Yeah, the whole gamers who think games as art, only think of it that way to justify wasting time is pretty stupid. Although there may be people that do that, not everyone is like that, and it assumes the worse in people. If movies and books were up for debate, I wouldn't bring up that they only think that way because they need to justify the time wasted in watching a movie or reading a book.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ebert Hates on Games as Art
- Thread starter Shogun
- Start date
White Man said:
I.E. you? Intuitive? Are you insane? Is abstract expressionist painting understood by everyone, is it intuitive? Hell no! Minimalism? You accused someone of having an extremely broad definition of art (and his definition is totally wrong) i would charge you of having an extremely narrow definition of art. Art isnt this nor is it that, the sooner you people learn this the better.
To say something that is interactive isnt art is throwing a way a chunk of the last 30 years in art. And if you REALLY want to get into semantics, all art is interactive, its just the level of interaction is defined by the medium.
The philosophy guys argument falls apart because what he's describing is just the quality of the art. This has nothing to do with interactive software as an art object.
The whole problem with everyone ive heard talk about art is that they are always going on about quality this and quality that, no shit video games havent seen anything close to what weve seen in painting or other mediums, its only been 20 years, and almost no one worth a damn has given video games enough consideration to bring us something really interesting in an art sense. Its like this for every medium. Saying games "CANT" be art is short sighted and shows a lack of knowledge about art.
Thinking about it a little further...
I'd say anything that's crafted with deliberate intent to tell a story and/or evoke an emotional response from an audience qualifies as 'art'. Intent is the key. Whether or not a given work achieves that goal is a measure of the artist's skill and the limitations of the medium, but even crude or failed art is still art.
I'd say anything that's crafted with deliberate intent to tell a story and/or evoke an emotional response from an audience qualifies as 'art'. Intent is the key. Whether or not a given work achieves that goal is a measure of the artist's skill and the limitations of the medium, but even crude or failed art is still art.
cicero
Member
So I could walk around screaming and spitting on the ground, as well as people, and it would be "art" if my actions were specifically "crafted with deliberate intent to tell a story and/or evoke an emotional response from an audience"?? My intent alone is the definitive factor.Tellaerin said:
cicero said:
It'd be performance art, and you might argue that it's not particularly good performance art, but yes. If your goal was to evoke a particular emotional response and your actions were deliberately crafted toward that end, that would be what makes something like what you described art, rather than just being a public nuisance. I think what defines art is the artist's desire to convey something in his/her chosen medium, some emotional weight or resonance. Art = an attempt to communicate something to the person experiencing it.