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

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.digi_matrix

Furthermore, your dismissal of Pollock's work demonstrates a lack of understanding of what made those works a meaningful peice of artistic expression. In those regard, what made it artistic expression was not what ended up on the canvas at the end of the day, but what the actual process was to put the paint on the canvas. The process of creation was, in and of itself, a form of expression regarding breaking out of conventional traditions in how one was suppose to paint based on long established tradition, and was a primary example of modernist expression, which involved abandoning traditions and conventions to explore alternative ways of creating in different media (Modernism in music involved abandoning concepts of tonality to create things like atonal music, and serialism, for example).

Pollock's works absolutely express a vision from the creator regarding traditional conventions of how one paints and creates in the realm of painting, and are a very pure example of artistic expression in that regard. What ends up on the canvas actually is secondary to the expression, which existed in the actual process of creation in and of itself. Not being able to feel any emotion in a work by looking at/listening to/playing it is irrelevent as to whether or not expression exists within that work in some way.

True, that I'm not well versed into all that is to know about Pollock, but his process of creating the painting and moving his body, would be irrelevant, no? As long as the final product is made, why should it matter to me what he went through in creating it? Do I need to see the behind-the-scenes to making a painting. It's a cool idea that he does paintings in an alternative way, and my disagreeing with his painting may not have any weight to them, but being just a punk about it doesn't necessarily mean success in delivering your expression. I'm not saying Pollock didn't deliver, just that not everyone can do abstract art like that.

Let me give you an example with a movie's making. Lots of things happen in a movie to make it perfect. I was watching the behind-the-scenes of a movie (don't need to name) and thought "Damn, looks like a lot of work". But when the final product was released to the public, then I thought, "they went through all that just for this?" I can say that the same for Pollock, even though he's one guy, and it's his hands doing the brush strokes, but if the process is what I should be concerned about, then how can craftmanship be art? If his final product doesn't matter, how is that an effective way of him describing his emotions? He was revolutionary, but that just means he came up with an alternative take on artistry.

And you mean punk music when you say "Modernism in music", right? Like Sonic Youth?

True, that I'm not well versed into all that is to know about Pollock, but his process of creating the painting and moving his body, would be irrelevant, no? As long as the final product is made, why should it matter to me what he went through in creating it? Do I need to see the behind-the-scenes to making a painting. It's a cool idea that he does paintings in an alternative way, and my disagreeing with his painting may not have any weight to them, but being just a punk about it doesn't necessarily mean success in delivering your expression. I'm not saying Pollock didn't deliver, just that not everyone can do abstract art like that. And you mean punk music when you say "Modernism in music", right? Like Sonic Youth? digi_matrix

The Modernist movement in the arts happened during the 2nd quarter of the 20th century for the most part, with various mediums having people working on ways to create in these realms that involved abandoning traditional conventions of creation that had been established and grown over the past several centuries.

So in music, this was achieved through doing away with the concept of traditional melodic/harmonic relationships, traditional scales, traditional means of building and developing ideas to create extremely dissonant, atonal music (Think Webern, Berg, and Schoenburg).

In painting, this was achieved through Pollock's 'drip' works, where instead of painting on a canvas streteched on a frame using brushes, he laid large canvases on the ground, and approached the creation process by having paint fall onto the canvas in various ways, as a means to break away from traditional conventions of how to create.

This was a rather widespread movement that occured in the various crafts out there at the time, where the expression in the works came moreso through how the work was created, than through how the actual final product turned out in some cases. These guys weren't being 'punks' about it, they were simply doing what anyone who starts changes in the worlds of visual and musical 'arts' does, find something about the current conventions that they don't like, and start working in a different direction, which has been the basis for how most changes in things like music occured.

Furthermore, these guys all made these sorts of changes based on a strong understanding of fundamentals of what made these traditions worked, so it wasn't like they were uneducated punks trying to get attention...these were well read people who were trying to explore meaningful differences in these realms of creation.

Punk music isn't really part of 'modernism,' as the modernist movement died off to purely academic realms by the 60's in the music world. Furthermore, Punk is more built on the history and lineage of rock/pop music realms, and its creation and development is more similar to the likes of how Jazz developed over the decades than it has relation to the longer scale of traditional composition/orchestral music.

I have to side with SophinaK, ShenLongBo, and Skylock.

Dictionaries simply record words' usages--what people mean when they use those words. Words predate dictionaries, after all. SophinaK demonstrated the process of the transformation of language well with the examples she cited. You can also look in books listing the etymologies and origins of words to find out how they came about, what they originally referred to, and what they mean today (as of the time the book was written). SophinaK was also correct in stating that the fact is that people disagree about what constitutes art. This happens and has happened in many other things, as well, such as music. Even if you were to prove that some definition of art is what the term originally meant, it may not be what the term means now. Why? Because meaning is subject-dependent. There is no "true" meaning, just as there is no "true" definition of anything. There are only definitions and usages that vary across time and space, dependent upon those who use them. Failure to see this truth is astounding and it's yet another instance of authority worship. There are two ways a person can go about life: believing everything a person says or having some degree of doubt. Authority worship is a huge weakness.

ShenLongBo demonstrated that your definition of art is nonsensical on an everyday level. Due to this, I presume that most people would object just as much as he did to your definition. There are two ways in which "or" can be used, logically. It is either inclusive or exclusive. SLB demonstrated, using the exclusive "or", that the second part of your definition is nonsensical on that everyday level. And given the fact that the first part of your definition doesn't cover your forum posts, an argument using the inclusive "or" doesn't fare much better, if at all.

In my opinion, Skylock's view on art is a much safer stance to take. It does away with this silly issue by taking degree/gradations into account.

Why does it matter if games are art, anyway? "They" have plots, cinematography, and whatnot, do they? Tetris has these thing?! Without a qualifier preceding "games", your reasoning is shot down. "Games" can't be considered as art unless ALL (video) games are considered art, including Tetris, Mario Party, Animal Crossing, and Brain Training.

As was also stated, it would really help your case (though possibly not the logic of it) if you wrote well. I have a very hard time giving respect to people and listening to their views if I don't see capitalization, at the very least. It's the exact same as if someone made a thread consisting only of chatspeak and leetspeak.

I have to side with SophinaK, ShenLongBo, and Skylock.

Dictionaries simply record words' usages--what people mean when they use those words. Words predate dictionaries, after all. SophinaK demonstrated the process of the transformation of language well with the examples she cited. You can also look in books listing the etymologies and origins of words to find out how they came about, what they originally referred to, and what they mean today (as of the time the book was written). SophinaK was also correct in stating that the fact is that people disagree about what constitutes art. This happens and has happened in many other things, as well, such as music. Even if you were to prove that some definition of art is what the term originally meant, it may not be what the term means now. Why? Because meaning is subject-dependent. There is no "true" meaning, just as there is no "true" definition of anything. There are only definitions and usages that vary across time and space, dependent upon those who use them. Failure to see this truth is astounding and it's yet another instance of authority worship. There are two ways a person can go about life: believing everything a person says or having some degree of doubt. Authority worship is a huge weakness.

ShenLongBo demonstrated that your definition of art is nonsensical on an everyday level. Due to this, I presume that most people would object just as much as he did to your definition. There are two ways in which "or" can be used, logically. It is either inclusive or exclusive. SLB demonstrated, using the exclusive "or", that the second part of your definition is nonsensical on that everyday level. And given the fact that the first part of your definition doesn't cover your forum posts, an argument using the inclusive "or" doesn't fare much better, if at all.

In my opinion, Skylock's view on art is a much safer stance to take. It does away with this silly issue by taking degree/gradations into account.

Why does it matter if games are art, anyway? "They" have plots, cinematography, and whatnot, do they? Tetris has these thing?! Without a qualifier preceding "games", your reasoning is shot down. "Games" can't be considered as art unless ALL (video) games are considered art, including Tetris, Mario Party, Animal Crossing, and Brain Training.

As was also stated, it would really help your case (though possibly not the logic of it) if you wrote well. I have a very hard time giving respect to people and listening to their views if I don't see capitalization, at the very least. It's the exact same as if someone made a thread consisting only of chatspeak and leetspeak.

Angry_Beaver

Sorry but you just fail to realize just how many forms art can take, and in turn that stands as a failure of imagination.

Look, I have already put all the facts and responses I am willing give to a people who have ultimately missed the point of this topic. You say that my definition of art is warped?? Thats perfectly fine by me, because it isnt my definition of art and art theory you are challenging. That definition comes from two different dictionaries and my art theory evidence comes from an art theory book, as well as an art criticism book. It's cool to challenge opinions. However, you are essentially attempting to redefine for yourself what art is, while accusing me of doing the same thing.

To end this mudslingathon, this wasnt intended to be as such. This wasnt even supposed to even be soley and opinion motivated topic. This was made so that people can have an intellectual debate where people bring opinions with some sort of factual basis. Insults, baseless opinions, and hard feelings dont qualify for this in my book; not by a longshot. But the fact that the people on here who have had nothing but a complete disregard for the purpose of this thread go on to take on the impossible task of discreditting facts and definitions - one of the very fabrics that help bind civilization together. Without both, getting by in the real world would be pretty tough, if the notion of doing so is even possible. Because of these plagues, i am now convinced that internet forums are no place for intellegent debate and the presentation of factual evidence to fortify opinions. I will continue this controversial issue on another platform - where people give the facts behind there opinions, and and debate in a mature and amicable manor...