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

[stitch626]

No - it's music.

So then a painting isn't art, its just a painting?

Foolish reasoning... imo.

[Captain Seafort]

So then a painting isn't art, its just a painting?

Go back and read my original post on the subject.

[Lighthawk]

You defined art as "an expression, whether it's an emotion, an idea, a thought, whatever." Terrorism is an expression of someone's political opinion. Ergo, by your definition, terrorism is art.

Oh please, you're better than this kind of flawed logic. I did say that art is all those things, but I didn't say that those things were the sole qualifiers, nor did I say that any and everything that also matches those qualifiers is art as well. What you did just did is akin to trying to say I just claimed a pizza is a wheel because I said a wheel is round, so obviously everything that is also round must be a wheel. Don't put words in my mouth.

At the point where the detail involved in the piece exceeds to ability of the average person to reproduce it.

And that point is...where? Who makes that call?

Painting is also an artistic medium, but that doesn't make my wall a work of art.

Yes, but just as I said with the terrorism remark, a solid coat of a single color on a wall isn't intended to be art.

While photographs can certainly be works of art, that does not make every photograph art.

Agreed

As with other mediums, the skill involved (lighting, framing, depth of field, etc) is part of it.

Skill can make it better art, but is not what makes it art.

If you art the art world's equivalent of Mozart, fair enough. If you're talking about finger painting, then no. A child going to the effort to produce something, or in said child improving their skills, does not mean that they are producing art.

Well clearly on the skill issue we're not going to get anywhere. You say yes, I say no, and its really just a matter of opinion vs opinion.

No - it's music. However, I apply the same method of determining what is and isn't music as I do art.

I know quiet a few musicians who'd have words with you over that claim.

Well then we're going to have to agree to disagree because a kid in grade school could reproduce a Mondrian but it's art.

What makes it art? Because someone says so? If it requires no particular skill then why should it be considered anything special?

What makes it not art? Because someone said so?

Seriously, I'm curious here, does anyone know if there is any official governing body for art, of any kind, anywhere? Who, if anyone, actually has the authority and the right to claim something is or is not art?

[Captain Seafort]

Oh please, you're better than this kind of flawed logic. I did say that art is all those things, but I didn't say that those things were the sole qualifiers, nor did I say that any and everything that also matches those qualifiers is art as well. What you did just did is akin to trying to say I just claimed a pizza is a wheel because I said a wheel is round, so obviously everything that is also round must be a wheel. Don't put words in my mouth.

If you don't like the conclusions your own statements lead to then be more specific.

And that point is...where? Who makes that call?

Me, since you're being nitpicky. None of the examples that have been described as art here - lines, blocks of colour, etc, come anywhere close to the boundary.

Skill can make it better art, but is not what makes it art.

Yes it is. I repeat my question to Tyyr - what makes it art? Because someone says so? If it requires no particular skill then why should it be considered anything special?

Well clearly on the skill issue we're not going to get anywhere. You say yes, I say no, and its really just a matter of opinion vs opinion.

On the contrary, he skill issue is the heart of the matter.

I know quiet a few musicians who'd have words with you over that claim.

I'm not casting aspersions on the relative merits of art and music, I'm simply pointing out that they require complete different skill sets - art is persistent while music is not, in that a work of art can last for centuries, while music is gone as soon as the sound passes you.

What makes it not art?

Burden of proof falls on you Light, since you have made a positive claim. You claimed that certain items should be considered art despite no particular skill being required to produce them. Now prove your claim.

[Mikey]

So it's art so long as you don't touch it? Somehow the process of touching one of the pieces and moving it takes what was seconds ago by your own admission a work of art... and it stops being art?

Not what I said. To paraphrase, I said that the components may be artwork, and the chess set thus have an element of artistry to it. If I display it as such, then yes, it may be considered art. While I'm playing chess with it, it may be considered a chess set. There's no reason the defining line of art needs to be static.

That's an incredibly arbitrary difference.

HA! Of course it is! The subject of this discussion is probably the most arbitrary thing in the history of ever.

while computer games aren't art they can contain art.

Eureka! I think that's the bit for which people have been searching.

Yes it does - if the average person could reproduce it then it requires no particular skill, and therefore is not art.

I have to disagree. I don't care for Mondrian (or Pollock, if you couldn't tell,) but I think here's where it needs to be said that art is in the conception as much as the execution.

So what about the painting someone paints just for the sake of painting. Or the music one composes, never to be heard, just for the sake of composing.

What about them? Nothing I've ever said requires an audience outside the creator. Again, you're confusing the aims of the creator with the purpose of the creation.

The only enjoyment of these items comes form the process involved in doing them, just like the enjoyment I get from a video game (can't speak for others). Does painting for the sake of enjoyment make that painting non-art?

No, once again you're comparing things which aren't parallel. If the enjoyment of creating music or cvisual art comes from the creative process, then so be it; that doesn't bear a logical comparison to the enjoyment you get from playing a game. It might compare to the enjoyment you might get from creating a game, in which case I'd refer you to Seafort's comment about art comprising a portion of the total material in a game.

[Graham Kennedy]

I certainly wouldn't call a computer game a work of art. Not sure one ever could be, either.

I don't pretend to have a definition of art, but on the "I know it when I see it" criteria, computer games aren't it.

I agree with you in a general sense, but with the caveat that while computer games aren't art they can contain art. In much the same way as Mikey's example - a chess set isn't art, but individual pieces might be.

Oh, absolutely computer games contain art. I suppose a game is like a gallery; it contains art but is not art itself.

[Lighthawk]

If you don't like the conclusions your own statements lead to then be more specific.

No. You took my words, and twisted them in an absurd fashion using faulty logic to try and claim I said something I did not. I'm not going to waste my time writing out responses that read like legal documents to try and cover every stupid little way someone could try and intentionally misunderstand what I'm saying. If you need me to hold your hand in this, I'm afraid you're SOL.

Me, since you're being nitpicky. None of the examples that have been described as art here - lines, blocks of colour, etc, come anywhere close to the boundary.

And your qualifications to tell people their art is or is not art are?

Yes it is. I repeat my question to Tyyr - what makes it art? Because someone says so? If it requires no particular skill then why should it be considered anything special?

Just because something is simple doesn't mean it can't invoke emotion, be aesthetically appealing, or have worth. It's the human response that makes something art.

On the contrary, he skill issue is the heart of the matter.

Alright, then where from here? We can keep up the "yes it is" "no it isn't" headbutting until one of us gives up in sickened disgust if you want, but I hardly think anything will come of it.

I'm not casting aspersions on the relative merits of art and music, I'm simply pointing out that they require complete different skill sets

So? Sculpting requires a complete different skill set from painting which has a different skill set from photography which has a different skill set from weaving which has a different skill set...

- art is persistent while music is not, in that a work of art can last for centuries, while music is gone as soon as the sound passes you.

A work of music can last centuries...never heard of Beethoven?

Burden of proof falls on you Light, since you have made a positive claim. You claimed that certain items should be considered art despite no particular skill being required to produce them. Now prove your claim.

Wow, way to duck answering that. Bravo.

As for proof, to what point? You don't agree with my viewpoint, so you'll just come back and say "No, skill is needed."

Fine then, you say skill is needed because otherwise the so called art isn't special, that because just about anyone could reproduce it, it has no...what, substance? Curious, if you were to use a computer to recreate, say the Mona Lisa, would that image no longer be art? I certainly wouldn't claim that the computer or the person running it is an artist, as all they did was copy an existing piece of art, they had nothing to do with the creation itself. But that image on the screen, has it suddenly degraded to less than art? What if you copy the file and send it to another computer. No skill needed there, is the image, despite being identical to the original, not art?

Art is about emotions and thoughts and ideas, and about passing them on to others through a creative medium. A child's finger painting of her daddy might not touch most people, but it could certainly touch him. It could have value and meaning to him, it could be special to him. It might not be art to other people, but it could to him. Art is a matter of people, not meeting some codified set of rules and limits.

[stitch626]

while music is gone as soon as the sound passes you.

Not true, since I've had 16 different musical creations in my head for the past three days (except when I'm asleep), and could keep playing them over and over 'till I die (or lose my mind, whichever comes first). And the music would still live on through thousands of Ipods.

Again, you're confusing the aims of the creator with the purpose of the creation.

No, I'm not.

Purpose of the creation (for me at least), whether it be a movie, book, painting, music, or video game, is entertainment. I don't care what the creator wanted from it, I want it for entertainment.

[Captain Seafort]

No. You took my words, and twisted them in an absurd fashion using faulty logic to try and claim I said something I did not.

On the contrary. You defined art as "an expression, whether it's an emotion, an idea, a thought, whatever". Terrorism counts as such.

And your qualifications to tell people their art is or is not art are?

The fact that I'm me. Plus the fact that anyone could produce lines or blocks of colour on paper. Calling something art implies that there's something special about it - if anyone could do it, then that is emphatically not the case.

Just because something is simple doesn't mean it can't invoke emotion, be aesthetically appealing, or have worth.

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.

It's the human response that makes something art.

Whereupon we go back to my example of terrorism - it certainly provokes a human response. Indeed, that's the whole point.

Alright, then where from here?

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

A work of music can last centuries

No it can't - it lasts milliseconds, if that. The same set of notes might be played many times over centuries, but they'll be slightly different every time.

Wow, way to duck answering that. Bravo.

You're making the claim that some things should be considered art despite no particular skill being required. Asking you to prove that claim isn't "ducking" anything - it's expecting people to hold to a decent standard of debate.

As for proof, to what point?

You think that stuff should be considered art despite no particular skill being required. Prove it.

Curious, if you were to use a computer to recreate, say the Mona Lisa, would that image no longer be art? I certainly wouldn't claim that the computer or the person running it is an artist, as all they did was copy an existing piece of art, they had nothing to do with the creation itself. But that image on the screen, has it suddenly degraded to less than art? What if you copy the file and send it to another computer. No skill needed there, is the image, despite being identical to the original, not art?

The artistic merit is inherent in the skill required to create it in the first place.

Art is about emotions and thoughts and ideas and about passing them on to others through a creative medium.

So's terrorism - the medium is usually a combination of co-op mix and lots of very small bits of metal.

A child's finger painting of her daddy might not touch most people, but it could certainly touch him. It could have value and meaning to him, it could be special to him.

I've already covered this. I agree with each and every bit of this statement, but that doesn't make it art.

[Captain Seafort]

Not true, since I've had 16 different musical creations in my head for the past three days (except when I'm asleep), and could keep playing them over and over 'till I die (or lose my mind, whichever comes first).

That's the memory of the music, not the music itself.

And the music would still live on through thousands of Ipods.

Again, the experience would be different every single time you listened to it - subtle differences in the settings of the ipod and the local atmospheric conditions.

[stitch626]

Again, the experience would be different every single time you listened to it - subtle differences in the settings of the ipod and the local atmospheric conditions.

Then a painting is not art, for every time you look at it, its slightly different depending on lighting, humidity, angle, eyesight, etc.

[Captain Seafort]

Then a painting is not art, for every time you look at it, its slightly different depending on lighting, humidity, angle, eyesight, etc.

As I said initially, the primary reason for art and music being different things are due to them being different mediums - the fact that art is fixed while music is different on every occasion is merely a subset of that.

Look at it this way - both MDs and Engineers are highly skilled professions, but an MD is not an engineer, and an engineer is not an MD. In a similar way, art is not music and music is not art.

[Lighthawk]

On the contrary. You defined art as "an expression, whether it's an emotion, an idea, a thought, whatever". Terrorism counts as such.

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

You defined art as "an expression, whether it's an emotion, an idea, a thought, whatever." Terrorism is an expression of someone's political opinion. Ergo, by your definition, terrorism is art.

Oh please, you're better than this kind of flawed logic. I did say that art is all those things, but I didn't say that those things were the sole qualifiers, nor did I say that any and everything that also matches those qualifiers is art as well. What you did just did is akin to trying to say I just claimed a pizza is a wheel because I said a wheel is round, so obviously everything that is also round must be a wheel. Don't put words in my mouth.

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.
A wheel is round, does that make every round thing a wheel? No.
Fire is hot, does that make every hot thing fire? No.
Art is an expression of thought and emotion, does that make everything that is an expression of thought and emotion art? NO!

Do you get it yet, or do you need a diagram?

The fact that I'm me.

Well hail the almighty you.

Plus the fact that anyone could produce lines or blocks of colour on paper.

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.

Calling something art implies that there's something special about it - if anyone could do it, then that is emphatically not the case.

Art is special because it touches people, not because it conforms to a set standard of measurement.

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.

Whereupon we go back to my example of terrorism - it certainly provokes a human response. Indeed, that's the whole point.

See above

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

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

No it can't - it lasts milliseconds, if that. The same set of notes might be played many times over centuries, but they'll be slightly different every time.

Nitpicking. First off, unless it's done terribly or someone purposefully changes something, most people would be incapable of hearing the difference anyway. As the worth of art is in the human perception of it, if humans can't tell the difference than they are the same as far as being the same piece of art. Second, even what you would consider art, say a painting, isn't the exact same every time you see it. Over time, simple existence will change things about it, colors fade, moisture levels change, the lighting will be different. For all the efforts of the custodians of great art, every year the great works degrade ever so slightly. However most people couldn't possibly see the difference. The Mona Lisa you see today is not the exact same one that was painted, the years have stripped bits of away. All art is transitory, it's merely a matter of to what degree.

You're making the claim that some things should be considered art despite no particular skill being required. Asking you to prove that claim isn't "ducking" anything - it's expecting people to hold to a decent standard of debate.

Decent standard of debate? After your performance thus far that's laughable coming from you. You've taken us in circles with your "terrorism is art" claim, you're only proof that skill is needed for art is that "skill is what makes it special", and in general all you've done is wall up, deny other people's claims, and given none of your own other than the skill for special requirement. How about you tell me what you think art is, something you have yet to bother doing. Tearing down other people's claims without presenting your own isn't debating, it's just being contrary.

As for proof, to what point?

You think that stuff should be considered art despite no particular skill being required. Prove it.

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

The artistic merit is inherent in the skill required to create it in the first place.

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.

So's terrorism - the medium is usually a combination of co-op mix and lots of very small bits of metal.

Again, see above.

I've already covered this. I agree with each and every bit of this statement, but that doesn't make it art.

And that there is why I asked what the point was. We're not going to see eye to eye on this.

[stitch626]

In a similar way, art is not music and music is not art.

Wrong. 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.

[Sionnach Glic]

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.