Cowpoo said:
I'm sorry if I offended you. I don't have the need to 'troll'. I merely seek to educate on topics I deem interesting. Aesthetics is a philosophical discipline that deals with beauty, what is, what is art, how do we differentiate art from non-art, why we create art etc. Many thinkers discussed these topics and never could really come to a conclusion, but a few things are certain.
That was a good read and gave me a little to ponder on for the past hour or two. Haha, I seriously thought you were trolling at first. Don't worry, I wasn't offended by anything I was nipping being trolled in the bud before it got started. I mean with Cowpoo as a handle and a postcount of 25. Your join date was the only thing that made me raise an eyebrow. My use of the term pretentious wasn't meant to be derogatory either.
I am glad you posted something a bit more meaty this time to get a good view of where you are coming from. I almost missed this post by forgetting about the thread. Admittedly, I had missed your first post on page 1. Which of course threw me way off from where you were coming from originally. Having read this and that combined, I can get a better picture of where your focal point is.
It seems we have both been in this same debate more than enough times to count and are relatively in the same position. However, where you give the not-art argument validity, I don't. I find trying to define something by defining what it isn't is not the best method. That will always result in a vague conclusion at best.
Art isn't the synonym for 'I like something'. It's not. Liking something means liking something. To rewrite what I wrote in previous posts: Art is the result of deliberate human action that is intended to be judged primarily by it's aesthetic value (wether or not you like it, it's still art). Bad art is still art. Just because you like something, doesn't mean it's art. It means you like something. You can like something that is not art. You can reflect your views on life and the human condition in something that is not art. Of course there are exceptions as there are to every rule, but those exceptions aren't made based on wether or not someone likes it.
Judging aesthetics means judging something on a sensory and emotional level. Judging it with some form of rational thought is something else, which can be there, but doesn't necessarily have to be. If there is such a thing as art(and obviously there is), what is not-art? The best definition would probably be something that is to be primarily judged by its technical value. Nature itself isn't considered art, although you can judge it's aesthetics.
I agree that bad art is still art and I have used that line myself many times. Art is a synonym for "I found beauty inherent in the purpose of something." That is way more useful than what it is
not a synonym for. By trying to pinpoint exactly what art is you are going to make ground faster than by claiming what it is not. Not that there is absolutely no merit behind the other method, it just seems back asswards to me personally.
"What does it matter what people consider art? How does it directly impact you in any way?"
Because, language is a means of communication. When creating anything (art, but pretty much anything else too) in a group, you need to share ideas. You share these ideas with words, and to better understand each other, we need to come to an agreement as to what each word means, so we can resolve conflict. We need to know what art is in order to create it. When you use the same words with someone, it's better if you both know what the other is trying to express.
A lot of words are thrown around as filler (aesthetics, art, game mechanic, storytelling etc.) and lose meaning. When a group of people can properly define something, they can properly improve it.
I agree with what you put here but want to mention that I find it funny that I assume you are talking about development studios here but a major bulk of society can't even come to an agreement on this. Right now there isn't even a majority that favor one definition of art over another. The word subjective gets thrown around so much that it can at times make the whole argument seem subjective. Which is why I think art needs 2 layers. You have an individual layer where a person is allowed to consider anything they want to as art. Then you have another layer as to what society considers art. These two layers will constantly be at odds with one another because an individual can accept something as art faster and easier than society can. Some individuals will consider those singing fish art and that is OK. Society won't ever accept the fish as art and telling Ben Kimble that his singing fish isn't art when it isn't hurting anybody and he truly believes it is art is douchey if he isn't trying to push the fact that it is on you.
Language is meant to improve our lives. Labeling something as 'Art' isn't about its status, but by labeling a game art, knowing what art is, we can improve on its aesthetics (sensory-emotional response). By discussing what is beauty we can improve on it. We can create beauty. Leaving it at "It's all just your opinion it doesn't matter." is devolving our language into meaningless blabbering until we are cave-men again and speak only in syllables and rape our women and don't shave down there.
First, I have to disagree that by defining beauty we can do anything with that definition. aesthetic tastes vary so much they can't be streamlined anymore than they already are by social stigmas and what is considered "normal". Something like beauty isn't something we can make more accessible by having a definition.
I get what you are saying but by merging an individual's concept of what they see as art and what society deems as art sidesteps the entire point behind the idea of art itself. There is a slippery slope close to your argument about making art for art's sake. Some people consider their golf swing a work of art and they are not going to drop that opinion because society tells them not to. There is nothing wrong with that mentality and so long as they can accept a socially restricted sense of the word art without having to abandon their own personal view of art. By doing this the system is more inclusive, constructive, and weighted in multiple views as to what art means to different people.
Why is labeling/not labeling video games as art important? We all like art, albeit different forms of it, we still like it. I'm sure that both you and me share many common opinions on what is beautiful; what appeals to our senses(like in video games). Finding these commonalities is important to creating a good video game. And if I'm pretentious for wanting to find a common language so we can discuss one of our most favourite hobbies and improve it, then so be it.
This is where talking about what
isn't art is a problem. People are going to be less receptive of your ideas or sharing their ideas if they state what they see and have seen as art and are told "Nope, you're wrong." It essentially works to segregate any part of the community that disagrees with that mentality until everyone left is inevitably in agreement. What I am saying is that excluding definitions on art because they contrast your own so that yours can be the foundation undermines the purpose of what you are trying to do on the grounds of pretension.
I bet we would also disagree on many things we find beautiful and what appeals to our senses. I think that establishing that there is a diverse market is important to making a great video game. Just as you go on to say that reception is key in your next quote reception is key in beauty as well.
Edit: Forgot the explanation as to why art isn't a form of communication, but CAN be. Communication is sharing information(in some languages it can mean the transport of physical objects too). For something to be called 'information' it needs to have some sort of context. I.E. needs to be informative. Because we view art so subjectively, I could make a sculpture which you would interpret as something, but someone else might interpret it differently. Thus whatever was (according to you)communicated, depends entirely on the person viewing it.
That is a fair enough point, however I will say that outside of abstract art, pretty much all art is trying to communicate with its audience. I see communication outside of some definition and more of "I am thinking of something and want you to know what it is so I do something to get that across to you" How you perceive that I am thinking that once you receive it is entirely separate.
