Alexnader said:
Mikeyfell said:
Alexnader said:
It's not a matter of quality, there's good art and bad art. I'm saying that CoD isn't art at all. I wish people wouldn't assume that quality has anything to do with whether something is classified as art or not. For instance the first Hangover movie was a bloody epic comedy but I wouldn't call it art.
I've already spent ages trying to define art and a short definition is impossible, however one good guide to go by is to ask what is the work in question intended for?
Ignoring monetary rewards (since many artists earn money from their works) Manet's Luncheon on the Grass was an expression of the state of his personal life and the culture of France, Duchamp's "Fountain" (a urinal) was intended to subvert the predominant artistic view of the time; these are all art. Whereas Girls gone Wild is intended to titillate, Transformers is there to entertain and likewise Call of Duty's sole purpose is to entertain. It doesn't try to immerse you within its world or narrative (I cite the lack of depth of said narrative and world). It doesn't really invoke an analysis of American gun culture, military culture or world politics. All it does is entertain (and that's a dubious point at that).
Finally one of the most artistic games I've played that I can remember (I didn't play braid/bioshock or anything like that) was Farcry 2. The realism provided by the sparse UI, smart AI, beautiful and visceral setting and high standard of graphical fidelity helped immerse me in the African country. I became invested to the point that I actually took to heart the Jackal's words such as:
"Men have this idea that we can fight with dignity, that it's the proper way to kill someone; it's absurd, it's inaesthetic. We needed to endure the bloody horror of murder. You must destroy that idea. Show them what a messy, terrible thing it is to kill a man... and then show them that you relish in it."
That tape was played early in the game and from that moment on it changed the way I played the game. The emotions elicited went beyond the simple blood pumping adrenaline response and general aura of awesome to something I can't quite describe. Now I'd like to think the effort the developers put in indicated some kind of artistic intent however I can't be sure. To me at least Farcry 2 went beyond its perogative to merely entertain me.
Maybe CoD does the same for you, however personal opinions is where it gets sticky. I just want to emphasise that authorial intent has a MUCH bigger role to play in whether something is art than its quality.
I see, I don't agree, but I see where you're coming from.
I wouldn't say that something with the primary purpose of entertainment couldn't have some deeper effect on you.
I don't think all art needs a message of some sort either. Is Harry Potter art? How about instrumental music? There are a million books, movies, songs, games, and paintings that have nothing beyond what they show at face value.
My definition of art is something intended to share the creator's creativity.
(I realize that hurts the CoD argument. A brazen lack of originality is nothing new though, over half of the Best Picture Oscar winners are remakes or adaptations.)
It's true that artworks do not necessarily have to convey meaning and what I was trying to emphasise was that the author's intent influenced whether or not something was art more so than the quality of the work.
And yes things that set out to primarily entertain can have an effect (as I suspect is unfortunately the case with Farcry 2) however they are most likely not art in that case precisely because the author's primary goal was to entertain. Any artistic element of the work is subservient to and works towards the entertainment of the audience. The Green Mile left me blubbing but that emotional impact was slaved towards making a good movie, rather than towards making a work of art.
Additionally I'd say instrumental music is more than capable of conveying a message, all you need is the piece's title, a bit of its context and the music itself and you can read a wealth information encoded by the composer. Often you don't need all those elements, if a song is called "Love" and has a dynamic range and varied tempo one can infer some things about the composer's love life without much context whatsoever.
However the author's intent is merely one facet of whether something is an artwork and there are many definitions of art, if you believe that art is simply something intended to share the creator's creativity then that's what I'd call an irreconcilable difference of opinion because I vehemently do not share that belief.
I believe a work can be classified as "art" if enough conditions are met to a high enough degree, some of which I list here:
1. The work is an expression of at least one person's creativity
2. The Author's intent was to create an artwork (slightly circular I know) by which I mean it meets condition 1 and was either designed to convey some message/emotion/ideal/thing OR to be an artwork on its own (see point 3).
3. It's art for art's sake (this invalidates a large part of point 2, fuck you Modernism)
4. It's way out of the zeitgeist/context in which it was created. I.e. Pure what the crap innovation.
5. I deem it art. (This whole topic is fairly subjective, no point denying it)
6. Enough other people say it's art.
These are some of the guidelines I go by, there are more that I can't remember. Show me some contemporary art and I'm sure I'll come up with something. I just want to emphasise that just meeting one of these points does not make something art. The most innovative porno in the history of humanity would still merely get me off if it did not do 1, 2, 3 or 5.
Edit***
I realised this was kinda OT, so CoD imo ticks point 1 a little bit and that's about it.
