!
Originally Posted by Alonso Martin I think I understand your position, Johnny. What do you mean by "studying art"? Is it a specific type of art or is the career just generally about art? The reason why I initially made the comparison between film and videogames is because I do both; I simply don't think videogames have been around enough time for someone to develop a road toward finding meaning with the medium.
So, are you suggesting that Georges Méliès films aren't art, because film hadn't been around long enough?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
So, are you suggesting that Georges Méliès films aren't art, because film hadn't been around long enough?
Well, yes. Deleuze and Derrida also thought similarly. Méliès' films were like Spielberg's or Cameron's today (forgive me for the comparison) in that they were made to excel technically, entertain and sell. Compare him (again, anachronistically) to Tarkovsky, Kieslowski, Bergman, Boe, etc. This distinction (entertainment vs contemplation) I've been trying to make since my first post. :/
I guess the thing closed minded people is having most trouble getting around is that... if game development is art, then everything can be art! This is a matter if abstract thinking, where are the boundaries to what art is?
In math you have to define every value, and that value is the same to everyone. With art, everyone has their own view. Ask 10 people to draw a beautiful tree, none of the trees will be the same.
More specifically, I'm pursuing a degree in multimedia arts but I already finished a three years course in high school (in multimedia arts).
I agree that it will still take some time for the majority to see video games as art, the same way movies took a long time before they were considered art and even music and for the same reasons. Movies were seen as entertainment, not art, just like videogames still are nowadays and music was a long time ago. Back then someone who didn't like to watch movies would laugh at your face if you called them art. The same way someone who doesn't like videogames will laugh at you for saying videogames are art (and will probably call you nerd in the process). I think that how someone perceives games as entertainment and not art comes down to how that persons sees a game. Personally I believe games are more than just entertainment. Some games go way farther than just entertain you, they touch you and offer you unique experiences you wouldn't have otherwise. Games have that power, they can just mess with the player's feelings and leave a mark or at the very least an impression, just like a good movie or a good song can do.
Of course, this and everything I've said in this thread isn't the standard definition of what art is, that doesn't even exits, but at the very least it coincides with what most scholars and artists define as art.
I understand what you mean when you talk about half-work of art and half-tool and I agree to an extent. A movie, a song, a videogame or even a painting might have been made with a primary intent that includes some sort of utility (entertain, serve as decoration, etc..) but I wouldn't really call them half-art, more like "useful art", so to say.
I think every piece of art can have some sort of utility, regardless of what was the primary intent of the artist so calling them half-art can be a bit diminutive. A good example of that would be architecture, it's one of the purest forms of art with utility.
By the way thanks for the pointer on Heidegger's article. It seems like a very interesting read, I will surely check it out once I find a little free time.
I think the above post more or less ends this thread, but I'll still throw in my two cents.
I believe that all video games are art, just as all paintings are art. But depending on the game or the painting itself, this claim might be easier or harder to believe. The Mona Lisa is, with question, art. Likewise, I feel that Shadow of the Colossus is a prime example an artful game.
However, we can not pick and choose which submissions are art and which are not. The whole group has to be considered. So, while it might be hard accept, Dr. Mario and my 2 year old's scribbles are art as well.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Alonso Martin
