Airola
Member
You're going to tell me that a painting of a can soup is art, but not the stuff you see in video games?
I'm not going to tell you that because most likely a painting of a can of soup is art. Of course it's possible that painting has something else to it that would make it art, but if that is all there is to it then it's just a painting of a soup can. Could be exceptionally well made with tremendous amount of skill and super entertaining to watch, but that's not art.
If you have the ability to create quality content on the scale we see in video games, that's art. That's talent. I don't even know what else to say since art is subjective. A picture is absolutely art, just because you deem it "not art" there will be plenty that disagree with you.
Unless you are the sole judge of what is considered art...
Quality of content and talent does not mean art. I'm not making any quality judgments by calling something art and something not art. A piece of work does not get better or worse if it's called art or not.
Sure, today we seem to call every piece of entertainment art and every piece of art entertainment. So basically with this warped sense of what art is everything is art. Then comes the problem that where the line goes. Is a hammer made by someone art? If it's not art by default what should we say if the maker of the hammer says it's art? It's suddenly art now? And if we make some arbitrary decision to make skill and talent to be the decisive factor in what we should call art, then where the line goes in that?
Sure there is also the same kind of problem if we go on to say that art is something that reveals abstract things that are hard to articulate in any other form than in the form the art piece was made in. Where is the line in that? How much every piece should reveal such things? But at least in this case there is a distinct meaning of the word art instead of it possibly being everything as long as it's pleasing to watch or experience and as long as someone can say it's been made with skill.
I don't care if people would disagree. I think it's very much ok to have a discussion whether some certain piece of work is art or not. And if a piece of work would not be considered art it doesn't mean that work isn't good or made with exceptional skill.
Again, art is not a judgment of the value of a piece of work. It in itself doesn't bring any more or less value to anything.
A painting in itself is not art. A painting can be art.
A movie in itself is not art. A movie can be art.
A book in itself is not art. A book can be art.
A video game in itself is not art. A video game can be art.
And once more, when I say something is not art I'm not making any judgments about the goodness of that work or the talent.