State of the "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'"