Games Aren't Art, At Least According to Roger Ebert

[Captain Seafort]

Music is a subset of art. Just like painting, sculpture, theatre, film, literature, photography, dance, sketching/drawing, and in some opinions, architecture (example being the Taj Mahal). They are all a part of art.

I'd say that music can be considered an art just as much as movie-making or painting. It's just designing sounds rather than images.

Fair enough. Conceded.

Wow, Déjà vu. Didn't you already make that claim and I responded to it?

You did, and I'm refuting your responding assertion.

Ah, I thought so. Seriously, do we really need to keep going in circles with this? Your reasoning is flawed. Just because one thing has certain qualities does NOT mean that anything else that also has those qualities is in fact the same thing.

Then be more specific. If you believe that the definition of art requires more than the expression of thought and emotion then say so. Until then my point that your definition includes terrorism is accurate.

So? If someone puts together lines and blocks of color in such a way that is appealing to look at, that's art for me. Now if someone just rips off and copies someone else's lines and and blocks, that's a different matter. Just because anyone could have made the original doesn't take away from it's appeal.

If it's pretty to look at, but requires no particular skill to produce, then it's merely decoration.

Of course not, but that simply makes it emotional, or aesthetically appealing, or worthy. The same is true of a sunset, or a flower, or someone saying they love you. That's not art.

None of the those example are human creations meant to be art though, although they have all been used as the basis for art.

It does, however, amply prove that "art" and "looks pretty" are not synonyms.

You say "yes Seafort, you're right, I apologise for ever questioning you".

Or I could tell you to f**k off with a rusty knife. Guess which is more likely?

The former of course.

*snip music stuff

As I said above, music stuff is conceded.

How about you tell me what you think art is, something you have yet to bother doing.

I see you haven't bothered reading the thread properly.

Art requires two things: 1) it's aesthetically pleasing (this is a matter of opinion, as you say) 2) it requires skill.

art doesn't have to be pleasing at all, it can envoke disgust, distaste, sadness, whatever. Good art has an impact on the people who see it.

Fair enough, amend the first requirement to invoking an emotional reaction by visual means.

Given recent changes, that latter description can be further amended to "by visual or auditory means".

Missed the point of me asking what the point was, funny.

You asked which point I wanted proof for. I told you.

Just because something was done with a great deal of skill doesn't mean it's art. If it doesn't provoke any feelings, it's just a well done image.

See the description above.

[Lighthawk]

Wow, Déjà vu. Didn't you already make that claim and I responded to it?

You did, and I'm refuting your responding assertion.

By making the same claim again with virtually the same wording, basically taking us a step backwards? You're not refuting anything, you're just repeating yourself.

Then be more specific.

Tell you what, I'll make you a deal. If you want me to be more specific, tell me and I will. In return, you stop chopping my sentences up in such a manner that it alters the meaning of the sentence and than responding to said altered sentences as if they were my ideas. Sound fair?

If you believe that the definition of art requires more than the expression of thought and emotion then say so. Until then my point that your definition includes terrorism is accurate.

Except I never said "This is my complete and total definition of art...". I said art is such and such. I keep coming back to the wheel but, if someone said "A wheel is round" would you then believe that "being round" is that person's complete definition of a wheel? Seriously, would you? Or would you use a little sense and realize that said person was merely describing a quality of wheels in general? That roundness is but one aspect of being a wheel, not the sole qualifier.

Here, if you're going to pick on my "definitions" then here is what I think art is, my full and complete definition.
1) Something created by human beings (though with reservations to broaden this category should at some point the existence of other sapient lifeforms ever be discovered)
2) Something created with the intent to be art
3a) Something that, through some medium, interacts with the senses in such a way as to invoke an emotional response in the one perceiving it
3b) Something that conveys thoughts, ideas, and/or emotions

I think that covers things, though I am hardly a scholar or Dictionary entry author, so it is possible I may need to tweak things, as I've never actually put the idea of art as it is in my head down in words.

If it's pretty to look at, but requires no particular skill to produce, then it's merely decoration.

Well, that's your opinion.

It does, however, amply prove that "art" and "looks pretty" are not synonyms.

I can agree with that.

You say "yes Seafort, you're right, I apologise for ever questioning you".

Or I could tell you to f**k off with a rusty knife. Guess which is more likely?

The former of course.

Fuck off with a rusty knife.

Guess you were wrong there, huh?

*snip music stuff

As I said above, music stuff is conceded.

Fair enough then.

How about you tell me what you think art is, something you have yet to bother doing.

I see you haven't bothered reading the thread properly.

Art requires two things: 1) it's aesthetically pleasing (this is a matter of opinion, as you say) 2) it requires skill.

Ah, apologizes on that one, I said one thing when actually meaning another. Let me try again: Please defend your claim that that is what art is, most specifically why skill is so important. So far all I've gotten out of you in that regard is that skill makes it special. Why?

Missed the point of me asking what the point was, funny.

You asked which point I wanted proof for. I told you.

I asked what the point was because our inability to agree on the skill issue made it pointless to do so.

See the description above.

See'd.

[Captain Seafort]

By making the same claim again with virtually the same wording, basically taking us a step backwards? You're not refuting anything, you're just repeating yourself.

Given that the point didn't seem to get through your head the first time, I don't have much choice, do I?

Tell you what, I'll make you a deal. If you want me to be more specific, tell me and I will. In return, you stop chopping my sentences up in such a manner that it alters the meaning of the sentence and than responding to said altered sentences as if they were my ideas. Sound fair?

How exactly does quoting your definition of art constitute chopping up a sentence? It's not my fault if you can't articulate your thoughts coherently.

Except I never said "This is my complete and total definition of art...". I said art is such and such.

In the context of a debate about what art is. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude from your statement that the definition you used was your complete definition.

Here, if you're going to pick on my "definitions" then here is what I think art is, my full and complete definition.
1) Something created by human beings (though with reservations to broaden this category should at some point the existence of other sapient lifeforms ever be discovered)
2) Something created with the intent to be art
3a) Something that, through some medium, interacts with the senses in such a way as to invoke an emotional response in the one perceiving it
3b) Something that conveys thoughts, ideas, and/or emotions

I agree with this as far as as you go, however I reiterate that a degree of skill such that the average person cannot recreate the art should be added as point 4.

Let me try again: Please defend your claim that that is what art is, most specifically why skill is so important. So far all I've gotten out of you in that regard is that skill makes it special. Why?

Why would something be special if it could be recreated by most of the population? Take your examples of a couple of lines on a blank sheet, or a few solid blocks of colour - you or I could recreate those pretty easily, so what is there to admire about them? Nothing. If they were done as floor mosaics or stained glass then they would be art, not because the design itself is particularly impressive, but because of the skill required to produce the mosaic or glass. I see art as something impressive, not because of the specific design (as you mentioned earlier, anyone can recreate the Mona Lisa with a google search and a printer) but because of the skill required to produce it. If there's no skill behind it then what is there to admire? A mere collection of colour and texture, no different fundamentally for any of billions of things in nature.

I asked what the point was because our inability to agree on the skill issue made it pointless to do so.

Because we are conducting a debate. Part of debating involves supporting any assertions you make with evidence and/or solid logic.

[shran]

I daresay, true art is incomprehensible.
Please do take a look at the real life subsection, it shows what a kind of mess art and art appreciation actually is.