Can a game be considered art?

[Byron Clarke]

Part 1: A critique of recent arguments on the subject:

www.RottenTomatoes.com recently wrote a piece questioning whether videogames can rise to a level that could be considered art. Quotations from Ebert and spielberg himself jumpstart the discussion.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051206/SCANNERS/51206001

They argue that because videogames require player's to become an active force in the game (decision making/participation), it disallows firm authorial control.

Fancy words aside I am prepared to make the assumption that neither of these two (as talented as they are) have any clue what they're talking about when it comes to games. I would go so far as to say that neither of them have completed a game in the last 10 years. They pose an interesting question, but then back it up with knowledge that is painfully outdated. Case in point, they display a picture of pong to summarize/exclamate their arguments. Well I agree with them on that, pong isn't art.... Well duh... that was over 30 years ago.

Part 2: The real question

Misinformed geisers aside, the question remains. Can gaming be a vehicle for art? Has a game so far succeeded to such a degree that someone labeling it anything else would be wrong?... If something can evoke a powerful emotional response or communicate some form of truth through its experience than there is no reason, in my eyes, to dismiss or minimize its impact on preconceived notions regarding the limits of the medium. The last decade of playing games has had me involved, moved, heartbroken, challenged, obsessed and defeated. The same way I have been from reading novels, listening to music, watching movies, or viewing art? No, not in the same way. In a different but equally compelling way. Of course, not all games aspire to be art. And not all genres are capable of communicating truthes, as entertaining as they can be. But it's a testament to the mediums versatility that so many different kinds of experiences can be had. Final Fantasy 7 and Zelda:toot being the most notable for me. The definition of what a game is has changed since its inception and so it will change in the future. What we have seen to date is in no way indicative of what is possible. I'm not saying that there are no limits, but as an analogy, think of the difference between the films created in the 1930-1940s and now. It has evolved and become something entirely different. I am compelled and eager to discover what can be accomplished. I hope that I can be more than just a spectator.

[diordna]

I would say that a video game is art at least as much as any board game is art. It can have a story, complex rules, cinematic qualities. A video game is so many genres combined into one - movies, music, writing, etc.

Beyond that, I have no further thoughts.

[OneSadCookie]

the "game is art" question was answered for me by an article I read recently which said of a recent Final Fantasy, and I paraphrase:

"Mr. Brown has written a great story; that is clearly art. Mr. Black has created a fantastic visual look; that is clearly art. Mr. Green has created a stunning musical score; that is clearly art. What, it suddenly stops being art when I push the little X button?"

(If anyone knows the original piece I'm thinking of, please link -- I can't for the life of me figure out what it was)

[igame3d]

As a trained "artist', I have to say the games are in every sense of aesthetic principles: ART.

Some games are bad art, some games are great art, some games need an artist instead of a programmer copying everyone else's game.


Ebert wrote: "Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.

What control does the author of the "great works" have over their "art"?
Their dead, Jim. What proof do we have that the great works of art were interpreted the way they were intended to by the artists?

How about we change the arguement on the geezers.
The question to "are games art" is "games are generally better than any previous art attempted by mortals".

What would you rather have in your home, the Mona Lisa, the statue of David, the Scream, or an xbox, a ps2, and every game ever made?
Over valuation of the "art" aside, which would entertain you longer.
Seriously how long could you look at David's stoney gazy and shrimp stick?
Not as long as you can play Halo I bet!

[Byron Clarke]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/12/19

paragraph 7... maybe?

[OneSadCookie]

that's the one, thanks :)

[Bachus]

http://www.toastyfrog.com/verbalspew/pivot/entry.php?id=18

Games can be art. Period. Anybody who says otherwise is a ******* moron (and that includes Ebert).

[AnotherJake]

Part 1:

To me Pong is art just like hieroglyphics are considered art.

Part 2:

Video games are definitely a form of art, and even more so with every new game. It's entertainment (not that it qualifies as art, but helps the argument). Not only is it entertainment but nowadays it's competing and working directly with Hollywood. It's immersive. It's expressive. It's controversial. It's part of popular culture. It is artistic in nature because it *contains* art in a classical sense. Most of it nowadays is even created by *artists* for crying out loud! To claim that video games cannot be considered art is just flatly blind.

[edit] Oh. And not to mention the fact that when you tell people you're interested in making video games they look at you like some hippy reject, because that's not what people do in the "real world". Adding that to the equation definitely makes it art in every sense of the term if you ask me!

[Byron Clarke]

It's funny how he launches straight into why he thinks games are not art and then admits that he hasn't played a game since myst...

[AnotherJake]

That's like saying you know what rock and roll means to people when the last rock tune you heard was Stairway to Heaven.

There's a bunch to be read from his article though, I'll admit that. In the end, he simply defends the stereotypical ignoramus. Of course that's qualified with the statistic that it's only really generation 30 or 35 and under that is interested in video games, much like older generations to be interested in movies. Or something like that... It's still silly.

[Najdorf]

the even more pertaining question, is programming art?

[Taxxodium]

the even more pertaining question, is programming art?

Writting a book certainly is, so writting a functional book should be aswell. In other words, yes it is. But then I would make exceptions. Programming apps for hacking purposes isn't art, script that do illegal stuff isn't art.

So art is the action of making something constructive and being creative.

[ERaZer]

But then I would make exceptions. Programming apps for hacking purposes isn't art, script that do illegal stuff isn't art.

I have to totally disagree with you. I still think for example graffiti is art, even tho it is vandalism. In my view, destruction definitily can be art.

[Taxxodium]

I still think for example graffiti is art, even tho it is vandalism.

Not necessarily. There are a couple of cities that have specific places where people can go nuts with graffiti without turning it to vandalism. But if somebody would spray on a car, would you consider that art?

Abstract "art", is also art. Reminds of me of that episode from The Simpsons where Homer becomes an artists after destroyiing his BBQ set.

[OneSadCookie]

I think we're too hung up here on making an objective definition for a very subjective term...

How about saying, "if the person creating the work wishes to create art, the work is art".

That fixes your problems quite neatly -- is a computer game art? ask its creators. Is graffiti art? ask the vandal. Is pornography art? Ask the photographer.

[Hog]

I remember there being a similar discussion on IMG and i had the impression there were alot of people of the opinion that computergames will never become art or so. Basically discussions on what is art and what is not tend to never end at all and i think it's futile contributing to them. It's easier to decide on individual objects wheter they are art or not.
The only motivation i can see anyone wanting to discuss this topic is when according to the law of some country something that is art is allowed to enjoy special previlages over things that are not. (Like when something is not allowed to be distributed to minors or in other cases not at all, unless it's art.)

That said, i think people who put whole categories of things into the no-art bin are philistines. To me basically everything is art unless proven otherwise.

[ferum]

the even more pertaining question, is programming art?

well, is engineering art?
I would have to say yes.

[gatti]

That said, I think people who put whole categories of things into the no-art bin are philistines. To me basically everything is art unless proven otherwise.

I like this approach. However, my take is that regardless of proven theory, all life is art. I feel expression can't be solely bound by the interpretation of the many, but from the viewpoint of one. What we experience through our senses allows us to experience different flavors of life in our own viewpoint.

But why are games still looked upon as mere entertainment?

In the end, it's ultimately a cultural lag between us and other forms of entertainment. 10 years from now it'll be the norm and a new form of expression will come to pass.

Just saw this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

It mentions that video games are a new addition to modern art via the technological revolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_theory

[igame3d]

I think we're too hung up here on making an objective definition for a very subjective term...

How about saying, "if the person creating the work wishes to create art, the work is art".

That fixes your problems quite neatly -- is a computer game art? ask its creators. Is graffiti art? ask the vandal. Is pornography art? Ask the photographer.

No, Art is a philosophical science with absolute principles to define things as Art.

These principles are lumped under the odd word: Aesthetics.

To determine if something is "ART" it is analyzed by its intentional use of these elements. Sure Nature can be aesthetically pleasing, but is more form following function through accident or necessity rather than an intelligent construction, nobody physically carved out Niagra Falls or the Grand Canyon with the intention of it being beautiful.

Painter John Lovett (http://www.johnlovett.com/test.htm) explains it neatly here.
The elements and principles of design are the building blocks used to create a work of art. The Elements of design can be thought of as the things that make up a painting, drawing, design etc. Good or bad - all paintings will contain most of if not all, the seven elements of design.

I suggest reading the link to save the cost of enrolling in Design 101.

Is programming art? NO. It does not have any of the formal elements of design.
Thinking that programming is art is like saying mixing paint with paint thinner or sharpening a pencil is art.
Programming is the routine in creating a possible work of art, not the art itself.
Engineering alone is not art, again it is the routine of creating something, without the use aesthetic principles engineering simply creates eyesores, look at common low income housing and military bases of the last century for a fine example of engineering with complete lack of aesthetics.

If we analyze video games based on aesthetic elements and principles then they are clearly art.
Lets analyze Pac-Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man) as a very simple example that everyone can relate to,
I'll quote John Lovett to help with the definitions.
THE ELEMENTS OF DESIGN

LINE
Line can be considered in two ways. The linear marks made with a pen or brush or the edge created when two shapes meet.
The Pac-Man map is created of lines, with obiously design intent, form follows function, and the function of the lines is to create a maze.
The dot pattern also generates the impression of lines, that guide the viewer through the maze.


SHAPE
A shape is a self contained defined area of geometric or organic form. A positive shape in a painting automatically creates a negative shape.
Again Pac-Man's Maze is made of obvious shapes. The ghosts, dots, pac-man, all are shapes.

DIRECTION
All lines have direction - Horizontal, Vertical or Oblique. Horizontal suggests calmness, stability and tranquillity. Vertical gives a feeling of balance, formality and alertness. Oblique suggests movement and action
see notes on direction
Pac-man uses Horizontal and Vertical direction, but not with an obvious emotional or sensory purpose behind it. Basically the entire game board is set up Vertically...suggesting alertness? Perhaps.

SIZE
Size is simply the relationship of the area occupied by one shape to that of another.
This is pretty obvious among the dots, same basic shape, but the larger ones simply by size alone scream "i'm important".

TEXTURE
Texture is the surface quality of a shape - rough, smooth, soft hard glossy etc. Texture can be physical (tactile) or visual.
see notes on texture
Again the maze provides texture to the design, although it is 2 dimensional, if we were to pain the game board with acrylics, close our eyes and run our hand over it, we'd have an obvious tactile impression of the design. Our brain does this for us and says "there are walls, there are dots, there is shiny fruit"

COLOUR
Also called Hue
see notes on colour
Without going into the depths of color theory, Pac-Man obviously uses color to define the elements of the design. Our Pac-man is yellow, the dots he eats are yellow, the fruit is yummy fruity colors, and the ghosts are pastels from hell.
A change in ghost color, changes the functionality of the pac-man.

VALUE
Value is the lightness or darkness of a colour. Value is also called Tone
see notes on tonal contrast
Due to limited technology of the time, not unlike limited painting technology of ancient days, Pac-Man limits itself to high contrast. This high contrast catches the eyes, and screams simplicity.


On to the Principles, these are the bits and pieces, the details, that will be found among the existing elements of a design, or art.


BALANCE
Balance in design is similar to balance in physics

A large shape close to the center can be balanced
by a small shape close to the edge. A large light
toned shape will be balanced by a small dark toned
shape (the darker the shape the heavier it appears to be)
The PacMan board is entirely balanced, we have the large ghost box in the center, and at any given corner a dot, unless its eaten. There is no
sense that the game screen is going to fall down, or that we have
to angle our head to "right" the screen.

{quote]
GRADATION
Gradation of size and direction produce linear perspective. Gradation of colour from warm to cool and tone from dark to light produce aerial perspective. Gradation can add interest and movement to a shape. A gradation from dark to light will cause the eye to move along a shape.[/quote] Again low res graphics only give us a gradation in the fruit, to make it sort of roundish. Because the fruit is the only element in the game board that has gradation, it stands out as extra special.


REPETITION
Repetiton with variation is interesting, without variation repetition can become monotonous
see notes on repetition
Obvious repetition : maze units, ghosts, and dots. Obvious variation in size of dots, color of ghosts, size and facing direction of maze units.


CONTRAST
Contrast is the juxtaposition of opposing elements eg. opposite colours on the colour wheel - red / green, blue / orange etc. Contrast in tone or value - light / dark. Contrast in direction - horizontal / vertical.
The major contrast in a painting should be located at the center of interest. Too much contrast scattered throughout a painting can destroy unity and make a work difficult to look at. Unless a feeling of chaos and confusion are what you are seeking, it is a good idea to carefully consider where to place your areas of maximum contrast.

Obviously all the important elements of the game contrast with the empty space of the maze, the power ups contrast in size to the point dots, the ghosts contrast with pacman and the dots in shape and color.


HARMONY
Harmony in painting is the visually satisfying effect of combining similar, related elements. eg.adjacent colours on the colour wheel, similar shapes etc.

Harmony of the maze is created by the repetition of shapes. Harmony among the ghost elements is created by repetition of shape and the use of warm colors, except that blue one, he stands alone, and there is probably a "design" reason for it.


DOMINANCE
Dominance gives a painting interest, counteracting confusion and monotony. Dominance can be applied to one or more of the elements to give emphasis The game board is obviously dominated by the maze shapes, this very much defines a "world" that the viewer is confined to for the entire period of the game. Even after the apparently dominating dots are almost all devoured, the maze shapes remain.

[quote]
UNITY
Relating the design elements to the the idea being expressed in a painting reinforces the principal of unity.eg. a painting with an active aggressive subject would work better with a dominant oblique direction, course, rough texture, angular lines etc. whereas a quiet passive subject would benefit from horizontal lines, soft texture and less tonal contrast.

Unity in a painting also refers to the visual linking of various elements of the work.[quote]

Shape and color repetition unifies the pacman design, the eye is not sent scattershot through the board, there is no confusion at all. A design without unity fails to interest the viewer, the eye skips around without any guidance, then leaves it entirely.

A decade and a half ago I had to do analysis like this twice a week for a two years, only not with games. Through such analysis I could go into museums and galleries and actually appreciate art that I would otherwise find utterly craftless, it actually is mentally stimulating to use a formal process to analyze art, rather than just looking at it and saying "I like it", or "wow , thats shit!". Aesthetic analysis takes a greater vocabulary, and requires a more detailed viewing of the subject.

Having said that, Roger Ebert, is obviously a lazy fat old man who has made zero attempt at such analysis of any one of tens of thousands of games available to be critiqued through aesthetics. Pong? even that can be viewed as art, ultra-low stimulation minimalist art.


I also want to add that the above analysis can also be applied to any form of communication that can be percieved through the five senses.
One of the musicians here might want to analyze a piece of game music to further illustrate that for us.

[JustinFic]

IMO, aesthetics is the murderer of art.

The only absolute principle is expression. Art is a physical manifestation of someone's emotions, beliefs, thoughts, desires, and so on. It has nothing to do with how pleasing it is to the eyes or ears, or its entertainment value, or its consistency of style.

To answer the original question, games are art. Every argument I've heard otherwise consists only of arbitrarily chosen criteria, which seem to be deliberately chosen to exclude games from the realm of what is considered art ("Authorial control of the story"? Please.)

And programming/engineering is art, too. For instance, the iPod, or that FPS with the 64K footprint (or whatever it was.)

[DoG]

How about looking up the word in a dictionary. The dashboard dict says this about art:
art:
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
...
Now, you could argue that games are entertainment, but so are paintings, movies, and music. Of course, your regular TV series, might not be considered art as a whole, but certainly can have artistic elements, such as music, or an artistic visual composition. The Academy Awards, for example, not only award the best movie, but also award best musical score, best picture, and so on.

There is no restriction about interactivity in artistic creations, either.

I don't think you can deny "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination" in the game development process, and similarly this also applies to programming and engineering.

Is programming part of the "fine arts"? Certainly not, as products of fine art must not serve any other purpose than being pretty and witty. Again, the dictionary comes to rescue:
fine art:
creative art, esp. visual art, whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content
If you ask me, that's computer games, right there. Take Myst, for example. It certainly fits being fine art. Quake? Tough call.

Just to make it complete, this is what the dictionary says about design:
design:
purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object
Industrial design is concerned with merging form (art) and function (engineering). If such an object is art, too, is debatable. In my eyes it is.

It is easy to confuse design with visual art. Elements of visual design certainly appear in visual art, but you won't find lines and shapes in music.

In the end, you can argue until the sun goes down, depending on what definition of art you are supporting.

[igame3d]

And programming/engineering is art, too. For instance, the iPod, or that FPS with the 64K footprint (or whatever it was.)

You are confusing the activity of producing something with the final product.
Nobody views the blue prints and schematics of an ipod and says "I'll buy that for $500", no they buy the ipod, an object, and not for the way it looks, feels, or smells, but for its utility after carefully designed promotional material has affected their perception of what is a better mp3 player.

If it did not function then nobody would buy it, it would be more hi-tech garbage to be recycled by Asias poor. Nobody would concider the assembly line activities of the ipod factory of a form of artisitic expression, and they are obviously engineered.

If I crap on your head and tell you thats how I feel about you, is it art?
Its a physical expression with intent to communicate yes, but has no definite redeeming artistic value. Perhaps if I do a five minute ballet before I do my duty, then it would be performance art, otherwise, all I did was crap on your head!

If I stalk you day and night to express my undying infatuaton with you, is it art?
Again, No.

The events of 9/11/01 were a physical expression of anger and hate toward America's corporate imperialist agenda. Was that art? Sun Tzu might agree.

Generally though, your definition of art fails in three instances, and will continue to fail in a domino fashion the more examples put forth. That is the difference between uneducated opinion or purposeful ignorance and scientific analysis. Art can be analyzed like breaking down chemicals into their atomic elements, usually only artist will bother to analyze art because it furthers their ability to creatdeffective communication, even if its just a bunch of lines, shapes, colors, etc. The majority of society either "likes it" or "doesn't like it", and would not really be able to explain why, mostly they will say "I just do/don't".

Programming is an action, that has no artistic value in itself.
99.99999% of all people, animals, plants, fish and insects in the world would become disinterested watching someone program. The act of programming alone is not art.

The final product can be art, but the activity itself is not.

Lets not confuse actions with product, else we'll come to the simpleton conclusion that farting (http://www.lotsofjokes.com/cat_340.htm), burping and other bodily functions are arts if someone is expressing themselves with it.

Dancing is a simple example of the difference between profane activity and profound design.
The teeming masses shake their booties with no rhyme or reason, no value, no color, no balance, no expression other than "I gotta boogie". A ballet or other structured dance on the otherhand is designed to keep the viewer interested, to be balanced, to have contrast, etc. I suggest visiting a strip club, and compare dancers moves for a very entertaining study of this, using aesthetic analysis one can find which dancer is the more talented, thoughtful, and creative, as opposed to the one who is just going through the motions.
One is an artist, and the other is just filler.

[igame3d]

Elements of visual design certainly appear in visual art, but you won't find lines and shapes in music.

Actually by the aesthetic definition of lines and shapes, you do find this in music.

If a shape is defined: "A shape is a self contained defined area of geometric or organic form" It can't be applied directly to music, but obviously every single score has "a self contained area", a chorus for example is no the same musical value as a solo, they are "self contained area" of the score.

If line is defined "the edge created when two shapes meet", then obviously you "draw the line" when the solo breaks into chorus, if you mix this all up with no reasonable intentional design , then you end up with noise, not art, unless you are a savant, and just magically create art by some bizarre function of brain activity.

A few minutes of playing in Garage Band, and making very bad music can clearly illustrate that "expression" alone does not make art, and failure to create lines or shape in music creates monotonous noise..

The Aesthetics for music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics_of_music) do have a different vocabulary than visual arts. But generally Aesthetics can be applied to everything under the sun to undestand why it has any beautific value or not.


Out of curiosity I looked up "anti-aesthetics" expecting to find an art movement that JustinFic might belong to.
I found this interesting article on the website for last years game specific conference Aesthetics of Play (http://www.aestheticsofplay.org/myers.php)

[DoG]

Actually by the aesthetic definition of lines and shapes, you do find this in music.

If a shape is defined: "A shape is a self contained defined area of geometric or organic form" It can't be applied directly to music, but obviously every single score has "a self contained area", a chorus for example is no the same musical value as a solo, they are "self contained area" of the score.

If line is defined "the edge created when two shapes meet", then obviously you "draw the line" when the solo breaks into chorus, if you mix this all up with no reasonable intentional design , then you end up with noise, not art, unless you are a savant, and just magically create art by some bizarre function of brain activity.A few minutes of playing in Garage Band, and making very bad music can clearly illustrate that "expression" alone does not make art, and failure to create lines or shape in music creates monotonous noise..
Now that's stretching the concept a little. Also, the definitions you use are not what one would commonly think. A line is the connection of two points in space, I could say, or that it is the intersection of two planes. All valid definitions in a certain context. Applying geometrical terms to music is only an abstraction.

You are talking from the point of view of a designer, or an engineer, trying to dissect art into bits and pieces that do this and that. That's just wrong.

Creating a terrible cacophony, one that hurts when you hear it, can still be art, if it was created with intent. Not a design or a plan, but with the intent of creating an emotion or feeling in the listener. If it is created by mouse and keyboard bashing, without any kind of intent or purpose, then it really is just crap. A novice artist my create terrible things, because he lacks the proper skills and experience, but you can't say it's not art just because it's bad.

If you look at my dictionary quote for design, that very much sums it up. Design is the HOW, art is the WHAT. How do you create a nice looking picture? You apply the golden mean or rule of thirds, color matching, and whatnot. Will you have art by putting elements of design onto an empty canvas without any purpose as to what they signify? I doubt it. A plan of shapes and lines arranged by certain principles doesn't create emotion in the viewer, unless it was intended, unless design was used as a tool to create art.

You can find design in anything natural or man-made if you look hard enough. You can compose an image by trial and error, stopping when it looks right, it doesn't have to be rigidly planned and dissected. In retrospective, you may say the artist applied the rule of thirds to make the image look nice, while the fact that certain design elements are present is just a side effect of the image looking "right".

Also, art doesn't have to be aesthetic, IMO. Aesthetics is concerned with beauty, not art. Art doesn't have to be pleasurable or beautiful, it might just as well be gross and disturbing. It can be aesthetic, and most often is, but it's not required per se. You can't argue if something is art by judging its beauty, as that is absolutely relative ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder").

L'art pour l'art. That's the best definition I got. If you create something to be art, it is. It may be bad art, but it's still art.

[WhatMeWorry]

If elephant dung in human urine is considered art by the intelligensia,
then, Yes! I'd consider games art.

[igame3d]

Now that's stretching the concept a little. Also, the definitions you use are not what one would commonly think. A line is the connection of two points in space, I could say, or that it is the intersection of two planes. All valid definitions in a certain context. Applying geometrical terms to music is only an abstraction.
By your definition of a line, then music has lines, the sounds and or silence between any other two notes is the line, a connecting point in audio space.


You are talking from the point of view of a designer, or an engineer, trying to dissect art into bits and pieces that do this and that. That's just wrong.
No you are wrong, it is the science of aesthetics, if art can not be analyzed and interpreted then it is simple mindless background that nobody pays attention to at all. Simply viewing something and liking it does not make something art, porn for example, made with intent, and much of it has no artisitic value nor was there "art" behind its production.

Creating a terrible cacophony, one that hurts when you hear it, can still be art, if it was created with intent. So if I intentionaly fart, you define that as art? If I beat my wife, with the intent to of making her scream cry and bleed, its art? If beat on your door at Four AM with my fists and feet its art?

Not a design or a plan, but with the intent of creating an emotion or feeling in the listener. You are contradicting yourself, first you say not with a design or plan, then you say intent, if you intend to do something then you have a plan. Understanding that is not rocket science.

If it is created by mouse and keyboard bashing, without any kind of intent or purpose, then it really is just crap.
Again a contradiction, if I bang on my mouse and keyboar intending to make "art" with no knowledge of aesthetic principles, then I create crap, perhaps, some people have talents without even understanding the principles behind something.

A novice artist my create terrible things, because he lacks the proper skills and experience, but you can't say it's not art just because it's bad. I can say its "bad art", but without a vocabulary to explain why its bad art, and what would make it better, then saying anything at all is just pointless.


Will you have art by putting elements of design onto an empty canvas without any purpose as to what they signify? I doubt it.
Because you don't know what you are talking about.
Piet Mondriaan http://www.inter-art.com/images/bilder/op/1893.jpg

See Jackson Pollock (http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/fathom-five/pollock.fathom-five.jpg)
or Matisse
http://www.senat.fr/evenement/matisse/oeuvres/DIG067(18).gif
or Cohen
http://www.infed.org/images/cohen.jpg
anything from the cubist movement.
Andy warhol.
Abstract Art
http://www.rassouli.com/95-04-theVoyager.jpg
Bauhaus
http://www.gallery415.com/images/ThomasFedro/Bauhaus%20012.jpg

I could go on and on but I think I've proved your last statement false, and the millions of dollars and thousands of man years invested in the works, biographies, schools, etc in these forms of "art", outweigh any opinion that these seemingly random splotches of paint on cavas are not art.


A plan of shapes and lines arranged by certain principles doesn't create emotion in the viewer, unless it was intended, unless design was used as a tool to create art.
It is a great mistake to assume that art must create emotion in the viewer.
Michangelo's statue of David provokes emotion? maybe if you are post-teen female or homosexual, but what about all the rest of us. We see a finely scultpted naked man, without knowing any art theory, that is all we see, but we are obviously aware that the statue is a unique work of art.


You can find design in anything natural or man-made if you look hard enough. You can compose an image by trial and error, stopping when it looks right, it doesn't have to be rigidly planned and dissected.
But how do you define "looks right"? You will have to use synonyms from the aesthetic princples and elements to do so.


In retrospective, you may say the artist applied the rule of thirds to make the image look nice, while the fact that certain design elements are present is just a side effect of the image looking "right".


Also, art doesn't have to be aesthetic, IMO. Aesthetics is concerned with beauty, not art. You are entitled to your opinion, but you can not change the meaning of Aesthetics, it is a philosophical science and not up to the interpretation of laymen.


Art doesn't have to be pleasurable or beautiful, it might just as well be gross and disturbing. About the only thing you got right. But even the most profane image, song, or performance can be analyzed through aesthetics.
And based on such analysis one can actually find the beauty in the most nightmare images.


It can be aesthetic, and most often is, but it's not required per se.
Only by your layman's definition, which doesn't count for much, its like me saying a video game doesn't require code, although it most often has code, its not required. Everything can be aesthetically analyzed, and if it does not have the principles and elements of design, then its not art, because it probably doesn't exist in any form other than thought.


You can't argue if something is art by judging its beauty, as that is absolutely relative ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder").
That is precisely why aesthetics were developed, you can not convince anyone simply by saying something is art because you think its beautiful, but if you analyze it aesthetically you can prove your point, and even Jackson Pollock can be appreciated by people under such analysis.

Aesthetics works the same as any other science, if you don't have proof, then all you have unfounded unthought out opinion, which is not worth very much.
If you have proof, then you can convince even a skeptic.

[ferum]

IMO art is anything you intentionally create to be art

[zKing]

"From the moment that art ceases to be food that feeds the best minds, the artist can use his talents to perform all the tricks of the intellectual charlatan. Most people can today no longer expect to receive consolation and exaltation from art. The 'refined,' the rich, the professional 'do-nothings', the distillers of quintessence desire only the peculiar, the sensational, the eccentric, the scandalous in today's art. I myself, since the advent of Cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my mind. The less they understood them, the more they admired me. Through amusing myself with all these absurd farces, I became celebrated, and very rapidly. For a painter, celebrity means sales and consequent affluence. Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich. But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand old meaning of the word: Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, Goya were great painters. I am only a public clown--a mountebank. I have understood my time and have exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession of mine, more painful than it may seem. But at least and at last it does have the merit of being honest."

- Pablo Picasso

[Byron Clarke]

If I'm am understanding you correctly igame3d then aesthetics is the science and analysis by which art can be understood (I don't mean in the subjective sense). And where clear distinctions can be made to separate and measure actual art from something senseless or otherwise unimportant?

I don't think that art is anything created with the intent to be art, otherwise there would be no art.And I do believe that the efforts and accomplishments that have been created since the birth of civilization (and before) have not been random or purposeless. There is a goal in art, and as such it can be measured. If art was meaningless then it would not exist. Or it would be forgotten like a fad (in thousands of years will we remember mc hammer and his purple pants). The facts that it is a recurring theme means that it is and has importance. And anything that has importance should be studied.

[Marjock]

no they buy the ipod, an object, and not for the way it looks, feels, or smells,

I would say you're far less likely to purchase it if it's spiky to the point it slices your hand open when you touch it. Likewise if it looks like the crap on somebody's head that you mentioned slightly later.

The majority of society either "likes it" or "doesn't like it", and would not really be able to explain why, mostly they will say "I just do/don't".

99.99999% of all people, animals, plants, fish and insects in the world would become disinterested watching someone program. The act of programming alone is not art.

So, in the first instance it doesn't matter whether peope like or dislike something, it can still be art, yet in the second instance, it suddenyl becomes impossible for something to be art if people dislike it.

Perhaps if I do a five minute ballet before I do my duty, then it would be performance art, otherwise, all I did was crap on your head!

Again, I'm not seeing the distinction. The only difference appears to be is if people liek it.

The final product can be art, but the activity itself is not.

And yet you just cited the activity of Balet as being art.

Then, later on you attempted to explain why some actions can be art and others can't. You attributed it to design.

Surely, by, "crapping on my head" you design to anger or humilate me? Yet you claim this is still not art.

if art can not be analyzed and interpreted then it is simple mindless background that nobody pays attention to at all.

I can say its "bad art", but without a vocabulary to explain why its bad art, and what would make it better, then saying anything at all is just pointless.

In the second quote you are admitting that you don't necessarily have the capabilities ot analyze and explain the effect art has on you (You also stated this in your first post). Yet, again, you say if it can't be analyzed it is simple mindless background.

The only way out of this that I can see is that art is art if somebody can analyze it as such. In which case you are no more entitled to judge what art is than the next man.

if you intend to do something then you have a plan. Understanding that is not rocket science.

I disagree. I may intend to become the president without having any kind of plan as to how I am going to go about this. Now, you may say that my plan is to become the president, but I think that's a very superficial way to look at it, and to confuse intent and plan.

Michangelo's statue of David provokes emotion? maybe if you are post-teen female or homosexual, but what about all the rest of us. We see a finely scultpted naked man, without knowing any art theory, that is all we see, but we are obviously aware that the statue is a unique work of art.

Once again, you contradict yourself by implying that the correct emotion to turn something into art is a positive emotion.
One could also see disgust at the statue's nakedness as a viable emotion. And, once again, looking only at the statue's physical nakedness seems a very superficial approach.

My view on this subject coincides almost completely with JustinFic's, so I'm not going to bother to reiterate that.

-Mark

[DoG]

Abstract paintings are not just random combinations of elements of design. They are not paintings of real things, and design is used extensively to stylize the paintings. Yet, that you have to admit, there is more to it.
No you are wrong, it is the science of aesthetics, if art can not be analyzed and interpreted then it is simple mindless background that nobody pays attention to at all. Simply viewing something and liking it does not make something art, porn for example, made with intent, and much of it has no artisitic value nor was there "art" behind its production.
Porn is not created with the intent to be art. It is created with the intent to be pornography, to be sexually stimulating. When I refer to intent, it is the intent to create something artistic. Erotic photography or painting can be art, if it is done with the intent to show things in creative ways, for example by using exceptional lighting or perspective to include emotions in the picture which are not physically present.
So if I intentionaly fart, you define that as art? If I beat my wife, with the intent to of making her scream cry and bleed, its art? If beat on your door at Four AM with my fists and feet its art?
If you intend to fart for farting's sake, it is not art. If you fart with the intention of recording into a symphony of sounds, it becomes art. If you beat your wife, you are not intending for a third person to be affected by it. If you beat on my door at four in the morning, it's again not art. You are not creating anything. However, if you do the same with the purpose of capturing my reaction when I open the door, and do so with a hundred other people, it can become art.

It is a great mistake to assume that art must create emotion in the viewer.
Michangelo's statue of David provokes emotion? maybe if you are post-teen female or homosexual, but what about all the rest of us. We see a finely scultpted naked man, without knowing any art theory, that is all we see, but we are obviously aware that the statue is a unique work of art.

I am not saying it must create emotion. It can be just beautiful, aesthetic, as you would say. The statue was made with great skill and attention to detail. Also, it represents something more than a perfectly rendered human, the hero David, and him defeating Goliath. If the statue showed a fat, ugly ogre in a similar position, instead of the well-built youth, it would hardly be aesthetic, yet it's still art.

It is right that art can be studied and analysed scientifically. But, those analyses shed light only on the quality of the piece of art you are analysing, they don't help you determine if something was art in the "fine art" sense.

If you use the definition of art that says "a skill at doing a specified thing", then you can indeed determine the artistic value of something by analysing how well it is done, and you can claim something is not art if it is bad. Superficially, this seems to be an objective measure, but it really isn't. If a painting shows a sinister future metropolis, but violates every principle of design known to man, it may be bad, but it is still art.

[AnotherJake]

I'm having a hard time following this thread, so please forgive me if it seems like I didn't read something carefully enough. igame3d, let me see if this is what you're trying to say. Video games simply cannot be called art, at least not in a classical sense, just because someone says so. In fact, the classically trained student of art would find it irritating that laymen would attempt to pollute their notion of what art really is. Right? If so, I can understand that pretty easily. OTOH, I would have to say that on some level there must be made room to call video games art. Not classical art, but modern art at least. To me video games include at least some significant artistic qualities, even in the classical sense, if only because of the art used for their content. I can hear the argument that programming is definitely not a classical art, but there is also a bit of artistic flair in there for some people. Calling it the "art of programming" seems fine to me, but I don't see it as producing an actual classical work of art. If that's the argument you're making, I can follow that. I would argue that video games would be considered art at least on the same level that great architecture is considered art - like the Empire State building is considered artistic in the Art Deco flavor of architecture. It involves two levels of creation, design and construction. While the construction can clearly be termed "not art", the flowing lines of the building's architecture can oppositely be termed "art". So with video games we have two parts, programming and content. The content is artistic in nature and the programming can be said not to be. One could make the analogy that the programmer is making the canvas on which the artist paints a game. The end product, not being purely authorial in nature according to Spielberg might be a valid argument against the video game not being a form of art. Still, there is obviously quite a high degree of contention to this issue...

[igame3d]

If I'm am understanding you correctly igame3d then aesthetics is the science and analysis by which art can be understood (I don't mean in the subjective sense). And where clear distinctions can be made to separate and measure actual art from something senseless or otherwise unimportant?

I don't think that art is anything created with the intent to be art, otherwise there would be no art.And I do believe that the efforts and accomplishments that have been created since the birth of civilization (and before) have not been random or purposeless. There is a goal in art, and as such it can be measured. If art was meaningless then it would not exist. Or it would be forgotten like a fad (in thousands of years will we remember mc hammer and his purple pants). The facts that it is a recurring theme means that it is and has importance. And anything that has importance should be studied.

Right!

Dog just spent many paragraphs contradicting himself, first "if you make something to be art, then its art", then many "if...then...is not art".
That is not how art is determined, that is entirely too subjective, there is too much back tracking to correct the earlier assumptions.

Our core discussion is "are games art", the mistake i'm trying to correct here is the unthought out assumption "that if someone intends to make art, its art" and the insane notion that aesthetics is the murderer of art, or somehow "wrong".

That is NOT how art is determined, and no amount of opinions are going to change the core study of art.

Marjock completely misunderstood everything.

Dictionary definition of Beauty
beau·ty (byū'tē)
n., pl. -ties.
The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality.
One that is beautiful, especially a beautiful woman.
A quality or feature that is most effective, gratifying, or telling: The beauty of the venture is that we stand to lose nothing.
An outstanding or conspicuous example: “Hammett's gun went off. The shot was a beauty, just slightly behind the eyes” (Lillian Hellman)

Especially note "An outstanding or conspicuous example" because it applies more to art than just the "pleasure to the mind or senses", obviously macbre works of art are not intended to be pleasant, but the adverse, yet they are if not complete copies of someone elses work, "oustanding or conspicious".
By that defintion you should understand that "the study of beauty" is not about flowers and cleavage, but that which stands out for better or worse.

So the act of programming, is not outstanding or conspicuous.
A ballet is planned, replanned, and practiced over and over to become something outstanding among all other ballet or dance that came before it.
It becomes art because it is outstanding, even if its the worste ballet ever, it will be uniquely know as exactly that.

Programming is repeatedly tapping keyboard keys in order to produce a final product, the act itself is in no sense art, there is such an extreme limit of motion that it often causes repetitive stress injury, watching someone program without seeing the words on the screen, we can not tell what the hell they are doing, they very well may be writing a suicide letter or spam. One person typing is very much identical to another person typing. Line up 1,000 programmers and they will very much look exactly the same, not distinct at all, and that sameness is not planned, its the side effect of the function of the task at hand.

Think of the kiddie clone training sequence from Star Wars episode II if you will.
But note that since that is film, there you can analyze aesthetically what is happening in that sequence, our point of interest is drawn to the one clone who seems to be acting a bit different than the others, "An outstanding or conspicuous example".

Thats the only similiar image to "1,000 programmers" image I can recall.

If I choreograph 1,000 programmers, to be sitting in their chairs typing, and I focus your attention on the one guy writing a suicide letter, that would be art, an outstanding or conspicious example of someone typing something.


If a painting shows a sinister future metropolis, but violates every principle of design known to man, it may be bad, but it is still art.
Aesthetics is not religion, it can not be violated like some commandment handed down from a burning bush.

The correct term is not "violates every principle of design", but "Failure to thoughfully use any principle or element of Aesthetics" and then what you are calling "art" is not outstanding and unique from what any two year old can create by mixing every color in the pallette into a green brown mush. If the image is not a green-brown mush, if it uses colors, hues, shapes, lines, etc, then by the use of aesthetics it can be viewed as a work of "art" and not just some two year olds clumsy mush. You can violate someone "sense of Aesthetics", poking the eye of the beholder if you will, but not the basic philosphy, the personal violation is subjective, but the science itself is not.

Aesthetics prevents DoG's mistakes of contradicting the definitions of art and running around like a dog after his own tail trying to explain away every hypothetical scenario with generalizations.

If we use DoG's logic in any number of sciences we'd have "It is water if its wet and slippery and fluid, but its not water if its ice, or vapor", no, instead we have science: Water is H2O no matter what its physical state is, so when I a scientist needs water the assistant doesn't hand him ammonia, which is also wet and slippery and fluid. In biology we'd have the false statement "its a dog because its furry, has a tail, sharp teeth and four legs", which is obviously an erroneous generalization defining almost every land walking mammal outside of bipeds.
In astronmy we'd have "its a star because its shiny", which is obviously not the case because even a galaxy is shiny and contains millions of stars, and the moon is shiny but is obviously in no near class to star.

Likewise in the world of art, you will not get a job or commission or recognition showing off green brown mush or a two hour video of you sitting mostly motionless typing on your keyboard and telling people "this is art", to qualify as an artist you must be able to show that you can produce something that is "unique or outstanding", and Aesthetics is the language we use to define that.

Back to the core discussion, games are art, each individual unique and outstanding game is a work of art. Pac-Man as I've outlined as an early example is a work of art, all copies and clones are exactly that, copies and clones, like post card reproductions of the Mona Lisa. Like all "unique and outstanding" works of art, copies and clones are made by those the work has affected.

Can anyone here site an example the act of typing on a keyboard that is unique or outstanding in comparison to the other 250 million people typing on their keyboard? Programming is a "computer science", with its own vocabulary and rules of routine, it does not fall into the art category.

I dare anyone with the "programming is art" notion to send out their resume with a video of them programming but not the final product itself to software companies, art galleries, media organizations and museums, please share the amusing rejection letters.

Only Aesthetics gives us a means to define and truly understand art (note that does not mean undestanding the message of a particular work of art, ie "thats a picture of a lady"), everything else is subject to opinion based on arbitrary criteria that will change from person to person, completely unscientific and ineffective. You can argue against this premise until the day you die, it will change nothing, the philosphy of Aesthetics goes way back to Plato's Academy at around 380 BC, thats over 2,000 years of philosphers and artists to blow any other over simplified, generalized and entirely subjective attempts of defining "art" full of holes.

[DoG]

Err, my logic is wet and slippery...? I don't think I have contradicted myself previously.

All I try getting at is that aesthetics is a measure of quality or beauty of art. You can compare two pieces of art and say which is better. You can comparatively say this is art, and that is not. Dictionary definition says "study of beauty, especially in art".

If you look at a painting of unknown origin, can you dismiss it as not being art immediately, for any reason? Can you tell if a picture was taken from a security camera by chance, or shows a carefully planned scene? Would the random picture still be art if it's aesthetic?

Is something that is aesthetic automatically art?

About programming being art: Is the process of creating a sculpture art? The dictionary says creation of art is art.

[igame3d]

Just a reply for AnotherJake, you are following the thread just fine, you have a grasp of what I'm saying pretty near perfectly.

Let us not get wrapped up in "Classical" or "modern" labels, since those are only two very specific "branches/styles" of art, with their very own criteria to be labeled such.

Let us simply say that video games are an amalgam of possibily any branch and/or style of art, and in the end video games are an entirely new branch and style of art determined solely by Aesthetic criteria, the only criteria acceptable for making such claims.

Spielberg can be ignored entirely, since his statement about "lack of Authorial control" can be shot down, you can not deviate from the game play of Pacman, the viewer can't magically turn the core game it into something else, say space invaders or a sculpture.

The work of art, no matter the user actions, for all purposes played and viewed exactly the way the designer intended, with any number of variations based on the viewer/players actions.

Likewise, the same would be said for sculpture, dance, and even cinema no matter what angle you are viewing it from, the work itself doesn't change from the authors original controlled intentions. You can view a sculpture from an near infinite number of vantage points, but it does not change the actual functionality and message as a whole of the work at all.

The assumption that "interactivity" negates art, is entirely bogus.
Since all art requires the viewer to interact with the work with at least one of the five senses. We could say Culinary arts are entirely interactive, you can't tell its food unless you interact with the food with your nose and mouth can you?
Fine cuisine is still fine cuisine even if I shove my face in it and gorge like a pig a trough, the interaction changed, but the core object art remains the same.


If Spielberg doesn't believe games are art, then why has he signed up to do a multi-game deal with some huge company? Why was he involved with The Dig, StarCraft and the Medal of Honor series? (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000229/)
Maybe he still has hang ups that ET is known as the worste video game ever made, and tens of thousands of copies of it ended up in a concrete covered land fill.

I have two guess work answers to my question above, Spielberg is captilist whose sole purpose of creativity is in it for the money and/or he's a propgandist in the same order of Joseph Goebbels. I usually lean toward the second answer whenever I hear something about that guy.

[Marjock]

But iGame3D you continue to blatantly contradict yourself while accusing everyone who moves of the same thing.

In response to my claims that you shouldn't be citing things that are beautiful as the only examples of art because you yourself earlier said it didn't matter if art was appreciated or not, you paste the dictionary definition of beauty?!

You then go on to say that now, the definition of art is that it's beautiful, using a key phrase from the definition and applying it to Balet and Programming. Yet, what you are (time and time again) failing to take into account is that you cannot decide what is conspicuous or outstanding for anyone but yourself.
Your arguments thus far are clearly proving, if you can look beyond the contradictions, that you are either completely arrogant enough to believe that you can decide for other people what they find outstanding or beautiful, or, equally as arrogantly, that your opinion is the only one that should matter.

But then, I undoubtedly "completely misunderstood" this, too :p

-Mark

[AnotherJake]

Let us simply say that video games are an amalgam of possibily any branch and/or style of art, and in the end video games are an entirely new branch and style of art determined solely by Aesthetic criteria, the only criteria acceptable for making such claims.
Interesting... Although I still don't understand the principles of Aesthetic criteria. But hey, there's always something new to learn! :)

I agree that Spielberg's remark certainly makes him out to be somewhat of an elitist and possibly propagandist (wouldn't go so far as Goebbels though). I don't agree with him either. Authorial control is definitely a part of video games. The interactivity of video games, however, does present a new element to be dealt with. But I like your angle on it.

[igame3d]

Marjock your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired, please don't drop out of high school, you have such a long way to go.

"Beauty" in the generic sense, is the first definition, beauty as it applies to art is the from the final definition, which I elobrated on to some length. The reason I did so is so that people do not make the mistake of thinking of beauty in terms of the first definition when discussing art. Actually its the final two defintions of beauty that really have meaning in terms of art, I seemed to have glossed over the second to last one.

You also seemed to miss a little note about "macbre" art still being art, even though an image of ghouls feasting on flesh is not by the first generic definition "beauty". Yet it may be unique and conspicuous, therefore fulfilling the final definition. 1,000 images of ghouls feasting on flesh can be judged for their uniqueness through aesthetic analysis.

Your assumption that I can not decide what is conspicuous or oustanding for anyone but myself is wholly wrong, since anyone of several tens of thousands of people anywhere with who have a bit of knowledge can take a so called piece of art and very much determine through study of other art that it has been plagarised in part or in whole from the work of another.

Or that its style is the near exact same style of many untrained teenage artists, whose work over decades, maybe centuries bares out the same exact flaws even though the artists are separated by generations and mileage. Such lack of talent devalues the work, else any and every teenage layman would be a millionaire artist.

If I paint a perfect replica of Mona Lisa and sell it as such, it is not art, it is a masterful forgery and subject to no small amount of imprisonment, the determination is not up to mine or your or your mom's opinion.
The same as if I make a pacman clone, PacMan is art, the clone is a replication bareing the likeness of an original work of art.

I am not basing my statements solely on "my opinion" but the philosophical study of art. By opinion alone there is much art in every one of its forms that I don't "get", or don't appreciate, or don't like. But by application of Aesthetic analysis anyone, and everyone can more fully appreciate the standing value of such pieces.

Its in the same vain as the generalization I told my daughter when she was 2: "germs and fungus are bad", but by the study and application of biology that opinion can be completely changed based on what particular germ or fungus one is viewing, edible mushrooms for instance. On the outside "Jackson Pollock" or "Picasso" are bad, or at least a number of works are, until aesthetic analysis is applied, then suddenly a new understanding is connected in the brain matter, and some "good" can be understood in the work.

The argument "Games are not art", did not apply any scientific method to come to the conclusion, the same as "programming is art" does not apply a single lick of thought to spout. Those are mindless opinions which can be argued into the ground and buried alive using Aesthetic analysis.

Call it arrogance if you will, but arrogance assumes pride, and I didn't invent aesthetics nor am I am claiming to be the sole final authority on art, but at least I know what I'm talking about, I can demonstrate it, I can prove it, I can site over 2,000 years of art history to make my case.

All you can do is argue against my arguments with your simple opinions, making entirely wrong assumptions and being told you are wrong over and over again, because you have no actual grasp of anything I'm saying.

You are not unique or conspicous in this lack of comprehension, my art classes were full of kids and old ladies who didn't get it, and they lived in a world of hurt as each and everyone of their projects were critiqued into the trash because they could not grasp the very basic premises of what Aesthetics were all about. This problem didn't just smack them in the face in "Design 101", but followed them from class to class. I will admit I didn't get it at first either and was like "WTF is this Aesthetics crap!", but after a few weeks and projects critiqued by others using Aesthetic analysis, a entirely new world was open to me.

Later in my career it was the same with clients or bosses who thought they were art directors, their ads and marketing material were not "art", they were garbage, and sure enough somewhere there is a landfill full of that stuff to prove my point.

I have 20 year history in the arts, longer then you've been alive kid.

[igame3d]

By the way has anyone visited Games are Art.com (http://www.gamesareart.com/) ?

[Marjock]

Wow.

Firstly, I'd just like to express my amusement at the personal attacks made in the previous post. I'm not sure if you just ran out of real arguments (seems most likely) or if you took the arrogance thing to heart.

I make an arguement, with a quote from you. In your reply to this, you quote yourself saying something opposite to this. That is /exactly/ my point. Your blatant contradictions seem to have been with us from the start of the thread, and so forgive me if my attrocious reading comprehension skills don't allow me to navigate through your thought processes which you articulate so well. Maybe you could become my mentor in the hopes of saving me from the terrible person I'm going to become? That said, your last post makes it quite clear that you're also superior to the whole rest of the world, so perhaps I'll be in better company if I just carry on as I am.

Your argument that you can decide for others what is outstanding is self-defeating. You claim that any one of tens of thousands of people can do this, and tell what's a fake or what's plagiarism. Yet, in saying this, you're admitting that there are vast quanitites of people that can't tell if something's been plagiarised, and so thus they will still appreciate the 'fake' as being art.

I pity the fact that you spent 20 years in arts, purely because it seems to have given you such a warped perspective. I don't know if you've came up with these views on your own, or had them impressed upon you over the years, but either way, they are just opinions. Don't start that crap abut aesthetics again, because your views on that are also opinion. My opinion, DoG's opinion, and even, given your arguemnts thus far, my cat's opinion are equal to yours.

-Mark

[OneSadCookie]

When the thread has degenerated to name-calling, it's time to stop. I've closed the thread.