Can a game be considered art?

Hog
Member
Posts: 151
Joined: 2002.09
Post: #16
I remember there being a similar discussion on IMG and i had the impression there were alot of people of the opinion that computergames will never become art or so. Basically discussions on what is art and what is not tend to never end at all and i think it's futile contributing to them. It's easier to decide on individual objects wheter they are art or not.
The only motivation i can see anyone wanting to discuss this topic is when according to the law of some country something that is art is allowed to enjoy special previlages over things that are not. (Like when something is not allowed to be distributed to minors or in other cases not at all, unless it's art.)

That said, i think people who put whole categories of things into the no-art bin are philistines. To me basically everything is art unless proven otherwise.
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 2005.02
Post: #17
Najdorf Wrote:the even more pertaining question, is programming art?

well, is engineering art?
I would have to say yes.
Moderator
Posts: 108
Joined: 2002.06
Post: #18
Hog Wrote:That said, I think people who put whole categories of things into the no-art bin are philistines. To me basically everything is art unless proven otherwise.

I like this approach. However, my take is that regardless of proven theory, all life is art. I feel expression can't be solely bound by the interpretation of the many, but from the viewpoint of one. What we experience through our senses allows us to experience different flavors of life in our own viewpoint.

But why are games still looked upon as mere entertainment?

In the end, it's ultimately a cultural lag between us and other forms of entertainment. 10 years from now it'll be the norm and a new form of expression will come to pass.

Just saw this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

It mentions that video games are a new addition to modern art via the technological revolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_theory

ProRattaFactor
(Retro-infused games for iPad, iPhone, iPod touch, and Mac)
Member
Posts: 715
Joined: 2003.04
Post: #19
OneSadCookie Wrote:I think we're too hung up here on making an objective definition for a very subjective term...

How about saying, "if the person creating the work wishes to create art, the work is art".

That fixes your problems quite neatly -- is a computer game art? ask its creators. Is graffiti art? ask the vandal. Is pornography art? Ask the photographer.

No, Art is a philosophical science with absolute principles to define things as Art.

These principles are lumped under the odd word: Aesthetics.

To determine if something is "ART" it is analyzed by its intentional use of these elements. Sure Nature can be aesthetically pleasing, but is more form following function through accident or necessity rather than an intelligent construction, nobody physically carved out Niagra Falls or the Grand Canyon with the intention of it being beautiful.

Painter John Lovett explains it neatly here.
Quote:The elements and principles of design are the building blocks used to create a work of art. The Elements of design can be thought of as the things that make up a painting, drawing, design etc. Good or bad - all paintings will contain most of if not all, the seven elements of design.

I suggest reading the link to save the cost of enrolling in Design 101.

Is programming art? NO. It does not have any of the formal elements of design.
Thinking that programming is art is like saying mixing paint with paint thinner or sharpening a pencil is art.
Programming is the routine in creating a possible work of art, not the art itself.
Engineering alone is not art, again it is the routine of creating something, without the use aesthetic principles engineering simply creates eyesores, look at common low income housing and military bases of the last century for a fine example of engineering with complete lack of aesthetics.

If we analyze video games based on aesthetic elements and principles then they are clearly art.
Lets analyze Pac-Man as a very simple example that everyone can relate to,
I'll quote John Lovett to help with the definitions.
Quote:THE ELEMENTS OF DESIGN

LINE
Line can be considered in two ways. The linear marks made with a pen or brush or the edge created when two shapes meet.
The Pac-Man map is created of lines, with obiously design intent, form follows function, and the function of the lines is to create a maze.
The dot pattern also generates the impression of lines, that guide the viewer through the maze.

Quote:SHAPE
A shape is a self contained defined area of geometric or organic form. A positive shape in a painting automatically creates a negative shape.
Again Pac-Man's Maze is made of obvious shapes. The ghosts, dots, pac-man, all are shapes.
Quote:DIRECTION
All lines have direction - Horizontal, Vertical or Oblique. Horizontal suggests calmness, stability and tranquillity. Vertical gives a feeling of balance, formality and alertness. Oblique suggests movement and action
see notes on direction
Pac-man uses Horizontal and Vertical direction, but not with an obvious emotional or sensory purpose behind it. Basically the entire game board is set up Vertically...suggesting alertness? Perhaps.
Quote:SIZE
Size is simply the relationship of the area occupied by one shape to that of another.
This is pretty obvious among the dots, same basic shape, but the larger ones simply by size alone scream "i'm important".
Quote:TEXTURE
Texture is the surface quality of a shape - rough, smooth, soft hard glossy etc. Texture can be physical (tactile) or visual.
see notes on texture
Again the maze provides texture to the design, although it is 2 dimensional, if we were to pain the game board with acrylics, close our eyes and run our hand over it, we'd have an obvious tactile impression of the design. Our brain does this for us and says "there are walls, there are dots, there is shiny fruit"
Quote:COLOUR
Also called Hue
see notes on colour
Without going into the depths of color theory, Pac-Man obviously uses color to define the elements of the design. Our Pac-man is yellow, the dots he eats are yellow, the fruit is yummy fruity colors, and the ghosts are pastels from hell.
A change in ghost color, changes the functionality of the pac-man.
Quote:VALUE
Value is the lightness or darkness of a colour. Value is also called Tone
see notes on tonal contrast
Due to limited technology of the time, not unlike limited painting technology of ancient days, Pac-Man limits itself to high contrast. This high contrast catches the eyes, and screams simplicity.


On to the Principles, these are the bits and pieces, the details, that will be found among the existing elements of a design, or art.

Quote:BALANCE
Balance in design is similar to balance in physics

A large shape close to the center can be balanced
by a small shape close to the edge. A large light
toned shape will be balanced by a small dark toned
shape (the darker the shape the heavier it appears to be)
The PacMan board is entirely balanced, we have the large ghost box in the center, and at any given corner a dot, unless its eaten. There is no
sense that the game screen is going to fall down, or that we have
to angle our head to "right" the screen.

{quote]
GRADATION
Gradation of size and direction produce linear perspective. Gradation of colour from warm to cool and tone from dark to light produce aerial perspective. Gradation can add interest and movement to a shape. A gradation from dark to light will cause the eye to move along a shape.[/quote] Again low res graphics only give us a gradation in the fruit, to make it sort of roundish. Because the fruit is the only element in the game board that has gradation, it stands out as extra special.

Quote:REPETITION
Repetiton with variation is interesting, without variation repetition can become monotonous
see notes on repetition
Obvious repetition : maze units, ghosts, and dots. Obvious variation in size of dots, color of ghosts, size and facing direction of maze units.

Quote:CONTRAST
Contrast is the juxtaposition of opposing elements eg. opposite colours on the colour wheel - red / green, blue / orange etc. Contrast in tone or value - light / dark. Contrast in direction - horizontal / vertical.
The major contrast in a painting should be located at the center of interest. Too much contrast scattered throughout a painting can destroy unity and make a work difficult to look at. Unless a feeling of chaos and confusion are what you are seeking, it is a good idea to carefully consider where to place your areas of maximum contrast.

Obviously all the important elements of the game contrast with the empty space of the maze, the power ups contrast in size to the point dots, the ghosts contrast with pacman and the dots in shape and color.

Quote:HARMONY
Harmony in painting is the visually satisfying effect of combining similar, related elements. eg.adjacent colours on the colour wheel, similar shapes etc.

Harmony of the maze is created by the repetition of shapes. Harmony among the ghost elements is created by repetition of shape and the use of warm colors, except that blue one, he stands alone, and there is probably a "design" reason for it.

Quote:DOMINANCE
Dominance gives a painting interest, counteracting confusion and monotony. Dominance can be applied to one or more of the elements to give emphasis
The game board is obviously dominated by the maze shapes, this very much defines a "world" that the viewer is confined to for the entire period of the game. Even after the apparently dominating dots are almost all devoured, the maze shapes remain.

[quote]
UNITY
Relating the design elements to the the idea being expressed in a painting reinforces the principal of unity.eg. a painting with an active aggressive subject would work better with a dominant oblique direction, course, rough texture, angular lines etc. whereas a quiet passive subject would benefit from horizontal lines, soft texture and less tonal contrast.

Unity in a painting also refers to the visual linking of various elements of the work.[quote]

Shape and color repetition unifies the pacman design, the eye is not sent scattershot through the board, there is no confusion at all. A design without unity fails to interest the viewer, the eye skips around without any guidance, then leaves it entirely.

A decade and a half ago I had to do analysis like this twice a week for a two years, only not with games. Through such analysis I could go into museums and galleries and actually appreciate art that I would otherwise find utterly craftless, it actually is mentally stimulating to use a formal process to analyze art, rather than just looking at it and saying "I like it", or "wow , thats shit!". Aesthetic analysis takes a greater vocabulary, and requires a more detailed viewing of the subject.

Having said that, Roger Ebert, is obviously a lazy fat old man who has made zero attempt at such analysis of any one of tens of thousands of games available to be critiqued through aesthetics. Pong? even that can be viewed as art, ultra-low stimulation minimalist art.


I also want to add that the above analysis can also be applied to any form of communication that can be percieved through the five senses.
One of the musicians here might want to analyze a piece of game music to further illustrate that for us.
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 2004.07
Post: #20
IMO, aesthetics is the murderer of art.

The only absolute principle is expression. Art is a physical manifestation of someone's emotions, beliefs, thoughts, desires, and so on. It has nothing to do with how pleasing it is to the eyes or ears, or its entertainment value, or its consistency of style.

To answer the original question, games are art. Every argument I've heard otherwise consists only of arbitrarily chosen criteria, which seem to be deliberately chosen to exclude games from the realm of what is considered art ("Authorial control of the story"? Please.)

And programming/engineering is art, too. For instance, the iPod, or that FPS with the 64K footprint (or whatever it was.)

Justin Ficarrotta
http://www.justinfic.com
"It is better to be The Man than to work for The Man." - Alexander Seropian
DoG
Moderator
Posts: 869
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #21
How about looking up the word in a dictionary. The dashboard dict says this about art:
Quote:art:
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
...
Now, you could argue that games are entertainment, but so are paintings, movies, and music. Of course, your regular TV series, might not be considered art as a whole, but certainly can have artistic elements, such as music, or an artistic visual composition. The Academy Awards, for example, not only award the best movie, but also award best musical score, best picture, and so on.

There is no restriction about interactivity in artistic creations, either.

I don't think you can deny "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination" in the game development process, and similarly this also applies to programming and engineering.

Is programming part of the "fine arts"? Certainly not, as products of fine art must not serve any other purpose than being pretty and witty. Again, the dictionary comes to rescue:
Quote:fine art:
creative art, esp. visual art, whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content

If you ask me, that's computer games, right there. Take Myst, for example. It certainly fits being fine art. Quake? Tough call.

Just to make it complete, this is what the dictionary says about design:
Quote:design:
purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object
Industrial design is concerned with merging form (art) and function (engineering). If such an object is art, too, is debatable. In my eyes it is.

It is easy to confuse design with visual art. Elements of visual design certainly appear in visual art, but you won't find lines and shapes in music.

In the end, you can argue until the sun goes down, depending on what definition of art you are supporting.
Member
Posts: 715
Joined: 2003.04
Post: #22
JustinFic Wrote:And programming/engineering is art, too. For instance, the iPod, or that FPS with the 64K footprint (or whatever it was.)

You are confusing the activity of producing something with the final product.
Nobody views the blue prints and schematics of an ipod and says "I'll buy that for $500", no they buy the ipod, an object, and not for the way it looks, feels, or smells, but for its utility after carefully designed promotional material has affected their perception of what is a better mp3 player.

If it did not function then nobody would buy it, it would be more hi-tech garbage to be recycled by Asias poor. Nobody would concider the assembly line activities of the ipod factory of a form of artisitic expression, and they are obviously engineered.

If I crap on your head and tell you thats how I feel about you, is it art?
Its a physical expression with intent to communicate yes, but has no definite redeeming artistic value. Perhaps if I do a five minute ballet before I do my duty, then it would be performance art, otherwise, all I did was crap on your head!

If I stalk you day and night to express my undying infatuaton with you, is it art?
Again, No.

The events of 9/11/01 were a physical expression of anger and hate toward America's corporate imperialist agenda. Was that art? Sun Tzu might agree.

Generally though, your definition of art fails in three instances, and will continue to fail in a domino fashion the more examples put forth. That is the difference between uneducated opinion or purposeful ignorance and scientific analysis. Art can be analyzed like breaking down chemicals into their atomic elements, usually only artist will bother to analyze art because it furthers their ability to creatdeffective communication, even if its just a bunch of lines, shapes, colors, etc. The majority of society either "likes it" or "doesn't like it", and would not really be able to explain why, mostly they will say "I just do/don't".

Programming is an action, that has no artistic value in itself.
99.99999% of all people, animals, plants, fish and insects in the world would become disinterested watching someone program. The act of programming alone is not art.

The final product can be art, but the activity itself is not.

Lets not confuse actions with product, else we'll come to the simpleton conclusion that farting, burping and other bodily functions are arts if someone is expressing themselves with it.

Dancing is a simple example of the difference between profane activity and profound design.
The teeming masses shake their booties with no rhyme or reason, no value, no color, no balance, no expression other than "I gotta boogie". A ballet or other structured dance on the otherhand is designed to keep the viewer interested, to be balanced, to have contrast, etc. I suggest visiting a strip club, and compare dancers moves for a very entertaining study of this, using aesthetic analysis one can find which dancer is the more talented, thoughtful, and creative, as opposed to the one who is just going through the motions.
One is an artist, and the other is just filler.
Member
Posts: 715
Joined: 2003.04
Post: #23
DoG Wrote:Elements of visual design certainly appear in visual art, but you won't find lines and shapes in music.

Actually by the aesthetic definition of lines and shapes, you do find this in music.

If a shape is defined: "A shape is a self contained defined area of geometric or organic form" It can't be applied directly to music, but obviously every single score has "a self contained area", a chorus for example is no the same musical value as a solo, they are "self contained area" of the score.

If line is defined "the edge created when two shapes meet", then obviously you "draw the line" when the solo breaks into chorus, if you mix this all up with no reasonable intentional design , then you end up with noise, not art, unless you are a savant, and just magically create art by some bizarre function of brain activity.

A few minutes of playing in Garage Band, and making very bad music can clearly illustrate that "expression" alone does not make art, and failure to create lines or shape in music creates monotonous noise..

The Aesthetics for music do have a different vocabulary than visual arts. But generally Aesthetics can be applied to everything under the sun to undestand why it has any beautific value or not.


Out of curiosity I looked up "anti-aesthetics" expecting to find an art movement that JustinFic might belong to.
I found this interesting article on the website for last years game specific conference Aesthetics of Play
DoG
Moderator
Posts: 869
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #24
igame3d Wrote:Actually by the aesthetic definition of lines and shapes, you do find this in music.

If a shape is defined: "A shape is a self contained defined area of geometric or organic form" It can't be applied directly to music, but obviously every single score has "a self contained area", a chorus for example is no the same musical value as a solo, they are "self contained area" of the score.

If line is defined "the edge created when two shapes meet", then obviously you "draw the line" when the solo breaks into chorus, if you mix this all up with no reasonable intentional design , then you end up with noise, not art, unless you are a savant, and just magically create art by some bizarre function of brain activity.A few minutes of playing in Garage Band, and making very bad music can clearly illustrate that "expression" alone does not make art, and failure to create lines or shape in music creates monotonous noise..
Now that's stretching the concept a little. Also, the definitions you use are not what one would commonly think. A line is the connection of two points in space, I could say, or that it is the intersection of two planes. All valid definitions in a certain context. Applying geometrical terms to music is only an abstraction.

You are talking from the point of view of a designer, or an engineer, trying to dissect art into bits and pieces that do this and that. That's just wrong.

Creating a terrible cacophony, one that hurts when you hear it, can still be art, if it was created with intent. Not a design or a plan, but with the intent of creating an emotion or feeling in the listener. If it is created by mouse and keyboard bashing, without any kind of intent or purpose, then it really is just crap. A novice artist my create terrible things, because he lacks the proper skills and experience, but you can't say it's not art just because it's bad.

If you look at my dictionary quote for design, that very much sums it up. Design is the HOW, art is the WHAT. How do you create a nice looking picture? You apply the golden mean or rule of thirds, color matching, and whatnot. Will you have art by putting elements of design onto an empty canvas without any purpose as to what they signify? I doubt it. A plan of shapes and lines arranged by certain principles doesn't create emotion in the viewer, unless it was intended, unless design was used as a tool to create art.

You can find design in anything natural or man-made if you look hard enough. You can compose an image by trial and error, stopping when it looks right, it doesn't have to be rigidly planned and dissected. In retrospective, you may say the artist applied the rule of thirds to make the image look nice, while the fact that certain design elements are present is just a side effect of the image looking "right".

Also, art doesn't have to be aesthetic, IMO. Aesthetics is concerned with beauty, not art. Art doesn't have to be pleasurable or beautiful, it might just as well be gross and disturbing. It can be aesthetic, and most often is, but it's not required per se. You can't argue if something is art by judging its beauty, as that is absolutely relative ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder").

L'art pour l'art. That's the best definition I got. If you create something to be art, it is. It may be bad art, but it's still art.
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 2004.10
Post: #25
If elephant dung in human urine is considered art by the intelligensia,
then, Yes! I'd consider games art.
Member
Posts: 715
Joined: 2003.04
Post: #26
DoG Wrote:Now that's stretching the concept a little. Also, the definitions you use are not what one would commonly think. A line is the connection of two points in space, I could say, or that it is the intersection of two planes. All valid definitions in a certain context. Applying geometrical terms to music is only an abstraction.
By your definition of a line, then music has lines, the sounds and or silence between any other two notes is the line, a connecting point in audio space.

DoG Wrote:You are talking from the point of view of a designer, or an engineer, trying to dissect art into bits and pieces that do this and that. That's just wrong.
No you are wrong, it is the science of aesthetics, if art can not be analyzed and interpreted then it is simple mindless background that nobody pays attention to at all. Simply viewing something and liking it does not make something art, porn for example, made with intent, and much of it has no artisitic value nor was there "art" behind its production.
Quote:Creating a terrible cacophony, one that hurts when you hear it, can still be art, if it was created with intent.
So if I intentionaly fart, you define that as art? If I beat my wife, with the intent to of making her scream cry and bleed, its art? If beat on your door at Four AM with my fists and feet its art?
DoG Wrote:Not a design or a plan, but with the intent of creating an emotion or feeling in the listener.
You are contradicting yourself, first you say not with a design or plan, then you say intent, if you intend to do something then you have a plan. Understanding that is not rocket science.
DoG Wrote:If it is created by mouse and keyboard bashing, without any kind of intent or purpose, then it really is just crap.
Again a contradiction, if I bang on my mouse and keyboar intending to make "art" with no knowledge of aesthetic principles, then I create crap, perhaps, some people have talents without even understanding the principles behind something.
DoG Wrote:A novice artist my create terrible things, because he lacks the proper skills and experience, but you can't say it's not art just because it's bad.
I can say its "bad art", but without a vocabulary to explain why its bad art, and what would make it better, then saying anything at all is just pointless.

DoG Wrote:Will you have art by putting elements of design onto an empty canvas without any purpose as to what they signify? I doubt it.
Because you don't know what you are talking about.
Piet Mondriaan [Image: 1893.jpg]

See Jackson Pollock
or Matisse
[Image: DIG067(18).gif]
or Cohen
[Image: cohen.jpg]
anything from the cubist movement.
Andy warhol.
Abstract Art
[Image: 95-04-theVoyager.jpg]
Bauhaus
[Image: Bauhaus%20012.jpg]

I could go on and on but I think I've proved your last statement false, and the millions of dollars and thousands of man years invested in the works, biographies, schools, etc in these forms of "art", outweigh any opinion that these seemingly random splotches of paint on cavas are not art.

DoG Wrote:A plan of shapes and lines arranged by certain principles doesn't create emotion in the viewer, unless it was intended, unless design was used as a tool to create art.
It is a great mistake to assume that art must create emotion in the viewer.
Michangelo's statue of David provokes emotion? maybe if you are post-teen female or homosexual, but what about all the rest of us. We see a finely scultpted naked man, without knowing any art theory, that is all we see, but we are obviously aware that the statue is a unique work of art.

DoG Wrote:You can find design in anything natural or man-made if you look hard enough. You can compose an image by trial and error, stopping when it looks right, it doesn't have to be rigidly planned and dissected.
But how do you define "looks right"? You will have to use synonyms from the aesthetic princples and elements to do so.

DoG Wrote:In retrospective, you may say the artist applied the rule of thirds to make the image look nice, while the fact that certain design elements are present is just a side effect of the image looking "right".

DoG Wrote:Also, art doesn't have to be aesthetic, IMO. Aesthetics is concerned with beauty, not art.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you can not change the meaning of Aesthetics, it is a philosophical science and not up to the interpretation of laymen.

DoG Wrote:Art doesn't have to be pleasurable or beautiful, it might just as well be gross and disturbing.
About the only thing you got right. But even the most profane image, song, or performance can be analyzed through aesthetics.
And based on such analysis one can actually find the beauty in the most nightmare images.

DoG Wrote:It can be aesthetic, and most often is, but it's not required per se.
Only by your layman's definition, which doesn't count for much, its like me saying a video game doesn't require code, although it most often has code, its not required. Everything can be aesthetically analyzed, and if it does not have the principles and elements of design, then its not art, because it probably doesn't exist in any form other than thought.

DoG Wrote:You can't argue if something is art by judging its beauty, as that is absolutely relative ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder").
That is precisely why aesthetics were developed, you can not convince anyone simply by saying something is art because you think its beautiful, but if you analyze it aesthetically you can prove your point, and even Jackson Pollock can be appreciated by people under such analysis.

Aesthetics works the same as any other science, if you don't have proof, then all you have unfounded unthought out opinion, which is not worth very much.
If you have proof, then you can convince even a skeptic.
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 2005.02
Post: #27
IMO art is anything you intentionally create to be art
zKing
Unregistered
 
Post: #28
"From the moment that art ceases to be food that feeds the best minds, the artist can use his talents to perform all the tricks of the intellectual charlatan. Most people can today no longer expect to receive consolation and exaltation from art. The 'refined,' the rich, the professional 'do-nothings', the distillers of quintessence desire only the peculiar, the sensational, the eccentric, the scandalous in today's art. I myself, since the advent of Cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my mind. The less they understood them, the more they admired me. Through amusing myself with all these absurd farces, I became celebrated, and very rapidly. For a painter, celebrity means sales and consequent affluence. Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich. But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand old meaning of the word: Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, Goya were great painters. I am only a public clown--a mountebank. I have understood my time and have exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession of mine, more painful than it may seem. But at least and at last it does have the merit of being honest."

- Pablo Picasso
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 2005.04
Post: #29
If I'm am understanding you correctly igame3d then aesthetics is the science and analysis by which art can be understood (I don't mean in the subjective sense). And where clear distinctions can be made to separate and measure actual art from something senseless or otherwise unimportant?

I don't think that art is anything created with the intent to be art, otherwise there would be no art.And I do believe that the efforts and accomplishments that have been created since the birth of civilization (and before) have not been random or purposeless. There is a goal in art, and as such it can be measured. If art was meaningless then it would not exist. Or it would be forgotten like a fad (in thousands of years will we remember mc hammer and his purple pants). The facts that it is a recurring theme means that it is and has importance. And anything that has importance should be studied.
Marjock
Unregistered
 
Post: #30
Quote:no they buy the ipod, an object, and not for the way it looks, feels, or smells,

I would say you're far less likely to purchase it if it's spiky to the point it slices your hand open when you touch it. Likewise if it looks like the crap on somebody's head that you mentioned slightly later.

Quote:The majority of society either "likes it" or "doesn't like it", and would not really be able to explain why, mostly they will say "I just do/don't".

Quote:99.99999% of all people, animals, plants, fish and insects in the world would become disinterested watching someone program. The act of programming alone is not art.

So, in the first instance it doesn't matter whether peope like or dislike something, it can still be art, yet in the second instance, it suddenyl becomes impossible for something to be art if people dislike it.

Quote:Perhaps if I do a five minute ballet before I do my duty, then it would be performance art, otherwise, all I did was crap on your head!

Again, I'm not seeing the distinction. The only difference appears to be is if people liek it.

Quote:The final product can be art, but the activity itself is not.

And yet you just cited the activity of Balet as being art.

Then, later on you attempted to explain why some actions can be art and others can't. You attributed it to design.

Surely, by, "crapping on my head" you design to anger or humilate me? Yet you claim this is still not art.

Quote:if art can not be analyzed and interpreted then it is simple mindless background that nobody pays attention to at all.

Quote:I can say its "bad art", but without a vocabulary to explain why its bad art, and what would make it better, then saying anything at all is just pointless.

In the second quote you are admitting that you don't necessarily have the capabilities ot analyze and explain the effect art has on you (You also stated this in your first post). Yet, again, you say if it can't be analyzed it is simple mindless background.

The only way out of this that I can see is that art is art if somebody can analyze it as such. In which case you are no more entitled to judge what art is than the next man.

Quote:if you intend to do something then you have a plan. Understanding that is not rocket science.

I disagree. I may intend to become the president without having any kind of plan as to how I am going to go about this. Now, you may say that my plan is to become the president, but I think that's a very superficial way to look at it, and to confuse intent and plan.

Quote:Michangelo's statue of David provokes emotion? maybe if you are post-teen female or homosexual, but what about all the rest of us. We see a finely scultpted naked man, without knowing any art theory, that is all we see, but we are obviously aware that the statue is a unique work of art.

Once again, you contradict yourself by implying that the correct emotion to turn something into art is a positive emotion.
One could also see disgust at the statue's nakedness as a viable emotion. And, once again, looking only at the statue's physical nakedness seems a very superficial approach.

My view on this subject coincides almost completely with JustinFic's, so I'm not going to bother to reiterate that.

-Mark
Thread Closed