Features

Grislygus · #1

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)

King Hadas · #2

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 · #3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anselm

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Hadas

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 · #4

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 · #5

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 · #6

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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).

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.

Spoilers!
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", 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.