Are Games Art?

[DougClayton4231]

I've been wondering this question from a cultural perspective. I personally think that very few games could be considered art because they have no cultural values whatsoever. For instance, I'd consider Shenmue 1 and 2 art because they actually have a message and a story. I wouldn't consider a game like FarCry art because it was pointless and ultimately forgettable.

I don't consider a great deal of film or music to be art, mainly on the basis that it just exists because someone thought that "Return Of The Living Dead: Rave To The Grave" or any of Hulk Hogan's albums would be a great paycheck.

What do you think?

[Phoenix Gamma]

Well first you'd have to define "art", which is a whole can of pretentious worms that I hate opening, so I won't.

But you could definitely argue that games qualify as interactive art, which is a legitimate and recognized form of art. The only thing is there are a lot of fucking awful ass games all about the same thing (shooting dudes, stabbing dudes, punching dudes). Sorta like how comics are art, even though most of it caters to kids and manchilren and is about dudes in tights with superpowers.

[dextire]

I believe games very much are a form of art.
Just because a game sucks, copies others before it, or is made for the wrong reasons doesn't mean it's no longer art, it's just bad art.
A painting that looks like a kid threw up on it is still considered art.

I think that pretty much any creative process that can be experienced by others is considered art. Be it music, film, painting, writing, or games.
And like other art forms it takes talent, skill, experience, and time to create good games.

[Grislygus]

Videogames will never be art. Unless, of course, some pop factory art tool like Murakami develops a video game; suddenly "ironic" video games will be seen as a clever and stunning subversion of the shallow, corporate and moneybased culture that it satirizes by becoming yet another facet of that shallow, corporate, and moneybased culture.

The stuffed-turkeys of the art dealing world will have their minds blown by contemporary pop art (yet again) and Takashi Murakami will laugh all the way to the bank. In the meantime, videogames made for the sheer purpose of being FUN and TURNING A PROFIT will still be looked down upon as pathetic and inferior commercial art. (Unlike Murakami! He's a GENIUS! We <3 SUPERFLAT PLEASE LET US THROW MONEY AT YOU, YOU STUNNING AND TIMELESS GOD OF EARTH-SHATTERINGLY LIFE AFFIRMING ARTWORK! HUGS AND KISSES!)

Terrible videogames made specifically to be knowing and sophisticated will be sold at 14.3 million dollars a pop at international art auctions, and galleries will begin showing classic game covers sealed away in crystal cases. These will be seen as deep, meaningful, and unintentionally relevant pillars of pop art that achieve heights of grandeur and sophistication that no *scoff* CONVENTIONAL artwork could ever hope to achieve. Keanu Reeves, Nicholas Cage, and Jennifer Anniston will immediately begin decorating their walls with classic arcade posters that they paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for.

[Grislygus]

Oh, and garish statues of Mario and Donkey Kong will be commissioned to decorate Napa Valley Wineries.

[Anselm]

When FFVII came out, a few friends would come over and we'd play it together. Three of us, passing around the joystick at intervals and making battle decisions for the character that was considered our avatar.

One of their parents asked me how we could play a game so much. I explained that it was the story that kept us interested. The same reason you read a good book. I also explained that for many people of my generation, a good video game means the same as books did for previous generations.

When Aeris was run through by Sephiroth's sword, the room got pretty quite. It changed the mood of our social event. We had vested interests in the characters.

A good game will leave an impression. I would consider that art.

In short, I agree with you. Some games are not art because they don't merit any creativity or real furthering of the industry.

How about a discussion on games that should be considered art, and games that should just be considered an insult to the hobby. :)

Art: FFVII

Insulting: Mario Party 8

~Anselm~

[darkvare]

i always hated that comment i like this game so is art but this one is not my style so is not art if you are going to consider something art you can't reject something just cause you don't like it

[Anselm]

It's not about like or dislike, it's about effort and purpose.

By your reasoning, everything is art. If I dump a paint can over and someone else paints a mural on the side of the building, would most people consider both to be art? A little bit of common sense goes a long way.

I think video games, like any genre of creative orginazation of human effort can be considered art. Like or dislike is obviously not the consideration. I hate RTS games but clearly WC3 is a quality product with true artistic merit. I also think a crappy game, just like a crappy painting, should not be considered art. Shoud it? Under what merits? That it exists?

Fine, maybe it would suit you better to focus the argument on good vs. shitty art. In this way I can consider dog urine artistic. :)


~Anselm~

[Grislygus]

Of course a crappy painting is art, it's a fucking PAINTING numbnuts

"Oh no, that's not artwork, it's merely a picture badly rendered in paint on a framed canvas."

[King Hadas]

Darkvare: Your Pennywise avatar seems to be giving this thread a lot of consideration.

Why's it matter if something is deemed art? Maybe the word "art" means something to art school graduates but to me it's just a vague term people use when they can't think of a more exacting word. Isn't this whole argument nothing but semantics?

[Grislygus]

No, arguing about whether the word "art" means anything is nothing but semantics. It's the kind of argument that you hear from high school kids when you tell them that good art always involves hard work, usually accompanied by the arguments "NO", "I don't need to get any better", "NO!", "You just don't understand", and "that's just my style!"

[King Hadas]

Yeah, you're right. I thought art had a more esoteric, bullshit meaning. Now I know that's not true having just looked up the word on dictionary.com.

Art: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

It's funny people have these arguments about what a word means but then never bother to look it up. Quite a few games meet those criteria so video games are art.

[Grislygus]

Good in theory. Unfortunately, NO ONE, ANYWHERE, can agree on ONE SINGLE definition of art in a specific sense. The only real indicator is the unified and undisputed acceptance of art dealers, art critics, and the public at large. Michelangelo is art. Films, music and books are art. Video games are hotly debated and only considered "art" by a minority, and therefore are not art. Graffiti wasn't "real art" until it was accepted as such and became profitable. The international art world is a goddamn business, and the philosophy of it is secondary (in a practical sense). As soon as art dealers can rake in huge profits and a good rep through video games, it will become "art".

As far as useful definitions go, no one, not even art dealers, have ever paid attention to the shit they read in school (if they read anything at all), so everyone completely misses the fact that video games are an applied art, not a fine art, because no one can tell the difference (and whenever anyone talks about "art", they're usually talking fine art and the miscommunication leads to a shitfest)

[The Leader]

It's not about like or dislike, it's about effort and purpose.

By your reasoning, everything is art. If I dump a paint can over and someone else paints a mural on the side of the building, would most people consider both to be art? A little bit of common sense goes a long way.

I think video games, like any genre of creative orginazation of human effort can be considered art. Like or dislike is obviously not the consideration. I hate RTS games but clearly WC3 is a quality product with true artistic merit. I also think a crappy game, just like a crappy painting, should not be considered art. Shoud it? Under what merits? That it exists?

Fine, maybe it would suit you better to focus the argument on good vs. shitty art. In this way I can consider dog urine artistic. :)


~Anselm~
You fucking fascist.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

When FFVII came out, a few friends would come over and we'd play it together. Three of us, passing around the joystick at intervals and making battle decisions for the character that was considered our avatar.

One of their parents asked me how we could play a game so much. I explained that it was the story that kept us interested. The same reason you read a good book. I also explained that for many people of my generation, a good video game means the same as books did for previous generations.

When Aeris was run through by Sephiroth's sword, the room got pretty quite. It changed the mood of our social event. We had vested interests in the characters.

A good game will leave an impression. I would consider that art.

In short, I agree with you. Some games are not art because they don't merit any creativity or real furthering of the industry.

How about a discussion on games that should be considered art, and games that should just be considered an insult to the hobby. :)

Art: FFVII

Insulting: Mario Party 8

~Anselm~

You should have played FF VI. It was better art AND co-op.

[Anselm]

You should have played FF VI. It was better art AND co-op.

I played FFIII on Super Nintendo. I know VI is referred to as III in North America but I'm guessing this is a different game altogether.

~Anselm~

[DougClayton4231]

Grislygus, you feel very strongly about this lol. It's weird to think of something like a Jackson Pollock as art for me, mainly because it looks mostly like a retarded 4 year old threw paint on a canvas. I think that anything that could be considered art should actually have some sort of meaning behind it (One that does not require heavy doses of narcotics to figure out).

But then again, I loved Frankenhooker and Redneck Zombies so what do I fucking know about art? I don't believe that future societies will ever look back upon something like Manhunt or Soldier of Fortune and go "Wow, I wish I could create art like them!", I think that they might label us as barbarians and lunatics based on our media. I guess Super Mario will be the Jimi Hendrix of videogames in the future.

[King Hadas]

Applied art? Fine art? You're making me look shit up Grislygus, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

If something needs a majority vote to be art I don't think video games will ever make it since they're just to inaccessible. Just getting the equipment together is complicated, not to mention expensive. And then actually learning the controls for each game, I've been playing them my whole life so I have something like video game literacy but for someone new it'd probably be frustrating.

Most likely video games will never be accepted socially as art. Only I, and my brave, stalwart companions can see the towering aesthetic plateaus of such video games as Donkey Kong Country 3 and Jackie Chan: Stuntmaster.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

I played FFIII on Super Nintendo. I know VI is referred to as III in North America but I'm guessing this is a different game altogether.

~Anselm~

Same game.



Only I, and my brave, stalwart companions can see the towering aesthetic plateaus of such video games as Donkey Kong Country 3 and Jackie Chan: Stuntmaster.

:HIGHFIVE

Loved that once you beat stuntmaster you get access to his drunken boxing form and stance.

[King Hadas]

Shit, I didn't know that. Stuntmaster is pretty awesome, it even holds up well by today's standards. Mostly because the camera is fixed like an old, snes era beat em' up.

[mew barios]

if movies are art then what would be the minimum cutscene/playtime ratio that a videogame would need to achieve art status? all them laserdisc games from the 80s would totally have to be art, the interaction from the player is almost negligible.

ps checkmate

[Grislygus]

Once again, APPLIED art. Not fine art, hence the pissing contest.

Grislygus, you feel very strongly about this lol. It's weird to think of something like a Jackson Pollock as art for me, mainly because it looks mostly like a retarded 4 year old threw paint on a canvas. I think that anything that could be considered art should actually have some sort of meaning behind it (One that does not require heavy doses of narcotics to figure out).

Before I go into my next self-absorbed lecture, I would like to clarify my reasons; I have been forced into many, many, many conversations with highly educated, very stupid (and very young people) who think that Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst are the shit and that anyone who thinks differently is a tool. With that said, I'm sticking this next rant in a spoilers tag so that no one has to look at it if they don't want to.

I don't like Jackson Pollock :( I like Rockwell Kent, Otto Dix, Dorothea Tanning, David Alfarro Siqueros, Degas, Toulouse Lautrec, Goya, Ralph Steadman, Gustav Dore, and Emil Nolde.

BUT, I respect Pollock. Forget what anyone has ever told you about what his work means or stands for. He was an alcoholic motherfucker who loved the hell out of what he was doing and did it well. It's all about the paint, the colors, and what he did with them. I would NOT hang that shit on my wall, but looking at them in person is amazing (if, and only if, you give a fuck). THAT is why people worship the guy.

In the meantime, you have this modern contemporary art movement full of overprivileged, arrogant, hip, ungodly rich, STUPID GODDAMN motherfuckers who use federal funding to put crucifixes in jars of urine and worship Andy Warhol because he painted a fucking tomato can. Art is about a love of a medium and the resulting use of it and respect for it. If you're an artist, painting or drawing feels good. Whatever you're actually painting and drawing is secondary. Because you've been drawing/painting so long and have fun doing it, your goddamn BRAIN associates the visceral feeling of holding a brush/pencil/pen and moving it on the paper and activates minor pleasure centers in your brain (like listening to music does to normal people).

Meanwhile the entire "contemporary arts" gallery scene doesn't give a fuck about any of that, only a SOPHISTICATED AND PROBABLY SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS MESSAGE PAIRED WITH SUPERFICIAL 'DEPTH'. Love of working in one or more mediums is integral to the creation of "real" art, both fine and applied, but you can't explain that to normal people OR the half-retarded pop art fanatics (see: factory art, "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physical_Impossibility_of_Death_in_the_Mind_of _Someone_Living)", Takashi Murakami). All you can do is get drunk with other SANE artists once in a while and bitch about philistines and the INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ART MACHINE COMPLEX AND THOSE GODDAMN LIBERAL PIGFUCKERS.


Applied art? Fine art? You're making me look shit up Grislygus, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Just thank God that you've never gotten drunk with me :(

[Phoenix Gamma]

Videogames will never be art. Unless, of course, some pop factory art tool like Murakami develops a video game; suddenly "ironic" video games will be seen as a clever and stunning subversion of the shallow, corporate and moneybased culture that it satirizes by becoming yet another facet of that shallow, corporate, and moneybased culture.

That's already happening. That's why people circlejerk over Suda51 even though he hasn't made a single game that was good aside from a few flashes of goodness in No More Heroes 2.

If I ever meet anyone in person who seriously argues that the overworld in NMH1 is bad because it's a statement, I will personally shove my foot so far up their anus that it pops out of their mouth.

[DougClayton4231]

No More Heroes 1 and 2 were shit stains on the Wii. Nuff said. I very much enjoyed Killer7 because it was original, entertaining and bizarre though. The whole "I make weird shit, therefore I am an artist" thing has gotten very, very old. Just look at Lady Gaga. Makes me sick.

[Dimnos]

Art is about a love of a medium and the resulting use of it and respect for it. If you're an artist, painting or drawing programming or rendering on a computer feels good. Whatever you're actually painting and drawing programming or rendering is secondary. Because you've been drawing/painting rendering/programming so long and have fun doing it, your goddamn BRAIN associates the visceral feeling of holding a brush/pencil/pen keyboard/mouse and moving it on the paper computer and activates minor pleasure centers in your brain (like listening to music does to normal people).

:confused:

[DougClayton4231]

lulz Dimnos. I think that he means that art is a matter of feeling, not cultural subjections. I don't really agree though. Just because it feels good to paint or program or use a camera doesn't make what you do art. If you've ever listened to grindcore or played "Winter Games" you understand what I mean.

[Grislygus]

No, that's not what I was saying. The artist's respect for a medium does not replace objective analysis, but it's a key component in establishing artistic merit (for people who aren't retards). In addition to the standard popular definition of art, a critical and often ignored factor is the artist's motivation to work in one or more mediums because working in those mediums is pleasurable for him in a visceral sense (ie wet brush, contact with the paper, gliding across and the various subtleties in pressure and resistance). The sheer action itself becomes pleasurable in a really intense way (no, not in that way, freak. Well, maybe for some artists. If they're painting with their dick :x) and it becomes a really complex level of feelinin-fine when you combine this with the visual information you get from the marks you are making. and if you're affected like that you get a real adrenaline rush just by looking at a painting/drawing/sculpture at seeing what another artists did with their medium. This is related to why Damien Hirst is a fucking assclown.

I'm assuming that Dimnos is actually right on the money, except I've never met a computer programmer who could get a life-affirming reaction from writing a line of BASIC.

As far as rendering with a tablet... There's still the visceral feeling of the "pen" gently pressing on the tablet, but I don't get that intense fun factor out of it that I do with ink, graphite, and charcoal :(.


Cue the gross misinterpretations of what I'm saying with my words and the English Language.

[Dimnos]

I only used Gus' definition of art because I feel he is the foremost authority on art around these parts. However I do feel games are a form of art. Yes there are a lot of shitty games out there that dont lend themselves to that argument but the same could be said about painting and books and music. Namely your grindcore bs. :lol (Just a small jab there, no offense) On the other hand there are lots of paintings and books and music out there that do fortify those mediums as art and that side of games is smaller in proportion to the shitty ones, hence the debate. I think Gus pins down and defines art as best as anyone can, because like he himself said its just semantics, but I feel he is mostly comparing games to paintings where I think they are more like movies and/or books. Then again one could argue that in creating a game its more like a painting where enjoying it is more like movies or books.

[Grislygus]

Games are an applied art. It is art made specifically with a utilitarian purpose in mind (this actually includes everything from fucking teapot designs to illustration). Fine art is art made for it's own sake, the kind of art that is either commissioned, motivated by the whole "medium" issue I described above, or (at its worst) designed with museums and fame in mind [Superficial pop art is considered fine art right now, which pisses me off and is reflected in EVERY SINGLE POST I've made here, I can't help that]. WHen most people think "art", they think fine art and don't make the distinction AND NEITHER DO THE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF CRITIQUE, WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THIS SHIT, which is funny.

[Dimnos]

Fine art is art made for it's own sake, the kind of art that is either commissioned, motivated by the whole "medium" issue I described above...

Couldnt some indie games fall under this description?

...or (at its worst) designed with museums and fame in mind [Superficial pop art is considered fine art right now...

Couldnt some mainstream games full under this description? Obviously not with museums in mind but instead retailers or game conventions or maybe even a magazine or website?

[Grislygus]

The indie game arena is where the argument actually gets interesting, I think the most recent contender was some game where you could choose one of several "little red riding hoods" and you simply explored the forest on the way to grandmother's house and decided whether or not to leave the path (I may be remembering this incorrectly). In the end, though, no one in the outside world really gives a fuck one way or the other in regards to a few incredibly obscure exceptions, so it's a fun debate but amounts to nothing.

Couldnt some mainstream games full under this description? Obviously not with museums in mind but instead retailers or game conventions or maybe even a magazine or website?

No, the key point is that games are utilitarian. As are illustrations, but illustrations can be considered fine art if, and only if, they stand alone as masterworks outside of their original intention and context. And even THAT can be disagreed on. Gustav Dore was and still is, after his death in 1883,the western world's single greatest and most prolific illustrator (though he used plates and woodcuts, he still counts as an illustrator). He also was skilled with watercolors.

His watercolors were completely ignored (or ridiculed) in his native France, but their gallery run in Britain was a titanic success. To the rest of the world, the watercolors were proof positive that Gustav Dore was a true master. The French thought that they were just more illustrations done in watercolor (and inferior to the genuine grand-mastery of his normal plates) and in no way comparable to "real" fine art like Michelangelo or Raphael (I can't remember who his fine art contemporaries were, we need an art history major to jump in here). And that's in an arena where the difference between applied art and fine art actually IS blurred.

[Dimnos]

So Gus, in your opinion could games one day become art? If so, how? If not, why?

[dextire]

In the end, though, no one in the outside world really gives a fuck one way or the other in regards to a few incredibly obscure exceptions, so it's a fun debate but amounts to nothing.
So, you're saying a game can only be considered fine art if it's mainstream?

I'm learning a lot from this thread. Grislygus explained in one paragraph what an entire "applied art vs. fine art" book couldn't teach me. :)

[DougClayton4231]

I only used Gus' definition of art because I feel he is the foremost authority on art around these parts. However I do feel games are a form of art. Yes there are a lot of shitty games out there that dont lend themselves to that argument but the same could be said about painting and books and music. Namely your grindcore bs. :lol (Just a small jab there, no offense) On the other hand there are lots of paintings and books and music out there that do fortify those mediums as art and that side of games is smaller in proportion to the shitty ones, hence the debate. I think Gus pins down and defines art as best as anyone can, because like he himself said its just semantics, but I feel he is mostly comparing games to paintings where I think they are more like movies and/or books. Then again one could argue that in creating a game its more like a painting where enjoying it is more like movies or books.

Yeah, Grislygus has a great perspective on the art matter. BTW Grindcore is the worst genre of music I've heard. Subjectivity is a major factor in the whole art debacle, but I honestly cannot see people looking back at 80-90% of all the videogames ever made and think "Art". Pac-Man, Pong, and other Atari era shit will probably be in a gallery one day. I just don't expect Modern Warfare to go along with it.

[Grislygus]

So, you're saying a game can only be considered fine art if it's mainstream?

Art "being" mainstream and being accepted as art by mainstream society are two different things. In the latter context, yes. Remember Lord Byron? Alcoholic womanizing badass outsider that sent monumental shockwaves through the literary world, whose Byronic heroes inspired the entire concept of the anti-hero, in other words arguably the sole originator of the modern cutting-edge in writing?

Byron was a great writer and he was a the bad boy of literature in his time. He was also nothing more than one of the first 'modern' pop culture sensations. Same was Oscar Wilde, Edgar Allen Poe, and Lord Alfred motherfucking Tennyson.

As I said earlier, if videogames are ever accepted as art by art dealers, art critics, the majority of ground-level artists and (most critically) society at large, it will be universally considered "art" in the Western world, which is the same as BEING art in the Western world.

Key term: Western World. "Art" in Africa isn't considered real art if it isn't manufactured in a specific way for specific purpose, usually cultural or religious. I remember watching a documentary on African art, and the narrator recounted praising a couple of local women for the intricate bead work that they entwined in baskets they were selling, telling them that it was a great example of local art, each basket being unique and beautiful. They laughed at him. In a friendly way, but they thought that he was being funny. In their view, if it WAS great art, it would be carefully and respectfully duplicated. The fact that each basket was unique OBVIOUSLY indicated unimportance.

[Dimnos]

So, you're saying a game can only be considered fine art if it's mainstream?

I think what he is saying is that just to few games can actually be called up for consideration as art and the ones that could be are mostly indie games that the vast majority of the population dont know and/or care about therefore the category of games as a whole cant be called art. Which I can agree with because to few games can actually be considered as art, by myself or anyone being realistic about the subject, but does that really define the category? Goes along with...

...I honestly cannot see people looking back at 80-90% of all the videogames ever made and think "Art".


Pac-Man, Pong, and other Atari era shit will probably be in a gallery one day.

A gallery or a history museum? Like I said before I dont think you can really compare games as an art to things like paintings or sculptures. At least not from the perspective of the user/viewer/appreciator. You dont see books or movies in a gallery.


I just don't expect Modern Warfare to go along with it.

Right. Modern Warfare is part of the lump of games I consider not lending themselves to the argument that games are (or at least can be) an art form. While it is a fun game there really isnt anything creative about it or the way you interact with it.

[mew barios]

i just wanted to throw out there that coding is my primary creative outlet, and i would describe finding an elegant solution to a complex problem as being a life-affirming moment. though the thing i really find artistic about a game doesn't have as much to do with the game itself as it does with how it actually works. that's not a perspective i expect to share with many people, but that's the burden of being artsy fartsy

[DougClayton4231]

Though movies and books are not in galleries per say, they are still generally accepted as art. People have tons of awards and award services for them. All games have are shitty Spike TV award shows (which don't matter anyway) and rabid fan praise (say that FFVII sucks in a game store and see what I mean). I guess that once gaming actually becomes completely socially respectable, people could view them as art.

I dunno. I'm still embarrassed to tell people that I play them due to social stigmas attached with playing video games. I don't fit the stereotypes and it seems awkward to play them for some reason. My homebrew Wii has well over 1000 games on it and that's cool but my 360 with ~30 is completely lame. I don't get it.

[Chojin]

Art is about a love of a medium and the resulting use of it and respect for it. If you're an artist, painting or drawing programming or rendering on a computer feels good. Whatever you're actually painting and drawing programming or rendering is secondary. Because you've been drawing/painting rendering/programming so long and have fun doing it, your goddamn BRAIN associates the visceral feeling of holding a brush/pencil/pen keyboard/mouse and moving it on the paper computer and activates minor pleasure centers in your brain (like listening to music does to normal people).

:confused:

oh awesome i love mad libs

Art is about a love of a medium and the resulting use of it and respect for it. If you're an artist nazi, painting or drawing goosestepping feels good. Whatever you're actually painting and drawing gassing jews is secondary. Because you've been drawing/painting gassing jews so long and have fun doing it, your goddamn BRAIN associates the visceral feeling of holding a brush/pencil/pen jew and moving throwing it on the paper gas chamber activates minor pleasure centers in your brain (like listening to music does to normal people).

:confused:

[Zhukov]

:lol

Personally I'd say that anything done for the sake of it rather than for money or other such motive could be considered art by the person doing it. This is a layman term of art here.

[Dimnos]

Art is about a love of a medium and the resulting use of it and respect for it. If you're an artist nazi, painting or drawing goosestepping feels good. Whatever you're actually painting and drawing gassing jews is secondary. Because you've been drawing/painting gassing jews so long and have fun doing it, your goddamn BRAIN associates the visceral feeling of holding a brush/pencil/pen jew and moving throwing it on the paper gas chamber activates minor pleasure centers in your brain (like listening to music does to normal people).

:lol

[The Leader]

Chojin, you are fantastic.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

:lol

Personally I'd say that anything done for the sake of it rather than for money or other such motive could be considered art by the person doing it. This is a layman term of art here.

Then Tramps are artists and whores are not.

[DougClayton4231]

Whores are artists in a way lololol

[Dimnos]

Not in Tasmania.

[Pentegarn]

Art "being" mainstream and being accepted as art by mainstream society are two different things. In the latter context, yes. Remember Lord Byron? Alcoholic womanizing badass outsider that sent monumental shockwaves through the literary world, whose Byronic heroes inspired the entire concept of the anti-hero, in other words arguably the sole originator of the modern cutting-edge in writing?

Byron was a great writer and he was a the bad boy of literature in his time. He was also nothing more than one of the first 'modern' pop culture sensations. Same was Oscar Wilde, Edgar Allen Poe, and Lord Alfred motherfucking Tennyson.

There's something interesting in this. It seems in most cases hindsight tells us something was art. Shakespeare is another example. His works, when broken down to their base elements, are gutter tripe pandering to the lowest common denominator, filled with violence, sex jokes, and the like. Critics in his time found him vulgar at best. Yet these days he is considered an important literary influence.

It would seem time is a better judge of these things than any man.

[DougClayton4231]

I agree Pentegarn, I think that in 20 years people will look back and frown about how poorly videogames have been developed over the past 30 or so years.

[Phoenix Gamma]

http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/29092

<3 Scott Sharkey.

[kahljorn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

[Zhukov]

Then Tramps are artists and whores are not.

Artists at what?

[kahljorn]

It would seem time is a better judge of these things than any man.

tIme cAN MAKE ART fROM NONART :O

[The Leader]

Artists at what?
Being tramps.

[Zhukov]

Well if they are not just being a tramp for the sake of it, sure why not? IF they consider themselves an artist at being a tramp I don't see who I am to stop them.

If they get an artistic feeling out of being a tramp then good luck to them.

[kahljorn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

>:

[Grislygus]

SAAAAAY Duchamp was awesome, every time he bothered to interact with gallery artfags he screwed with their heads

And he sent an ex-girlfriend miniature "paintings" which have now been confirmed as (basically) colored/acid-washed semen on tiny lithograph/photography plates or something. Which is weird as fuck but doesn't have anything to do with anything.


anyway the problem with the toilet is that it was hailed as a stroke of genius (rather than something that was actually meaningful, like his Nude Descending A Staircase)... and talentless, self-important hacks around the world ARE STILL COPYING THE FUCKING URINAL IDEA.

[Fathom Zero]

Exactamundo, chief.

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8111/downsize2.jpg

[kahljorn]

im just saying almost anything can be considered art ;/
And he sent an ex-girlfriend miniature "paintings" which have now been confirmed as (basically) colored/acid-washed semen on tiny lithograph/photography plates or something. Which is weird as fuck but doesn't have anything to do with anything.just think of how many videogames are produced with similar intentions.

whenever i go to school i constantly see urinals with signatures on them :O

[DougClayton4231]

Well Postal 2 let you piss all over people. I guess R.Kelly thought it was art.