VIDYA JAMES R ART

Discuss everything else here

Moderator: ArcWolf

Post Reply
User avatar
rickgriffin
Site Admin
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:36 pm
Location: Greetings from beautiful Place!
Contact:

VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by rickgriffin »

Link to newspost: https://www.housepetscomic.com/2010/04/ ... mes-r-art/

Okay bear with me, I tend to write up hugelong essays when I feel like people aren't quite saying things in a coherent fashion. For the most part, anyone who saw today's Penny Arcade and the accompanying newspost know that Roger Ebert is definitely in the wrong for uplifting his favorite media as art and tearing down his not-favorite as not-art, but the why seems to avoid people who want to say otherwise, as in they can't accept that art is inherently subjective, and they need an explanation. So I made one!

Art, being subjective, is difficult to define, and that generally means that anyone's definition of art contains several metrics, not just one which is labeled 'art' and goes from 'not art' to 'low art' to 'high art'. It doesn't work like that. Art, being a human endeavor, is not like other human endeavors such as, say, survival. One might very well use art to survive, but using art in order to survive depends on the exchange between people.

That is to say, if you have a man on a deserted island, and he makes paintings out of squid ink on a mashed reed canvas, the paintings do not inherently help him gather food. However, if there are two people on the island, and the second likes the first's paintings and as a result, would prefer that he continue to work on the paintings, and so becomes the sole gatherer of food, then the art has been used for survival, but only in a sense of social exchange.

Art is communication. The exchange between artist and audience depends entirely on mutual stances: that the audience is willing to receive the artist, and the artist is willing to speak to the audience. As much as he tries, the artists cannot create something that has utterly no meaning to the audience. There are of course times when the audience is already receptive to the artist (he "made it" in terms of the fine art scene, so everyone expects him to produce fine art) and the artist intentionally subverts your expectations of the art. He has not created something actually meaningless, but instead highlights the meaning between the expectations of audience and artist—we seek out meaning in things because as humans we're wired to look for patterns regardless of if they were there or not. So the only difference between a good artist and a bad artist is that the good artist creates a perception of communication with the audience, while with the bad artist, the audience rejects his attempt at communication.

Bad art is essentially any time that the artist intends to say one thing, and says it so poorly that the audience can clearly see what he meant to accomplish but did not. Sometimes this is the sort-of fault of the audience, for having expectations that are different from the artist's, but it is also the artist's sort-of fault for his inability to perceive the needs of his audience.

Likewise, the obfuscation that happens in high art, and why lay people tend to reject it, is because many kinds of high art intend to say so many things that they end up saying nothing in particular. This is great for academics, who need to justify their jobs by writing papers, and the more things that can be read into a piece, the better it is for job security. For most people, not so much, because like it or not, Finnegan's Wake just isn't going to be parsed by most people. You can denigrate them for being philistines and not receiving the transcendental experience that is Joyce making up whatever crap he likes, but the end point of the matter is that they have not been communicated to by anything meaningful to them.

Most fine art of this type is fine art by default, even if its current audience is small, because what is usually defined as art has at one point or another been appreciated by an authority or many authorities. Games in this sense are art only so far as the person in the highest authority can say they are, either a political figure or an academic body or what have you, but ultimately what has happened is that the art has communicated to the authority, and the authority has used his authority to declare it art to the unwashed masses.

Now someone might point to Shakespeare and say, well Shakespeare is obviously art, therefore some art is objective! To which I say, your perspective that Shakespeare is art probably stems from the culture you live in, which has ideas on what authorities to trust concerning what is art and what is not, and you have likely encountered such people who take an objective stance to canon, such as all your English teachers. If you take the objective culture-authority approach, then you can objectively declare such a body that the authorities say is art as art, but you lock yourself out of anything they say is not art, and when you and your subculture want to include video games in the definition, well, out go the old authorities.

But in its baser meaning, all art needs to do is communicate effectively to an audience, and generally, the more important the audience and the stronger the reaction, the more it is art. I tend to take issue with denigration of 'popular art' here—like video games or comics or animation—because while much of this has a 'here today gone tomorrow' sense to it, generally creating a work that can transcend its generation comes down to either luck or genius-level skill, because that is essentially the artist speaking to an audience he has not met. This applies to art that is contemporarily decreed 'great art' (always take with a grain of salt) and then wondering why such art from the 70s is barely observed or even known about today. The artist might make the art, but the audience who received it keeps it alive (and the authorities, who tend to be in this position, can keep it alive for a very long, dry time), and that is the only thing that matters when considering something art. Is it important enough to you that you wish to make it part of yourself and keep it alive, regardless of whether it has an obvious utilitarian use?
I'm sure the cold hand of science will be able to overcome his magical powers
User avatar
ChewyChewy
Posts: 5460
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:23 pm

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by ChewyChewy »

Bravo! :D I couldn't have put it better myself. (And by the way, I LOVE "hugelong essays"--I write them myself, and I like to read them! ;) )

So let me see if I can distill your points down to a summary:

All art is subjective, its primary purpose being communication, and hence all art speaks to someone, regardless of who or how many, so the only way "bad" art can exist is if the artist tried to say one thing but failed, and obviously so.

So-called "high art" intends to say so much that it ends up saying nothing in particular (hence one's being able to read many things into it), but lay people who don't like it feel that way because they haven't gotten anything meaningful out of it--they're not among those that it has spoken to.

Most of what people might consider "objectivity" in art only do so because authorities to whom the art has spoken declare it to be so. (Incidentally, didn't Shakespeare write for the masses, and isn't it true that he WASN'T considered "great art" in his own time, just in retrospect?) So that when something is placed on a "spectrum" of "good art" vs. "bad art" it has to do with who it spoke to and how strongly it spoke to them.

But the truly great art (to the extent that such a thing can be said to exist) is that which stands the test of time, speaking to an audience the artist will never know, who feel so strongly about it that they want to keep it alive for the generations.

Is that about right?
Image
PF chars

"We have to do this take again! HAL, do it with a LOT less emotion!"
"I'm sorry Stan, I'm afraid I can't do that."
--Phoenix

pair-o-dimes dot blogspot dot com
User avatar
rickgriffin
Site Admin
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:36 pm
Location: Greetings from beautiful Place!
Contact:

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by rickgriffin »

Why yes, that is an excellent distillation. Thank you!
I'm sure the cold hand of science will be able to overcome his magical powers
User avatar
ChewyChewy
Posts: 5460
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:23 pm

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by ChewyChewy »

rickgriffin wrote:Why yes, that is an excellent distillation. Thank you!
You're welcome. :D And I thought it fitting, given the topic of discussion. I was able to get what you were saying, even though you did say a LOT and didn't summarize it exactly at the beginning and end. So I thought I'd do so myself to help those for whom your point might have gotten lost with all those words.

(It's a good exercise in conciseness for me, anyway....)
Image
PF chars

"We have to do this take again! HAL, do it with a LOT less emotion!"
"I'm sorry Stan, I'm afraid I can't do that."
--Phoenix

pair-o-dimes dot blogspot dot com
Sketcherofstuff
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:54 am

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Sketcherofstuff »

Roger Ebert's views aren't THAT bad... (on movies, I mean)
Daniel Plainview- I DRINK YOUR MILSHAKE!
Sinder wrote: Max can't snort catnip off Grape's chest? :(
Here Comes The Fuzz
User avatar
rickgriffin
Site Admin
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:36 pm
Location: Greetings from beautiful Place!
Contact:

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by rickgriffin »

Well, even old farts who criticize today's youth are more authoritative when they're in their element.
I'm sure the cold hand of science will be able to overcome his magical powers
User avatar
Esquire Fox
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:48 pm
Location: Bork, Bork, Bork! (Sweden)

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Esquire Fox »

Art to me is a work that entertains me or gives me something deep to think about.
Even if some works do not have this affect on me, or perhaps anyone else, they are still meant to capture either of these elements, and are thus art.
When the creator of a work does not intend anything out of it, then and only then is a work not to be considered art.
- Esquire Fox

What do you mean that's not what the signature is for?
User avatar
Dissension
Posts: 8840
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Dissension »

rickgriffin wrote:Well, even old farts who criticize today's youth are more authoritative when they're in their element.
Succinctly put! = P
avatar: milodesty

people are the only things that matter; take care of yourselves and each other
Sketcherofstuff
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:54 am

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Sketcherofstuff »

ART IS SUFFERING
But really, if you suffer a whole lot while creating artwork, then it probablly isn't worth it. Sometimes, anyway.
Daniel Plainview- I DRINK YOUR MILSHAKE!
Sinder wrote: Max can't snort catnip off Grape's chest? :(
Here Comes The Fuzz
User avatar
Dissension
Posts: 8840
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Dissension »

As my "art appreciation" professor was fond of saying, "All art is subjective and anyone who says otherwise is full of crap."

...

Yes, the entire course was based around this concept. = P
avatar: milodesty

people are the only things that matter; take care of yourselves and each other
User avatar
Flamboyant-Pencil
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Flamboyant-Pencil »

It really grinds me up when someone says that games are childish and for kids, or aren't worth anything. They may not mean something to YOU, but to me personally they have a great deal of worth, both as entertainment and as an art medium. Seriously just because you don't appreciate it doesn't mean you have to disrespect those of us that do :v Just my two cents on the "art or not art" debate.
deviantART! 8D

AWESOME AS CHARGED
User avatar
ChewyChewy
Posts: 5460
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:23 pm

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by ChewyChewy »

Peter Pan is an example of a work of art that speaks to me personally, and these intellectual snobs would probably not take me seriously if I said that to them.

But they don't know like I know. It speaks to me deeply, and I'm not going to take the word of someone who doesn't know over what I know to be true.

So what's wrong with a video game being a work of art? If it speaks to you, more power to you. Who am I to judge just because it doesn't speak to me in the same way?
Image
PF chars

"We have to do this take again! HAL, do it with a LOT less emotion!"
"I'm sorry Stan, I'm afraid I can't do that."
--Phoenix

pair-o-dimes dot blogspot dot com
User avatar
Flamboyant-Pencil
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Flamboyant-Pencil »

Exactly! Same thing with music. I'm tired of people going "ONLY GENRE X IS GOOD EVERYTHING ELSE IS (Magikarp)." If you don't like pop or rock or blues or country, good for you, but don't try and ruin it for everyone who does :B
deviantART! 8D

AWESOME AS CHARGED
User avatar
EchoFireant
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:08 am
Location: Classified

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by EchoFireant »

Frankly speaking, it is those who enforces or make their likes into someone else are generally jerks (>_>). If they don't think it's art, then refrain from saying it's a piece of failure. I wonder how they would react if someone took the guts to say whatever they are enjoying as "Art" is a piece of failure as well.

A very simple rule that I wish everyone has with them but won't force it onto someone else: "Do not do unto others what you don't want to feel yourself."

On the other hand, some of them are generally jerks, hence, ignoring them is the best bet. :mrgreen:
Image

Pet Friendly, Marshall : S-7 P-7 E-7 C-4 I-5 A-7 L-5
Pet Friendly, Natalia : S-4 P-7 E-5 C-9 I-7 A-5 L-5
Buckdida
Juicy Wolf-Cat
Posts: 2350
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:59 am
Location: Richardson Valley

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Buckdida »

Now, personally, I'm one of those people who does the, "GAMES R ART" thing. I mean, storytelling, music, and visuals all wrapped up into one interactive experience to draw the person into that world, into its message? I'd say it passes.

...although I will admit that a game such as Team Fortress 2, which has you throwing urine at other players to do more damage, might have trouble being called art. That's where some people complain, and I can kinda see why. No story, violence only kinda thing, although they have been adding story to the game after the fact.

...Somehow. But they're making it work.


And the art! The art that springs forth from such games! Yes, I'm talking about fan art. Like, uh...this one!
http://fc86.deviantart.com/fs38/f/2008/ ... ertnik.png
Sometimes, interpretation of the game springs forth some really cool stuff.
Retired RP Character List (Sorry guys)
Richardson Valley: Venison and Ochen
Brookshire Meadows: Trinket
Oasis Towers: Jaxeh and Klack
User avatar
rickgriffin
Site Admin
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:36 pm
Location: Greetings from beautiful Place!
Contact:

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by rickgriffin »

I believe there is a dynamic to the rule balance in Team Fortress 2 that along with the visuals make for something compelling on a different level than, say Counterstrike. There's always some way to perceive it as art, even if it seems a bit mindless in the way that a person engages with it.
I'm sure the cold hand of science will be able to overcome his magical powers
User avatar
Dissension
Posts: 8840
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Dissension »

I'm jealous of you people and your video games...

Therefore, I have decided that I no longer consider them art. Excuse me, I'll be over here, reading my books. *sniffs* x3
avatar: milodesty

people are the only things that matter; take care of yourselves and each other
User avatar
Flamboyant-Pencil
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Flamboyant-Pencil »

BOOKS R NOT ERT.
deviantART! 8D

AWESOME AS CHARGED
Slippery-Q
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:00 am
Location: El Paso, Texas

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Slippery-Q »

buks r knowlege duh.
User avatar
Teh Brawler
Posts: 5133
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:26 pm
Location: Someplace with Internet access
Contact:

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Teh Brawler »

PORTAL 2. DON'T TELL ME VIDEO GAMES AREN'T ART.
*goes back to his pokewalker*
DOH HO HO WELL THEN
Ebly
Posts: 4246
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:01 am
Location: Imagination!

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Ebly »

I know a guy called James

Anyway it's pretty hard to respond to something you agree with besides with "I agree", so I'm going to stick to that.
School is pretty funny that way, though. "Read this book and talk about how good it is in an essay when in reality it's a bunch of crap." Apparently the design students get the same thing.
I was going to make a joke but then I did.
User avatar
GameCobra
Posts: 7241
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:27 am
Location: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by GameCobra »

I grew up on things such as Castlevania, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Uncharted Waters, Metal Gear, Megaman, Final Fantasy and Resident Evil. Videogames to me have always felt like a strong source of art when i grew up since it hit me with that feeling that i could do something similar, in a artistic way of course. I've looked at games as orchestrated art similar to music, but of course, in a larger scale.

Bear in mind though, not everyone can translate art the way they want it too. it's a matter of knowing how to work with it at times or how you think it should've worked. me? i think art comes from the most basic form of writing. If you can write it, it's a piece of art that's waiting to take a more physical form one day. =3

It may sound weird how i described it, but that's just how it was with me when growing up. I always viewed Art as fun, like a game. you want to have fun with it and you want your Art to hit a high score somewhere that makes not everyone like it, but challenges other artists even to go higher.
3 words - Liquid Metal Fur
Image
User avatar
ChewyChewy
Posts: 5460
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:23 pm

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by ChewyChewy »

A while back I read an article on the debate--I don't remember where, or by whom, but the gist of it was that video games are art, and the reasoning given is that they are comparable to movies. This person pointed out the fact that video games are at a similar point in their existence to where motion pictures were at a hundred years ago.

I don't think many (if any) people nowadays debate whether or not MOVIES count as art, but that wasn't always the case. In the beginning, they were literally moving pictures--a series of photographs strung together that simulated motion. It only lasted a minute or thereabouts, no sound, no special effects, no nothing except photographed motion. And that was precisely the draw--it was the mere novelty of photographed motion that made it exciting. Some skeptics at the time didn't think they would last precisely BECAUSE they were novelty acts. Surely no one in the 19th century thought motion pictures would ever become serious ART. Even theater folk didn't start taking movies seriously for a couple of decades.

But it's precisely because they were novelty acts that the movie people started innovating, to keep people going to see movies long after the novelty of photographed motion wore off. Longer movies, musical scores, special effects, story plots, and more artistic elements all became part of cinema, and eventually became standard. And lo and behold, they were eventually taken seriously as a brand-new art form.

Video games are in a similar position nowadays as movies in their infancy, but I have to say that LONG before I ever heard of the debate over whether they counted as "art" or not, I noticed the complexity and craft going into video games that led me to think of them as "interactive movies." Seriously, at their best, the only distinguishing characteristic of video games (as opposed to movies) is the element of interaction and thus mutability. Watching a movie is (or at least can be, depending on its quality) a passive experience. Playing a video game is not--a video game puts you right into the story as a character.

I've heard people say that movies are the great art form of the 20th century because they combine all other forms of art within them. Well, video games, it seems to me, are taking that a step further by adding an element of interaction and mutability that don't exist in movies--effectively marrying motion pictures to performance art. The fact that there's still a debate means we're still in the earliest stages of it, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if video games turned out to become the great art form of the 21st century.
Image
PF chars

"We have to do this take again! HAL, do it with a LOT less emotion!"
"I'm sorry Stan, I'm afraid I can't do that."
--Phoenix

pair-o-dimes dot blogspot dot com
User avatar
D.Z.
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:08 pm

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by D.Z. »

Ebert needs to play MGS4.

Then tell me if video games cannot be art.
Image
User avatar
GameCobra
Posts: 7241
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:27 am
Location: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by GameCobra »

Dissension wrote:I'm jealous of you people and your video games...

Therefore, I have decided that I no longer consider them art. Excuse me, I'll be over here, reading my books. *sniffs* x3
Also. /hug
3 words - Liquid Metal Fur
Image
User avatar
Justice193
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: Here, going there.
Contact:

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Justice193 »

to me, games a conduit for art, end of story.

now to clarify this: it is true that games normally have allot of story behind them and planning and such, and that section may be considered as art (as sound can be considered as such for those with an ear for good sound), but there is also allot of people that often put a large amount of effort into creating the visuals for a game, and as far as I know there haven't been very many of those that have EVER failed in delivering their messages to an audience, no mater what generation they are a part of.

take for example team fortress 2, would anyone here dare say that any of the characters appear to be out of character?
[acronym=© Justin TR Clark, May 11th, 2010.]*It is not enough for us to simply pursue our dreams; we must lift our enemies to their feet.[/acronym]
User avatar
Flamboyant-Pencil
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: VIDYA JAMES R ART

Post by Flamboyant-Pencil »

I really came to appreciate games as an artform after watching the developer commentary for GoW 1 and 2, and listening to the commentary from the Orange Box. Dudes put a lot of work into every little detail to make it the best experience gameplay, visual, and narrative wise.
deviantART! 8D

AWESOME AS CHARGED
Post Reply