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