| Apr 26th, 2010 07:58 AM |
| DougClayton4231 |
Well Postal 2 let you piss all over people. I guess R.Kelly thought it was art.
|
| Apr 26th, 2010 02:44 AM |
| kahljorn |
im just saying almost anything can be considered art ;/
Quote:
|
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
|
| Apr 25th, 2010 11:00 AM |
| Fathom Zero |
Exactamundo, chief.
|
| Apr 25th, 2010 06:00 AM |
| 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.
|
| Apr 24th, 2010 09:00 PM |
| kahljorn |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29
|
| Apr 24th, 2010 12:39 PM |
| 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.
|
| Apr 24th, 2010 12:18 PM |
| The Leader |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Artists at what?
|
Being tramps.
|
| Apr 24th, 2010 05:37 AM |
| kahljorn |
Quote:
|
It would seem time is a better judge of these things than any man.
|
tIme cAN MAKE ART fROM NONART :O
|
| Apr 24th, 2010 05:21 AM |
| Zhukov |
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10,000 Volt Ghost
Then Tramps are artists and whores are not.
|
Artists at what?
|
| Apr 24th, 2010 05:20 AM |
| kahljorn |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29
|
| Apr 24th, 2010 03:30 AM |
| Phoenix Gamma |
http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/29092
<3 Scott Sharkey.
|
| Apr 23rd, 2010 10:14 AM |
| 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.
|
| Apr 23rd, 2010 05:29 AM |
| Pentegarn |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grislygus
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.
|
| Apr 22nd, 2010 06:30 PM |
| Dimnos |
Not in Tasmania.
|
| Apr 22nd, 2010 05:46 PM |
| DougClayton4231 |
Whores are artists in a way lololol
|
| Apr 22nd, 2010 10:28 AM |
| 10,000 Volt Ghost |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
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.
|
| Apr 21st, 2010 12:15 PM |
| The Leader |
Chojin, you are fantastic.
|
| Apr 21st, 2010 11:54 AM |
| Dimnos |
Quote:
|
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).
|
|
| Apr 21st, 2010 02:32 AM |
| Zhukov |
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.
|
| Apr 21st, 2010 01:14 AM |
| Chojin |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dimnos
Quote:
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).
|
 |
oh awesome i love mad libs
Quote:
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).
|
|
| Apr 20th, 2010 09:09 PM |
| 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.
|
| Apr 20th, 2010 07:18 PM |
| 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
|
| Apr 20th, 2010 03:16 PM |
| Dimnos |
Quote:
Originally Posted by dextire
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougClayton4231
...I honestly cannot see people looking back at 80-90% of all the videogames ever made and think "Art".
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doug
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doug
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.
|
| Apr 20th, 2010 03:09 PM |
| Grislygus |
Quote:
Originally Posted by dextire
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.
|
| Apr 20th, 2010 02:36 PM |
| DougClayton4231 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. (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.
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
