State of the "Art"

[DavidS]

Thanks for liking my Innsmouth sketch. Yeah, maybe when I find time I will try to do more "throughout" stuff with lovecraftian lore. Would love to make a good game or see a good movie dealing with the setting. Sadly DelToro wasn`t able to finance "At the Mountains of Madness" a few years ago.

Hmmmm, I think our main difference in thinking is that we consider art on the successfull deliverance of its purpose. While you appear to be of the opinion that art that fails to get a message across and is able to influence people is not art, I am of the opinion that even unsuccesfull art or "derailed/mislead" art is still art although it failed to get its point across. Maybe it is different though.

Games might or might not be art, but I think we both can agree that there can be art found within certain games already (like certain parts of The Line or a certain creature design in an old Silent Hill game (like the bobblehead nurses that are a play on sexuality archetypes).).

I`d like to mention that "art" has also changed throughout time. Michelangelo for instance was what people today would consider a freelance designer if he would be living right now. Much like DaVinci, Rembrandt and even Mucha (whom I consider the very first "true" advertising designer). They were contract workers that are mainly known for bringing the craft to the next level, but the "message" was often quite secondary. Especially illustration was often used to portrait certain moments, religious believes or persons that are of matter in their respective times. The camera changed everything and only then was art allowed (or "forced") into a puberty that brought forward styles like expressionism or kubism. A huge feat for society as it also was about getting a certain freedom of the mind. Now art was not mainly about the craft anymore, but also much more about cultural growth. For me, that is the reason why it is perfectly acceptable that some modern art isn`t all that impressive on a mere technological level.

Oh and I agree with your statement that one has to keep an open mind. This is very true, especially as an artist or designer. But I do think it is not wrong to have some preferences. For instance I don`t "hate" goth scene music as I understand why it does exist...but given the choice between "Das Ich" ("batcave" I think?) or "Venetian Snares" (experimental electronic music) I will likely chose the later. It is part of my personality and what touches me more on an emotional level. It also puts me in a context with my social environment and allows me to "specialise" and expand on certain cultural branches that are in my interest. After all, I am a product of my environment and I don`t live forever. The reason why I am better with the pencil than with the brush.

I think I derailed my own thread now. Originally it was more about the growing ignorance toward certain parts of art history and now we`re having a one on one discussion about artistic principles. Funny how these things go.

[Alex Ros]

Thanks for liking my Innsmouth sketch. Yeah, maybe when I find time I will try to do more "throughout" stuff with lovecraftian lore. Would love to make a good game or see a good movie dealing with the setting. Sadly DelToro wasn`t able to finance "At the Mountains of Madness" a few years ago.

Well I did like most of your sketches. Real great. Of course I didn't like all and everything, but in general I did love a lot of your ideas. Impressed. And by the way I do know real lot of painters/designers/photographers personally, so I am not the one who can be easily impressed. I am saying this because I think it's important to know, that someone is impressed by your work and truly got into it. I did invest my time and my brains, while looking through all of your Gallery, I took it as serious as I could.

Hmmmm, I think our main difference in thinking is that we consider art on the successfull deliverance of its purpose. While you appear to be of the opinion that art that fails to get a message across and is able to influence people is not art, I am of the opinion that even unsuccesfull art or "derailed/mislead" art is still art although it failed to get its point across. Maybe it is different though.

I am not that straight forward old grouchy man. I do not think that straight that art that fails to get a message across and is able to influence people is not art. I do not think so simply because shitty art is easily influencing people. All that mass-media is extremely influencial. But of course it's not art. So my thoughts on what is art and what is not are more pure. If there's an idea, new idea, a metaphysical discovery, then it's art. The word "new" is a keyword in my universe. If there's nothing new, then it's just... ummmh... than I just walk by.

Games might or might not be art, but I think we both can agree that there can be art found within certain games already (like certain parts of The Line or a certain creature design in an old Silent Hill game (like the bobblehead nurses that are a play on sexuality archetypes).).

Yup, totally agree. And by the way I am a big fan of those Japanese Silent Hill monsters. Not all of them of course, a lot of Silent Hill monsters are quite stupid and noninteresting. But for example Pyramid Head alone is nearly genious piece of real art. And yeah those nurses with the idea to invert what we used to perceive as sexual into horrible is real great and innovative. And by the way the word "invert" is also extremaly important in what I love in arts. It's hard to explain, but for example your own concept with a child (african girl in particular) with lovely eyes and... and eroded skull and is invert. Much better than the same invert of a sinless child into a monster at the Stephen Kings Pet Sematery. Stephen Kings invert is too straight-froward in comparison with your concept.

I`d like to mention that "art" has also changed throughout time. Michelangelo for instance was what people today would consider a freelance designer if he would be living right now. Much like DaVinci, Rembrandt and even Mucha (whom I consider the very first "true" advertising designer). They were contract workers that are mainly known for bringing the craft to the next level, but the "message" was often quite secondary. Especially illustration was often used to portrait certain moments, religious believes or persons that are of matter in their respective times. The camera changed everything and only then was art allowed (or "forced") into a puberty that brought forward styles like expressionism or kubism. A huge feat for society as it also was about getting a certain freedom of the mind. Now art was not mainly about the craft anymore, but also much more about cultural growth. For me, that is the reason why it is perfectly acceptable that some modern art isn`t all that impressive on a mere technological level.

Totally agree. Just nothing to add.

Oh and I agree with your statement that one has to keep an open mind. This is very true, especially as an artist or designer. But I do think it is not wrong to have some preferences. For instance I don`t "hate" goth scene music as I understand why it does exist...but given the choice between "Das Ich" ("batcave" I think?) or "Venetian Snares" (experimental electronic music) I will likely chose the later. It is part of my personality and what touches me more on an emotional level. It also puts me in a context with my social environment and allows me to "specialise" and expand on certain cultural branches that are in my interest. After all, I am a product of my environment and I don`t live forever. The reason why I am better with the pencil than with the brush.

Agree once and once again. I do have a lot of preferences. For example I do not like straight-forward clear things. For example, I do not like Tolstoy. I prefer questions than answers. I do not like when it's clear what author is thinking about this or that, I prefer сontradictory pieces of art. Lord of the Flies for example is one of my favourites of all the times.

---

I think I derailed my own thread now. Originally it was more about the growing ignorance toward certain parts of art history and now we`re having a one on one discussion about artistic principles. Funny how these things go.

As for original purpose of the thread, I think that growing ignorance toward certain parts of art history is provoked by drastic change of global cultural preferences. Like you've said 200-300 years ago art was just a profession, simply just a job. As a result art was purely part of usual life, not something from the other planet. Now art and artists are divided from usual life, they're like a little bit crazy in the eyes of the masses. Here are normal usual people with normal usual lifes and jobs, and over there are the artists. Two different worlds, crossing over but different. That's the main problem. People doesn't percieve art as a usual job, vice versa they do percieve it like something UNusual. And that's the worst. Because artists themselv are used to think that they're not usual, they're "blessed". But they no more "blessed" than a talented cook, pizza maker. Even modders, I mean game-modders do think that they do something REAL special, they're special. I'm exaggerating, of course. It's not just black and white. But I think my message is clear.

P.S. Maaan... I haven't been writing so much since wasting time on writing that shit http://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/thread-18948.html

[Bridge]

Get a room you two.

[Adrianis]

Out of interest, and I apologise if this has already been answered but you'll forgive me for not reading every line written here, do you guys feel that you can put a concrete definition of what 'Art' is, at least to you?

I mean, you are both making assertions as to whether games are or are not art, whether parts of a game are, such as specific character models in the case of Silent Hill, or certain moments like in The Line, and talking about games meeting certain 'landmarks' for being art.

For me personally, in order to make an assertion like that, I would want to be certain of my definition of what the 'thing' is that I am saying a topic meets or does not meet the definition of that 'thing'. In the case of Art I've just given up altogether trying to define it because it's such a nebulous concept, and therefore I just don't class things as art or not art.

However, you clearly both have put an awful lot more time into the concept of Art than I have, so I'd love to hear you're definition if you have one. What is Art? Why do some games meet, or not meet that status of Art? What are the landmarks for a game to become Art?


P.S. I lament the lack of an option for the Poll along the lines of "It's all good, whats the big deal"

[Alex Ros]

Well, sir Adrianis, we have already described what is art and what is not. It was quite a discussion I'd say )))))) So if'd invest some time to read whole thread you will do find out the answer on your questions: "What is Art? Why do some games meet, or not meet that status of Art? What are the landmarks for a game to become Art?"

[Adrianis]

Well, sir Adrianis, we have already described what is art and what is not. It was quite a discussion I'd say )))))) So if'd invest some time to read whole thread you will do find out the answer on your questions: "What is Art? Why do some games meet, or not meet that status of Art? What are the landmarks for a game to become Art?"

Fair enough! So I've read through it all, and I feel like you did provide a sort-of answer to the first of my questions, but definitely not the last two.

Some say that art is a reflection of life. Reflection of momentary reality, faced by the author and expressed in his work
...And some say that art is truly a science, a way of researching life and universe in a non-materialistic way with instruments like metaphors, associations, emotions, etc
... As a result I presume that art is a way to find and show something new about life

So, does that mean that until a game shows something new about life, you won't consider games to be an artform?

The problem I have is that, it's such a broad definition 'show something new about life', or 'is a reflection of life' or 'a way of researching life and the universe' - there's no way that I can see to apply that to the various works that we generally all agree are 'art' (does Monet really show you something new about life?), and therefore no way to then apply it to new emerging forms which are arguing their case for being or not being art.

Even if you say that art has to establish an emotional connection in the consumer, does that mean that, in actual fact, Picasso's works are not art, because when I look at them there is no emotional connection?

Well, David smartly addresses that last problem here...

While you appear to be of the opinion that art that fails to get a message across and is able to influence people is not art, I am of the opinion that even unsuccesfull art or "derailed/mislead" art is still art although it failed to get its point across

But then, if everyone takes away a different message or feeling from a piece of art, by what terms is it considered unsuccessful? If it didn't get across the feeling that the artist intended? The 'greatest' works of 'art' create a lot of debate among consumers, precisely because people take away different things, are they then derailed/mislead?

So then, later on

All that mass-media is extremely influencial. But of course it's not art

Does that mean that nothing in mass-media can be art? I mean, if you consider that some cinematographers have produced works of art, do you not also consider it possible that there are some popular TV Shows that could be considered works of art? If not, is it because you don't think they can show you anything new about the world?

If there's an idea, new idea, a metaphysical discovery, then it's art. The word "new" is a keyword in my universe. If there's nothing new, then it's just... ummmh... than I just walk by

This supports your earlier definition of art right, that it has to be showing something new about the world.
So what happens when you go back and look at an old painting again? Is Picasso still an artist, despite you having seen all his works before? And what of the other Cubists, like Braque?
Does that also mean that the 'realist' painters (not sure of the proper term for it) like you often get in christian renaissance painters, are not artists because all they are doing is accurately representing a roughly real life image?


I guess my point is that, all these definitions are too loose for anyone to give a fair judgement as to what is art and what isn't. There are always so many caveats, so many loopholes in the description that it's never complete enough. So it bothers me when people say that games are, or are not, art, because when questioned no-one can come up with a definition good enough. Statements like 'games are not an artform' apply a clearly subjective label (art) in a matter-of-fact way.

I suggest that it would be a progressive move for the art world to abandon the term altogether.
Is Braque an artist? No, he's a painter
Is Tarkovski an artist? No, hes a cinematographer
Is Bach an artist? No, hes a composer
Is Rohrer an artist? No, hes a game developer

That way, we can forget about any important or meaningful emotional works meeting any kind of definition, or 'landmark' to be considered in this prestigious and yet nebulous category of 'art', and focus purely on what impact these things have for us. We can stop the elitism about modern vs classical works, and stop the stereotyping and nasty assumptions about the value of new works that may seem dumb or pointless to us. And no, I'm not saying you guys were doing that at all, but I'm sure you'll agree that some people do, and that it's not helpful or productive to "the state of the 'art'"

[Alex Ros]

Some say that art is a reflection of life. Reflection of momentary reality, faced by the author and expressed in his work... ...And some say that art is truly a science, a way of researching life and universe in a non-materialistic way with instruments like metaphors, associations, emotions, etc
... ...As a result I presume that art is a way to find and show something new about life

So, does that mean that until a game shows something new about life, you won't consider games to be an artform?

Basically yes, you've to show up life in a way nobody've seen before, but...

If there's an idea, new idea, a metaphysical discovery, then it's art. The word "new" is a keyword in my universe. If there's nothing new, then it's just... ummmh... than I just walk by

That's what I meant by "showing new". An idea. And idea is almost synonymous with metaphor in a very broad sense of the word. So genre doesn't matters at all and...

Is Picasso still an artist, despite you having seen all his works before? And what of the other Cubists, like Braque?

Yes, they're are of course. We all do know geometry basics for thousands of years, but it doesn't mean greek Aristotel is not a phylosopher and scientist.

Does that also mean that the 'realist' painters (not sure of the proper term for it) like you often get in christian renaissance painters, are not artists because all they are doing is accurately representing a roughly real life image?

It's not that simply with realists. They were not just "representing" real life. Nope. It's always about the idea.

The problem I have is that, it's such a broad definition 'show something new about life', or 'is a reflection of life' or 'a way of researching life and the universe' - there's no way that I can see to apply that to the various works that we generally all agree are 'art' (does Monet really show you something new about life?), and therefore no way to then apply it to new emerging forms which are arguing their case for being or not being art.

Once again "something new about life" is just a new idea, no less, no more. That simple... and hard. To find a real new idea is quite hard.

But what is idea? New idea? Seems like that's the question.

I guess my point is that, all these definitions are too loose for anyone to give a fair judgement as to what is art and what isn't. There are always so many caveats, so many loopholes in the description that it's never complete enough. So it bothers me when people say that games are, or are not, art, because when questioned no-one can come up with a definition good enough. Statements like 'games are not an artform' apply a clearly subjective label (art) in a matter-of-fact way.

I suggest that it would be a progressive move for the art world to abandon the term altogether.
Is Braque an artist? No, he's a painter
Is Tarkovski an artist? No, hes a cinematographer
Is Bach an artist? No, hes a composer
Is Rohrer an artist? No, hes a game developer

Yes, I do agree completely. That's the problem of the modern world that to be an artist became something dreamy... etc. But to be an artist is simply to have a job and do it well ))))

P.S. Anyway, to make a really fullfiiling definition of art is nearly impossible in a format of a tiny post on a forum. Because while I say that art is something that contains a new idea I have to describe what is that a new idea... and so on... on and on... so. I am not ready to write down a book on art and ideas

[Adrianis]

Anyway, to make a really fullfiiling definition of art is nearly impossible in a format of a tiny post on a forum. Because while I say that art is something that contains a new idea I have to describe what is that a new idea... and so on... on and on... so. I am not ready to write down a book on art and ideas

Haha yeh, that's very reasonable, I don't really expect you to, I just wanted to raise the point as I feel it's quite important. Thanks for the great response!

I think I derailed my own thread now. Originally it was more about the growing ignorance toward certain parts of art history and now we`re having a one on one discussion about artistic principles. Funny how these things go

To be fair David, this is one of the best de-railings possible. It's still largely on-topic and is intelligent discussion, you should be please!

[Alex Ros]

I can't say better then David Lynch, bout the ideas and what they're: "...the idea tells you everything. Lots of times I get ideas, I fall in love with them. Those ones you fall in love with are really special ideas. And in some ways, I always say, when something’s abstract, the abstractions are hard to put into words - unless you’re a poet... ...I love stories, but I love stories that can hold abstractions... ...A lot of times, I don’t know the meaning of the idea - and it drives me crazy. I should know the meaning of the ideas, and I think about them... ...I should know the meaning for me. But when things get abstract, it does no good for me to say what it is. All viewers, on the surface, we’re all different. And we see something - and that’s another place where intuition kicks in. You see the thing, you think about it, you feel it. And you go and you sort of know something inside. You can bring your light on that. And another thing I say is, if you go after to a coffee place with your unpronouncable abstractions, and you’re having coffee with your friends, someone will say something, and immediately you’ll say, ‘No, no, no, that’s not what that was about.’ So somehow you do know, you do know everything. For yourself. Even if can't pronounce it. And what you know is valid."

[DavidS]

Haha, good to see that more people are joining in.

Someone once said (I usually forget names when it comes to quotes, sorry...) that "Art is the "high level design" of communication" wich is the shortest way of representing how I see the term today. Doing away with "art" as a word (or maybe tying it to the meaning of "being extremely good in a certain skill") might indeed be a big step forward. Although I think many artists (especially the ones that advertise their work and themselve as art) would be standing against this idea. ^^ also the term is still needed to differentiate between certain careers. The concept artist does something different than the concept designer.At least when it comes to design agencies.

@Alex Ros: So I guess we`ve come to a good understanding of each other regarding the subject. Nice. I to am a big fan of what you call the "invert". I guess we`re talking about contrast and juxtapositions mainly. I am especially a fan of cognitive dissonance, uncanny valley, "fringe" horror and weirdness. Especially the contrast between "contemporary aesthetics" and the dissolving of it.

I need to revert to Silent Hill again. I think in the making of of the first movie, the director and the special fx guy brought the point across very good: That it is all about breathtaking beauty that gets distorted and skewed. That plays with pleasure and sexualty and the "body" but ultimately twists it to a level that we get scared as much by the monster as we are scared by us. "Antichrist" by Lars van Trier or Lynchs "Eraserhead" are good examples for the inner turmoil of positive and negative feelings. True terror and we grow out of the ashes of our own believes and emotions. A work that achieves this double-sideness has not only factual things to explore, but also exploration of an emotional level. It is very hard to pull of succesfully though. In painting I like Beksinskis work for that quality, but many others are more drawn to Giger or to Dali.

Back to the overarching subjects: Sure, we wont find a definite solution for the "art question" as the term is too much dependent on subjective views (not mentioning all the cultural discrepancies throughout the world.). In the end you need to sometimes run against a wall or push against a closed door. You might not get through, but you still get stronger.