[davai]

	Originally Posted by Bomazu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't consider the latest football game to be art. Some might say there is "an art to" all sports, but sports are not art and that's just a figure of speech.

I disagree with you there, the latest football games try to simulate reality as close as possible, much like a landscape painting or portrait or something. Considering you can actually interact with that constructed reality, then they're as much art if not moreso than a good painting. As for sports themselves not being art, some would disagree, including me. Take dance or ballet for example, these are considered art forms, so are sports that much different? Football especially, is considered the 'beautiful game' for a reason. On an individual level the player is an artist of sorts, and collectively also as the manager has to manipulate the physical reality of 11 players working together to achieved the desired result.

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. eat your heart out, ranger brown

I'll look into it. (ranger brown, huh?)

[momorawr]

When a 3 year old scribbles on paper, it's still their artwork, no matter how good it is. Talking about symbolism, I feel that most video games are packed full of it. Zelda, Final Fantasy. Not to mention the actual artwork in them.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm so in love with her.

I think excellent game play would be closer to a sport than art, for sure.

[davai]

	Originally Posted by momorawr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When a 3 year old scribbles on paper, it's still their artwork, no matter how good it is.

Yep.

	Talking about symbolism, I feel that most video games are packed full of it. Zelda, Final Fantasy.

Totally, and a lot of philosophy too.

I'm so in love with her.
- FF8? Yeah that was a cool game, i prefer the meaning and philosophy in 7 but aesthetically 8 wiped the floor with it in most respects.

[momorawr]

Agreed. It was my first final fantasy so it has a special place in my heart.

[FallenHawk]

	Originally Posted by davai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I disagree with you there, the latest football games try to simulate reality as close as possible, much like a landscape painting or portrait or something. Considering you can actually interact with that constructed reality, then they're as much art if not moreso than a good painting.

Paintings are not reality. A good painter does not need to paint exactly what he sees, but something close to it with an added artistic expression - think why
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is the standard for photography these days. The light didn't need to be there for the painter to simulate it, as long as he knew how light worked. Otherwise art would be just the same as skill, and people can recreate the Mona Lisa in MS Paint these days.

In photography, light is the brush, so it has to be there. However, ID photos just need to be as bright as possible - they're objective and constrained. The more someone is constrained to merely replicate something and make it useful, the less he will be able to put his take on it. An accurate representation of reality is objective. News reports are rarely art, but
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is because a lot of blanks had to be filled creatively.

So I have trouble with this concept. There might be art in mere representations of reality, but it's too objective. Very different from Okami, as cited before, or Edea - she is not a mere representation of anyone.

Also, art is not inherently good or desirable in every situation.

	Originally Posted by momorawr
	It was my first final fantasy so it has a special place in my heart.

Same here. Found out about it when there was a crowd gathered at a videogame store.

RPGs are not very popular here in Brazil, though - we don't get an official translation since Phantasy Star III for the Genesis, if memory serves me right. The crowd was interested in the visuals and all were in awe of the CG and GF animations. I still remember the guy calling out the store owner to check out Doomtrain.

[zibber]

In "the art world", there is such a thing as video game art, but in striving to be conventionally accepted art these "video games" (usually quite unlike common video games) exclude the possibility of being a conventionally accepted video game, generally only being playable or visible as demo at a gallery.

Looking beyond "the art world", in other words the sphere of that which is in a sense canonically accepted as "art" (something almost exclusively decided by networks of art historians, theorists/writers and curators (and cemented, of course, by rich people)), it becomes a matter of art philosophy (aesthetics, if you will), semantics and perhaps most of all taste.

I'm tempted to say that for me, it comes down to sophistication. Then again, I come from a background where a man selling canned shit is an important part of the canon of conceptual art.

[qstoffe]

Well at least the Norwegian government support video games as art. They gave financial backing to Funcom's Dreamfall.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Also people who don't consider video games as art must be joking? Games contain everything that is normally considered art on its own.

[Cygnus]

	Originally Posted by qstoffe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well at least the Norwegian government support video games as art. They gave financial backing to Funcom's Dreamfall. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Also people who don't consider video games as art must be joking? Games contain everything that is normally considered art on its own.

So does the Smithsonian American Art Museum.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[davai]

	Originally Posted by FallenHawk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Paintings are not reality. A good painter does not need to paint exactly what he sees, but something close to it with an added artistic expression ... Otherwise art would be just the same as skill, and people can recreate the Mona Lisa in MS Paint these days.

Good answer and differentiation between art and skill in your post. To what extent then do you think the quality of 'artistic expression' can be objectively measured? What criteria would we use?

[FallenHawk]

	Originally Posted by davai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Good answer and differentiation between art and skill in your post. To what extent then do you think the quality of 'artistic expression' can be objectively measured? What criteria would we use?

I think that's the job of curators and philosophers in the field of aesthetics - they're the ones looking for this criteria. Normal people are supposed to develop sensibilities for beauty that allows them to appreciate art. But beauty is a social, and relative, concept. The way to do it objectively is by trying to understand what triggers other people's beauty sensors the most - or, in other words, by trying to consider many subjective views and socially accepted values.

Translating from the aforementioned book I have on the subject of art (Questões de Arte, Cristina Costa, Brazilian sociologist):
"The art critic, in his appreciation of art, is halfway between the viewer and the artist, evaluating art in a way that is neither completely subjective nor purely objective. He becomes a reference point to stabilize the varying opinions and different sensibilities."

I don't think we can take subjectivity out of this. Beauty is a perception, after all. If you try to do something purely objective with it, you're just making up criteria and hoping enough people agree with you.

[davai]

	Originally Posted by FallenHawk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The way to do it objectively is by trying to understand what triggers other people's beauty sensors the most - or, in other words, by trying to consider many subjective views and socially accepted values.

What do you think about this piece on -
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
? I think in essence you're right, the good artist must possess a great deal of psychological knowledge also, along with the skill and execution of the work.

Extract -

"The difference between objective art and subjective art is that in objective art the artist really does 'create,' that is, he makes what he intended, he puts into his work whatever ideas and feelings he wants to put into it. And the action of this work upon men is absolutely definite; they will, of course each according to his own level, receive the same ideas and the same feelings that the artist wanted to transmit to them. There can be nothing accidental either in the creation or in the impressions of objective art.
"In subjective art everything is accidental.

[FallenHawk]

	What do you think about this piece on - Objective and Subjective Art?

Well, yes, if one wants to call skill or a craft "objective art"... It is what I do daily because I am a journalist and I have to write things as clear as possible to make sure no one misunderstands what I'm trying to communicate, or, in communication theory speak, I have to reduce noise. I am not allowed to use adjectives like "large", "small" or "violent" (what's the line between a violent act and a tragedy?); wordplay; rhymes; neologisms or a number of other literature tricks. What I get, in the end, is something almost objective. Everyone else does similar things when they are writing reports or other such documents.

However, I see no reason to call this art. This is pure skill and is almost second nature to a professional. But there's still subjectivity in this, and it only gets worse the larger your audience is. In some places or cultures, words have additional meanings. Quick example from my own language: the word "affected" (afetado) means "gay" in some places. You should probably avoid writing something like "the person is affected by..."; regardless of what you want to say, you're risking a misunderstanding.

To appreciate and create so-called objective art, one would have to find into himself all that is subjective or culturally imposed. Is a gun a symbol of freedom or violence? Is money a symbol of power? You'd have to find all of this into yourself and consider a gun a gun, and a piece of paper a piece of paper. You'd just be taking all emotion out of it - but then someone would suggest that there is emotion if you see it that way and then I think it becomes a problem.

It gets even more complicated if you take into account different cultures and the passage of time. You'll quickly find something "objective" can be hardly read the same way. So objectivity in communication exists only when the source and the receiver are finely tuned. This doesn't happen in reality. Or rather, I have never seen it happening.