EDIT:
So...months before...Months later. I had to get this off my chest.
At the time, I was neck deep in schoolwork.
Call me insane if you wish; but a recent topic arose that reminded me of this, and I wanted to refute this without jeopardizing my work.
It's the 4th of July, and I decide to liberate myself from this particular topic.
PRELUDE:
"Logic: Why Mass Effect is not Art"
What you present isn't "logic", it's pretense.
That isn't my opinion, it is fact.
1) Copies of Art are bought, not licensed.
So are films. And music. And even recordings of concerts and plays.
Your point?
What enables EA to legally tell someone they cannot mod their game?
Copyright Law, but I'll get to that later.
At its heart, this argument is a non sequitur. It goes nowhere and ultimately has nothing to do with the qualities of art, but the distribution of art.
Specifically, it deals with the access/distribution to the EXPERIENCE that art is supposed to provide (which is BY FAR, the most important function of art); it doesn't deal with any of the qualities of the art itself.
If the game is intended to provoke a set of responses from the player, how is that ANY different from the goal of an Art Movie? Or a painting? Or ballet? Or Opera?
It's like saying that only Art Collectors and Artists can understand Art, because they own that art.
And that's completely ridiculous.
You can still purchase the actual art (The films) and change them for your personal enjoyment.
Your initial argument must rely on copyright to be (legally) maintained in practice.
Therefore, I'm going to use Copyright to disprove you.
You must purchase the RIGHTS to the film in order to legally make changes to it (that aren't for satirical or critical purposes). Try sitting down and reading that FBI warning some time, or reading up on copyright.
And video games WORK EXACTLY THE SAME WAY; you must own the copyright to the game to make changes to it without anyone's permission.
The holder of the rights to a work may extend whatever rights they wish to another party.
But that's an arbitrary decision on the part of the holder.
Therefore, what you're arguing for is in fact a double-standard that does not exist.
POINT 1 DISPROVED BY CONTRADICTION
2) Interactivity is a quality of sports and competition, not art.
Consulting a variety of sources, this definition seems to be one that certain individuals and some art schools and Roger Ebert employ.
Fact: It's completely arbitrary bullshit. Pulled straight out of their ass. Logic has fuck-all to do with it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art
1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2.
the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. See fine art, commercial art.
3.
a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4.
the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5.
any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
Pay special attention to 3. and 5.
Because these directly contradict your claim, and you will find that definition in damn near every dictionary you can consort. So, are all the dictionaries wrong?
Just because you focus on the existence of 2. doesn't mean the rest do not exist.
3) The story of Mass Effect is not literature
Strawman argument. This has nothing to do with the core argument.
Nice appeal to authority,Lilani, but I'm not letting you off that easy.
All of the examples of random bullshit being found and displayed as "art" while debatable in that form, are not even close to relevant to the topic. Complete red herrings.
Lilani's point was that this is a recurring argument in artistic society. It happens every time we create a new medium or even a style within that medium.
Prior to Citizen Kane, film was not considered art for arbitrary reasons.
Lilani provided examples of Dadaist art, which was also originally condemned for arbitrary reasons because it was offensive and directly counter-cultural (and that was the point, actually).
What you call red herrings are in fact old examples of others following your faulty line of thinking.
And you know what? That line of thinking has always been rejected on purely logical grounds.
It's important to note that "art" does not imply "quality". It simply means that it is a work that can reflect values or communicate a message in an atypical form.
Of course, the main reason people even try to bother arguing against any sort of medium as not being "art" isn't for technical reasons, but because they either cling to outdated thinking and would prefer to see advances in fields that they consider art (or prefer).
Or they know it's a hot-button subject in gaming right now, and they make topics like this just to troll, even when the technical debate has since been resolved (by logic, no less).
The original debate is whether a medium which is completely defined by the user can be considered art. You completely glossed over the logic of the argument. IF you consider video games art, THEN you have to consider board games, football games, etc.
A movie is a series of logical segments that go in order, work towards some point (hopefully) and have (usually) one finite conclusion; they can be art.
Yet, a game that works in a similar manner (like Mass Effect) cannot.
Why?
You never explain why.
You say "It's interactive, therefore it cannot" without explaining why that contradicts art apart from "Art would have no meaning", which by logic, isn't remotely true.
If you're going to recursively disprove games as art, you have to define "real art" recursively too.
Since you never bothered to provide a source for that definition (Burden of Proof is on you), the best we can assume is that you're working from an arbitrary definition.
At least *I* provided an actual common definition.
Finally:
Sports cannot be art? Actually, that isn't true either. They very well can be considered artistic, but the common mindset does not actively perceive them as such.
The best example is competitive figure skating: A contest of technique and aesthetic appeal.
DrVornoff said:
Telling me that I can't differentiate is just a bullshit way of cutting off an argument you're not prepared to refute.
Following this topic, that's a recurring theme. It's why I haven't bothered to contribute my thoughts.
