Poll: What is the Greatest form of Art

[TonyVonTonyus]

Music, I believe music can portray anything from a simple feeling to an epic story without using a single word. It's also a neccesary art. Can you imagine how bland videogames, film, theatre and TV would be if not accompanied at point by music?

 

[James Crook]

I choose videogames and movies, because these include most if not all of the other forms of art: storytelling, music, acting (theater)/animation, art style, design...

 

[sheogoraththemad]

beautiful, made my day!

OT: this is a really difficult question, I think its about the feeling you get for example: walking through fallout3 gives me a feeling of loneliness that I haven't got from any movie or painting and watching the end of Lord of the Rings 3 (Grey Haven part You know what I mean) gives me a lot of tears that the book or any game ever gave me.

 

[JoJo]

There's also the added plus that, as I believe Extra Credits mentioned, the player is a part of the work.

A book is a book. A film is a film. A painting is a painting.
But a game isn't truly a game without a player.

Unfortunately as I'm about to leave for a two week holiday so this can't become a debate unless you want to wait a fortnight for a reply but I must respectfully diagree with you there. A book needs a reader and a film needs a viewer just as much as a game needs a players, otherwise there is no-one to appreciate that art and thus it is meaningless. All art requires some sort of interaction between the person and the art, even if most of the time it's just in the appreciaters head.

Edit: Forgot to answer the OP, I think all forms of art have equally the potential to be great or not.

 

[mega48man]

you left out street art bee-yatch. i'm a street artists myself

 

[Zing]

It's subjective really.

I'm mostly engaged by Film and Music, I picked Film.

 

[Jake the Snake]

Literature. Books allow writers to create worlds, and readers to fill those worlds entirely with their own imagination. Theatre, by extension, is like this too, but without so much the audience's imagination coming into play. Music can also be very, very powerful, with the emotions it can elicit.

 

[Hagi]

Other: I think this poll shows a lack of understanding of what Art is.

Art isn't about the physical object or the form it comes in, it's about what it invokes in the audience and the artist.

And because every audience and every artist is different nothing objective can be said about the forms.

For me personally video games have a strong effect as I love them, I understand them and I feel like they're my form. I feel a connection to games.

For my Father video games do absolutely nothing at all, he respects my interest in them but for him personally they're meaningless.

My Father is a sculptor, stone can invoke things for him that no other form of Art can simply because of the connection and understanding he has of that Medium.

For me sculptures don't do much. Some of them are beautiful but I can't honestly say they've ever invoked very strong feelings in me.

 

[Vibhor]

Paintings.
They are easy to do and can get across the point very quickly.

 

[The_Echo]

There's also the added plus that, as I believe Extra Credits mentioned, the player is a part of the work.

A book is a book. A film is a film. A painting is a painting.
But a game isn't truly a game without a player.

Unfortunately as I'm about to leave for a two week holiday so this can't become a debate unless you want to wait a fortnight for a reply but I must respectfully disagree with you there. A book needs a reader and a film needs a viewer just as much as a game needs a players, otherwise there is no-one to appreciate that art and thus it is meaningless. All art requires some sort of interaction between the person and the art, even if most of the time it's just in the appreciaters head.

I see your point, but videogames are different in that the relationship between game and player is much more active than between a book and a reader, or a movie and a viewer. As far as appreciation goes, though, you have me pinned.

Let's say you put a book, a movie and a game in one room. Start the movie and the game, open the book and, I dunno, put a fan next to it to blow the pages. The movie and the book won't need a participant to be complete. The game, however, will remain frightfully static without a player.

 

[EvilMaggot]

+1 to you sir, good day to you!

i would say movies or Music... but movies deliver both

for instance... just take this little movie scene

skip to around 1:28 and just... watch and listen... that is art and i got the movies in bluray... i shed a tear everytime for mankind and seeing and listening what Peter Jackson and Howard Shore have created

 

[A Free Man]

I voted for film. Only because I don't see video games as an artform yet. Don't get me wrong I think they should be and I will embrace the day I finally see them as so, but for now I still think of games as more of a form of a toy then a real piece of art. Also I probably would have voted music but I didn't see it until after I voted >.<

 

[Woeps]

Making your significant other feel special at least once a week, even after that long time you have been together and know each other so well that there is no thrill in your relationship left.

Now that's an art.

 

[JoJo]

There's also the added plus that, as I believe Extra Credits mentioned, the player is a part of the work.

A book is a book. A film is a film. A painting is a painting.
But a game isn't truly a game without a player.

Unfortunately as I'm about to leave for a two week holiday so this can't become a debate unless you want to wait a fortnight for a reply but I must respectfully disagree with you there. A book needs a reader and a film needs a viewer just as much as a game needs a players, otherwise there is no-one to appreciate that art and thus it is meaningless. All art requires some sort of interaction between the person and the art, even if most of the time it's just in the appreciaters head.

I see your point, but videogames are different in that the relationship between game and player is much more active than between a book and a reader, or a movie and a viewer. As far as appreciation goes, though, you have me pinned.

Let's say you put a book, a movie and a game in one room. Start the movie and the game, open the book and, I dunno, put a fan next to it to blow the pages. The movie and the book won't need a participant to be complete. The game, however, will remain frightfully static without a player.

Well technically you could program a bot to play the game for you, a lot of effort but I kinda see your point. Still, I'd argue that the important part of any art is the thoughts, emotions and feelings it invokes in whoever is consuming the art so a book or a film is incomplete without a consumer. Without a viewer to make sense of it, a film is nothing more than flashing lights. For the record I have seen that EC episode and I disagree with them, I don't believe the player is an artist as they aren't creating anything new.

 

[Kohake]

Art is a stupid word.

Ther are so many things that might be art but possibly aren't. As for "good" that's not one of my favourit words either because it needs a way to be measuered, which is even harder when we're comparing diffrent forms of art.

 

[velcrokidneyz]

I would have to say photography. I find it amazing that capturing a very brief moment in time can illicit so many various emotions and beliefs. Yes video can do essentially the same thing but with one glance at a singular image can have just the same profound effect.

I love photography.

 

[TheDooD]

I'll say violence because its easy for people to do and some people base their entire lives on mastering the art of war.

 

[StormShaun]

Photography
Movies
Books
Music
Art

But most of is Videogames, I have such passion for them that I cannot describe it.

 

[C95J]

Music is a really good way to express yourself, but videogames have a lot more potential, and are interactive as well. Both are great forms of art.

 

[Hagi]

Let's say you put a book, a movie and a game in one room. Start the movie and the game, open the book and, I dunno, put a fan next to it to blow the pages. The movie and the book won't need a participant to be complete. The game, however, will remain frightfully static without a player.

The graphics engine will still run, the AI will still 'play', the game code will still execute etc.

As far as the physical thing goes games are just as fine without players as movies are without viewers. All of them are 'complete' and all of them are meaningless.

A game without a player is anything but static, your processor is going crazy with calculations just as that movie screen is going crazy with colors and that page is going crazy with symbols.

A game is probably the least static of those mediums without an audience, the sheer amount of unobserved activity is staggering.

Problem is that without an audience all those calculations, colors and symbols are meaningless. All of them need an audience to achieve meaning. All of them are just random events without an audience.

A painting isn't really the same as colors on a canvas, a movie isn't really the same as colors on a screen, a book isn't really the same as symbols on a page just like a game isn't really the same as bit patterns in a processor.

All of them are what happens between the piece of Art and the viewer. That's where Art 'happens'. Video games aren't special or unique as far as art goes.

Interactivity is merely another aspect. It can be used to great effect, but the lack of it can also be used to great effect. Just like say sound in movies, music scores can perfect and complete a scene. But removing music altogether and relying purely on the visual can also invoke a lot.

Some pieces of art are great exactly because they aren't interactive. More isn't always better. Sometimes limiting your art to only one aspect like sound or writing will achieve a much greater effect.