Video games and art: are they both the same??...

Let's watch you contradict yourself.

"anything that depicts a something or expresses some sort of message is an artisic work. period. there are absolutely NO restrictions or limitions to these given parameters. none..."

You seem to have forgotten this rather crucial conjunction. Your thread doesn't have to depict something and express something to be art by your definition, it has to do only one of the two. And it does. It expresses. Your next line pretty much solidifies that your thread must be art. So with that, let's next check out what you said in your response to me:

"first of all sir, this thread isnt art, for this is a depiction of anything, nor is it meant any other message than what i have written."

Eh? All of a sudden things only have to be depictions to be art? That, or they have to meet both criteria, rather than just one. I'm honestly not quite sure which direction you're backpedalling in. Also within this line, you added something else that supposedly helps classify things as art. I've put that part in bold letters. If that's how you feel, then what's the following all about?

"art doesnt need to be deep and profound, and when you imply that it must be deep and profound you just prove that you are not only not an artist, but that you also have no comprehension of what art really is."

So, according to this line, your original post didn't need to have any other message than the one you originally intended. Well, that's going off the notion that art needs to meet only one of the two criteria you first established... but you slinked away from that... then expounded upon it... then flat contradicted it...

Whatever, dude, you're hilarious. I don't consider games to be art, but I've read some really good arguments that have compelled me to reconsider. This isn't one of them. Not by a long shot.

In response to your claim that I should judge art based on the dictionary:

Dictionary definitions are determined by usage. If people begin using the word art to mean something different the dictionary definition will change. And it will happen fast. That's why words like the verb "to google" and "crackberry" are listed in the dictionary. Dictionaries are not some infallibile standard of what things really are. If people started using the word "art" to refer to the way the moon looks on a cloudy night or something equally irrelevant to the question at hand, that would soon be represented in the dictionary.

And, lo and behold, if you look at the actual dictionary, you'll find this is the case. Art has 23 definitions on dictionary.com and 37 on www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary), and they're not even the same! So if you wanna define what art is by common usage and a standard that is meant to show only what public opinion is, then be my guest. But I don't think it's a very reliable indicator, and I'm going to continue to disagree with you.

This is a question that's been looked at by very great thinkers for thousands of years, and you're not going to resolve it with the OED. At least not to my satisfaction anyway.

Just because it's computerised doesn't mean it's not art look at animation movies. Also, the fact that games include most forms of art proves that it is. At least I think they are...The next question is are they sport?

In response to your claim that I should judge art based on the dictionary:

Dictionary definitions are determined by usage. If people begin using the word art to mean something different the dictionary definition will change. And it will happen fast. That's why words like the verb "to google" and "crackberry" are listed in the dictionary. Dictionaries are not some infallibile standard of what things really are. If people started using the word "art" to refer to the way the moon looks on a cloudy night or something equally irrelevant to the question at hand, that would soon be represented in the dictionary.

And, lo and behold, if you look at the actual dictionary, you'll find this is the case. Art has 23 definitions on dictionary.com and 37 on www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary), and they're not even the same! So if you wanna define what art is by common usage and a standard that is meant to show only what public opinion is, then be my guest. But I don't think it's a very reliable indicator, and I'm going to continue to disagree with you.

This is a question that's been looked at by very great thinkers for thousands of years, and you're not going to resolve it with the OED. At least not to my satisfaction anyway.

SophinaK

simple. the many 'definition' of art you claim revolve around society are simply the result of over connotation. the certain connotation of a word doesnt it make it the true definition of a word - its just another way in which someone can use it, whether its right or wrong...

Forms of art is not art. Forms of art is forms of art. For crying out loud. Why do people here even mentions culinary art for crying out loud?? Culinary art is the art of cooking. Its an art form!! Not art. See the difference?? The art of basketball. The art of track and field. The art of science. All these are art forms. They are not arts. And Terminator is not art. For crying out load, the TC has no hope. art is expression and vagueness blah blah b;lah. Puss in boots' eyes melts my heart. His eyes are art. The curtain thats tainted in blood, ohhh scary. art. Ahnold: Ill be back!! = art.Captain_Swosh69

your useless rambling does nothing for your initial claim...

P.S. oh, and i thought you said you weren't going to waste our time anymore with your "game-movie examples" that have no bearing on the subject of discussion...

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]Forms of art is not art. Forms of art is forms of art. For crying out loud. Why do people here even mentions culinary art for crying out loud?? Culinary art is the art of cooking. Its an art form!! Not art. See the difference?? The art of basketball. The art of track and field. The art of science. All these are art forms. They are not arts. And Terminator is not art. For crying out load, the TC has no hope. art is expression and vagueness blah blah b;lah. Puss in boots' eyes melts my heart. His eyes are art. The curtain thats tainted in blood, ohhh scary. art. Ahnold: Ill be back!! = art.kanedajjj5757

your useless rambling does nothing for your initial claim...

Yeah... He wants to say "Way of" is not another meaning of art or doing something in a different style does not make art while it does.

Everyone is right, we all have are own personal opinions. This is a very interesting subject, I got my opinion in and im sticking to it :) cya in the next dicussionGmer4x

definately, mate! good discussion, with a lot of thoughts to share. see ya on the forums...

[QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]Forms of art is not art. Forms of art is forms of art. For crying out loud. Why do people here even mentions culinary art for crying out loud?? Culinary art is the art of cooking. Its an art form!! Not art. See the difference?? The art of basketball. The art of track and field. The art of science. All these are art forms. They are not arts. And Terminator is not art. For crying out load, the TC has no hope. art is expression and vagueness blah blah b;lah. Puss in boots' eyes melts my heart. His eyes are art. The curtain thats tainted in blood, ohhh scary. art. Ahnold: Ill be back!! = art.gamingqueen

your useless rambling does nothing for your initial claim...

Yeah... He wants to say "Way of" is not another meaning of art or doing something in a different style does not make art while it does.

its okay, it happens to the best of us sometimes...

[QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]Forms of art is not art. Forms of art is forms of art. For crying out loud. Why do people here even mentions culinary art for crying out loud?? Culinary art is the art of cooking. Its an art form!! Not art. See the difference?? The art of basketball. The art of track and field. The art of science. All these are art forms. They are not arts. And Terminator is not art. For crying out load, the TC has no hope. art is expression and vagueness blah blah b;lah. Puss in boots' eyes melts my heart. His eyes are art. The curtain thats tainted in blood, ohhh scary. art. Ahnold: Ill be back!! = art.gamingqueen

your useless rambling does nothing for your initial claim...

Yeah... He wants to say "Way of" is not another meaning of art or doing something in a different style does not make art while it does.

yea go off topic and go delusional.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]Forms of art is not art. Forms of art is forms of art. For crying out loud. Why do people here even mentions culinary art for crying out loud?? Culinary art is the art of cooking. Its an art form!! Not art. See the difference?? The art of basketball. The art of track and field. The art of science. All these are art forms. They are not arts. And Terminator is not art. For crying out load, the TC has no hope. art is expression and vagueness blah blah b;lah. Puss in boots' eyes melts my heart. His eyes are art. The curtain thats tainted in blood, ohhh scary. art. Ahnold: Ill be back!! = art.Captain_Swosh69

your useless rambling does nothing for your initial claim...

Yeah... He wants to say "Way of" is not another meaning of art or doing something in a different style does not make art while it does.

yea go off topic and go delusional.

LOL what's wrong with you? I think they are! Imagine I'd play shadow of the colossus and say this game is not art what would koh otani think? Seriously? Composers, animators, artists, voice actors and actors*willy ou please check the making of heavenly sword and their cut-scenes* and all that and you don't call it art? Gosh I bet they would be insulted to hear such opinion!

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]Forms of art is not art. Forms of art is forms of art. For crying out loud. Why do people here even mentions culinary art for crying out loud?? Culinary art is the art of cooking. Its an art form!! Not art. See the difference?? The art of basketball. The art of track and field. The art of science. All these are art forms. They are not arts. And Terminator is not art. For crying out load, the TC has no hope. art is expression and vagueness blah blah b;lah. Puss in boots' eyes melts my heart. His eyes are art. The curtain thats tainted in blood, ohhh scary. art. Ahnold: Ill be back!! = art.gamingqueen

your useless rambling does nothing for your initial claim...

Yeah... He wants to say "Way of" is not another meaning of art or doing something in a different style does not make art while it does.

yea go off topic and go delusional.

LOL what's wrong with you? I think they are! Imagine I'd play shadow of the colossus and say this game is not art what would koh otani think? Seriously? Composers, animators, artists, voice actors and actors*willy ou please check the making of heavenly sword and their cut-scenes* and all that and you don't call it art? Gosh I bet they would be insulted to hear such opinion!

dont try and suggest what ''they'' would think. it ''you'' think ''they'' would think.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]Forms of art is not art. Forms of art is forms of art. For crying out loud. Why do people here even mentions culinary art for crying out loud?? Culinary art is the art of cooking. Its an art form!! Not art. See the difference?? The art of basketball. The art of track and field. The art of science. All these are art forms. They are not arts. And Terminator is not art. For crying out load, the TC has no hope. art is expression and vagueness blah blah b;lah. Puss in boots' eyes melts my heart. His eyes are art. The curtain thats tainted in blood, ohhh scary. art. Ahnold: Ill be back!! = art.Captain_Swosh69

your useless rambling does nothing for your initial claim...

Yeah... He wants to say "Way of" is not another meaning of art or doing something in a different style does not make art while it does.

yea go off topic and go delusional.

he may be slightly off topic, but hes right you are just not making any sense...

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]Forms of art is not art. Forms of art is forms of art. For crying out loud. Why do people here even mentions culinary art for crying out loud?? Culinary art is the art of cooking. Its an art form!! Not art. See the difference?? The art of basketball. The art of track and field. The art of science. All these are art forms. They are not arts. And Terminator is not art. For crying out load, the TC has no hope. art is expression and vagueness blah blah b;lah. Puss in boots' eyes melts my heart. His eyes are art. The curtain thats tainted in blood, ohhh scary. art. Ahnold: Ill be back!! = art.Captain_Swosh69

your useless rambling does nothing for your initial claim...

Yeah... He wants to say "Way of" is not another meaning of art or doing something in a different style does not make art while it does.

yea go off topic and go delusional.

LOL what's wrong with you? I think they are! Imagine I'd play shadow of the colossus and say this game is not art what would koh otani think? Seriously? Composers, animators, artists, voice actors and actors*willy ou please check the making of heavenly sword and their cut-scenes* and all that and you don't call it art? Gosh I bet they would be insulted to hear such opinion!

dont try and suggest what ''they'' would think. it ''you'' think ''they'' would think.

No they would be insulted. People study those things to come up with something entertaining not so that others insult their work. Maybe I think that way because I know what they're doing...

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]Forms of art is not art. Forms of art is forms of art. For crying out loud. Why do people here even mentions culinary art for crying out loud?? Culinary art is the art of cooking. Its an art form!! Not art. See the difference?? The art of basketball. The art of track and field. The art of science. All these are art forms. They are not arts. And Terminator is not art. For crying out load, the TC has no hope. art is expression and vagueness blah blah b;lah. Puss in boots' eyes melts my heart. His eyes are art. The curtain thats tainted in blood, ohhh scary. art. Ahnold: Ill be back!! = art.Captain_Swosh69

your useless rambling does nothing for your initial claim...

Yeah... He wants to say "Way of" is not another meaning of art or doing something in a different style does not make art while it does.

yea go off topic and go delusional.

LOL what's wrong with you? I think they are! Imagine I'd play shadow of the colossus and say this game is not art what would koh otani think? Seriously? Composers, animators, artists, voice actors and actors*willy ou please check the making of heavenly sword and their cut-scenes* and all that and you don't call it art? Gosh I bet they would be insulted to hear such opinion!

dont try and suggest what ''they'' would think. it ''you'' think ''they'' would think.

now its you who's gone off topic. why dont you back up your claims, rather than lash out at everyone?? i am trying to bring this back to an amicable discussion where people bring their thoughts and supporting facts. calm yourself down...

Why is there such thing as "concept art"? Why do people from the industry call it that? It's why I thought they would think that way...And I'm not a HE I'd rather to be refered at by a SHE.

The fact of the matter is this: How ''somebody'' view art is subjective.

The fact of the matter is, in general, and I do stress the phrase, ''in general'', nobody sees video games as art.

The fact of the matter is this: How ''somebody'' view art is subjective.

The fact of the matter is, in general, and I do stress the phrase, ''in general'', nobody sees video games as art.

Captain_Swosh69

The fact of the matter is this: How ''somebody'' view art is subjective.

The fact of the matter is, in general, and I do stress the phrase, ''in general'', nobody sees video games as art.

Captain_Swosh69

Ok I'll use my expertise on a gaming site for once buddy. The fact that it has people's ideas inthem which means they needto be protectedwhich means they have copy rights makes it art. How about that? From a legal point of view.

Here, let's run down a list real quick.

Spider-Man 3 - Art or not?

Akon's "hit" song Smack That or whatever ghetto way they spell it - art or not?

or maybe the book Get Well Pikachu - art or not?

See, once you stretch the definition of what art is, pretty soon everything is art. I refuse to believe that something churned out by somebody with the main and only goal being money can be considered art.

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]

The fact of the matter is this: How ''somebody'' view art is subjective.

The fact of the matter is, in general, and I do stress the phrase, ''in general'', nobody sees video games as art.

gamingqueen

Ok I'll use my expertise on a gaming site for once buddy. The fact that it has people's ideas inthem which means they needto be protectedwhich means they have copy rights makes it art. How about that? From a legal point of view.

These copy rights are for the sake of business. You think a Van Goth would get copy right for the sake of business?? More for protecting his painting's image.

Let's watch you contradict yourself.

"anything that depicts a something or expresses some sort of message is an artisic work. period. there are absolutely NO restrictions or limitions to these given parameters. none..."

You seem to have forgotten this rather crucial conjunction. Your thread doesn't have to depict something and express something to be art by your definition, it has to do only one of the two. And it does. It expresses. Your next line pretty much solidifies that your thread must be art. So with that, let's next check out what you said in your response to me:

"first of all sir, this thread isnt art, for this is a depiction of anything, nor is it meant any other message than what i have written."

Eh? All of a sudden things only have to be depictions to be art? That, or they have to meet both criteria, rather than just one. I'm honestly not quite sure which direction you're backpedalling in. Also within this line, you added something else that supposedly helps classify things as art. I've put that part in bold letters. If that's how you feel, then what's the following all about?

"art doesnt need to be deep and profound, and when you imply that it must be deep and profound you just prove that you are not only not an artist, but that you also have no comprehension of what art really is."

So, according to this line, your original post didn't need to have any other message than the one you originally intended. Well, that's going off the notion that art needs to meet only one of the two criteria you first established... but you slinked away from that... then expounded upon it... then flat contradicted it...

Whatever, dude, you're hilarious. I don't consider games to be art, but I've read some really good arguments that have compelled me to reconsider. This isn't one of them. Not by a long shot.

ShenlongBo

alright sir lets watch you put words in my mouth. its really coincidental that you chose reading little tidbits that look contradictory, without showing the entire message which bring it all together to make sense. you have mastered the art of deception. nice job, davinci. now, artCAN be either a depiction or an expression. or it can very well be both. while still having some artistic principles and elements.and yes this thread isnt art, because i did not create it to be an artistic work. there was no intent; something that is necessary for it to be art. also, i intentionallyused none of the artistic principles while writing this initial thread, to avoid someone making your argument, but i guess your lack of artistic insight overlooked that.the threadis more of an informational written statement. stating facts and opinions in this thread are only intended to do that. im flattered you think my writing is art, but it isnt in this case, for i have no intent to portray something more than what these words say in any artistic manor, and there are no uses of any of the artistic principles. i think you are the laughable one here, for came here just to prove one wrong, rather than to discuss thoughts and possibilities most of the peoplewho are doing such here. you may not like my opinion, but it at least has more foundation than yours ever will. you are truly a person to pity...

video games can be artistic, but in the end you can't sell your copy of okami for more than what the mona lisa's worth.strat505

i hear that! i dont think games will ever reach that worth. but hey, who know? good point...

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]

The fact of the matter is this: How ''somebody'' view art is subjective.

The fact of the matter is, in general, and I do stress the phrase, ''in general'', nobody sees video games as art.

Captain_Swosh69

Ok I'll use my expertise on a gaming site for once buddy. The fact that it has people's ideas inthem which means they needto be protectedwhich means they have copy rights makes it art. How about that? From a legal point of view.

These copy rights are for the sake of business. You think a Van Goth would get copy right for the sake of business?? More for protecting his painting's image.

Huh? No! The money the judge charges people in those cases differes! I can sue someone for using a word I claim to be my invention and I win a buck as a compensation but they still CAN'T use that word! See?

The fact of the matter is this: How ''somebody'' view art is subjective.

The fact of the matter is, in general, and I do stress the phrase, ''in general'', nobody sees video games as art.

Captain_Swosh69

i agree. and this topic definately proves that...

Here, let's run down a list real quick.

Spider-Man 3 - Art or not?

Akon's "hit" song Smack That or whatever ghetto way they spell it - art or not?

or maybe the book Get Well Pikachu - art or not?

See, once you stretch the definition of what art is, pretty soon everything is art. I refuse to believe that something churned out by somebody with the main and only goal being money can be considered art.

AtomicTangerine

art's meaning hasnt been stretched at all, its just that more forms of creativedesign are meeting the criteria by which something is art...

video games can be artistic, but in the end you can't sell your copy of okami for more than what the mona lisa's worth.strat505

now, artCAN be either a depiction or an expression. or it can very well be both. while still having some artistic principles and elements.kanedajjj5757

Then again, I'm interested in what your stance regarding my observations are on this matter.

[QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"] now, artCAN be either a depiction or an expression. or it can very well be both. while still having some artistic principles and elements.Skylock00

Then again, I'm interested in what your stance regarding my observations are on this matter.

my view is based on what arts definition is, as shown in the dictionary, and by what all the pre-existing forms of art are...

my view is based on what arts definition is, as shown in the dictionary, and by what all the pre-existing forms of art are...

kanedajjj5757

I don't buy into the concept of 'forms of art.' I prefer the term "creative crafts," or simply 'craft,' as that's a more accurate description of what most of those avenues are, without the automatic implication that just because one creates in those realms, the works they make are inherently artistic from the standpoint of containing 'artistic expression.'

Hence, my argument is that most all crafts have the capacity to have works that have artistic expression, and that the level of quality of the work from a craft standpoint is irrelevent as to whether or not the work has artistic meaning/expression underneath it.

[QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]

my view is based on what arts definition is, as shown in the dictionary, and by what all the pre-existing forms of art are...

Skylock00

I don't buy into the concept of 'forms of art.' I prefer the term "creative crafts," or simply 'craft,' as that's a more accurate description of what most of those avenues are, without the automatic implication that just because one creates in those realms, the works they make are inherently capable of being artistic from the standpoint of containing 'artistic expression.'

Hence, my argument is that most all crafts have the capacity to have works that have artistic expression, and that the level of quality of the work from a craft standpoint is irrelevent as to whether or not the work has artistic meaning/expression underneath it.

that makes sense. let me see if i understand. what youre saying for example. a paintedwall of a house doesnt have the same significance as a mural?? if thats what you mean by your point of view, then i have to say that your point makes a lot of sense and is different yet great way to look at the matter...

Most really good games don't make much money. Don't think money plays a factor in whether you can consider something as as art. Artists need to make a living, you know. Art is subjective. Paintings can be art, sometimes they just can be a nonsensical mess of colours. The same applies for videogames, IMO.

Without artists, you can't make a game. Paintings can evoke emotion, so can games. So, yes videogames are an art form and many games are artistic. Videogames should be considered the same as books, movies, music, drawing, sculpture, etc. Writing novels and making games are the hardest mediums of art, and I think games deserve their worth as much as the former.

Most really good games don't make much money. Don't think money plays a factor in whether you can consider something as as art. Artists need to make a living, you know. Art is subjective. Paintings can be art, sometimes they just can be a nonsensical mess of colours. The same applies for videogames, IMO.

Without artists, you can't make a game. Paintings can evoke emotion, so can games. So, yes videogames are an art form and many games are artistic. Videogames should be considered the same as books, movies, music, drawing, sculpture, etc. Writing novels and making games are the hardest mediums of art, and I think games deserve their worth as much as the former.

digi_matrix

makes sense, but Skylock00also introduced a new and different outlook on the matter. check his last message...

Most really good games don't make much money. Don't think money plays a factor in whether you can consider something as as art. Artists need to make a living, you know. Art is subjective. Paintings can be art, sometimes they just can be a nonsensical mess of colours. The same applies for videogames, IMO.

Without artists, you can't make a game. Paintings can evoke emotion, so can games. So, yes videogames are an art form and many games are artistic. Videogames should be considered the same as books, movies, music, drawing, sculpture, etc. Writing novels and making games are the hardest mediums of art, and I think games deserve their worth as much as the former.

digi_matrix

makes sense, but Skylock00also introduced a new and different outlook on the matter. check his last message...

that makes sense. let me see if i understand. what youre saying for example. a paintedwall of a house doesnt have the same significance as a mural?? if thats what you mean by your point of view, then i have to say that your point makes a lot of sense and is different yet great way to look at the matter...

kanedajjj5757

That is, unless either one of the two was created with the intent of trying to convey some level of commentary regarding something beyond just what it is. Whether that is the mural depicting some sort of classic painting in a modern sort of setting (making either an homage or commentary regarding some sort of connection between the subjects of the painting, and the subject of the original work, for example), or if the color of the wall serves special significance (Say, if the walls are each a different color, in different cardinal directions, based on different types of religiious traditions/significance).

Those would be cases of either having arstistic expression, but realistically, the fact that something contains artistic expression doesn't make it a more meaningful work from a skill/craft standpoint than another work inherently. Just because something is artistic in expression doesn't make it a good work from a craft standpoint, and vice versa.

This is kind of why I don't like to refer to a painting as an automatic 'work of art,' and prefer to refer to a painting as just that, a painting, and leave the 'art' classifier for a different purpose/meaning altogether.

So to answer your question, in regards to significance, it would depend on what sort of aspect you are talking about regarding significance. If we're talking purely from a craft/skill standpoint, chances are likely that the mural would be more significant than a plain, painted wall. However, if we were talking about artistic expression, either of the works could have the same amount of significance, or one or the other could be more or less significant based on other variables outside of just the craftsmanship of the work.

[QUOTE="ShenlongBo"]

Let's watch you contradict yourself.

"anything that depicts a something or expresses some sort of message is an artisic work. period. there are absolutely NO restrictions or limitions to these given parameters. none..."

You seem to have forgotten this rather crucial conjunction. Your thread doesn't have to depict something and express something to be art by your definition, it has to do only one of the two. And it does. It expresses. Your next line pretty much solidifies that your thread must be art. So with that, let's next check out what you said in your response to me:

"first of all sir, this thread isnt art, for this is a depiction of anything, nor is it meant any other message than what i have written."

Eh? All of a sudden things only have to be depictions to be art? That, or they have to meet both criteria, rather than just one. I'm honestly not quite sure which direction you're backpedalling in. Also within this line, you added something else that supposedly helps classify things as art. I've put that part in bold letters. If that's how you feel, then what's the following all about?

"art doesnt need to be deep and profound, and when you imply that it must be deep and profound you just prove that you are not only not an artist, but that you also have no comprehension of what art really is."

So, according to this line, your original post didn't need to have any other message than the one you originally intended. Well, that's going off the notion that art needs to meet only one of the two criteria you first established... but you slinked away from that... then expounded upon it... then flat contradicted it...

Whatever, dude, you're hilarious. I don't consider games to be art, but I've read some really good arguments that have compelled me to reconsider. This isn't one of them. Not by a long shot.

kanedajjj5757

alright sir lets watch you put words in my mouth. its really coincidental that you chose reading little tidbits that look contradictory, without showing the entire message which bring it all together to make sense. you have mastered the art of deception. nice job, davinci. now, artCAN be either a depiction or an expression. or it can very well be both. while still having some artistic principles and elements.and yes this thread isnt art, because i did not create it to be an artistic work. there was no intent; something that is necessary for it to be art. also, i intentionallyused none of the artistic principles while writing this initial thread, to avoid someone making your argument, but i guess your lack of artistic insight overlooked that.the threadis more of an informational written statement. stating facts and opinions in this thread are only intended to do that. im flattered you think my writing is art, but it isnt in this case, for i have no intent to portray something more than what these words say in any artistic manor, and there are no uses of any of the artistic principles. i think you are the laughable one here, for came here just to prove one wrong, rather than to discuss thoughts and possibilities most of the peoplewho are doing such here. you may not like my opinion, but it at least has more foundation than yours ever will. you are truly a person to pity...

You've mastered the art of completely missing the point. I put the words you said, in context, right next to each other to show that little of what you say from one post to another jives. I didn't manipulate anything, and I'm not deceiving anyone. Neither are you. I'd discuss thoughts and possibilities of games as art if you gave a good foundation for the conversation to stand on.

sorry, but the more you try to throw random stuff at me, the less i am able to rescpect your claim and its basis. you are basing your opinion on another man's opinion, who doesnt even produce the definition of what art is. aesthetics are but one aspect of art, and does not make up art in its entirety. and lastly, i hope you know that wikipedia is by no means a credible source of information, for anyone can go into any wiki page and write anything they want, without it being true or even relavant to the suject/word for that matter. you want my information?? you want my proof?? you want my facts?? its sitting in your dictionary, and its sitting in any other book that explains the principles and elements of art. not in another's "opinion". not in the description of only one aspect of art. and certainly not on a web site in which its credibility is dubious. art is only as complicated as the worksthat an artist produces. the difficulty doesnt lie in what it is. the only thing thats illuminating to me is how you can present to me misinformation and yet expect me to come around say that the dictionary is wrong and that art isonly what someone thinks it is, rather than what it truly is...

kanedajjj5757

Actually I do have a pair of dictionaries sitting next to my computer desk. You see, I try to spell correctly and use proper grammar so they come in handy from time to time, same with Dictionary.com which I've got as one of my Firefox tabs. You might try doing the same... by the way, the Shift key capitalizes letters, it's right under the Enter key. You're supposed to capitalize the first word of every new sentence as well as any singular letter I's as well as any titles or names as well as certain adjectives. Anyway, neither of those dictionaries definitions are similar to your vague definition by a longshot. I'm using the New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language and the The Oxford Paperback Dictionary & Thesaurus. Hell, dictionary.com alone has 23 seperate definitions for the word. I find it funny you've yet to have cited a single source for anything at all, and yet you have the nerve to call mine crap when you had none at all.

But you know what? I'm done here. You don't want to debate, you don't want to have different oppinions, you came here and posted this because you wanted to try and look smart and wanted a bunch of sycophant's to agree with you endlessly. Atleast that's the impression you've given with all your replies to both me and anyone else who disagrees. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go make art in the toilet by expressing relief. After all, according to your description, that's what it is to take a piss, ART!

"Art" is not, like some clueless people like to think, a measure of quality. It's not like something that is bad isn't art, but if it's good it's art. Art is art. Art can be crap. As a matter of fact, most art is.Jonas_81

true. theres good and bad art. but both are art...

[QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]

sorry, but the more you try to throw random stuff at me, the less i am able to rescpect your claim and its basis. you are basing your opinion on another man's opinion, who doesnt even produce the definition of what art is. aesthetics are but one aspect of art, and does not make up art in its entirety. and lastly, i hope you know that wikipedia is by no means a credible source of information, for anyone can go into any wiki page and write anything they want, without it being true or even relavant to the suject/word for that matter. you want my information?? you want my proof?? you want my facts?? its sitting in your dictionary, and its sitting in any other book that explains the principles and elements of art. not in another's "opinion". not in the description of only one aspect of art. and certainly not on a web site in which its credibility is dubious. art is only as complicated as the worksthat an artist produces. the difficulty doesnt lie in what it is. the only thing thats illuminating to me is how you can present to me misinformation and yet expect me to come around say that the dictionary is wrong and that art isonly what someone thinks it is, rather than what it truly is...

the_mad_madman

Actually I do have a pair of dictionaries sitting next to my computer desk. You see, I try to spell correctly and use proper grammar so they come in handy from time to time, same with Dictionary.com which I've got as one of my Firefox tabs. You might try doing the same... by the way, the Shift key capitalizes letters, it's right under the Enter key. You're supposed to capitalize the first word of every new sentence as well as any singular letter I's as well as any titles or names as well as certain adjectives. Anyway, neither of those dictionaries definitions are similar to your vague definition by a longshot. I'm using the New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language and the The Oxford Paperback Dictionary & Thesaurus. Hell, dictionary.com alone has 23 seperate definitions for the word. I find it funny you've yet to have cited a single source for anything at all, and yet you have the nerve to call mine crap when you had none at all.

But you know what? I'm done here. You don't want to debate, you don't want to have different oppinions, you came here and posted this because you wanted to try and look smart and wanted a bunch of sycophant's to agree with you endlessly. Atleast that's the impression you've given with all your replies to both me and anyone else who disagrees. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go make art in the toilet by expressing relief. After all, according to your description, that's what it is to take a piss, ART!

My objective wasnt to gather a bunch of "mindless believers" who agree soley with what i do. the objective was to have people debate, while using facts to support opinions. thus far you havent done this, and i in turn find it hard to take your opinion to heart. i have the webster dictionary in hand, along with and oxford dictionary and the book "art criticism and theory" and "art history" for further varification. all four contain the same definition of art, and the last two both containwhat the artistic principles and elements are. i also have already said before that the connotation of the word art isnt the definition of it. all you have are baseless opinions and insults that both phase me not, and only make you look absolutely foolish. capitalizing you first sentence's words wont hold water for your foundationless argument. but im sure youput a lot of effort into yourself. grammar is good, but it helps your argument not.i hope you are proud of yourself. there is a difference between connotation and definition.you have three sources, and yet you dont see anything, and you havent proven anything new. i want to debate. but not with you, for you are all opinion and no proof. your presence hear ommits the true purpose of this thread. thanks for further proving me right. and... thanks for doing it in a grammatically correct way. i geuss you really are the mad madman...

[QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"][QUOTE="ShenlongBo"]

Let's watch you contradict yourself.

"anything that depicts a something or expresses some sort of message is an artisic work. period. there are absolutely NO restrictions or limitions to these given parameters. none..."

You seem to have forgotten this rather crucial conjunction. Your thread doesn't have to depict something and express something to be art by your definition, it has to do only one of the two. And it does. It expresses. Your next line pretty much solidifies that your thread must be art. So with that, let's next check out what you said in your response to me:

"first of all sir, this thread isnt art, for this is a depiction of anything, nor is it meant any other message than what i have written."

Eh? All of a sudden things only have to be depictions to be art? That, or they have to meet both criteria, rather than just one. I'm honestly not quite sure which direction you're backpedalling in. Also within this line, you added something else that supposedly helps classify things as art. I've put that part in bold letters. If that's how you feel, then what's the following all about?

"art doesnt need to be deep and profound, and when you imply that it must be deep and profound you just prove that you are not only not an artist, but that you also have no comprehension of what art really is."

So, according to this line, your original post didn't need to have any other message than the one you originally intended. Well, that's going off the notion that art needs to meet only one of the two criteria you first established... but you slinked away from that... then expounded upon it... then flat contradicted it...

Whatever, dude, you're hilarious. I don't consider games to be art, but I've read some really good arguments that have compelled me to reconsider. This isn't one of them. Not by a long shot.

ShenlongBo

alright sir lets watch you put words in my mouth. its really coincidental that you chose reading little tidbits that look contradictory, without showing the entire message which bring it all together to make sense. you have mastered the art of deception. nice job, davinci. now, artCAN be either a depiction or an expression. or it can very well be both. while still having some artistic principles and elements.and yes this thread isnt art, because i did not create it to be an artistic work. there was no intent; something that is necessary for it to be art. also, i intentionallyused none of the artistic principles while writing this initial thread, to avoid someone making your argument, but i guess your lack of artistic insight overlooked that.the threadis more of an informational written statement. stating facts and opinions in this thread are only intended to do that. im flattered you think my writing is art, but it isnt in this case, for i have no intent to portray something more than what these words say in any artistic manor, and there are no uses of any of the artistic principles. i think you are the laughable one here, for came here just to prove one wrong, rather than to discuss thoughts and possibilities most of the peoplewho are doing such here. you may not like my opinion, but it at least has more foundation than yours ever will. you are truly a person to pity...

You've mastered the art of completely missing the point. I put the words you said, in context, right next to each other to show that little of what you say from one post to another jives. I didn't manipulate anything, and I'm not deceiving anyone. Neither are you. I'd discuss thoughts and possibilities of games as art if you gave a good foundation for the conversation to stand on.

the only thing in my own words is my opinion and whether they fit to the definition of art. im using two dictionaries as proof, and two books on art theory and criticism as well. the definition isnt something i have fabricated; it literally is from factual sources. secondly, imnot attempting to teach anyone anything. im simply bringing facts into the equation. i have only opposed the views of those who are all opinion and not both opinion and fact. the purpose of this thread is for people to actually do some research - open a book - find a credible online source - look at other previous artistic works... and then make their opinion. by then, if some still feels that video games arent art, i will gladly accept their opinion (though i have my own). if you say that the dictionariesarent right, and neither are the art theory books, then what is my friend?? are you saying that dictionaries are wrong?? are you saying art theory is incredulous?? if that is so, then art has no true meaning along with every other word in our language. you have made the most rediculous point. you are saying that anyone can make their own definition for a word and it be so. nice job buddy. its great to know that you know better than a dictionary, or an art critic, or an art theory book. you make ALL the rules. youre full of crap if you really think you can make up your own definitions and other info and expect people to listen, let alone agree with you. and yes you did take particular exerpts and layed them, not in continuity, to twist what i have said. its sad you have to use deception and insults to hold your ground. give me the facts with your opinion, not your pathetic insults...

this thread isnt intended for people to insult each other. it also isnt meant for people to just jump and throw onlyopinions without any factual foundation. prove you have at least tried to research and look at other kinds of artistic works before you ultimately make your opinion. if you present your info with you opinion you have definately earnedthe respectfrom everyone here. however, if you dont intrduce your facts or research with your opinion you will have defeated the purpose of the thread. yes its about opinions, but go the extra mile. you may find that your info makes your opinion much more worth standing by...kanedajjj5757

See, that's the thing. NOBODY here has any "factual" foundation to their argument. At best, they can state somebody else's opinion if they have a PhD or something. Something becomes art when people give it that status, and even that is totally subjective. This is very similar to the "Is NASCAR a sport?" debate in that nobody can be right and nobody can be wrong because the term sport has become so vague. Even ESPN has poker broadcasted.

Once again, more examples of "art" using the definitions being tossed around in here!

I vomit on the carpet and refuse to clean it up, instead leaving it as avisual and nasal lessonto future generations on the dangers of binge drinking.

I take a copy of Farenhiet 451 and put it in a blender. The debris left over conveys the ironies of life and how we can never really plan for the future.

I make a stick figure out of my finger nail clippings. This figure represents how my every action will affect others, even those I feel no longer have any connection to me.

I make a reprint of the Bible except I replace "Jesus" with "the ninja." This is to present a what-if scenario and how blind faith may in fact lead you down the wrong path.

I don't believe any of the things listed above is art. However, if Metal Gear Solid 2 is art, so are my examples.

K friend, I know you're trying to make a discussion here, and I do want to actually discuss whether games are art or not, but you've got to stop talking down to us like we're children who can't possibly know what's going on. Before you criticize me for not having done my research, I'll tell you a little bit about my background. I have a degree in philosophy, and I've taken a college course or two on aesthetics (which is the study of the question "what is art?"). I'm hardly working from a ball of thin air here.

Your insistence that you're working from fact is fiction. Just because something's in a book doesn't make it fact. Sure, those sound like credible books you've got there in front of you, but at best that's just what they are: credible. Not infallible. Lots of people disagree on the definition of art and that is fact.

Furthermore, having good grammar and spelling does help your argument. For one thing, if you bothered to take a little more time with your writing I wouldn't have such a hard time figuring out just what it is you're trying to say. Also, poor writing makes you less believable. Why should I believe someone's research when he can't be bothered to present it in a way that's legible, let alone correct? I shouldn't.

Lastly, I've been very careful in everything I've said so far to source where I was taking the material from, I even intentionally took my last argument from the same source you were using in the hopes that you might accept it as a legitimate point. Your last response shot that out of the water though, as you disregarded the point I was making entirely and just used it as a springboard for your hard-to-understand insistence that there's one and only one definition of art.

I'll close with this. If that definition of art was the only one that mattered, then yes, there would be no possible way to argue that video games are not art. It just wouldn't make sense. Therefore, the fact that people do disagree leads me to believe that this isn't the definition they're using for art. If there are lots of people who don't agree with your definition of art, then it's not so obvious as you think it is.

I'd like to discuss this further, but I can't work within your definition, and you clearly won't bend on that. That leaves me with nothing to say.

the only thing in my own words is my opinion and whether they fit to the definition of art. im using two dictionaries as proof, and two books on art theory and criticism as well. the definition isnt something i have fabricated; it literally is from factual sources. secondly, imnot attempting to teach anyone anything. im simply bringing facts into the equation (do you even realize what you're saying here? No seriously, do you?). i have only opposed the views of those who are all opinion and not both opinion and fact. the purpose of this thread is for people to actually do some research - open a book - find a credible online source (you've basically ignored everyone who's done this)- look at other previous artistic works... and then make their opinion. by then, if some still feels that video games arent art, i will gladly accept their opinion (though i have my own) (correction: by your own admission, you're just parroting whatever you're reading in those books. Anyone with an opinion that doesn't come directly from a book, though, you flame. Oh, by the way, stop flaming people). if you say that the dictionariesarent right, and neither are the art theory books, then what is my friend?? are you saying that dictionaries are wrong?? are you saying art theory is incredulous?? if that is so, then art has no true meaning along with every other word in our language. you have made the most rediculous point. you are saying that anyone can make their own definition for a word and it be so. nice job buddy. its great to know that you know better than a dictionary, or an art critic, or an art theory book. you make ALL the rules. youre full of crap if you really think you can make up your own definitions and other info and expect people to listen, let alone agree with you. and yes you did take particular exerpts and layed them, not in continuity, to twist what i have said. its sad you have to use deception and insults to hold your ground. give me the facts with your opinion, not your pathetic insults...kanedajjj5757

*blink*

Okay, please show me by direct quote where I said I think I'm smarter than dictionaries, or that people should make up their own definitions for words. Matter of fact, I'll make it even easier. Show me where I even came remotely close to even somewhat nearly almost implying either thing. You're so good with facts and all...

K friend, I know you're trying to make a discussion here, and I do want to actually discuss whether games are art or not, but you've got to stop talking down to us like we're children who can't possibly know what's going on. Before you criticize me for not having done my research, I'll tell you a little bit about my background. I have a degree in philosophy, and I've taken a college course or two on aesthetics (which is the study of the question "what is art?"). I'm hardly working from a ball of thin air here.

Your insistence that you're working from fact is fiction. Just because something's in a book doesn't make it fact. Sure, those sound like credible books you've got there in front of you, but at best that's just what they are: credible. Not infallible. Lots of people disagree on the definition of art and that is fact.

Furthermore, having good grammar and spelling does help your argument. For one thing, if you bothered to take a little more time with your writing I wouldn't have such a hard time figuring out just what it is you're trying to say. Also, poor writing makes you less believable. Why should I believe someone's research when he can't be bothered to present it in a way that's legible, let alone correct? I shouldn't.

Lastly, I've been very careful in everything I've said so far to source where I was taking the material from, I even intentionally took my last argument from the same source you were using in the hopes that you might accept it as a legitimate point. Your last response shot that out of the water though, as you disregarded the point I was making entirely and just used it as a springboard for your hard-to-understand insistence that there's one and only one definition of art.

I'll close with this. If that definition of art was the only one that mattered, then yes, there would be no possible way to argue that video games are not art. It just wouldn't make sense. Therefore, the fact that people do disagree leads me to believe that this isn't the definition they're using for art. If there are lots of people who don't agree with your definition of art, then it's not so obvious as you think it is.

I'd like to discuss this further, but I can't work within your definition, and you clearly won't bend on that. That leaves me with nothing to say.

SophinaK

if there is no facts in the many books regarding the subject, then what constitutes fact then?? is one man's definition of something of more substance than a definition that has been so for quite some time?? it just feels like youre saying that nothing has a true definition - ever. but the definition of art hasnt changed for twenty years (i referred to my previous copies of the webster and oxford just to make sure). i understand that connotation of words change depending from region to region, but should the original definition not remain?? if you explain it better that would be definately welcome...

[QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]this thread isnt intended for people to insult each other. it also isnt meant for people to just jump and throw onlyopinions without any factual foundation. prove you have at least tried to research and look at other kinds of artistic works before you ultimately make your opinion. if you present your info with you opinion you have definately earnedthe respectfrom everyone here. however, if you dont intrduce your facts or research with your opinion you will have defeated the purpose of the thread. yes its about opinions, but go the extra mile. you may find that your info makes your opinion much more worth standing by...AtomicTangerine

See, that's the thing. NOBODY here has any "factual" foundation to their argument. At best, they can state somebody else's opinion if they have a PhD or something. Something becomes art when people give it that status, and even that is totally subjective. This is very similar to the "Is NASCAR a sport?" debate in that nobody can be right and nobody can be wrong because the term sport has become so vague. Even ESPN has poker broadcasted.

Once again, more examples of "art" using the definitions being tossed around in here!

I vomit on the carpet and refuse to clean it up, instead leaving it as avisual and nasal lessonto future generations on the dangers of binge drinking.

I take a copy of Farenhiet 451 and put it in a blender. The debris left over conveys the ironies of life and how we can never really plan for the future.

I make a stick figure out of my finger nail clippings. This figure represents how my every action will affect others, even those I feel no longer have any connection to me.

I make a reprint of the Bible except I replace "Jesus" with "the ninja." This is to present a what-if scenario and how blind faith may in fact lead you down the wrong path.

I don't believe any of the things listed above is art. However, if Metal Gear Solid 2 is art, so are my examples.

you have totally missed the point here. your examples have no purpose of being art. if you were to say why you did or made them, say what artistic elements and/or principles they exhibit, and say what message they have and/or what they depict, then they could fit the litmus. but i would like to say if they were art, then thats pretty bad art and your a bad artist :lol:. you bring up an excellent argument and others are saying that dictionaries and art theory books mean nothing and prove nothing. its a little comfort to me that areas of study and well established and unchanged definitions no bearing to you or anyone else here for that matter. but with the argument you introduced, i guess everything is art and at the same time nothing is art, since the definition of the word and the principle and elements behind itmeans nothing, orso you say...

Okay, please show me by direct quote where I said I think I'm smarter than dictionaries, or that people should make up their own definitions for words. Matter of fact, I'll make it even easier. Show me where I even came remotely close to even somewhat nearly almost implying either thing. You're so good with facts and all...

"The whole point you're trying to make (or, lesson you're trying to teach) is fine. The way you're going about it is bunk. First, as has been pointed out, the debate on what is and isn't art has been ongoing for ages now. So, even if you had a meaningful claim for calling games art, there would still be plenty of perfectly solid reasoning to the contrary. But you don't have a meaningful claim. Your argument amounts to virtually anything being art if its creator says it's so (which makes it possible for someone to call their morning toast art if they want to). If that's the case, then who cares one way or the other? Second, even though your standard for defining art, the dictionary, (or perhaps The Dictionary, as you allude there must be), has proven to be insubstantial..."ShenlongBo

you stated that four book sources of information are insubstantial. what i have alluded to is that i have read into the matter of defining art and identifying it according to its definition and the notion of theory, which i have also read into thoroughly.you say they are proven to be insubstantial by your opinion of what art is, and by the opinions of us on this forum?? i dont think so, my friend. one's opinion of whatart isdoesnt change the word's meaning (which hasnt been touched or altered in both the webster and oxford for near twenty years). granted, it can change the word's connotation, butconnotation holds only social value, and varies from one society to another. but yet, you look in a dictionary or a book regarding the concepts of the subject and the definition is still what it is. if you want to prove my opinion's basis absolutely wrong, then you'll have to prove art theory and art's definition wrong. but if/once you do it, you open a floodgate of uncertainty. if the definition of art as is in a dictionary is wrong, then what is art?? are movies no longer art?? what about the theatre along with plays, opras, musicals, and other performance arts?? what about abstract art, modern art... what about Da Da art?? not only that what about the more conventional kinds of art like painting, sculpture, creative writing, drawing, and pottery??see,if you say the well established definition of art in a dictionary and/or an art theory bookis insubtantial, then you might as well say that nothing is art, but everything is art. you are ultimately attacking art's written definition; not my opinion, that only takes it into account...

I think it's safe to say now this topic has turned into a mud-slinging war. Everyone's attacking each other's opinions, and saying they're wrong in this aspect, wrong in that, etc. I'm not sure what the definition of art woud be. Are all games art? Or are only good games art? This is just philosophical thinking that will get us nowhere. Philosophers and thinkers die thinking about one thing their entire life. Doesn't mean that art is such a complicated matter just because it took someone forever to understand it.

Let's stop attacking what art's definition is. "Art is anything that people add to their 'output' which is not functionally necessary and is other than the default properties of that output." I can only understand that, because drawing something is not necessary for someone to do. A person draws something if an image came in their head and they wanted to express it. But drawing art is not functionally important to someone's well-being.

Games can be art, no matter whether you like it or not. Games aren't art, if the original idea is lost in the process because of so many people working on the development of the project. Art can be entertaining, there's nothing right in saying, "If a horror movie isn't entertaining me, then I guess it's art."

Frankly, I think throwing stuff on a canvas and hoping to find meaning in thousands of colours is just not art. I don't even know what Jackson Pollock was ever trying to say in his abstract paintings. They tell me jack, and I feel nothing emotionally for them. If colours tell me the kind of mood, then Jackson Pollock must be feeling everything, because his colours are all over the place. Jackson Pollock paintings can't be art, because they don't express the vision from the creator, other than he did it in a rush and hoped desperately that other posh critics and arty-farties would stare it long enough to deem it as art. If he did tell me the real meaning of a painting he did, and I couldn't figure it out before, then yeah, that's art. It would've taken me more time to find out the meaning of his piece, but at least there would be meaning to it. Doesn't matter though, if the meaning makes me feel thoughtful or angry.

So yeah, art's definition of having to express the vision of the creator rings true. It can move someone, but it can't do that effect to everyone because people are individuals and with their own psychology, they can be thinking of different things during art.

It's not that right now most people aren't accepting games as art, is the problem. That's a matter of popularity. I don't see why Deus Ex can't be thought of art right now. It's a biting satire of politics, it has religion, philosophy, and twists their original intentions. That game DOES express its creators' visions. Doesn't matter whether Will Wright came up with the ideas or not, that's an issue of idea ownership. Just because Mass Effect will be released and it will be very popular, doesn't mean it makes the game art, and nothing before it as art. Just because critics and thinkers are not on the side of games right now, doesn't mean jack because they're not willing to spend the time scrutinising games.

Popularity doesn't equal art, so I don't understand why we have to wait for technological advancements for a game to be considered as art. Mass Effect or Bioshock can be extremely artisitic games, and be masters of art, though, since technological limitations and budget are not a problem to them. Budget might be a problem, but if you're willing to stick out in a project for so many years to make the game (Ken Levine, or the Bioware 'doctors'), then that means Microsoft cares that an artistic product is being made and they're willing to wait for the final product. There, I'm done now. I don't expect anyone to agree with me on this specific board, but just like you, I would like more than just 2 people commenting in this board and giving continuous rebuttals.